Framing the presidential race

By THOMAS HARTWELL

The presidential race in any context is a media frenzy, but this race has been unlike any before it in many ways. As with any story, the media make choices as to how to approach the stories surrounding the presidential race, and there are four commonly used "frames" of presentation, all of which have been used to cover the year's campaigns.

Horse Race:


Horse race journalism in the political spectrum is the presentation of information as a contest or comparison of, in this case, presidential candidates. There's been a lot of talk about a possible convention contest for the Republican nomination this campaign season, and that has opened the door for A LOT of horse race journalism. With a race this close between Trump and Cruz and a candidate pulling delegates away from the two front-runners, many outlets are taking the opportunity to present some "who will win the sprint to 1,237?" stories. There has been some in regard to the Democrats' race as well, but with a race on the left seemingly more and more decidedly won by Hillary, there have been more stories about the change that Sanders' campaign has brought to politics than "who will win?"

From the Associated Press

Conflict:

Horse race and conflict presentation of the Republican race have gone hand-in-hand this campaign season. As the race has continued and candidates have dropped out, there has been more opportunity for conflict-frame journalism. For instance, this CNN article incorporates elements of the delegate race, but describes the race for the nomination between Trump and Cruz as a "duel." A search for stories about Trump on CNN and other news outlets provides a look at the presentation of Trump's campaign strategy: conflict frame and a "Trump vs..." mentality. 

From cnn.com search

Issues:

Candidates of the same party and especially opposite parties LOVE to slam each other on policy issues -- the presidential race produces plenty of these opportunities. While most attacks come on an opponent's stance on ongoing issues, current events also play a part. For example, Trump and Cruz chose to slam President Obama on immigration regulations and international terrorism in response to terrorist attacks in Brussels, Tuesday. Stories written on the issues provide voters and onlookers with the ability -- hopefully objectively, but we all know, not so much -- to make decisions based on those issues. Trump has also generated lots of attention and media spotlight for himself by making large and outrageous issue claims. He's actually winning in the presidential race on lots of the "important issues," because he has so much coverage out there on his policy on those issues.

From msnbc.com

Candidate Attributes:

Another frame of media coverage dominated by Donald Trump and, some may argue, Bernie Sanders. Trump and Sanders' revolutionary approach to U.S. politics has changed the race for good, and a lot of that focuses on their personal attributes. Plenty of stories have focused on Trump's deficiencies, outlining why he couldn't, shouldn't or wouldn't be President of the United States.

From toptens.com

This article even outlines ten reasons why Donald Trump should not be the next president, citing his past words, actions, claims, etc. 

Twitter Tirades, Kasich Kindness and Revolution Rhetoric: The State of the Race 2016

By THOMAS HARTWELL

The 2016 presidential campaign has been underway for months, and various candidates have utilized various communication outlets and tactics to ensure voters that they are the best candidate for office. There are three themes that, over the entirety of the 2016 campaign season, have stuck out to me. These three themes and the candidates behind them have impressed me (whether or not I care to endorse them).

#1 Trump Twitter Tirades

From Donald Trump Twitter

Donald Trump has always made "good" use of his twitter, promoting his "enthralling" personal thoughts and spotlighting his "razor-sharp insight" into politics, but this campaign season, he has outdone himself. There is something to be said for the impact of "Twitter storms." Consumers go on them constantly and are immediately contacted by the organizations they drag through the mud, offering steals and deals to try to make amends and stifle public, negative publicity. Trump has used his Twitter storms and account as both an entertainment outlet and a tool for his campaign. His attacks on other candidates, the media and his bolstering of his own accomplishments have drawn attention and even headlines. As we have discussed in a course which revolves around political communication, a candidate must be able to attract attention and spark discussion on social media, as well as in traditional media. Trump has done just that both with his "shocker statements" in person, recapturing some of that spotlight, but also with Twitter storms taking the wind out of less entertaining candidates' sails.

