Political leaders have a love/hate relationship with the media. They love getting support and the ability to speak to their constituents and set the agenda, they hate being scrutinized, investigated, and antagonized in public. As a result many have used used technology to circumvent the media in order to talk directly to the people. This strategy is generally referred to as "Going Public." All politicians in the modern era do this to one degree or another and some do it much more effectively than others.
One modern version of going public occurs everyday on Twitter. Take a look at who is active on twitter and who is not. My guess is that most of the national politicians that you know are tweeting pretty regularly. You can also take a look at how politicians use good old facebook here along with going to individual politicians sites.
Finally take a look at how President Obama goes public all the time. You may or may not be aware of the fact that the President makes a weekly address each week (like a modern day fireside chat). Take a look at his latest one (and others if you want) here (click on video gallery under the briefing room tab on the upper left, then look for the most recent weekly address). You can also look around at other ways that he tried to directly connect with the people by going over and around the media.
After looking through much of this use the following questions as a jumping off point for your discussion:
- What do you think are particularly successful examples of going public which are being utilized today by congress? Other politicians? Political organizations? Obama?
- What do you think of the weekly address? Why might this be a good/bad strategy?
- How might you advise politicians who are trying to use the strategy of going public?
One example that stands out to me the most was President Obama’s address on Syria last year. He was able to frame the event using a humanitarian approach highlighting protecting woman and children, not allowing for such gross violations to humanity, etc. This was almost mimicking Bush and his “war on terrorism” calls to action, saying that condoning acts of violence will only lead to more violence. I think this was successful; it drew in much sympathy from the American public and agreement in fighting against genocide and not necessarily that country—almost shifted focus from political to global.
ReplyDeleteThe president highlights the growth in private sector. While all this may seem fine and dandy I feel like the president almost uses this info to build up the economy to something that it isn’t necessarily—that being that it is improving monumentally in a short period of time. Yet, many Americans are yet to feel the benefits of this so called progress. I think this tactic is extremely useful as far as gaining support for his policies, he uses all these facts to prelude into his case to raising the minimum wage, and appeals to a majority of the population stating that “we do better when the middle class does better,” identifying them and effectively gaining their support.
Just as Obama did, I feel that either appealing to a majority or creating an idea that will be widely accepted to create a clear majority is important in going public. This would include effective framing of information to appeal to the norms among society, and targeted audiences.
The most striking example of a successful use of the “going public” strategy would be the one discussed in our reading, the Patriot Act under Bush administration. Indeed, it achieved all purposes: on a policy level, the bill passed; and on an electoral point of view, Bush’s popularity and legitimacy went up. The problem is that such a strategy can only be successful for a political actor that is already preeminent in the “noise” of the media. This is in accordance with the fact that “political power can be translated into power over the media”.
ReplyDeleteTherefore, when we discuss the weekly addresses of Obama, we should really keep in mind that the President does not actually need those to be present in the media, contrary to other actors. In some way, “whining” about the media is an efficient strategy, since the public get the same feeling of an unfair coverage by the media. To appear as a challenger is to win the approval of the public. But truly, the President is already in charge of setting the political agenda. The weekly address can quickly become a risky strategy: it has to be followed by concrete action, or else, the President looks powerless. Moreover, we have to bear in mind that those videos do not have a huge impact. The weekly address I watched had 19 000 views on YouTube, compared to 9 706 080 for Obama’s apparition in Late Night with Jimmy Fallon, as “Obama slows jam the news”… Overall, I would say that traditional media is still the best tool to carry a political message, so the use of “going public” has to be linked with a strategy within traditional media.
This is the first time I have ever watched a weekly address. I identify this being both a good and a bad strategy for the White House. For one, these videos are beneficial because it is an effort to update the public regularly without having immediate bias of news stations. It also holds the administration accountable for acting on the issues that they deem important. After watching the address I looked at how many views the videos typically have. From what I saw it ranged between 28,000-45,000 views per video. I find that pretty small compared to the videos, purely for entertainment, that have over a million views on them.
