Catch up on MSM highlights in 100 seconds, via Talking Points Memo.
Talk of war is kicking up again, this time concerning North Korea. What was left of diplomatic relations between North Korea and South Korea appear to have completely broken down in recent days. In the meantime, media reports say the country's military has been given the go-ahead to strike the United States with nuclear missiles. Ever since then, North Korea's military have been super busy moving their missiles around in exceedingly menacing ways. What's behind the aggression?
Carmen Electra's ex and new "best friend for life," North Korea's Kim "the Jong" Un
Well, depending upon the source, Dennis Rodman either saved us with his "Renaissance Man" touch, or damned us with his previously untested skills as an occasional totalitarian-state über tourist and unofficial diplomat during last month's visit.
In other news, the Associated Press will now drop the term "illegal" when referring to immigrants. Journalism ethics groups, particularly the Society of Professional Journalists, have been calling for this change for several years. However, the AP style sets the industry standards and has a direct influence on how journalism is taught. Having a current copy of the AP style handbook is an absolute must for J-schools students. Via the SPJ's diversity blog:
The AP is now changing how it will describe people as journalists report stories involving the current immigration issue. According to Senior Vice President and Executive Editor Kathleen Carroll, here is what is behind the decision:
The Stylebook no longer sanctions the term “illegal immigrant” or the use of “illegal” to describe a person. Instead, it tells users that “illegal” should describe only an action, such as living in or immigrating to a country illegally.
“Journalists and others can argue that the new style recommendation is less precise than ‘illegal alien’ or ‘illegal immigrant,’ but it’s important to note that a significant portion of country’s population regards those terms as offensive. It wasn’t that long ago that keepers of journalism style, including The AP, fought dropping ‘Negro’ as a term for black or African-American people,” says SPJ President Sonny Albarado.
“AP is right to note that the English language evolves and that our everyday usage contributes to that evolution. I hope journalists and others continue this conversation about immigration and people who come here legally or illegally until we arrive at terminology most of us can agree on,” Albarado says.
We on the SPJ Diversity Committee agree and hope journalists will eliminate these types of terms from their copy as immigration is a huge issue we will be reporting on this year.
Over in the United Kingdom, many were upset over the Daily Mail's Wednesday issue, which dedicated its entire front page to blaming the deaths of six children on Britain's "vile" welfare state.
But, after the tabloids set the tone, anyone who was anyone (Yes, Minister) pretty much did the same thing. By Thursday, the BBC News Channel joined the chorus, also harping the "welfare state as culprit" angle ALL day, every hour on the hour in one form or another.
Included in the BBC's April 4th coverage of the sensational story were obligatory shots of people booing at the transport van carrying Mick Philpott after his sentencing in court, a 7-minute debate during the 5 O'clock program about the welfare state's culpability, and the same repeating 2-minute story about how men with bald heads are one-third more likely to have heart disease.
By Friday, the BBC's website had busted out the body-language experts to give more insights into the arson revenge plot gone tragically wrong.
Every night, tens of millions of people tune into the news on the major broadcasting networks of ABC, CBS, and NBC, expecting to learn about our nation's most pressing issues. Given the urgency of addressing the climate crisis, we urge you to give global warming the coverage that it warrants.
After experiencing the hottest year ever recorded in the United States and a series of devastating extreme weather events including wildfires, droughts, and storms like Hurricane Sandy, the American people need to know how changing climate is fueling this extreme weather and what we can do about it.
That can only happen if you devote more coverage to climate change, report on future extreme weather in a climate context, and interview more climate scientists who will be able to accurately connect the dots between human activity, climate change, and the weather we have been experiencing. Yet, a recent study by Media Matters for America found that throughout all of 2012, climate change was only featured in 12 segments on your nightly news programs combined.
The Sierra Club and the League of Conservation Voters also partnered with Media Matters in asking the three nightly news programs to put more efforts towards covering climate change.
