Journalism and American Democracy

While I have been an avid Obama supporter, I was disappointed in his performance as my twitter feed so constantly reaffirmed. While remaining more factual than Romney, his body language revealed his discomfort with the debate. My friends and I joked by pointing out his slow blinks most times Romney spoke – something we often do with people we are not too fond of.

Romney came in determined to make an impression. He did as he planned. While I considered a great deal of his demeanors lacking professionalism, I think they remain commendable being that it helped him win the debate. He was firm in his stances and arguments, and addressed the issues (semi) directly – no candidate really answers the questions directly, that’s just how it is. And by winning this debate, Romney has shown that he is still giving Obama run for his money. Both candidates are on the treadmill of elections, Romney is just on a higher speed determined to get ahead; Obama hasn’t been active since the pictures he took playing basketball. Better get back in shape, Obama, if you want to remain in this race.

But as I think about it: is this Obama’s plan? Does he plan to look weak in the first debate, so Biden doesn’t look so bad – because, let’s face it, he is not as eloquent in public speaking – and, consequently, he blows everyone out of the water in the last debate?

I guess we’ll have to see.

Big Bird 2012!!!

​News coverage of the Presidential race, especially over the past few weeks in the wake of Romney’s 47% comment, has been buzzing with criticism on Romney’s demeanor. The general consensus seems to be that Romney is robotic, detached, callous, with no empathy for the non-millionaire masses, etc etc. Where Obama has secured a place in American hearts, despite his record and promises left unfulfilled in his presidency, Romney is sorely lagging. As Kathleen Parker points out in her article entitled “The Likability Trap” for the Washington Post, “One of the great fallacies of politics – and life – is that one must be liked to be effective…’Like me, please’ has become the operative prerogative of campaigns”. Arguably, the extent to which a candidate is supported by the American public is influenced more by the “warm fuzzies” the public gets from them, and less so by the candidates’ policies.

No doubt Obama knows there is virtually no competition in the “likability” department – the press is overwhelmingly behind him, and his campaign has zeroed in on this. When asked to present his stance on Social Security and Medicare, allotted only two minutes (one of many time constraints which were largely disregarded by both candidates), Obama devoted a significant portion of his time to a personal anecdote about his grandmother. Rather than defend and explain his policies, Obama focused on a story that tugged at heartstrings, drawing the audience in by the intimacy of this story.

Light on the facts, with a side order of mushy, please.

This was no accident – Obama has a team of very smart, strategic campaign managers (as does Romney, I am sure). No doubt he anticipated this question and honed in on the personal, because that’s what resonates with the American public.

If Romney’s main concern going into the debate was winning over those voters who are still on the fence, I think he did a fantastic job, appearing to have the upper hand in most portions of the debate. As one political analyst pointed out in the commentary immediately following the debate, this “close race just got closer”.

As far as “likability” goes, Romney made a few plucks at our American heartstrings, which were feeble at best and potentially offensive at worst. His “Joe the Plumber” anecdotes from the campaign trail seemed more like one-liners thrown into his responses because his campaign manager told him so than heartfelt stories. And his slip-up of referring to underprivileged children as “poor kids” did absolutely nothing to help his callous image – I can just see the advocacy groups’ criticisms now…

However, any doubts about Romney based on personality that on-the-fencers may have had before tonight, in my opinion, should be eclipsed by his clarity, honesty, and justification of policies – the hard facts that Obama seems to have simply left out. Whether Obama wiggled around these details in regards to his own policies, or his defense of them was just not as strong as Romney’s I couldn’t really say. But it is clear that Romney’s frank, direct, candid manner of speaking about his policies closed the “likability” gap considerably tonight.

Only time will tell if this will be enough for Mitt Romney, or if President Obama will see another term.

