Political Communication at Emerson College

Tessa Roy

A couple months back, I wrote a post about Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren’s lack of an endorsement in the current Presidential race. And today, within just a few months of the primaries ending, she still hasn’t supported a candidate. 

It’s confusing as to what her rationale behind doing this is. She’s undoubtedly receiving loads of pressure from her counterparts in Congress, especially of female ones to endorse Clinton, and she’s gotten loads of flack from passionate Sanders supporters for not supporting him. A friend of mine once suggested Warren hasn’t made an endorsement because she knows her power within the party and thus doesn’t want to be divisive. However, it seems she’s doing exactly what she’s seeking to avoid. She’s damned if she does and damned if she doesn’t. 

Warren has said she’ll make an endorsement. But the questions of when she will and if will it even matter remain. If she supports Clinton, she’ll have made a very safe choice. Clinton’s delegate count show’s she’s much more likely to secure the nomination, so publicly supporting the projected winner would be politically wise for Warren. She’d also appease her comrades in the Senate, but would face the wrath of angry Sanders supporters who’d undoubtedly toss some “establishment” insults her way. If she supported Sanders, Warren would probably be seen as bold and standing up to the “establishment.” However, it’s a little late in the game for Sanders to be getting high profile endorsements at this point. He's lost some key states, and even Warren can’t get those delegates back for him. 

At this point, I actually think it would be best for Warren to keep her mum game going. It’s too late to save Sanders, and Clinton’s path to the nomination has remained pretty clear without her. It just wouldn’t make sense to throw in two cents now. 

Tessa Roy

John Oliver has adamantly denied that what he does is journalism. And I would agree, but only because he doesn’t do his own reporting. What Oliver does is commentary, which isn’t always credible or reliable. However, he’s proved himself perhaps more trustworthy than many mainstream news outlets. 

Donald Trump is an interesting figure to attempt to take down because of his huge, obsessive following and his tendency to orchestrate counterattacks himself. But Oliver is unafraid. He’s aired a couple of long, in depth segments on Trump that are impossible to refute. He attacks his claims about being a successful businessperson, citing his many failures. He even digs up family history and his original surname. While he is deconstructing the exorbitant costs Trump’s proposed wall would involve, Oliver suggests that buying a waffle iron for every person in the country would be a smarter use of finances.  Everything is backed up with a clip of Trump speaking, a screenshot of a news story, or otherwise factual evidence. 

What’s best is how all of this is done with humor. Whether it’s a crafty one-liner, a creative use of similes, or appropriate juxtaposition of clips, Oliver’s segments evoke a lot of laughs. It’s entertaining, which means people watch, and it’s informative, which means people learn. 

Oliver and his staff have a bit of an advantage because they do a single show per week. Other commentators and news outlets have to deal in the 24/7 news cycle daily and don’t have as much time to compose information. But Oliver’s research and fact checking processes are something from which anyone in a media field can learn. Waffle irons and small hands jokes may not be appropriate in all contexts, but smart commentary and good research certainly are. 

--Marion Kinosian

Donald Trump has cultivated a very brash image for himself. Speaking loudly with anti-Muslim, racist, sexist, rhetoric he has won the majority of the GOP pledged delegates in the primary process so far. While he’s got the highest loyalty among GOP voters, his favorables are pretty low, in the 30s, which keeps his base of voters consistent but not as big as his campaign would hope. If The Donald wants to secure the nomination, he needs to increase his favorables, and that could mean an change in his image. 

By: Aubrey Gemmell-Nuñez

           In the 2016 presidential election cycle, social media is increasingly influential in not only reporting the shocking events unfolding on national television, but in guiding the focus of the candidate’s campaign strategy. Looking at the high price of media buys compared to the “free” cost of social media the changing tactics of presidential campaigning in the social-media age is becoming apparent. 

As of 14 April 2016, the total amount spent by candidates in the election cycle is $380 million, one third of which has been spent by candidates no longer in the race. Of the candidates still competing for the nomination, Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton have cumulatively spent $100 million, and Donald Trump a mere $17 million, according to Kant Media CMAG. Trump’s campaign has largely relied on “free media” that the candidate has created for himself through strategy tactics revolving around crisis manipulation and building the news cycle around his name.