ReplyDeleteAfter looking at those views, I looked at Obama and the White House’s twitter account to view traffic and frequency of the tweets. Both accounts seem to do a fine job of consistently posting something during the day. Again, I looked at how many people are actually actively engaging with these tweets and I would say that it is significantly lower than Kim Kardashian’s account. I just find this interesting to me because politicians have tried very hard to integrate into social media but for some reason their efforts aren’t as successful as, say, a famous actress or a record-breaking athlete. It may have to do with the idea that the general public just isn’t that interested in politics.
I think Barack Obama, and even Michelle Obama, have done a good job being visible and “going public”. Not only are they present on news stations, but they have tapped into children’s television stations. I know that Michelle has appeared various times on the Disney Channel to talk about eating healthy. The Obamas have been present on several talk shows. I think that has appealed to many voters because it depicts them as personable. It also provides as an opportunity for the president and first lady drop subtle statements about current issues but then reverting back to conversational topics to keep viewers’ attention.
I believe going public through social media is one of the smartest strategic plans any politician could make. Not only is this act often free of cost, political leaders don’t have to worry about their words being twisted around or altered by the media. This form of “advertising” allows politicians to speak directly to their constituents. Because most people have either Facebook or Twitter, voters have the ability to communicate with their officials as social media is extremely interactive. No, Obama probably isn’t going to respond to a tweet, but people get the sense that their opinion is valid and important because someone out there is going to see what they have to say.
ReplyDeleteI also believe it is essential for each politician to own their own individual sites. Websites provide opportunities for affordable information dissemination and reception. Obama has been referred to as America’s first Internet President due to the manner in which his campaign team exploited information technology to interact with voters during campaign periods. The internet enables free flow of information as it is no longer controlled by political parties or news organizations. For campaigners, the availability of information means that parties can deliver access to campaign news around the clock and can update it instantly. Because nearly every American citizen has access to Internet, those interested have the ability to navigate through a political leader’s site and get a solid understanding of what that politician stands for and whats on their political agenda. It provides easy access to those who are interested in researching candidates before they cast their vote.
I had never seen a weekly address before Obamas. It surprised me at first that the President would take the time out of his very busy week to make a video such as this. Then I watched it and realized how beneficial this post is towards his ratings. Not only do voters feel like Obama is speaking directly to them when they watch this, this gives the President ample opportunity to suggest why he is getting things done in the White House. It is not a surprise to me that the President also took the time during this weekly address to place blame on Republicans for there being no increase in the federal minimum wage for seven years. As Democrats are in a precarious situation with midterms coming up, of course Obama would bash his opposing party while he has the chance. Of course there is going to be a certain agenda behind each public post that any politician makes, but I may suggest next time not being as blunt about it.
Circumventing media sources and going public introduces an element of transparency and legitimacy. It conveys a method of communication with the public in ways that perhaps seem more genuine to some when removed from the context of mass media scrutiny. Going public through an outlet like that of the president’s weekly address, I believe is an effective tool in maintaining the idea that it is the public and you the individual that is the target of the address, while removing the potential for supplication to a media presence. The only potential problem that really comes to mind in regard to a weekly address is the pressure of supplying useful, accurate, and practical information consistently in addition to being expected to act on these ideas in a timely and effective manner in order to avoid accusations of perhaps biting off more than the politician or organization can chew.
ReplyDeleteOther methods of going public such as Twitter or Facebook allow interactivity for constituents, or at least interactivity between constituents. These methods of reaching out to the public can also be used to repair a marred public image. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has had a troubled media stint before and after his election in both India and the West, so I thought his presence on both Twitter and Facebook was a particularly telling and perhaps appropriate response in opening up lines of communication and accountability. In summation, careful management of these various interactive methods of going public in a way that allows for maximum accountability and by extension some level of transparency is key to effectively employing this tactic.
If political officials are frustrated with using the press as a mouthpiece to convey their plans to the people, the politicians can cut out the middleman by not informing the media of their decisions. Instead, they could hold conferences in various locations where the citizens of the nearby areas can attend. While there, politicians can answer the questions and concerns the people might have. In addition to that, they could also create their own webpages, controlling exactly what is entailed in each post. Currently, I think the use of a twitter account is a good idea. I also think the weekly addresses are a good idea. It’s another method in which to keep the American people up to date with the President’s goals on his (long-term) agenda. I cannot think of any reason in which this would become a bad strategy. Sure, it will be possible for other countries to view this information, but any information that involves the protection of national security, the president would most likely not share with the American people anyway. To summarize, I think the weekly addresses are a great innovation.