Finally, it seems that Bill O'Reilly's "killing" spree will unfortunately continue. After being largely responsible for bringing the at times, historically challenged, Killing Lincoln and Killing Kennedy dramas to life for the audiences of National Geographic Channel (some minor Murdoch Empire incest there), ratings were high enough to create a bidding war for the Conservative pundit's latest venture: Killing Jesus.
Not surprisingly, a bidding war broke out for the TV rights, and according to the New York Post‘sMichael Shain, and confirmed by one of my sources familiar with the plans, CNN nearly won the rights to the TV movie.
Jeff Zucker, the new head of the news channel, bid as much as $2.5 million for rights to the book. The Jesus movie will be produced — as the other O’Reilly movies are — by Ridley Scott, the director of “Blade Runner.” Zucker learned of the Jesus movie through Scott, who is also making a series called “Crimes of the Century” for CNN, according to the sources.
Like the Lincoln and Kennedy movies, director Ridley Scott and his production company will be producing the film.
Ultimately, however, Nat Geo Channel won out, and will likely air “Killing Jesus” in 2015.
Branding undoubtedly plays a role in influencing voter perceptions of Presidential candidates. Ultimately, voter reactions to campaign images is subjective. That being said, if the election was solely based on image and branding, then President Barack Obama, is clearly winning.
Mitt Romney's camp is incredibly lacking in artistic or mind-blowing campaign posters (my search for iconic Romney art didn't go well). Rather, many of the images associated with Romney's campaign have typically been mashups, created by satirists and pretty much anyone with a sense of humor and Photoshop. In this way, Romney's campaign has been its own worst enemy and despite six years of preparing to run for the office of the Presidency, Team Romney still can't seem to inspire an image that is anywhere near as rhetorically powerful as this:
coulda been a tramp stamp
Even when reproduced as a tattoo on a random appendage for some (probably drunken) reason, it is instantly recognizable as a rendition of the "Hope" poster designed by artist Shepard Fairey. Fairey's poster was adopted by Team Obama after the independently produced stencil portrait became viral. At the same time, to Conservatives, elements of Obama's branding, including the Fairey stencil, confirmed their perceptions of Obama being communistic and even a messianic figure of sorts to the political left wing.
The 2008 election set a high bar for image and branding excellency, as the most viral presidential candidate was also the one who got elected. In fact, Obama's election brought on a period of extreme "Baracksploitation," in which the President's image was applied to pretty much anything, from sushi, to t-shirts, to action figures, to hash bricks. The 2012 election was already going to be an uphill battle for anyone running against our resident Presidential icon.
However, whether or not a candidate's campaign "get it right" with their branding, candidates of both parties adopt rhetoric that draws from ubiquitous American national myths concerning 'God and country' to appeal to the electorate, as crafting a clear moral agenda is also a major aspect of Presidential branding. The national myths invoked by the previous four presidents reflects the complex historic and nationalistic, yet pseudo-religious identity of America.
The candidates and Manifest Destiny
These myths have broadly been referred to as "Manifest Destiny." Manifest Destiny encompasses the many foundational American myths, of which some have been particularly dominant in Presidential discourse. According to Wade Clark Roof, the "Chosen Nation," "Millennial Nation," and "Nature's Nation," are the preeminent myths that Presidents since Reagan have used to communicate what they believe is America's moral place in the world:
The myth of a Chosen Nation arises out of the Hebrew Bible and suggests
that Americans are exceptional in having a covenant with God: they are the New
Israel in the language of the early Puritans. A second myth of origin—Nature’s
Nation, emerging out of the Enlightenment and Deism—gave rise to the notion
that the United States arose out of the natural order, and that the country reflects
the way God had intended things to be from the beginning of time. Building
upon both of these foundational myths, the Millennial Nation myth implies that
God chose America to bless the nations of the world with the unfolding of a
golden age. The last two are obviously complimentary: one looking to the begin-
ning of time, the other looking to the end of time.