From Donald Trump Twitter

Potential downfall: In a general election against Hillary, how will Trump's Twitter foot stamping and name calling fair against Hillary's ability to get into the nitty-gritty on the issues?

#2 The Revolution Rhetoric: Bernie Sanders

How many time have we heard Bernie Sanders say the words "political revolution" and "top one percent" in his speeches, at debates, in interviews, and at rallies? While some see Sanders' focus on the issue he is most passionate about -- corporate greed, fixing income inequality, changing a corrupt campaign finance system, etc. -- as a weakness, calling him a one-issue candidate, his supporters see it as more of a brand. Sanders' brand through his rhetoric, whether critics will admit it or not, have propelled him to where he is now. Sanders, a self-proclaimed Democratic Socialist was expected to be laughed out of this primary election (much like another presidential candidate this season). Through a radical, revolutionary brand in his rhetoric, and the help of many, many Millennials in voting and spreading the word, Sanders has rocketed to several neck-and-neck state primaries with Hillary Clinton. His rhetorical brand of a government "truly for the people" has connected with many voters' anger with Washington and corporate America's greed (again, does this remind you of another candidate?). It cannot be denied that Bernie's brand is catching wind either -- even Hillary Clinton began borrowing some of his lines recently. Might Hillary be considering Bernie's brand, and might she be considering a Bernie VP to better her own stance in the eyes of Democratic Independents? We'll have to see.

Potential downfall: While his rhetoric is exciting, many see him as a one-issue candidate and his young voter following, while excited about him, doesn't turn out to polls in quite the number his campaign might hope.

#3 Kasich's Kindness

John Kasich has time and time again refused to "go negative" against other presidential candidates. Many feel that it is this choice that has doomed Kasich's campaign to fail from the beginning, but I'm not so sure. Kasich has taken the opposite approach of a Trump or, most recently, a Rubio this campaign season, attempting to show through his actions, not fighting words, that he is the candidate that can "get stuff done." As the race progressed, it became more and more obvious that Kasich wasn't a frontrunner, and, while he survived into the top four, he wasn't destined to be the next president, so why remain gentle, kind, patient Kasich? Kasich, too, is promoting a brand, but not with rhetoric; his is with non-verbal cues, actions, and choices. Kasich maintains a brand, still, of selling his product instead of commenting on why the others' are inferior. There have been inklings, however, that Kasich's brand is strategic. If Kasich does not take opportunities to attack candidates, even if the opportunity is handed to him, he remains a friend and is has been suggested that this may be his ploy for VP. The Ohio governor may be using his political communication skills as a sort of Jedi mind trick on voters, and instead, he may be focusing his energy on the frontrunners' right-hand seat.

Potential downfalls: Kasich continues to pull delegates away from the frontrunners and runs the risk of contributing to a Republican convention in which his VP dreams are slightly more cloudy.

Lessons on the campaign trail

By THOMAS HARTWELL

I am so incredibly excited to be in journalism, and my number one priority and my hope is that it shows while I'm on the job and in my finished product. As I've participated in gathering information and in reporting on the campaign trail, I have learned lessons, and sured-up others.

Bernie Sanders speaks at campaign rally at Morehouse College
in Atlanta, Tuesday, February 16. Photo by Thomas Hartwell

First lesson: the devil is in the details. I've learned this the hard way previously. The campaign events and news stories that I have covered have allowed me to build off of the mistakes that I've made. Accuracy is everything in journalism, and so is integrity -- accurate quotes and assurance of permission are paramount. During interviews, I write times of reference for good quotes, passionate answers, jokes, etc. on my recordings. I also have interviewees write their names and contact information on a notepad as well as record those elements on tape. For absolute assurance of friendly relations and a happy interviewee, I have made a habit of emailing soon after the interview thanking them and requesting a response which, in writing, displays my ability to use their photos, names etc. in my stories or blog posts (I have an archive full).