While the debate is always interesting to watch, this time around I had a much different experience because I chose to simultaneously look at my Twitter feed while watching the debate. Because I use my twitter account to follow mostly political news organizations and journalists, the feed blew up during the debate—everyone had a comment to share and Twitter is the perfect outlet on which to do so. In 140 characters or less people shared opinions, reactions, corrections to the many facts spewed off by candidates, and cracked humorous jokes. Using Twitter transformed my experience of watching the debate. While I still had my own personal reactions to what the candidates were saying, I was also reacting to the things other people were constantly posting on Twitter, and it became a little bit of a political overload.

I was most surprised at the speed in which people’s reactions were posted. Live tweeting was taken to a whole new level—quotes by Obama seemed to be shared before he even finished talking! Forget minute-by-minute journalism, this was news second by second. The benefit was that no part of the debate went uncovered. The downside: the information was hard to keep up with and quickly became overwhelming. Because there were such a multitude of organizations and individuals throwing in their two cents the commentary piled up and quickly became out of control.

However, following organizations such as politifact allowed me to look at the debate in a different light. Instead of taking the candidates words and facts at face value, I really learned how they were framing the issues and at times giving impressions of their positions on issues that didn’t necessarily reflect the truth.

Overall, making use of Twitter during the debate enhanced my understanding of what the politicians were talking about and inspired me to come up with my own opinions about the things they were saying.

My take? Romney clearly dominated, coming in from the beginning with strong answers and relentless support for his position. He did not back down but rather overwhelmed the incumbent president with his background knowledge, statistics, and zingers. Obama’s performance was disappointing; he failed to present his point of view with the confidence that Americans want to see in their leader.  However, the one area where he dominated was that he talked straight to the American people while Romney sometimes lost the audience with strings of facts and history that confused more than they helped. Obama was able to give clear answers and plans that outline success for the future. I would have liked to see him bring up more of the positive progress he has made in the last four years and touch on the issues that could have challenged Romney a little bit more. Unfortunately, he stumbled over his words and seemed to lack a clear train of thought. Romney’s performance showed America that he is still a viable candidate for the 2012 race.

One thing is for sure: the debate shook things up and made for a much more interesting race in the months ahead. Watching it with the iPad in front of me made for a much clearer understanding of the issues and positions of the candidates. I look forward to watching the next debates and seeing how they factor into the results of November’s presidential election.

Many topics and nuanced issues were covered during Wednesday night’s presidential debate, and I had some trouble keeping up with the pace of the discourse and understanding all the details of the issues that candidates Barack Obama and Mitt Romney discussed. In reviewing the debate in my mind, I think some of the biggest takeaways may have come from things the candidates did not say or address, or issues that they let linger. Both Obama and Romney left me with lingering questions about their economic plans, and I wonder if journalists may be most helpful in investigating and reporting on these lingering issues.

For Barack Obama, one important issue that I think he left unaddressed was the notion that his health care plan, popularly known as “Obamacare,” will deliver a significant financial blow to small businesses and damage job growth. In the debate’s segment on health care, Romney was adamant that Obamacare would severely hurt job growth, and I do not remember Obama ever addressing this claim. I think that this may say that Obamacare’s effect on job growth and small businesses may be one of its most glaring problems, and Obama should respond in detail to this issue if he hopes for the public to gain greater faith in his health care plan.

As for Mitt Romney, I felt that he never showed enough specific evidence to show that he had a specific plan for reforms that he would enact to decrease the federal debt and bring positive change to other government operations. On multiple occasions, Obama criticized Romney for not having a specific plan in terms of cuts and changes he would implement in the federal budget and in federal regulations. Romney often responded by saying that he actually did have a plan, or by saying that he couldn’t offer a cut and dry plan right now because he would work on a bipartisan basis to craft specific details. While I think Romney made a strong point in identifying the need to work with both parties to craft specific plans, I think he also should have offered more specific details of cuts and changes he would propose. It’s difficult for voters to simply take him at his word that he will have a focused strategy and plan to make improvements once he is elected. However, Romney could have offered more specifics in past interviews or settings that I missed, and I will be interested to see if more of his specific ideas are revealed in future debates.