ReplyDeleteI think the best advantage one can have when going public is to have a lot of employees. Since the politician cannot rely on the press to record/ film their speeches or conduct interviews, they’re going to have to have numerous people within the campaigning office hand out flyers or get onto the streets and communicate with the people via word of mouth for every topic on that politician’s platform. By “going public”, the politicians are not only going to need more employees, but also more time (because it will take more time to communicate without media).
For a long time now politicians have been trying to get around the media as they believe the media would muddle the message they are trying to covey. New media outlets such as facebook and twitter have done a very good job of getting around journalists without being initially scrutinized, not just by the media but also political rivals. A good example of this is, and I'm sorry for how dated this is, Obama's announcement of Joe Biden as his VP on twitter. People who followed him learned about this before anyone else. There was no need for a press release which would have wasted time and given the press pre-loaded questions to ask.
ReplyDeleteFor the weekly address, I believe it is a good way for the president to tell the american people what he is currently working on and how the executive branch is reacting to current events. While it may not be a influence or a popular as it was during the days of FDR, (even then it wasn't widely followed), but I think this is a good thing for the president, whoever it may be. It a good strategy to keep his majority still following him, but it doesn't really do anything to gain any new supporters.Those who will want to listen will listen but beyond that there won't be anyone else following him.
I would advise the politician going public to have a lot of new media experts with him, help him manage social media networks and give live stream events such as speeches and questions to those who cannot get into contact with him other wise. A good example of this was the live stream Obama's Google plus live stream Q&A he did a few years ago. This may not be particularly effective for representatives but for senators this could be a good way of communicating with constituents across the state. Making sure to keep up to date with social media is a huge first step in general. Another way of using new media is doing a daily vlog and posting in onto youtube, its a good way of showing who you are as a person instead of putting up a protective front for the press.
Using social media to “go public” is a very good strategy for politicians because they have the ability to control the message directly rather then using a traditional media outlet to frame it. With this direct control they can spread the type of image they want to have and control the way the public sees them. Social media is also a cheaper way to spread their messages to the public. Overall it’s a positive thing for politicians, but I don’t think it is really that beneficial to the voter. I think traditional journalism is a necessary evil because they can expose politicians for who they really are. If we only have a politician’s social media presence to decide whether or not to support them the public isn’t getting the full picture.
ReplyDeletePresident Obama’s use of direct media and social media in his first presidential campaign kind of revolutionized the way politicians interact with their constituents, and I think has continued to use them in a very effective way. He takes every chance to put forward the best image of himself and his administration through these new forms of media and that’s good politics. One big example of this kind of direct contact was the push for young people to sign up for the ACA last year. Obama used the Internet series Between Two Ferns to get his message out and it worked. He clearly has a good team around him and knows how to use the tools of new media to his advantage.
Going public, in President Obama's case, has made him and his administration seem more approachable and possibly more in tune with the needs and wants of the general public. I remember specifically during the debt-ceiling/government shutdown fiasco, Obama traveled around to several cities and held "town-hall" events encouraging citizens to write to their congressmen and urge them to not shut down the government. It happened anyway, but I think his proactive approach might have lessened the overall blow if it did somehow persuade congressmen on the other side of the aisle to come to their senses. Aside from speeches, social media is a huge way for a politician to go public. By utilizing platforms like Twitter and Facebook, politicians (Obama included) are trying to sell themselves without media influence. Most of them do this very well, others to a lesser degree. I think overall, President Obama has done a pretty great job. I agree with Brian, in that he obviously has a good team that takes advantage of new media in order to reach the broadest audience possible.
ReplyDeleteI really was happily surprised to have found out about Obama's weekly address. I'm mad at myself for not knowing that this was a thing! I think it's great. It's an avenue for him, as Commander in Chief, to communicate to people on varying issues that most of us find important.
My advice to a politician that wanted to use social media websites in order to go public would be not to say or post anything that the fact checkers, and people in general I guess, could immediately disprove, discredit, or hold over your head. Post wisely.