A man who preferred to be called "St. Nick" and his friend,
who preferred anonymity at the Morehouse College
 Bernie Sanders event, Tuesday, February 16.
Photo by Thomas Hartwell

On that same note, a lesson that I've learned throughout my life, but that has been reinforced in my reporting: don't take people and your interactions with them for granted. I love nothing more than meeting new people, asking them about the things they love or hot-button issues and participating in a sort of dialogue. Journalism allows for a relationship to develop very quickly and last between interviewer and interviewee -- it also provides opportunities for relationships to go South quickly, but we'll put that to the side for now. These relationships with both the people interviewed and people you simply run into have the potential to impact you in the moment and benefit you down the road.

"Look like you know what you're doing and nobody asks any questions." This is a lesson that I learned early and that I apply often. Check out the story.

My research lessons are simple: 1. Make note of everything relevant to your topic; even if you feel like you have way too much information, you'll be able to make some pretty cool connections that you wouldn't have otherwise realized. 2. If someone else knows more than you on a specific topic, LEARN FROM THEM. Political science wasn't something I was entirely interested in until recently, and I have learned SO MUCH simply from listening to my colleagues.

Gabriel Ramos stands atop the media platform at the
Morehouse College Bernie Sanders event, Tuesday,
February 16. Photo by Thomas Hartwell

It is becoming increasingly clear to me how exciting my career will be and how small the world of journalism really is. I have had an absolute blast on the trail with my colleagues, and I know that the excitement of, "You got that interview?" and "There's a great angle for a shot over there" will continue and manifest itself in important professional relationships in coming months and years. Whether or not my colleagues become competition in the future doesn't matter -- we'll all be working toward a commons goal: reliable, accurate and dependable reporting that, among other things, keeps the general public informed and the elites accountable. Final lesson: don't take your colleagues for granted -- your competition might just turn out to be your saving grace in the end.

Campaign narratives and success of candidates

A narrative not only makes for a more interesting story and, in turn, campaign season, but also can win a candidate a state, or even a general election. There have been more than a few surprising narratives driving the candidates' campaigns already this season, and I'm sure you wouldn't be surprised to hear me say that I will, again, be mentioning the Trump (I'm sorry, but as one of my professors once said, "He's the gift that keeps on giving"). The other not-so-surprising choice for a narrative-rich campaigner, I think, is easily Sanders.

I'll start with Trump and just get it out of the way.

Trump has capitalized on two things: fear and frustration with Washington. Trump has been unapologetically blunt, crass and, at times, down-right rude. He can get away with this, and even continue to climb in the polls, because his narrative is that he is new -- he's a successful business man, not a politician, and he swears to use his hard bargaining, his CEO know-how and his tell-it-like-it-is-edness to bring his enemy to their knees and to "Make America great again." How, you ask? "Well, first things first, let's get me elected." People go for that. Partly because of Trump's story telling -- "I'm a successful business man who, like you, is fed up with Washington" -- and partly because his followers just want to see what his specific plans are finally.

Sanders tells a similar story of being fed up, but his story is a little more history and policy-based. Sanders tells us that he has been in politics since the '70s, building trust with listeners. He, like Trump, acknowledges the calls for change, but addresses the change with more specific answers that might be harder for some followers to process than a general, "It's gonna be HUGE." His largest success, though has been embodying the "little guy" who takes on the enormous establishment that is lobby groups and Super PACs. Distrust of cookie-cutter politicians makes Washington the antagonist in both of these candidates' cases and, of course, makes themselves the protagonist.

Twitter, tough talk and (sorry) Trump again

As there is an abundance of attention on Trump and his various campaigning techniques, I wanted to avoid talking about him for a while -- I was going to talk Clinton this time. In light of his recent "Fox debate boycott," however, I cannot ignore -- for the purpose of discussing the mobilization of followers -- his decision. 

Sorry Hillary, you'll have to wait.

Picture from humanevents.com

Trump does two things very well: Make waves and -- for lack of a better term -- sling poo. He does these two things well in two ways: Tweets and speeches.