In addition to utilizing shocking commentary and unheard of political gambles, Trump takes full advantage of social media aps like Twitter and Facebook.   According to political analysts Ken Goldstein and Elizabeth Wilner, “following the money” may no longer apply in politics, and that “at the end of the day, if the message isn’t compelling, the effect of that ad is still going to be zero,” no matter how much money is being spent on it. However, televised advertising is not going to be packed up and put away into campaign-strategy storage anytime soon and still carries a huge effect in the presidential race. What has begun to change in the social media era of elections is not necessarily that ads are becoming less effective, but that they are resonating with a smaller demographic of the voting age population. The success of a message in the 2016 race is its ability to cross over from paid media to “free” media and create the buzz that so little political ads have this election year. The amount spent on media buys is not translating into poll numbers, but social media presence and strategy in utilizing it for messaging just might be what is separating the hopefuls from the victors.

           In an article released by The Economist in February 2016, the number of Twitter followers and re-tweeted tweets of all the presidential candidates were broken down, showing that Donald Trump not only has the highest volume of Twitter followers, but that his amount of Twitter followers increased the most from July 2015 to February 2016. Trump not only dominates in following, but he and Sanders top the social media charts in most re-tweeted tweets during the election cycle, maximizing the speed and saturation of their campaign messages.  While spending the least amount of all candidates on paid media, Trump’s message is circulating at the highest volume on free media. However, the demographic this is reaching may not transfer directly to higher voter turnout for the social-media savvy candidates.

           As analysts begin to see a shift in the effectiveness of campaign spending on media buys and an increase in the importance of social media strategy, the social media trends of the voting age population in American are important to look at when considering a campaign’s allocation of funds. These exact trends were studied by the Pew Research Center and their findings were released in a report in 2015. The results show that the most active demographic on social media are those between 18 and 29 years of age, 90 percent of which use social media platforms.  Social media use declines as age increases with only 77 percent of 30-49 year olds active on social media platforms, 51 percent of 50-64 year olds, and 35 percent of those 65 and older.

           Age is the demographic with the sharpest differences in usage with gender, race, income, and education levels showing to have an increasingly diminished effect on whether an individual uses social media.  In 2015 68 percent of females and 62 percent of males used social media. Whites and Hispanics are reported to use social media at the same rate, 65 percent, with Blacks falling just slightly below at 56 percent.  The education gap is apparent with 76 percent of college graduates active and only 54 percent of those with a high school degree or less using social media. However, the lower education bracket continues to rise in social media use going up 4 percent just from 2014. Looking at income divides, 78 percent of those making $75,000 a year are active while 56 percent of those making less than $30,000 a year are present on social media (Perrin, 2015).

By: Doug Foley

As we all know through our semester long endeavor into this election cycle, there is no topic that communications professors love to examine more than the ever enigmatic Donald Trump. His use of media, his recovery from seemingly devastating gaffs, his ability to change the script to always stay on the same message and his pure vitriol have made him into one of the most interesting (and frightening) candidates in decades. He seems to be rewriting the book on how the nomination is decided.

In particular though, academics across the world have taken an intense interest in Trump's campaign. Certain researchers are looking into how he has almost certainly redefined the traditional views of party nomination. While it has been a well established belief for decades that it is really the establishment who determines whether a candidate will receive the nomination rather than primary voters, Trump seems to have defied the notion completely, outperforming all major establishment candidates. This is not the first time that an "outsider" candidate has done reasonably well, but the fact that three of the top candidates in this election (Trump, Cruz, and Sanders) consistently play to anti-establishment sentiments just goes to show how the traditional political game is being redefined. 

Even if Trump doesn't secure the nomination, which it seems he has a very good chance of doing, his meteoric rise onto the scene has many other important indications for researchers in different fields. Many researchers are interested in the use of different media and how it has defined the election, while others are looking to the fallout of the racist and xenophobic sentiment that has become so influential and popular. Indeed, most academics agree that Trump will be the topic of the majority of political and communications research for the next few years at least. Whether that research will be published under President Trump or not remains to be seen.