While there has been a long history of Presidential candidates alluding to the Biblical whilst engaging in civil-religious discourse, (looking at you FDR), the election of Jimmy Carter, a "born again" Christian and Democrat, in 1976, coincided with the emergence of "terms and images that had seldom been a part of presidential politics," that went beyond the Sermon on the Mount. These included references to sin, salvation, specific New Testament teachings, Christ, and the "Bible as the word of God." Scholars including Roof and Medhurst, agree that a distinct change in Presidential rhetoric has been evident since Reagan first ran for office (Medhurst):
When Ronald Reagan captured the Republican
nomination in 1980, he married the language of evangelical
Christianity, which Carter had introduced, with appeals based on
civil-religious concepts ("a shining city on a hill") and used them to
forge a powerful alliance with conservative evangelicals, Catholics and
Orthodox Jews, a coalition that came to be called the New Religious
Right. And presidential campaigns have never been the same since.
It would, however, be a mistake to assume that this recourse
to a more particularistic, evangelical style of discourse was limited to
conservative Republicans. Certainly, Reagan, George H.W. Bush and
George W. Bush were practitioners, to greater or lesser degrees, of this
kind of discourse. But so, too, were Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Joseph
Lieberman and Barack Obama.
Indeed, both Republicans and Democrats have engaged in this kind of discourse, mixing and matching elements of these three dominant American myths to varying levels of success. The failure of a candidate to clearly articulate America's moral
place in the world using this new pseudo-evangelical language can
ultimately spell disaster for a campaign as Medhurst points out:
Not all presidential candidates have been
adept at using religious rhetoric, whether of the older civil-religious
variety or the newer evangelical style. Candidates such as Bob Dole,
Michael Dukakis, John Kerry and John McCain never seemed comfortable
speaking about religious or moral topics in any kind of language, and
each paid an electoral price for failing to connect his visions and
values with those of the voting public. Indeed, one scholar has pointed
to the fact that since 1976 every presidential election has been won by
the candidate who was most comfortable speaking the language of faith,
morals and religion.
Roof notes that Republicans, in particular, have been more prone to using the "chosen nation" myth, in which a Manichean worldviewis elaborated upon. At the heart of the "chosen nation" myth is the notion that the people
of the US are picked by God, above all others, to deliver to the world
freedom and peace. Presidents Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush, have all spoken of an America whose struggles against its enemies are framed as a fight for freedom and of good versus evil. Reagan was adept at using "popular morals and common sense" to position himself as a likable hero. He was also known for using stories and anecdotes to establish his divine "chosen nation" version of America's identity. Take for example, these excerpts from a speech Reagan delivered at a campaign event in 1984:
In Year of Decision, 1846, Bernard DeVoto explained what drove our
ancestors to conquer the West, create a nation, and open up a continent.
If you take away the dream, you take away the power of the spirit. If
you take away the belief in a greater future, you cannot explain America
-- that we're a people who believed there was a promised land; we were a
people who believed we were chosen by God to create a greater world.
...
And in those moments when we grow tired, when our struggle seems
hard, remember what Eric Liddell, Scotland's Olympic champion runner,
said in Chariots of Fire: "So where does the power come from to see the
race to its end? From within. God made me for a purpose, and I will run
for His pleasure."
If we trust in Him, keep His word, and live our lives for His
pleasure, He'll give us the power we need -- power to fight the good
fight, to finish the race and to keep the faith.
President George W. Bush, was of course, comparatively much more well known for his ability to mangle English, but nonetheless, Bush went a step further than Reagan by further declaring God had chosen him to be President.
Yet, the major party candidates also accept the assumptions of the "nature's nation" myth, which has also been helpful in justifying certain foreign policy positions. This myth presupposes that America is somehow above the plane of history, having been founded on the high ideals of freedom and democracy, and is therefore, uniquely innocent in the world. America is viewed as a country whose possibilities are endless because it only continues to evolve towards greater perfection. Thus, the very notions of freedom, capitalism and prosperity are "rooted in the natural order and should be yearned for by all mankind ... " Inherent is the notion that people in countries without freedom and free enterprise want what America has, and would happily embrace these values when given the opportunity.
