POLITICAL MEDIA: Calling the definitive political balls and strikes and influencing the public’s opinion in this emerging and developing era of new media

The Lead

Our conversation centers on the realities and dynamics of news, coverage and commentary in politics, and the influence of political media on the public’s opinion in this era of new media.

Quote

This article was inspired by a piece on Dr. Melissa Harris-Perry, the newly minted weekend host on MSNBC, and her clear frustration with how the media covers politics.

During her Sunday show, Harris-Perry discussed what she called “a dirty little secret” that those who cover “horse-race politics” like to keep under wraps. “We are suffering from premature speculation,” Harris-Perry said.

The 2012 Republican primary race has taken many sharp twists and turns. Harris-Perry showed headlines from leading news organizations that reflected the Republican primary’s constant change of course. Headlines read “Herman Cain, Frontrunner,” to “Another Poll Confirms Trump As Republican Frontrunner,” to “Ingraham: Perry Should Drop Out.”

“Headlines like these…expose the media for its secret wish to skip the foreplay and get right to the main event,” Harris-Perry said. “And it’s all left me very frustrated.”

SOURCE: Melissa Harris-Perry: The Media Suffers From ‘Premature Speculation’ (VIDEO) HUFFINGTON POST

Our Take

Mainstream media is doing its job as best it can in this new area of media the dynamics of which are changing nearly every news cycle of the week because of the impact of digital technology, blogging and the 24 hour news cycle.

There was a time when the media took the lead in shaping policy and influencing the public’s opinion. Thus, for example, when some of the giants of the media such as David Brinkley or Mike Wallace or Tom Brokaw aired a story and articulated a viewpoint, that view had some shelf life. It influenced the coverage of political news for several weeks, and over time influenced opinions, policy decisions and outcomes in political contests.

But, the good old days of political media and its influence in shaping public opinion are gone.

Today, a Dr. Melissa Harris-Perry can air a scholarly commentary on an important issue of public policy or a significant development in politics, and within minutes it can be shredded, and then lost forever in the court of public opinion. An attack can be mounted in minutes by bloggers; disseminated worldwide on the Internet within a few more minutes, and by the time of the talk shows on radio, TV and the Internet within hours on the same morning, afternoon and evening of the news cycle, be distorted and discredited.

So, Dr. Harris-Perry, we understand your frustration. But, the playing field and dynamics of political media have changed dramatically.

To be credible, informative and sustainable in today’s environment as a political analyst and commentator, you and others in the media will have to call the balls and strikes well before you step up to the plate, and well before you would have done so before the evolution of digital technology.

“And, that’s the way it is.”

 

CONGRESS: constitutional amendment introduced to overturn Supreme Court decision allowing unlimited corporate spending on politics

Lead In

The Supreme Court ruled last year that corporations are persons, for the purpose of the First Amendment, which have a free speech constitutional right to tap corporate treasuries and spend unlimited corporate funds on politics. A constitutional amendment has been introduced in the House to overturn the decision.

Image via Wikipedia

Justices of the Supreme Court

The Amendment raises several important policy questions: (a) whether corporations will voluntarily limit their political spending in the 2012 Elections until the fate of the Amendment is resolved by Congress; and, (b) whether the candidates for President will voluntarily impose contribution limits on corporate contributions to their campaigns?

The political question is whether introduction of the Amendment is, as stated in the article, “one of the greatest signs yet that the 99 Percenters are having an impact” on national policy.

Media Quote

*  *  *Rep. Ted Deutch (D-FL), a member of the House Judiciary Committee, today introduced an amendment that would ban corporate money in politics and end corporate personhood once and for all.

Deutch’s amendment, called the Outlawing Corporate Cash Undermining the Public Interest in our Elections and Democracy (OCCUPIED) Amendment, would overturn the Citizens United decision, re-establishing the right of Congress and the states to regulate campaign finance laws, and to effectively outlaw the ability of for-profit corporations to contribute to campaign spending.

Source: Read THINK PROGRESS

Background

The decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is unprecedented in American jurisprudence and national politics.It  could unleash unlimited corporate expenditures of treasury funds into the political process without any comments by shareholders. That could result in billions of dollars of heretofore untapped and unavailable corporate cash pouring into elections.

One view is that the full impact of the decision, authorizing an unprecedented and historic expansion of corporate political advocacy directed at policy decisions, and to the election or defeat of candidates for political office, could be devastating.

Another view, as articulated by Dr. Stephen R. Weissman, a former associate director for policy at the Campaign Finance Institute, is that the “decision is unlikely to change the political situation on the ground very much.” Read Los Angeles Times, Opinion (January 28, 2010).

MJB’s Take

The decision in Citizens United could usher into the mix new era campaign  technologies, communications strategies and fierce rapid responses by savvy politicians to hits from corporate sponsored political ads on a range of policy issues some of which may not directly concern the business operations of corporations.

Corporations will raise their profiles, advocate and engage in politics by hitting politicians for their  positions on policy issues. Politicians in turn will intuitively respond and hit back.

Increased corporate spending for political advertising will generate significant mainstream political media coverage of the controversies. The coverage in one sense may heighten the public’s interest; but, in another sense, the coverage will diminish the quality of the information disseminated to the public by the media which generally should empower them to take part more effectively in the political process by acting on what, but for the portal to portal coverage of controversies, otherwise would be unbiased and quality information.

Of course, the clear rebuttal to that argument is that heightened public interest is a good thing because it expands the base of stakeholders in the game on the political playing field. Hence, the political take from the Occupy Wall Street movement which is apparently grafted into the title of the proposed Amendement.