It is often difficult to tell who makes the most salient points during political debates, and I think paying attention to important details that the candidates do not address can reveal the critical areas in which candidates need to shore up ideas or clarify their stance or strategy to the public. Hopefully some of the problematic narratives in regards to certain issues that were played out in this first debate will be addressed in future debates and be discussed further by the news media.

“OMG Obama is so cute.” “Ew why does Romney have that look on his face.” These are some of the common comments heard while watching the presidential debate among my fellow hall mates in the basement of Walsh Hall. I will admit, all of my hall mates are women, so these type of responses could be only from women. But as the debate continued I got a text from my father saying, “Obama almost arrogant in look.”

What does this say about the people I was in contact with during the debate? Possibly that they are shallow and only focused on appearances, but possibly that apparences, or how a candidate portrays themselves really does matter. An article I read prior to the debate tweeted by Ezra Klein called Do Presidential Debates usually Matter? Political Science says No. states good looking candidates usually benefit more from debates. Even though this fact may be true, I believe that how candidates portray through their appearance matters more. Noting and judging appearance is not a indication of un-intelligence, yet merely a characteristic of human nature. We are trained everyday to notice and recognize people by their physcial appearance and outward personality, so why wouldn’t we apply this common notion to the presidential debate? Nevertheless, policy still stands as the most important evaluation of a debate, but the fact that appearances matter is unavoidable, even for the most intelligent scholar. So whether you like an appearance of a pompous asshole or the appearance of a down to earth working man, the bottom line is that you like an appearance.

Overall, as much as we hate to admit it, appearances matter. They matter whether for judging for attractiveness or just plain likeability, and even at an institution such as Notre Dame, we cannot escape it.

My first major point of concern as the debate began was curiosity regarding whether the Republican candidate always wears a red tie and the Democratic candidate always wears a blue tie. Clearly I was not the only viewer to ever question this, as there were a myriad of articles about tie color choice in the Republican primaries. However, this speculation could merely be indicative of the lack of newsworthy material in the political aspect of the primary debates. Regardless, in case you, too, wondered about tie colors, here are some references: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/11/gop-debate-red-ties_n_1142039.html or http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/11/gop-debate-theres-more-to-a-candidates-tie-than-meets-the-eye/.

My unabashed contribution to the consumption of soft news aside, before the debate opened, Jim Lehrer stated the fact that average citizens submitted questions for the debate via the Internet. This indicates how very important what we do in this class is, because new forms of technology and communication are increasingly becoming integrated with traditional forms, such as the long-established presidential debate.  The fact that he was the ultimate decision maker in what questions would be presented mirrored the relationship of the public with the media.  While the public has an influential role in driving the kind of stories that are widely presented in the media, journalists and editors have the ultimate power to determine what goes to print or broadcast, informing viewers and readers across the nation.

As the debate opened, Obama acknowledged his wife and his anniversary; I questioned how this would be received.  Obama was really in a no-win position, as if he acknowledged it, it could easily be seen as corny or a ploy to pull at the heart strings of the viewers. However, if he had chosen not to acknowledge it, he could have been regarded as cold.  Ultimately, I think he handled it well, as did Romney who took the opportunity to congratulate Obama, while also infusing a little humor into what would otherwise be a serious evening of policy discussion.

The debate itself was expected, talking points and memorized facts galore. I was surprised by what seemed to me to be a lack of energy and eloquence in Obama, who normally dominates in these arenas.  Overall, Romney appeared to have more concrete plans for his potential presidency, supported with strong facts, which I think was crucial for him being that he has been criticized for just glossing over issues and being a “flip-flopper.”  However, I am looking forward to the fact checks that will surely come today to see whether the facts from both sides of the aisle hold water.  Do I think either candidate blew the other out of the water? No, but I do think that Romney was at least able to ignite some fire in his campaign. The one thing I can be sure of is that I never thought I would hear the words “I love Big Bird,” in a presidential debate. So thank you for that, Romney.