I believe that one of the greatest example of a politician going public would be Obama’s weekly address, or members of Congress who use similar tools to talk to those that they represent. It allows the Representative, Senator, Governor, or in this case the President to speak unedited and with complete thoughts to the American people, and is a method that never allows for the opportunity for their words to be taken out of context.
ReplyDeleteAn additional, related method of ‘going public’ that I believe is effective, is when politicians use TV ad campaigns to push for legislation or ideas. A great example in my opinion was when the Obama Administration recently leased the ad for the “It’s On Us” campaign to fight sexual assault on university campuses. It included popular celebrities and used a style that was relatable to viewers, and overall was a way for President Obama to reach Americans without having to go through the media, and push support for measures and legislation the Obama Administration feels strongly about.
The biggest thing I can think of in terms of advice for politicians trying strategies to “go public” would be to ensure that politicians stay relevant to the people they serve, especially representatives and senators who have large, often diverse groups of constituents to report to. By ‘stay relevant’ I specifically mean that when they go to the public through social media, or use ads, and give addresses online, that they use terms and rhetoric that people will be able to understand and relate to; to keep their topics relevant to the concerns of the people they represent, and use interesting methods to keep people engaged. Without doing these things those representatives who ‘go public’ will have very little success, as they might reach out to people, but they will find that people will be unable or will have no desire to reach back.
Rebecka Bronkema
ReplyDeleteGoing public is essential to every politician’s career. It gives the façade that they are being wholly transparent towards the public, even if they are only speaking of superficial topics. Today, social media is the most direct way for politicians to address their constituents, but it may not be the most effective. The younger generations are turning up in droves to vote and becoming more politically aware, but 140 character tweets are not enough to convey to the public a politician’s platform or political agenda. YouTube and other online streaming sites do aid in conveying the politician’s agenda similar to how the fireside chats Franklin Roosevelt had aided his public image, but now more than ever, grassroots campaigning and politics is necessary. In an ideal world, we would be able to sit down and have a small-scale town hall meeting with our representatives and potential representatives to find which one is best suited for a position, but today that is nearly impossible. The public now expects instantaneous news and, with the Internet, can find multiple sources backing up any story, true or false, from all over the world. This seemingly unlimited access to information dampers the effects of political strategies when politicians are competing with celebrities and the funniest clip of the day.
Obama’s weekly addresses are very similar to Roosevelt’s fireside chat; however, they are not nearly as influential. When looking at past weekly addresses, it is clear that very few people know (or care) about them by the number of views. Each video averages about 20,000 views when the “Sad Dog Diary” video has more than 10 million. The concept of keeping the public informed and updated about the current happenings of the White House is politically positive; it adds an appeal to transparency that is often forgotten in politics. If the public were viewing them, the administration could use the weekly addresses to their advantage, but the viewership is just too low.
I think social media is a great example of congress and politicians going public. In this case, politicians have their own following base and do not have to go through the media. The media has no chance of skewing the politician’s words because they are being directly transmitted to the audience. Twitter, Facebook, memos and press releases, these are all acts of the congress person’s or politicians public relations staff or publicist. In today’s society, politicians and congress people are indirectly forced to have a social media presence because communicating with the public is a good way to gain trust and credibility. However, going public cannot and is not the only way that Americans get their information. Especially for skeptics, going public could look like a public relations ploy, while the media watchdog role is more trusting to certain individuals.
ReplyDeleteI am ashamed to say I had no idea about these weekly addresses on whitehouse.gov, and I am willing to bet I am not the only one. For that reason, I do not think this is perfect strategy because not enough American people are watching the weekly addresses. These addresses are a good strategy and are very well executed, however they do not reach the same audience that the media can. Because of this, going public through videos and social media are just a small part of communicating with the public and in my opinion not nearly as successful as the media carrying out the message.
I think the best example of a successful “going public” strategy was George W. Bush’s push for congress to pass the Patriot Act in the aftermath of 9/11. It is a bit astonishing that if you mind your timing and get everyone around you reiterating the same message, you can commandeer the media and win public support, which, in turn gains you the necessary votes in congress. It is also interesting to see how the watchdog media can almost completely disappear in times of crisis. Perhaps, this is when we need them most?