The "nature's nation" myth strongly corresponds with the "millennial" foundational myth, which Democrat, Bill Clinton drew heavily from. (Although, he did go the chosen nation route during the Kosovo conflict). Clinton's America was one of great responsibility, both at home, to improve domestic social institutions, and abroad. Roof notes that Clinton's expression of the millennial vision was particularly strong, justifying America's mission of responsibility to help spread democratic values abroad and to help the suffering. And of course, it is believed that the people America helps abroad will respond positively to a "more democratic" natural order, an assumption of the "nature's nation," myth. Any way you slice the "manifest destiny" myths, there remains a strand of continuity that lends justification to American exceptionalism and its moral obligation to intervene in the affairs of non-democratic countries.
A novel way to brand a Presidential candidate
The 2008 election offered the Democrats an opportunity to craft their own moral agenda, distinct from that of the Bush era, in which political and religious goals were heavy-handedly intertwined.
From the very outset, Obama's campaign had a firm grasp of the power of combining sacred symbols with mythic themes. Announcing his candidacy at the very building President Abraham Lincoln had in 1858, Obama shared his millennial vision of America in a similar fashion to Clinton's "softer" and less arrogant style. Obama, like Clinton, spoke of a more humble and imperfect America, one
that strives to live up to its Democratic values, but is still much
respected on the world's stage. Candidate Obama also did not shy away from using Evangelical terminology to reassure the electorate of his Christianness: (Medhurst)
In the 2008 presidential contest, Obama
repeatedly spoke of his Christian commitment, telling one campaign
audience, "There's an awakening taking place in America. People are
coming together around a simple truth -- that we are all connected, that
I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper. ... My faith teaches
me that I can sit in church and pray all I want, but I won't be
fulfilling God's will unless I go out and do the Lord's work." The
language is almost purely evangelical in orientation, references to
awakening, truth, an allusion to scripture, mention of his personal
faith, fulfilling God's will, and seeking to do the Lord's work.
And of course, the mantras "hope" and "change" provided useful in challenging Americans to think of who they were and who they wanted to be. His campaign was able to visualize his values and implied moral agenda with a totally unique logo, which became a pivotal part of Obama's branding: the synonymous 'O'.
The source of much Conservative jealousy and freakout.
The 'O's' simultaneous conjuring of Obama, the candidate, and of a sunrise symbolically "dawning a new day in American politics," as lead designer Sol Sender explained, made it a powerful icon. Moreover, the 'O' has become the official logo of the Obama administration (the first known to do so) and has reappeared in various forms for the current election.
Obama's competitor campaigns looked old fashioned in comparison. Hillary Clinton simply reused the existing logo from her Senate campaign, while McCain's logo, a Navy Star set in front of a tapered gold line, denoted his Military ethos, but failed to lend itself to any deeper connotations about his vision for America. Romney's 2008 campaign, on the other hand, went with an innovative swooshy eagle design that clearly landed him nowhere, and also bore some (probably unintended) resemblance to the USPS eagle.
The power of the Obama 'O' cannot be underestimated. The logo became so distinctive, that his campaign team (lead by David Axelrod and David Plouffe) became comfortable enough using the image alone without including Obama's name. The logo was also easily altered to appeal to various audiences, without altering perceptions of Obama's brand, such as substituting rainbow colors to denote the candidate's solidarity with LGBT voters and their issues. Obama could represent change and a presidency of the people, a message of inclusivity, while catering to the individual.
Team Obama also had an edge in understanding how youth voters communicated to one another and capitalized on 'new media' in a bottom-up strategy that has become legendary amongst the nerd-herd of journos, political scientists, analysts, strategists, and news junkies who pick presidential elections apart. Rather than run a traditional top-down campaign, Obama's communications team enthusiastically encouraged a creative movement: (Schuller, Gerlinde)
During the last lap of the election campaign, Obama’s message could no longer be disregarded, no matter how superficially it may have been conveyed. The interaction between the branding of Obama, the contributions by individual supporters and the response in the media overwhelmed us with a flood of messages in the form of slogans, gestures, icons, graphics, and photos. Anyone who wanted to make a political commentary – in whatever form – could find a forum. ‘Obamania’ turned into a creative movement.
