Generational Gap

    

    Media usage continues to increase while the forms of media are ever changing and increasingly advanced. I think it is interesting to consider how this effects different generations. Senior citizens are set in their ways and possibly not as adept at using technology at the same levels that younger citizens can. In addition, I find that older individuals are more likely to take what they read on the internet as truth. That is not an indictment on older people but a reality that is not acknowledged. 

So why does this matter? It matters because it demonstrates how easily influenced some people can be by media. Combine that with political advertising and it's very possible that you have some very confused voters. In addition, I think that it aids in the spread of misinformation. Let's face it, my parents grew up researching from the encyclopedia. Those were considered fact and that is what they used for their research papers, to study, and to learn new information. I grew up finding research on the internet and understanding the importance of using and finding reputable sources to conduct my research. 

    I don't believe this instance points to intentionally spreading of misinformation but it remains something to consider when evaluating the new beliefs and discoveries of the elderly. Again, I have nothing but respect for the generation that raised me and my parents. I have seen several instances of misinformation gathered by that same generation and would be interested to hear the thoughts of those of you that are concerned.

The Added Players to the Political Game

     No Matter your political preferences, I think we can all agree that lying should not be rewarded. Additionally, selling your soul to the head of the party is not ideal. As we have gotten increasingly polarized, each side feels like they can never cross the aisle without being politically persecuted. Why can we not just appreciate working together for the benefit of the constituents? The game of politics used to be quiet and behind closed doors. Now it is wide open.

    Despite the grip that Trump has on many GOP voters, the majority of people rejected his candidates. I think Georgia is an interesting case because Georgia did not embrace the "stolen election" narrative. Our executive embraced truth and prevailed because of it. Governor Kemp was not influence by false media nor the pressure he may have felt from keyboard experts. On the flip side, Kari Lake wholeheartedly ran on a lie and embraced Trump 100%. This is exactly the opposite of finding common ground and doing the right thing. I don't care who it is, our politicians should not be selling their souls to the more powerful politicians. That is how democracy falls and dictatorships prevail. 

    The ability for everybody to chime in with no consequences and maybe people not even knowing who they are has aided to this problem. The increasing amount of "experts: on every issue known to mankind is an issue in itself. Since government and politics touch everything, the opinions and "experts" in the evaluation of this profession run rampant. Additionally, the reactions garnered from keyboard warriors encourage deranged behavior. 

The Battle of the Battle-Tested

     The 2018 Georgia gubernatorial election was extremely tight. Stacey Abrams barely lost and as a result, spent the following years building a political machine for Georgia democrats. It was all but certain in Georgia politicos minds that she was gearing up for a 2022 rematch against governor Kemp.

    Abrams had an uphill battle considering that this election was during midterms of Democrat's first year in the White House. Historically, the incumbent party in the White House struggles in the midterms. Governor Kemp, the incumbent, had a leg up. Since June, Abrams was spending at least $2.2 million a week on campaign efforts mostly relating to media. Political ads were shown every time you turned on your tv or opened your computer. 

    As we continue to evaluate the impact of advertisements/media, the 2022 gubernatorial election is an example that those efforts do not always get you across the finish line nor is media always the driving factor in election success. I would be interested to hear your thoughts?

Georgia Senate Runoff

     

The most recent election for the open senate seat in Georgia is a prime example of how media can influence voters. Political advertisements can be a useful strategy for adversaries in painting their opponents in a particular light. This race was interesting because there is some baggage with both candidates. This seems to be particularly true for Walker, who has had to embrace some of his struggles from the past. Media can even influence how candidates respond to their opponents or how they craft their messaging before. Herschel Walker has embraced being a champion for mental health. His struggles with mental health have been highlighted by the Warnock campaign ads as a way to disqualify Walker from being fit to serve. On the other hand, Walker has attacked Warnock's lack of bipartisanship stating that Senator Warnock has "voted with Biden 96% of the time". Senator Warnock has fought to try and demonstrate the ways that he has worked across the aisle. The messaging by both of theses campaigns is a result of the media that has been displayed about them. I would be interested to hear your thoughts?

The Evolution of Political Advertising

    

     Political advertising in the United States has been around since our inception. From Andrew Jackson's mobilization efforts to William Henry Harrison's log cabin campaign, campaign slogans and advertising have been used in a variety of ways. As technology has progressed, so has the ability to disseminate information. While this is can be good, we increasingly see the dangers of it. President Trump transformed the media to fit his presidency to produce emotional reactions from both his base and his opponents. The hope was that he would receive more positive emotional reactions than negatives. 

    Trump used to brag about the engagement that media got because of him. Even the news outlets that did not like him were getting more interaction. Is this actually a good thing? I don't believe that success is measured by media engagement in this instance. Voters want to be informed on issues and current events, not on who called who a bad name. The media transformed to Trump and then they realized that they do better financially when they are getting more emotional reactions. 

    The transformation of media can also be seen in the amount of digital ads. In 2017, campaigns spent about $500 million nationwide for political ads. The 2022 midterms were projected to be in excess of $9 billion. We have gotten here because money has driven the media, and politicians are driven by voters. As politicians try to get votes, they have found success in using fear to trigger reactions that scare people to the polls. Instead of showing voter the "One shining hill" (Reagan), we are now voting against issues more than for issues. 

Free Speech and the Struggle for Truth in Political Advertising

    

    Today's election cycles are filled with thousands of political ads across the country. Political ads target your emotions and try to get a positive or negative emotion out of you that you will carry to the polls. The best thing you can do is not make up your mind about candidates based on political ads Increasingly, questions arise about the validity of these ads. What can be said? Are there regulations? Can you get in trouble for lying?

    The reality is that just about anything goes. There is the risk of a defamation lawsuit but it won't be settle til after the election and usually those are not worth fighting. You can lie all you want. The voters are tasked with reading between the lines and sifting through the politics to find the truth. Each side yells at the other claiming that they lie, cheat, and steal. Both sides do some of each and mix in just enough truth to stick. How did we get here? Stay tuned for an explanation in next week's post. 

The impact of negativity

 As we learn about how social media impacts candidates, a lot of people assume that negative media is something that always hurts candidates. In reality, there are many scenarios where this is not the case and it can have no impact at all. In particular, the 2016 presidential election comes to mind. Weeks before the election a tape was released where Donald Trump spoke (NSFW) about the perks of being a star and how he can do whatever he wants to women. The comments made sparked an outrage by many and a lot of people though that it may cost him the election. Another example that comes to mind is former President George W. Bush. President bush was arrested for a DUI. He was asked about it days before the election and had to confirm the accuracy of the story. Both of these candidates went on to win their respective open seat elections and become president. Time and time again it is seen that the baggage of politicians often doesn't matter as much as many people think that it does. It may influence some voters but ultimately it motivates the party from which they claim to get out even more. They feel as if their candidates are being attacked and they need to make sure that they get out and vote. It will be interesting to see the decades to come. Smartphones have changed the political game. They cannot hide their misdeeds like they once could and it will be interesting to see how that impacts candidates.