By Doug Foley

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORGzsOOcxn4

As the Sanders campaign continues to go on the offensive in uncharacteristic fashion, attacks continue to be slung between the three remaining Republican candidates. Indeed, it has been a particularly dirty campaign trail for candidates like The Donald where seemingly no insult is off limits. But what are the real effects of these attacks on a candidate like Trump? In particular, what are the real effects of attack ads during this incendiary primary race?

A recent Politico poll paints a bleak picture for the efficacy of this campaign strategy, especially against the Trump camp. The study divided republican respondents into two groups with one group being exposed to the attack ad (linked above) and the other being shown an ad for Coca-Cola as a control. The researchers then asked both groups who they would eliminate from the Republican race and then who they would vote for of the remaining candidates. The results showed that overall, people who saw the ad supported Trump 3% more than those who didn’t see the ad. Also, among blue collar men, support for Trump increased 33% for those who saw the ad. Cruz also lost more support from those who saw the ad. Although the study doesn’t necessarily prove that these ads help Trump, it certainly shows that they aren’t helping Cruz.

This study raises many different questions but most important of them being, what makes Trump seemingly impervious to attack ads? One theory is that it follows his ability to shrug off other gaffs that would absolutely destroy other candidates. As soon as he is confronted about his comments on certain topics (like his comments on abortion that Cruz attacks him for in the ad), he claims that he is being misconstrued and that the media is against him. In any case, the usefulness attack ad may be in danger with the rise of candidates like Trump.

By Paul Sperry-Fromm

Momentum. It had been the keyword for Senator Bernie Sanders as he went on a streak of winning multiple primaries in a row. The momentum was building and the revolution was just a matter of time.

Well after last night’s primaries, that momentum is gone. Clinton won New York 58% to 42%, one of the most important states on the primary trail. While allegations of a rigged voting system are permeating the feeds of Sanders supporters across the country. Facing closed primaries throughout the next few contests, the odds seem insurmountable for Sanders to be able to eclipse Clinton’s delegate lead.

Sanders’ campaign manager Jeff Weaver came out today and attempted to argue delegate math on MSNBC. It didn’t go particularly well, with Weaver struggling to articulate exactly how Sanders could win the nomination via victories in certain states.

The Sanders campaign is now shifting its focus to pry pledged superdelegates away from Clinton and towards Sanders. This reeks of desperation, as Sanders has dedicated a lot of his campaign messaging towards criticism regarding the electoral college. Sanders is now attempting to work this bizarre system that has confounded so many of his voters to his own advantage. This seems somewhat insulting to his supporters, who have constantly pointed to Sanders’ populist appeal and integrity and criticized political maneuvering. To see their golden candidate adopt a different approach must be disheartening to say the least.

It is very, very, very unlikely that this maneuvering on Sanders part makes a difference in the outcome of the primary. Clinton has so much more establishment support than Sanders and it’s hard to imagine all of these established Politicos jumping onto the sinking ship that is the Sanders campaign. 

By Martha Schick

Dana Perino, former Press Secretary to George W. Bush, was easily one of the most interesting and open guest lecturers I’ve seen in my time at Emerson College. As a student of journalism with a huge interest in politics and governmental advocacy, it was fascinating to talk to someone who doesn’t have my dream job, but had the job of someone I would be dealing with very closely were I to get my dream job.

As a liberal, it’s very easy to see the Bush administration as a giant, multi-headed, evil beast. That’s what I was told by my parents, that’s what I’ve been told at Emerson, and I’ve never really seen a reason to change. While this talk certainly didn’t change my opinion on the administration as a whole and I’ll never be singing it’s praises, it did force me to look at them in a more complex and individual way. Dana does not seem like a bad person. She did her job, which she loved, and served her country. Even if I disagree with the policies she advocated for and see the president she served under in a bad light, I can’t view her as part of a machine, nor should I view others within the administration in that way.

By Cabot Lee Petoia 

Last week, our class had the privilege to have a Skype interview with Dana Perino, who was press secretary under George W. Bush for the final two years of his administration. She is also the first female press secretary for a Republican president. Perino is currently working as a political commentator, co-hosting the Fox News show The Five and frequently appearing on the Megyn Kelly show on Wednesday nights (she was going straight to hair and makeup for the show after our interview).