ReplyDeleteI was unaware of the “weekly address” prior to this blog post’s prompt. I thought it was a pretty good strategy for Obama to spread the word about certain issues. Obama is able to address an issue like the minimum wage in a light that highlights his prior successes in office, while appealing to middle class working values. One down side may be how this communication is disseminated. If this video is used as easy packaging by the major media outlets to simply regurgitate, it is a win for Obama. However, if only the persons who visit whitehouse.gov weekly see it, it will hardly make a difference as far as congressional or public influence goes.
Perhaps the one key word of advice that I would offer to politicians going public for strategic purposes is to co-ordinate well with others in your inner and extended circles that may also be covered by the media. If there is dissensus, it makes any objective you wish to pursue easy prey for the media to draw attention to, and eventually pick apart.
In regard to the decision by politicians to "go public", I feel that doing so could potentially be an effective way for people to establish some sort of relationship between themselves and their congressional representatives, whether it be good or bad. Congress currently holds the lowest approval rate in the history of its function, but at the same time the majority of U.S. citizens are unaware of who their Congressperson is. "Going public" may at least slightly contribute to the improvement of constituents' awareness of their politicians aside from media coverage concerning scandals and controversial decisions. Essentially, this practice may contribute to an increased political awareness The more politically aware that United States citizens are, the more likely they will be to utilize their rights as citizens to make decisions that are in the best interest of the country. American society would benefit heavily from spending less time devoting their attention to the lives of celebrities, and more time scrutinizing those who make the decisions that affect our daily lives. Overall, "going public" may contribute towards reducing the degree of disconnect between politicians and their constituents.
ReplyDeleteThis is my advice to a brave politician out there, and a sure way to win over the public (it is gimmicky enough to catch the eye of even those not paying attention to politics). I'd like to see a politician take "going public" to the extreme. I'm talking about full transparency. Hear me out, the politician should where a hidden camera at all times (minus bathroom breaks, of course) so the public can see what is going on. This will pressure politicians to make sure their decisions are made to benefit the people and not someone (or something) else. Brilliant!
ReplyDeleteWell, I know that'll never happen, and there are way too many ethical dilemmas that come with it, but in all seriousness, transparency is not a bad approach. "Going public" means just that, exposing yourself to the public. Social media is a start, but that still feels calculated, which is what these politicians probably do not want.
But seriously, who wouldn't want to see what is actually happening in the Oval Office or War room?
As for the weekly address, I found it to be mostly effective (maybe it is President Obama's smooth operator voice). What I am wondering, though, is the amount of people that access this address? Their should be a better strategy to get these messages out to the public (please no e-mails...) because I feel they come off as positive, and it is never a bad idea for the government to frame themselves as positive.
The government should force networks to play these weekly addresses every Monday night, that way the public can catch them before catching the latest episode of Dancing with the Stars.
I think that there are so many great examples of using social media to “go public” and circumvent the media. Obviously, Obama was mentioned and I think whoever runs his social media accounts is genius. They do a nice job of keeping with his distinct voice, but also making sure to post about a wide variety of political ideas on a daily basis. Al Gore is also someone who stands out in my mind as a successful member of the Twitter-sphere. He’s someone who utilizes Twitter and Facebook to discuss his major platform of climate change and it’s a place for him to make open statements regarding his sentiments concerning the topic. Also, someone I noticed who uses “going public” to sort of redefine his image after it took a hard hit because of a scandal, is Governor Christie. He posts videos and tweets that send out the message that he’s a “good guy” and not the horrible person the media has made him out to be.
ReplyDeleteA weekly address is a phenomenal idea and I wish I had known it was something that happened. It’s a great way for Obama to update citizens on a hot topic of the week or just spend time on a topic that people are curious about. I think it makes the president seem a bit more relatable and like he’s actually closer to his and more in tune with the needs of Americans unlike during his speeches when he feels more distant. The only thing I could see as being “wrong” about this is that I can only imagine he’s not really writing them. It was different with the fireside chat because at least you knew they were being delivered by the president (even though they weren’t necessarily written by him.) But with these blogs, audiences don’t know exactly where they’re coming from.
I would advise politicians who want to “go public” to use a variety of different styles to present their opinions or “news.” For example, using applications like Vine/Instagram/YouTube on their Twitter accounts, will help connect them to the public even further and actually be a wonderful resource.