Just when you thought you were going to steal all of the spotlight for your unexpected performance at the first presidential debate…

I’mma let you finish. No, no, Mitt Romney, really, go ahead and finish.

You too Barack, you three extra minutes refuter.

…Jim Lehrer happens and leaves the world scratching their heads wondering “But they never answered your questions. Why did you not follow up?”

Apparently Lehrer and Obama pregamed the event with NyQuil because really, Mitt was the only one who showed up. And thank goodness too, because the party started about five months ago and he’s just now making an appearance.

Mitt Romney owned that debate and there’s just no two ways about it.

He armed himself with specifics and called out Obama when he wasn’t presenting any. Sure, Obama started out with a cute but terribly irrelevant anniversary wish to his wife, but Romney’s first answer listed what he planned to do to create jobs while managing to work in an anecdote about a struggling single mother. Game.

Romney knew what he wanted. He wanted Obama to apologize for the last four years. Obama didn’t have to say “I’m sorry” for that to come out, because he was on the defensive for the majority of the debate. Oh, and somehow Romney managed to call him out for not offering plan specifics – Lehrer’s job – and really, I liked his spunk and audacity for doing so. Ooh, did I just grant him likability and turn Obama’s word against him? Set.

It’s probably here that I should let everyone know that I am an undecided voter in a state where my vote counts. I’m also an absentee voter with my ballot in my room, so I could vote any time I please. There, loaded gun on the table. But in this debate it’s time to move on from the economy – no thanks to Lehrer’s inability to get his questions in – and onto the Affordable Care Act, more fondly known by both parties now as “Obamacare.” Here’s my paraphrased transcript:

Romney: The ACA costs more. You are forced to limit yourself to the treatments they tell you you can have. Businesses say it makes them less likely to hire employees. We should be crafting plans in a bipartisan fashion at the state level where they know what their individual state needs.

Obama: We protect you from insurance companies. This is the same plan Romney enacted in Massachusetts. Everyone can get covered, no restrictions.

Romney: I already said you need to do it at the state level. Also, you can’t work in a bipartisan fashion. I can and I did.

Obama: (Fill in random facts about the benefits of the ACA)

No one expected Mitt Romney to win this debate. Not really. But hey, he managed to turn an issue he was flip-flopping on just months ago and turn it against Obama. And he made me believe it. And I didn’t before.

Match.

It was clear in the first 5 minutes and it was clear in closing statements. Mitt Romney came to play ball. He came ready to impress, looking to ace a job interview. He was crisp, he was clear. Obama, on the other hand, seemed mentally out of shape, years removed from his last debate. 15 minutes in and the President’s body language was already suggesting “Oh crap, I never actually studied for this”. Romney leaned into the debate while President Obama sat back. Twitter noticed too. Tweet polling by major news outlets such as Washington Post, ABC News and New York Times revealed an overwhelming consensus. Romney was running away with it.
To be fair, the live fact-checking showed a different debate, where Romney was losing…by a landslide. But therein lies the problem. Mr. Romney was on stage throwing out numbers, avoiding his plan details, and wrongly accusing the President but all Obama could muster was his same talking points, lauding his own plans. It was weak, it was passive and it was uninspired.
The debate itself has been receiving mixed reviews. NBC anchor Robert Costa enjoyed the minimal presence of moderator of Jim Lehrer. Others, like myself, found it wonky. Romney looked like a bully, talking over Lehrer the entire time. And Obama began taking chips at Lehrer for his lack of moderation skills (“I had 5 seconds before you interrupted me”). Maybe it was Lehrer’s fault, maybe it was Romney being overconfident, either way it hurt the structure of the debate, allowing Romney much more air time and a repetitive cadence of stances. The one bright spot? The awkward mention by Romney on his plan to cut The PBS budget and his silly way to patch it up: “I love Big Bird”. Lies. Well we all know who Big Bird is voting for.
In the end I think Political Wire’s own Taegan Goddard summed the debate up correctly – “Obama missed a big chance tonight. While the fact-checkes may ultimately side with the President in the end, Romney did a better job”