Obama's online presence on 16 different social networking sites, including Twitter, Facebook, and Youtube, as well as allowing the campaign website to function as a networking tool for volunteers, gave nearly anyone the ability to chip in and participate through various means of access: (Schuller)
The complex network structure to which supporters were incessantly exposed suggested the personal omnipresence and transparency of the candidate. The formulation of his profile texts, SMS and email messages sounded as if they were written by the presidential candidate himself. Emails and SMS messages were signed with Barack. The impression was constantly made as if one were an insider and stood in personal exchange with the individual ‘Barack Obama’. The short and direct connection to the population proved to be the most effective means to establish ‘community activism’. Obama’s electoral program was conveyed to the voters by the efficient networking structure that triggered thousands of chain reactions. These communities helped recruit an army of volunteers and increase the willingness to make donations.
These were all things that the competition failed to achieve as effectively as Obama's campaign. Four years later, Obamaniacs are still mixing and remixing Obama's messages, although the moment for political propaganda being its most hip, has seemingly waned this time around. Obama has had no Democratic competition, and no need to unleash the genius that gave us 1984. Will.i.am hasn't won an Emmy, and Kumar, easily one of the best known stoners of that college generation, isn't that cool anymore. The synonymous 'O' has stayed the same, but "Yes we can" has been replaced with the decidedly less punchy "Forward!" With the election coming to its bittersweet end, it is just brand "O" versus brand ... Aquafresh? Joking. But seriously.
Obama vs. Romney: may the best brand win
Romney's iconography has fared little better this time around. His campaign team abandoned the 2008 swooshy eagle for a triple-R design incorporated into his last name, which also bears a strong (and probably unintended) resemblance to toothpaste. Given that all potential contenders for the presidency knew well in advance how vital iconography was in 2008, it is actually shocking how uninspired Romney's 2012 logo is. It simply reflects nothing about his brand and moral vision for America.
I see ... Aquafresh and the French flag. Go figure.
Especially among the Republican candidates, Romney has had to address the questions surrounding his Mormon religion (even when he hasn't wanted to) and reassure his Christian values voter base that his values are theirs. The conflicted Romney campaign has also had to reflect (despite the RNC platform hoopla) the overall direction of the GOP, a party that's had to re-brand itself all the while relying on rhetoric that's trapped in the Bush era. Lacking a strong visual reference to unite his brand and verbal rhetoric,
Romney has had to rely more on his words, ads, retail politicking, and as his
various surrogates to establish his narrative and communicate with voters.
The end result has been an inability of the Romney campaign to offer a comprehensive brand with a story that is understandable and relatable, one that is distinct and different enough from Obama's vision and the Bushites that preceded him. However, even while Romney's messaging has often been muddled (his campaign's bizarre press releases and his well known flip-flops contributing to this), his moral vision of America has remained incredibly consistent. Romney, too, has derived his American vision from the "chosen nation" myth, a future that he calls a "new American century," another not-so-subtle echo of the neoconservative Bush administration (a sure freak out for the conspiracy theorist demographic). He has also stuck to his talking points on economic policy, using his business acumen as his perceived strength.
Yet, neglecting to create a brand geared for a tech savvy, brand literate generation and a political identity that has wide appeal to voters,
has truly been the biggest downfalls of the Romney campaign strategy. It has meant eschewing the youth vote and having the large void that Romney's message should fill, replaced by literally goooogles of mockery (from Big Bird, to woman-binders, to etch-a-sketches, to the lazy 47%). The campaign's apparent lack of a grasp of web strategy, humor and cultural relevancy, has made it exceedingly easy to poke fun at, as it was after all, the last left standing after a lengthy process of GOP mudslinging and attrition. Not only did that painful period of stupid in American politics add fuel to the Mitt-the-flip-flopper fire, the campaign has continued to fall prey to numerous (and totally avoidable) gaffes and schoolboy spelling and graphing errors, unintentionally spawning a million memes.