It was extremely interesting and enlightening to hear Perino speak about politics. Although she has a clear right wing stance on television, she is by no means a conservative with only one narrow way of seeing the world. The current political climate makes it easy to feel like this nation is divided along strict ideological lines with no room for gray areas or mutual understanding and respect, but Perino provided a refreshing counter to that feeling. When she discussed the current election with us, she was very familiar with details and subtleties on both sides of the political spectrum, and openly said that she understands the reasons people support different candidates. This Perino is a very different one than the one appearing on the news, which just illustrates the existence of “mediated reality” that we have been learning about as political communication tool this whole semester.

On top of political musings, Perino also provided us with some really great general life advice. Earlier in her career, she put together something called Minute Mentoring, which was a service specifically for women. She advised us to get to know the people we admire, while respecting their time and time limits. She told us to find ways to engage in manners that are convenient for them, after figuring out why we like them in the first place so we have a clear goal of what we want to learn in mind. 

Since many of us are about to graduate and enter the political field, she also gave us some career advice. She told us to take the entry level jobs answering the phone, but keep our eyes and ears open all the time for new opportunities. After 6 months, she said it is a good idea to check ourselves and make sure we aren’t being actively held back from personal and career growth. She said, “It is a bad reflection on your employer if you have to move on, but a good reflection on both of you if you move up.”

By Cabot Lee Petoia

Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel 

Mahmoud Abbas, President of Palestine 

by Emma Friend

Tonight we’ll see Democratic Presidential nominee contenders Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton face off in a debate in New York City (negotiated fairly recently as an addition to the Democratic debate schedule), just days away from the New York state primary.

Tuesday’s primary looms large for the Dems in this election: with 247 pledged delegates at stake, not only would a win boost a candidate’s delegate number significantly, but also the outcome could be a key turning point in momentum. Tonight’s debate provides a last chance for national audiences to see Sanders and Clinton go head-to-head on live TV before the primary, and could prove to be one of the more interesting or important in this primary. Here’s how the Democratic race is shaping up ahead of the NY debate:

New York is uniquely and especially interesting in the context of this particular primary, as the state that twice elected and was represented by Hillary Clinton in the U.S. Senate, and as the birthplace of Bernie Sanders. Both candidates hold strong ties to the state, which they have both been leveraging to try to win the large amount of minority voters in New York City (the state’s population center) that each campaign covets.

Hillary is projected to win the primary by about 13-14 points according to most polls so far, a gap Bernie can’t seem to close despite coming back from a 30+ point deficit as recently as April 3rd. For Bernie, this upcoming debate means a last chance to make up some ground in the polls, while Hillary’s biggest goal is simply not to make any gaffes in order to hold strong before Tuesday.

Hillary already slipped up once, during a campaign event in New York City on April 9th, in which she participated in a racially charged joke with NYC mayor Bill de Blasio. Hillary can’t afford any other mistakes herself--in the weeks leading up to this primary, there’s been a marked heightening of attacks between the Democratic campaigns:

Hillary questioned Bernie’s right to call himself a Democrat

Bernie called Hillary “not qualified” to be President at a rally last week, a remark for which the Senator received a lot of backlash

The New York Daily News, a publication in the state with a readership mainly of blue-collar and minority city-dwellers, published an unfavorable interview with Bernie, which some are calling foul on and speculating that it may have been a hit against the Sanders campaign organized to make Hillary look better

The New York Daily News came out shortly after publishing its Bernie interview with an endorsement of Clinton, one of many strategic endorsements that have been flying in the days ahead of the New York Primary. Also endorsing Clinton recently was Maryland Representative Elijah Cummings (D), strategic not only as a person of color endorsing right before the NY primary, but also in light of the primary in Maryland coming up at the end of the month. NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio endorsed his state’s former Senator as well, the night he made that ill-received racist joke. Bernie picked up some important endorsements as well: Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR) came out as the first fellow Senator to endorse Bernie, along with Minnesota Representative Rick Nolan (D).

By Cabot Lee Petoia 

On April 4th, Bernie Sanders was interviewed by the New York Daily News editorial board. Immediately afterward, he received major backlash about some of his answers-- headlines like “9 Things Bernie Sanders Should’ve Known About But Didn’t in that New York Daily News Article” from the Washington Post, “Sanders Feeling Media Heat After New Interview,” from CNN (which only quoted Sanders himself twice, one of which was “I don’t know,” despite a very extensive interview transcript). 