In addition, it can be argued that the more intense the controversies, the policy debates, the attacks on politicians and the  media coverage, the better for the political process in general.  Savvy politicians and candidates for political office can take advantage of the new-found field of political play, expensed for the most part by corporate political money, and prosper.

The clearest example to illustrate the point is the low-budget but effective campaign by Herman Cain. Cain was able to use low-budget campaign tools, campaign strategies and the Internet to fight back against a barrage of mainstream media coverage, which for the most part was negative; take part in the debates on policy issues; and, position himself as a contender to be taken seriously for the GOP nomination.

Certainly, there will be  legitimate concerns expressed about the possible corrosive influence of corporate political money on policy making and the outcomes of elections. But, good politicians should be ready to hit back if they are attacked just as Herman Cain has been able to do by employing new media tools and strategies.

Related Coverage & Web Articles

• Democrats seek to overturn Citizens United via constitutional amendment (shortformblog.tumblr.com)
• ‘Citizens United’ Fight: Constitutional Amendment Against Corporate Cash Introduced By House Dems (huffingtonpost.com)
• The Guy Who Proposed Amending the Constitution to Overturn Citizens United Faults Senators for Trying to Do That (reason.com)
• Rep. Deutch Introduces OCCUPIED Constitutional Amendment to Ban Corporate Money In Politics (stevebeckow.com)
• Citizens United Going Down? Democrats Introduce Constitutional Amendment To Overturn Ruling (brandtstandard.com)
• Editorial: Even Worse Than Citizens United (nytimes.com)
• Brad Smith: Another Attack on Corporate Speech (online.wsj.com)

Corporations may not necessarily be anxious to begin spending corporate treasury funds on politics because of the uncertainty whether the Amendment will be passed and adopted by the States paticularly if the spending decisions lack shareholder approval. Shareholders are bound to sue executives should such spending decisions be made.

Candidates may need to consider voluntarily imposing limits on corporate contributions to their campaigns. Although the expenditures in question technically are independent expenditures made without input of campaigns, the court of public opinion is bound to connect them. So it may be better for candidates to get in front of the issue and potential controversy by initiating voluntary measures.

Among other things, the movement of the 99 Percenters could have influenced the decision of the Representative to introduce the Amendment

.

End Notes

Thank you for visiting the site, and reading the content.

Please feel free to ask questions, make comments, or reply to any of the questions or comments posted.

Generally, we will respond to all questions and comments.

 

Coke a $13M parks contributor complains; parks boss disposes of bottle ban

Story:  The National Park Service  freezes proposed government regulatory ban on the sale of disposable waters battles in the Grand Canyon National Park after Coca Cola complained.

Coca Cola had contributed $13 Million to the national parks.

Image credit: Richard Perry/New Tork Times

MSNBC.msn.com referenced a New York Times report (quote)

Weary of plastic litter, Grand Canyon National Park officials were in the final stages of imposing a ban on the sale of disposable water bottles in the Grand Canyon late last year when the nation’s parks chief abruptly blocked the plan after conversations with Coca-Cola, a major donor to the National Park Foundation.

Stephen P. Martin, the architect of the plan and the top parks official at the Grand Canyon, said his superiors told him two weeks before its Jan. 1 start date that Coca-Cola, which distributes water under the Dasani brand and has donated more than $13 million to the parks, had registered its concerns about the bottle ban through the foundation, and that the project was being tabled.

xx   xx   xx

He added that “reducing and eliminating disposable plastic bottles is one element of our green plan. This is a process, and we are at the beginning of it.”

Source of Quote:  Felicity Barringer, “Parks Chief Blocked Plan for Grand Canyon Bottle Ban,” NEW YORK TIMES

Undue influence: Of course not! The NYT story notes (quote):

Neil J. Mulholland, president of the foundation, said that a representative of Coca-Cola had reached out to him late in the process to inquire about the reasons for the water bottle ban and how it would work.

“There was not an overt statement made to me that they objected to the ban,” Mr. Mulholland said, adding, “There was never anything inferred by Coke that if this ban happens, we’re losing their support.”

A spokeswoman for Coca-Cola Refreshments USA, Susan Stribling, said the company would rather help address the plastic litter problem by increasing the availability of recycling programs.

Limiting personal choice:  Don’t want to do that! The NYT story continues (quote):

She also characterized the bottle ban as limiting personal choice. “You’re not allowing people to decide what they want to eat and drink and consume,” she said.

A big waste problem:  Sure seems to be! The NYT story continues (quote):

Discarded plastic bottles account for about 30 percent of the park’s total waste stream according to the park service. Mr. Martin said the bottles are “the single biggest source of trash” found inside the canyon.

Concern for public safety: What? The rest of the NYT story (quote):

[Parks ChiefJon]Jarvis said that he had not heard of the ban until Nov. 17, and felt that an action by Grand Canyon park would have more impact than Zion’s. He added: “My decision to hold off the ban was not influenced by Coke, but rather the service-wide implications to our concessions contracts,and frankly the concern for public safety in a desert park.”

MJB’s Take

>  Government environmental policy and waste regulation at it’s best!

> “Things Go Better [For] Coke!”

Other Web Coverage

     >  Coca-Cola Successfully Pressured Grand Canyon Into Abandoning Bottle Ban  (businessinsider.com)

     > National Parks Chief Blocks Plastic Bottle Ban At Grand Canyon  (naturalhistorywanderings.com)

     > NYT: Did Coke get Grand Canyon bottle ban axed?  (msnbc.msn.com)

     > Report: Bottle Ban Ended After Talks With Coke  (abcnews.go.com)

     > Report: Bottle ban ended after talks with Coke  (sfgate.com)