Using his debate boycott as an example, let's discuss the "make waves" and "speech" points. Trump has, no doubt, been quite a ratings booster for many news media outlets. He has made statements that have been made into headlines, made claims that have sparked impassioned debates and, for some, boosted debates' entertainment value. His lack of political correctness has appealed to the masses, who feel that Americans have become "soft" and who want to hear that extreme change will come about, right now. Trump gives his followers these extreme statements and gives them a call to action, which his slogan, "Make America Great Again" embodies. His latest call to action was sparked by his refusal to participate in Thursday's Fox debate over long-standing disagreements with network officials. He challenged after announcing his absence, "Let's see how the ratings do."

Many Trump supporters have taken this call to action to heart and are boycotting the debate themselves. Trump has doubled-down on his call by announcing the creation of a fundraiser for veterans and the Wounded Warrior Project to be put on during the debate -- Trump's goal seems to be to pull more attention away from Fox. Such seemingly irrational moves on a candidate's part have been consistently benefiting Trump, proving that he has created a high-spirited, highly impressionable and highly mobilized follower base.

In Joseph Tuman's, "Political Communication in American Campaigns," Tuman suggests, "[Speech] effectiveness will depend on the audience; we are not all affected by ethos, pathos, and logos in the same ways." Tuman also suggests that a speaker/candidate has to know his/her audience -- something that leaves a bad taste in my mouth to have to admit, Trump does well.

In the case of "slinging poo" on Twitter -- well, see for yourself. Trump, as I have mentioned before, does well to make himself more desirable by making other candidates less desirable. The content of his tweets are not the only part of his Twitter usage that has, thus far, benefited him. The amount of tweets that Trump puts out daily, praising himself, attacking others and relaying plans is stifling compared to the other candidates' pages. Typically, the candidate with the most coverage will receive the most support. 

So, a recap: Trump captures media coverage for free by making outrageous claims and statements, puts doubt in voters minds as to the reliability and ability of other candidates and mobilizes his followers with calls to action.

While Trump may have benefited immensely from his wild claims in the campaign season, I have to believe that voters will come to the conclusion that the same candidate who so skillfully "slings poo" at other candidates may not be the best choice to win the whole thing. 

So Mr. Trump, my advice to you is this: Unless you can handle quite a bit of global backlash, maybe you should quit while you're ahead -- some foreign leaders may not be so afraid to sling more than just "poo" back.

What is political communication? "Let's Talk Trump."

The most intriguing definition of political communication that I happened across in several readings included several comments about a collaboration between political science and communication/media studies professionals. The collaboration, said the authors, is a result of these professionals working together on topics of mutual interest instead of “ignoring their colleagues” and conducting their own studies. In regards to the transmission of messages or opinions in “policom,” political communication can be described as how a candidate communicates, verbally or otherwise, through many channels and media outlets to get a message to the public and vice versa. Channels and media outlets for candidates might include their campaign website, social media pages or campaign ads. The public and press may use those same channels to interact with or report on candidates as well as take to their own social media accounts and other public channels to express opinions and communicate with people of similar, and many times varying, political opinion. The press, like the public, may interact with candidates or campaign officials via social media, but the press has a leg up on the public with its ability, in many cases, to reach the candidate personally as well as has a responsibility to report factual and accurate information to the public.

A rather colorful example of the practice of policom concepts is Donald Trump’s use of Twitter this campaign season. Trump has, undoubtedly, been the most outspoken illustrator of many candidate goals, namely, attempting to make himself more desirable to potential voters by making other candidates less seem desirable. Trump, while more animated than other candidates, exhibits policom marketing techniques that most candidates, especially in national elections, strive for. Trump has derived much of his success in national polls this season by catering to the other two players’ roles – public and press. When he makes “shocker statements,” like his idea to deport 11 million people and build a border wall, the press picks it up, gives Trump free publicity and steals spotlight potential from others. As far as catering to the public, Trump has capitalized on the nation’s yearning for firm action by making general, attractive statements that strike up conversation among voters. It makes sense as a marketing and campaigning tactic – I mean, who wouldn’t want to “make America great again”?