By Maddie Crichton

By Maddie Crichton

By Doug Foley

This morning, during a press conference on Capitol Hill, Paul Ryan made a speech denying the possibility of a White House bid this election cycle, claiming, 'I do not want, nor will I accept, the Republican nomination.' This comes after months of speculation over the possibility of the RNC nominating Ryan at the convention. 

Many predicted this due to his overall strength as a candidate. His 2012 Vice Presidential bid, position as Speaker, and admiration of his GOP peers all seemed to indicate he might be the best choice. Also, recent statements, such as his speech about his mistaken views of ‘takers’ in the U.S., seemed to be strategically framing him as more moderate. That being said, its easy to understand why Ryan doesn't want the job. Especially with all the anti-establishment sentiment this election cycle, any candidate that the RNC would nominate would face significant opposition from voters. 

Not only did he count himself out for the job but went on to claim, “I would encourage [delegates] to put in place a rule that says you can only nominate someone who actually ran for the job.” Clearly, Ryan is trying to distance himself from this idea, possibly to protect his viability as a candidate in future elections. But this statement, from the chairman of the Republican convention (pictured below), brings up the most important question on everybody’s mind: Will Donald Trump be the Republican nominee for president?

The chances are slim that either Cruz or Trump would come out on top in a contested convention but maybe this move by Ryan is an attempt to save the GOP from fracturing or losing their base completely by biting the bullet of a Trump nomination. We’ll see how it all plays out in July!

 By: Noelle Maibaum

          Bernie Sanders wants to raise taxes, while Hillary Clinton wants to tax anyone with an income over $250,000. Ted Cruz has his own tax plan, deemed the “Cruz Simple Flat Tax,” in which middle class members with an income over $36,000 pay only 10 percent in taxes. The 10 percent counts as a personal income tax, and the IRS will be completely eliminated. Lastly, Trump plans to decrease the tax code into four brackets while focusing on taxing the rich. With these four different approaches, which plan would be the best for our society?

           Although it comes down to the opinion of the individual, there have been speculations which suggest that the proposals of Clinton and Sanders may be more damaging to the middle class and the economy than we’d generally expect. According to the American Spectator, Clinton and Sanders plans, “would lower business investment and cut middle income pay by about 10 percent over a decade.” Doesn’t this sound like a repetition in history? It is important to consider the long term damage in case America faces another recession. If this estimate is true, the fact that Americans could lose any income would go against Clinton and Sanders original purpose of supporting the middle class.

           On the other hand, Donald Trump’s tax plan may, “shrink the tax base,” and “add trillions of dollars in debt,” according to NPR.org. This only leaves Cruz in the lead in regards to this policy. While there may be an argument that his flat tax plan is conservative, American Spectator states that his plan would help the US gain 2 trillion dollars over the next 10 years due to providing Americans such low tax rates. It will also help relive the US in international debt since American exports will not be taxed while imported products will be at a flat rate. Therefore, as for now, Cruz’s plan seems to be the most valid in comparison-especially due to our economic circumstances at the moment. However, it all comes down to who does the research, and who understands the finances to make this overall judgement.

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/09/28/444187540/donald-trumps-tax-plan-could-be-huge-ly-expensive

By Doug Foley

With the looming New York Primary next Tuesday, Hillary Clinton is facing an increasingly competitive race from Bernie Sanders. Some polls put Sanders at just ten points behind Clinton in what was originally thought to be a relatively clear cut victory for her. Over the weekend, Clinton received an endorsement from New York City Mayor Bill De Blasio which could have helped her secure more of the vote but which was delivered in a controversial way that has many up in arms: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/de-blasio-jokes-cp-time-hillary-clinton-38327656

Although intended as a ‘joke,’ many have rightly called out De Blasio and Clinton for using a racially insensitive term. 

To provide some context, the skit came during an annual NYC fundraising event, known as the Inner Circle, where politicians attend and perform embarrassing routines. For example, before Clinton joined him on stage, De Blasio performed a rap. Also, the whole skit was scripted and everyone knew the joke was in there. Still, it was a pretty bad idea for Clinton to leave such a racially charged joke in the routine, especially after her husband’s clash with BLM.