Without this mastery of new media and grassroots political brand building, Romney's campaign has been unable to establish that critical emotional connection with voters in several key demographics, including youth voters, women, Hispanics and African Americans, all groups where Obama has some edge. Even in the closing hours of the campaign, Team Romney have been incapable of really spelling out what
Romney policies would mean for voters of all walks of life, and his messaging has been shaped to appeal to an increasingly smaller niche voter base, doing so by unprecedentedly
cutting off press pool access to fundraisers, using rhetoric that appeals to the Tea
Party, and avoiding major media appearances in the last
several weeks (even as Bill O'Reilly begs for his presence). A natural by-product of this has been the appearance that Romney is unoriginal and disingenuous, issues he has struggled with throughout the campaign.
The Romney message has simply not been able to truly compete on the same
level with Obama's sophisticated operation, which is still using a bottom-up
approach to encourage volunteer peer-to-peer sharing, strong imagery and
a consistent and unifying, emotional message. He has no symbol or emblem
that is instantaneously recognized as his. His campaign has no snappy or inspiring catchphrases. "Believe in America," for example, is far less
memorable than McCain's pointed, and much repeated, "Country First"
slogan. While the more recent "We Built It" slogan has also failed to
boost Romney's brand after practically dying out after the RNC, possibly
because this particular subversion and usage of an Obama soundbite came
off as petulant, not masterful.
While Romney's campaign was figuring out how to correctly chart a Venn Diagram, Obama's campaign had delivered Julia, a detailed interactive infographic (a new phenomenon in this election), that showed how Obama's social policies would positively affect every American woman at every stage of life. While Romney's campaign has been using zingers and ending up with gaffes, Obama's been using Romney's gaffesas his new zingers. For this very last leg of the election, the contrast could not be more drastic for those paying attention: Obama's brand still has the "cool" factor (who didn't watch his recent Daily Show appearance?)
GOP still pissed they didn't think to do it first.
Romney's campaign has come up short on making that essential emotional appeal to voters, the one that makes him likable and desirable as the new figurehead and political brand of America, and not just the guy you vote for if you hate Obama and Democrats. At the end of the day, whatever the outcome of today's vote, presidential campaign branding and logos are no longer just for elections. A successful Presidential brand is expected to have viral qualities, powerful images and logos, an articulate moral vision of America's role in the world that incorporates pseudo-religious mythic elements, and having multiple modes of communicating with the public (and supporters) in an individualized manner. The Obama communications team have been trail blazers in presidential campaign branding tactics, and in the world of twitter, zingers, gaffes, glittering generalities, conspicuous consumption and mediated politics, any candidate running in 2016 will have their precedent to stand against.
Unless Romney wins. Then we'll all just look at toothpaste (or the French flag) and hope for change.
Its almost laughable that "Are you using the term slavery too loosely?" was even asked in this segment of FNC's Fox & Friends Weekend Sept. 22 edition. No matter what vaguely cogent argument may have come out of 'Blacklash' author and FNC contributor, Deneen Borelli's mouth, all the while she spoke, the lower third of the screen was littered with terms that specifically refer to black slavery: Indentured to Government Borelli: Americans being enslaved by debt, The Government 'Plantation' US enslaving citizens with debt.
Clearly, no one at Fox & Friends Weekend thought it was a bit much to link the two for the sake of taking a dig at the Obama administration on what is usually such a Fair and Balanced® Saturday morning news show.
As long as this show is on the air seven days a week, The Daily Show will never run out of material. Or Saturday Night Live for that matter. At best, Fox & Friends is a self-spoofing show. At worst, and sadly to boot, the show is a popular and power platform for launching attacks on leftist or progressive causes and the Obama administration with facts full of 'truthiness' and octopus-like conspiracy theories. Fox & Friend also experiences frequent visits from Republican nominee Mitt Romney, as the NYT notes.
