SchooBlog!

The National Youth Anti-Drug Media Strategic Communication Campaign

While trying to find a campaign that has had a long history of social influence, I decided few disclosed campaigns have been as large and controversial as the campaign against drugs in America. Daily kids and adults are bombarded with billboards, posters, TV commercials, radio commercials, newspaper/magazine ads, and the resulting casual conversations which remind them “drugs are bad.” Because it has been repeated so many times, I remember an element of weak dissonance toward the message when I was a kid. This has seemed to grow over the years due to the commercials being unbelievably irritating. Only in the last year have the commercials become more subtle and relatively believable.

When it comes to defining a strategic communication campaign, the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign is next to the dictionary definition. First, it is a coordinated campaign by a group of individuals. Second, they use media to promote a specific message. Their message is that Americans should not use drugs like marijuana or abuse prescription pills and it is often dramatically shown as a public service announcement (news). This news is meant to sway public opinion, but also to reach specific, fragmented groups of young adults and parents.

This campaign continually targets groups such as those who want to be able to grow medicinal marijuana along with being highly critical of anyone who uses drugs perhaps inappropriately. The fact that only government officials have voted on the laws regarding drugs, shows the campaign also has not allowed any open, democratic compromises. Fortunately for this campaign they often have the media outlets on their side. Public service announcements are relatively cheap and sometimes even sponsored by the news outlet.

Depending on how you view the issue, you may feel the campaign has been ultimately successful, or like me, you may feel that it’s a waste of taxpayer dollars and other public resources. Either way, by analyzing the campaign and understanding its goals we get a fair taste of what strategic communication campaigns are all about. Like many of these campaigns it is all or nothing; there is no search for the truth, nor is there dissemination of research studies backing up the facts. In many ways, this campaign is only a struggle for political power and a way to control the masses. Although it hardly creates a conflict in society and may deter some kids, for a long time this campaign has produced a very negative image of those who do not conform to this groups standards. In our highly mediated society, where few teenagers and parents are left to discern these issues for themselves, I find it imperative that we fully understand and realize the effects strategic communication campaigns have on our everyday lives.

Information gathered from:
http://www.mediacampaign.org/newsletter/fall98/update14.html

Here We Go: Presidential elections and the national media

Other articles suggest a winning image has more to do with the ways in which the campaign feeds information to the media. Because news outlets are businesses, which depends on revenue to survive, they are easily manipulated through the use of media routines. In Mary Stuckey’s report entitled: Here We Go: Presidential elections and the national media, she  explains that political coverage accounts for between 13 and 15 percent of the news stories during an election year. The problem with this is that many of the stories are numbingly homogenous. “Successful political campaigns are generally those that understand and use media routines and derive themes that resonate through them” (Stuckey, et al 2000:99). McCain’s recent campaign has shown incredible success at providing the media with information that can be used for thematic, objective new stories. “Campaign communication has always relied on image and has often been trivial, prurient, and downright shallow” (Stuckey, et al 2000:101).

Like any good competition, strategic communication campaigns continually create a dualistic environment for information to operate within. To this end, negative campaigning is a strategy used by McCain and many prior candidates. By directly attacking the opponents’ image and “going negative” McCain has indirectly proven that he can gain acceptance and possibly more votes. Often negative campaign strategies are executed by directly attacking an opponent’s position on an important issue. “Although it is often said to be new, or at least qualitatively different in recent times, there is considerable evidence that “going negative” is an old practice and has long involved personalization, distortion, and misinterpretation of issues” (Stuckey, et al 2000:101). In 1996 and 2000, Benoit and his team studied the news coverage of political debates. “In both years, the news coverage discussed attacks and defenses more frequently, and acclaims less often, than they occurred in the debates” (Benoit and Currie, 2001:38, 28-39). This helps to explain how emphasis often turns quickly from political discourse to a personal realm making it much easier for voters to clearly assign an image to each candidate, albeit and image constructed by the McCain campaign. For instance, McCain comparing Obama’s celebrity status to Paris Hilton and Britney Spears is completely unrelated to politics and only adds to the competition for coverage.
While pouring through the incredible amount of prior research on campaign image, we found the methods used to project and maintain your image, along with strategically attacking the opponent, critical to the success of any campaign. Further we found several studies that concluded; the ways in which individual members of the public obtain their media coverage along with the system the campaign uses to distribute information, considerably affects the credibility of what is being presented. Overarching themes, such as the ones we choose, along with a thematic context have proven very successful for McCain and many previous candidates. The tremendous amount of information gathered gave us a clear approach as to how we needed to codify, disseminate and compile our research.

Engineering Consent

Along with all of the many benefits of the human brain and mass media, together they allow us to be plagued by the inability to think clearly because of the overwhelming amount of information available. Subconsciously we label everything according to how it fits values and beliefs. When we are consciously being persuaded to behave or think a certain way, a similar phenomenon occurs. If we agree, we show consonance and if we disagree, dissonance. Even if we don’t fully understand what we are being persuaded to do, we put it through our frame of reference to establish our position on the topic. This whole idea becomes extremely crucial when trying to influence or persuade the people.

If we hastily make a decision it is normally because we have strong consonance toward the information surrounding it. If however, we perceive it to be wrong and do not hastily jump to this conclusion, we may end up changing our mind. As we soak up the information and separate it into our bins, or social constructs, we are processing it based on our pre-established beliefs and values. The important factor is that these can be changed and even manipulated to the point were you can go from having weak dissonance to having strong consonance toward an issue.