And finally, to eliminate some of the noise about the 150th anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation draft as a result of FNC's hullabaloo, some video via the US National Archives youtube channel, which is an excellent and interesting panel discussion by academics and local community leaders. The panel was held as part of a Documented Rights civil rights eight-month exhibition in St. Louis which recently closed.
The latest buzz in the world of presidential campaign ads and a short guide to analyzing the political discourse of campaign ads.
Spending on political ads is at its highest, with the Karl Rove-backed super-PAC
American Crossroads GPS coughing up the most cash for TV spots. The super-PAC spent nearly $42 million to air ads nationwide and in local markets. A good chunk of that money has been
spent within the last two months alone. The group's latest ad aims to create an Obama vs Pro-Obama super-PAC gaffe, in
the hopes the Obama administration will take the bait and bite.
Priorities USA Action PAC spending on tv spots by market
The Crossroads ad accuses the Obama campaign of coordinating with a super-PAC called Priorities USA Action. The ad in question never aired on any television station, yet is drawing the ire of Karl Rove's super-PAC as well as Mitt Romney and his aides, who also demand Obama denounce the ad. Although Priorities USA Action PAC is the top spender out of the Pro-Obama super-PACs, it ranks 4th overall. The group's spending ($7.2 mil this year) is dwarfed by the top Republican super-PACs and runs ads in fewer markets than its competitors.
So why bother? Because it is a really horrible thing to accuse anyone of causing someone else's cancer. Naturally, the claim has an icky feel about it, one that any candidate would rather avoid having stick around. If Obama's campaign doesn't respond to the claims that a group it "coordinates" with accused Romney of killing a woman via cancer, then Fox News and Rush Limbaugh can turn this into the message that they relentlessly hammer for a week straight. And, equally as bad, if the Obama campaign does respond in some way to the ad or the super-PAC, this too can be twisted into a character attack against Obama because "guilt by association" can still apply.
Check out the "controversial" ad in question, which once again, never aired on television.
According to Wayne Allyn Root, former 2008 Libertarian VP candidate, President Barack Obama must have been a foreign exchange student, because Root remembers everyone who went to Columbia. Except for Obama, who Root also figures, must have been lurking around campus with all the other foreigners occuppying his time "smoking pot and attending socialist meetings." This is a truly bizarre segment, hosted by Sean Hannity, who has the second highest rated show on cable primetime news. Crooksandliars:
Sean Hannity, always the shrinking violet concern troll, is never the
birther, of course. He just allows idiots with idiot theories to be
softball interviewed on his show to sound the dog whistles, which will
then be echoed by the likes of Breitbart, Glenn Beck, and the Fox
morning crew.
But this one is particularly stupid. Even the dumbest Fox viewer
ought to be scratching their head over this one. Wayne Allyn Root has
been pimping his story for a very long time on sites like World Net
Daily and more recently, Glenn Beck's The Blaze. It goes like
this: Root went to Columbia at the same time that Barack Obama went to
Columbia but Root has no recollection of Obama, therefore, Barack Obama
must have been a foreign exchange student.
Root's story is so weak even Reason.com is embarrassed by it (and him):
The crew from FNC's "Fox and Friends" are up to their old tricks again: spreading disinformation provided to them via a Conservative think-tank with a dog in the fight. Basically, everything that Steve Doocy just said about Voter ID laws is completely wrong and insulting to boot. This is but thinly veiled propaganda. Notice that Doocy quotes one of the senior fellows who conducted the study, "The criminals, more often than not, are Democrats violating the rights of people who tend to be black or senior," right after crudely asserting that "blacks and the poor" are typically the victims of voter fraud. So according to the National Center for Public Policy, Democrats are committing voter fraud against African Americans, yet there is no mention of the sizable percentages of African Americans who will be disenfranchised as a result of Voter ID laws, which are supposed to protect said African Americans from losing their right to vote because of Democrats committing fraud. Holy crap! that is a headache.
Of course, the arguments in favor of Voter ID requirements are framed around "voter fraud," which is almost non-existent. And the few rare cases in which voter fraud has occurred have never swayed the outcome of an election. According to the non-partisan Brennan Center for Justice (New York University School of Law):
Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Chris Hedges manages to cover quite a bit of ground in this short interview taken at a recent Occupy event in Philadelphia, including how corporate media affects agenda setting and public discourse.
"[M]arketers are urging workers to commit small acts of so-called rebellion — like taking a vacation, or going on a lunch break."
Ad campaigns for McDonald's and Las Vegas tourism are apparently picking up on "office burnout." As well as the shrinking lunch breakin America. (Surveys and polling suggests that workersin the UK and European countries including Germany, are also increasingly skipping lunches, taking shorter breaks, or having lunches at their desks).
This ad from McDonald's campaign promoting limited availability sandwiches opens with a glum looking office crew and a female member of staff adamantly declaring "I'm going to lunch." A fellow worker moans, "Those days are gone now," while another looms out of an office to warn "Think about what you are doing."
Another co-worker also wants to abandon work for McD's, dramatically stating, "I don't want to be chicken. I want to eat it."
What was once a theme so well articulated by the Occupy movement has now been deployed in ads by savvy marketers aiming to score a few more dollars from the pockets of the already financially squeezed American worker.
Rachel Maddow spots some sketchy political reporting that recently appeared in the Washington Post. The
journalist who wrote the WaPo piece detailed by Maddow has pulled a
"repeater," when a reporter passes on the talking points of their
sources as reporting.
Operation Fast and Furious and the subsequent “fury” that the operation has caused in certain circles in Congress is not new. However, the operation has become a full-blown scandal in recent weeks, with 17 Democrats joining Republicans voting to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in Contempt of Congress. In the meantime, something else has come to light: that all of the charges of “gunwalking” are completely fabricated. That’s right. Its the phrase you’ve heard over and over again. Gunwalking. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives knowingly allowed guns sold in Arizona to end up across the border as an operational tactic. Unanimously it seems, reporters, relying heavily on the testimony from the GOP-lead Congressional inquiry, got it wrong. One reporter got it right. Katherine Eban, reporting for Fortune, finally set the record straight after an exhaustive six month investigation. ATF agents did not allow guns to be trafficked to Mexico and they did not “lose” guns, as has been widely reported. Phoenix Group VII agents were actually powerless in many cases to intervene and seize guns from straw purchasers due to conflicts with Arizona statutes regarding the “transfer of arms,” a “lack of adequate tools,” cautious senior prosecutors, and a new agency-wide focus on bringing down gun running conspiracies, rather than focusing on low-level straw purchasers. Much of the mass media misreporting on Operation Fast and Furious revolves around three big lies:
The ATF Knowingly or willingly allowed “gunwalking,” resulting in “losing” some 2,000 guns.
The Justice Department lied to Congress about the details of the program.
The operation was a ploy by the Obama Administration to scare the public into approving an assault weapons ban.
If only the Armenians and Jews had guns, they could have defended themselves from genocide. This is the ridiculous claim Samuel Wurzelbacher makes in his new ad. "Joe the Plumber," made infamous by the McCain campaign and the mainstream media in the 2008 election season, is running as a Republican in Ohio's 9th district. The video reinforces American exceptionalism, uber-Bush-era style patriotism and the idea that Obama wants to "take away our guns." On its own, this propaganda is disturbing enough. But like anything election-related, it must be looked at in context. These themes are pervasive in Republican propaganda, and the claims in this video will make sense to those who fit these themes into their own ideologies. Just remember the Tea Party (who we hear little about these days ...hmmm), who at the height of their media popularity, were repeating the same themes about guns. Even in the wake of Congresswoman Gabrielle Gifford's shooting in Tuscon, Arizona, mainstream Republicans, particularly Glenn Beck, and Tea Party alike behaved in a most expected reactionary manner: doubling down on their gun rights as well as the notion that guns are needed to defend oneself against a tyrannical government. Exactly the point Joe the Plumber makes.