An amazing example of this can be found in AT&T’s campaign summed up as “reach out and touch someone.” During this campaign, which has now been resurrected with “reach out and touch your iphone,” customers of other phone companies with weak dissonance toward AT&T were tantalized with imagery and symbolism to switch phone companies because of the superior voice quality of the calls. People ended up switching phone companies because hearing someone’s clear, un-muffled voice was in line with family values and advancing technology. Many of these people, who before did not care to use AT&T, became proponents to their family and friends as to AT&T’s superior quality thus rendering them with strong consonance.

In terms of persuasion, those with strong consonance or strong dissonance toward the issue are seen as a waste of time. When persuading someone or “engineering consent,” people like Bernays have been ultimately successful using techniques targeted at people with weak consonance. By establishing a connection between the object or idea and core, cultural and social values, it becomes relatively easy to persuade a large group of people. Often the use of images and symbols are employed for this use, making for a very compelling argument. Fortunately for those of us who understand this concept, we can take a step back and think about whether or not we are being programmed to think a certain way. While we can hardly consider this a conspiracy, it has long been used to mold and control the masses and will progressively become more important as society is fragmented into groups.

Flight from Death

The studies done in the video “Flight from Death” support many aspects of the claims made by both Farhad Manjoo and Stuart Ewen. The key focus of the studies in the film was to find out how emotions lead to irrationality within the human mind. Many theories such as Sigmund Freud’s back up this hypothesis; however, when we bring the element of death in we see an unquestionable reaction. In addition to Freud and Edward Bernays’ theory that people are irrational and driven by sex and violence, this study exhibited that people are also driven by death, religion and nationalism. The study also had some abstract connections with Anthony Giddens’ book- “Modernity and Self Identity;” self-expression was shown to be uniquely tied to modern institutions. The fact that few people in the study would use either the flag or the cross for simple tasks for fear of desecrating them was of utmost importance.

Ewen’s book- “PR!” is a stronghold for understanding the social psychology of America over the last century. As the book discusses both conscious and unconscious emotions, we see that since Freud’s theories were developed, a profession has been built around appeasing the public’s emotions. Much like appealing to the publics unconscious desires to influence their ideas and behavior, the study on mortality subconsciously appalled the minds of its subjects and caused them to react negatively toward anyone with different beliefs.  This study furthers Bernay’s work by showing that not only do emotions cause specific behaviors; personal, core values such as high-context religious beliefs are central to ones behavior.

The films “Terror Management Theory,” the emotional reaction to mortality, also plays straight into Manjoo’s book- “True Enough.” As the subjects of this test proved, even when reminded subconsciously of death (or any strong, negative emotion), people tend to hold more to their individual values and get hostile toward other beliefs. This becomes much like Manjoo’s ideas about consonance and dissonance. Other studies have also been done on the effects of 9/11 with somewhat contrasting results.  Many people (especially in more rural areas) have a tendency toward particularized trust, especially when faced with negative emotions. What was interesting about the aftermath of 9/11 was it instantaneously brought Americans together for the common goal of retaliation. Soon after however, negative emotions along with an overwhelming amount of media fractured the patriotic structures that were built. Manjoo (and Stephen Colbert) do an excellent job of explaining “truthiness” as ability to decide your own reality based on who and what you trust. The studies in the movie provide an exceptional example of this.

Currently I am also studying brain-death and organ donation in a medical anthropology class. Even within the class, there are many opposing views and perceived realities. This has provided me with an up-close and personal view of similar evidence as is present in the film. Two underlying factors that are brought up far more in “Flight of Death” than in Majoo or Ewen’s books are culture and social norms. Manjoo and Ewen focus more on how media outlets and campaigns are shaping America and pose the question: is there any feedback or has America transformed from the democratic, public sphere back into the masses? My answer to this is that human nature, no matter how ugly it can be, will always be at the core. It may be possible to tame and manipulate (as we have seen) but it is the one thing that binds us together.

Daily Briefing #7

By “anointing” Sen. Obama, reporters are courageously showing their bias toward a very important issue. Much like one of the visiting reporters said, by doing this they’re really sticking their foot in their mouth and often it causes problems for the candidate who is being anointed. When remarks like this are made it only works to fuel the fire, few reporters would argue that it is essential to democracy. This tactic seems to actually undermine the democratic process we hold so dearly. In a lot of ways the public is the one to blame however; we continue to soak up the reality that best fits our surroundings. The success of many of the Fox news anchors clearly proves that this is an age of multiple realities and political confusion.

I’ve always seen blogging as a more social activity were people are allowed to share ideas, not facts. I believe we need to define a journalist or reporter as someone who understands how to gather all of the evidence and then publish a piece that will be edited by a knowledgeable editor. Free media may be free but if it doesn’t follow this process it is extremely unreliable. As we continue down the digital road it has become the job of journalists to define himself as a trustable publisher of information on a particular issue. If they are only responsible for creating revenue than they will often have to make unethical decisions and over time I believe the media has a way of regulating itself; unfortunately a large amount of false information is produced in the process.

With this understanding I believe it may be fair for news media to anoint Sen. Obama but as a journalist I would not do it. As we continue to compare and contrast free and open media to ethical media, we run into many gray spots such as this one. It really cannot be considered unfair for someone to make a comment that is opinion based and covered by the first amendment. In my mind however I do feel it is completely unethical and something that can only lead to further confusion. If we want a reliable news media, we need to strive for accurate, unbiased reporting; anointing a candidate before an election is neither of these.