Blog #7: Polarization and Bias

"Liberal" media outlet- Slate:

"Liberal" media outlet- Slate article

"Conservative" media outlet- The Blaze:

"Conservative" media outlet- The Blaze article 

For my "Liberal" media story, I chose a story from Slate.com written this October. In the article, the author discusses how the less known democratic candidates should present themselves in the upcoming debate. For my "Conservative" media story, I chose a story from TheBlaze.com written this past July. In the article the author discusses a group of demonstrators protesting at presidential forum during O'Malley's time on stage. I decided to use stories from Slate and The Blaze based off a Washington Post article that ranked them the most liberal website and the most conservative website. 

 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/10/21/lets-rank-the-media-from-liberal-to-conservative-based-on-their-audiences/ 

 Over all I didn't really see a huge difference in how O'Malley was portrayed in these stories. It was kind of hard to even find relevant or recent articles on O'Malley on either of these sites. I think that definitely confirms what I've learned in my research so far; not many people even know who Martin O'Malley is. The subtle difference I did notice in the two stories would just be the overall tone of the articles. The Slate article is pretty harsh in the sense that it reiterates the fact that, "This [campaign strategy] has gotten O’Malley nowhere. He has zero traction in polls, and he’s still unknown in much of the country". With that, it still had a hopeful tone discussing how this debate was O'Malley's chance to let America know exactly who he is. The conservative outlet on the other hand wrote an article on perhaps the biggest controversy surrounding O'Malley's run for presidency; the death of African-American man Freddie Gray at the hands of Baltimore police. While Slate also featured articles written about this incident, I was also able to find recent articles about O'Malley and his run for presidency. This was not the case on The Blaze. I think the most recent article under the article I chose was from 2012. I think that is unfair and does contribute to polarization in society and in our political system for several reasons. First, if a conservative user is seeking out information on O'Malley, and the only articles they see about him are ones discussing how people are protesting during his interviews due to the death of Freddie Gray, that will probably lead to them to not thinking highly of O'Malley or just not thinking about him at all. I think it's also a big deal because generally speaking, democrats are supposed to be big on fighting racial inequality, racial profiling, and things of that nature. It really looks bad for a democratic candidate who is supposed to posses these liberal values, to be the face behind a "tough on crime" policy that leads to cases of police brutality and poor treatment of black Americans by law enforcement. It's just another reason for conservatives like my great uncle to make facebook posts ending in "defend this liberals". *actual post from my great uncle, occur daily*

Overall if anyone reads either of these articles they're going to learn about the same thing every article says about O'Malley, that he's low in the polls and that he was involved with the tough on crime Freddie Gray controversy. Its hard to learn about a candidate who doesn't have a decent number of diverse articles written about him.

 Resources:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/10/21/lets-rank-the-media-from-liberal-to-conservative-based-on-their-audiences/

Blog #6: Advertising strategy

 The three ads I choose are all from different years, but for the same office (Governor of Maryland). The last video ties everything together chronologically so I thought it was important to include them all. Martin O'Malley was the mayor of Baltimore from 1999-2007 and was elected governor of Maryland from 2007-2015. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_O'Malley). 

The first ad is a 2005 ad that aired during O'Malley's initial run for governor of Maryland. In this particular ad, the strategy of choice is mostly candidate-positive. The ad features multiple people giving their positive testimony of all the wonderful things O'Malley did as mayor of Baltimore. At the end however, one of the men giving testimony makes a comment about "don't believe those negative attacks from [incumbent] Bob Ehrlich, they're pure partisan politics" which is in a way, a passive-aggressive go at an attack ad. The primary focus of the ad is on O'Malley and how great of a job he's done as mayor, but then at the end they get sneaky and bash Ehrlich (in a pretty polite way honestly). I think this ad could also count as a sort of image defense ad. The man in the ad states that there are negative attacks on O'Malley, so I think this was their attempt to once again highlight all the positive things about O'Malley's image in order to forget about the possible negatives.

The second ad I choose is an ad from 2006 (also aired during his initial run for governor of Maryland). This ad to me is the combination of a candidate-positive and an issues ad. In the beginning of the ad, people are shown with text across the screen saying things like "we want...A better stronger Maryland" "we want...affordable healthcare". With this, O'Malley and his campaign are addressing the issues he plans to deal with in Maryland. Then the video transforms to saying things like "we deserve.." and "we need...leadership that works" and "he believes..." and "we believe..." with images of O'Malley in the background. Are you putting things together yet? O'MALLEY BELIEVES HE IS THE ANSWER TO SOLVE ALL OUR PROBLEMS AND CAN GIVE US WHAT WE NEED AND DESERVE!! 

The third ad is the longest and most moving in my opinion. This ad says it was published in 2013 but I'm not entirely sure its purpose as O'Malley had already been re-elected as Mayor in 2010 (so when it actually aired, I'm not positive of). However, the ad basically follows O'Malley's journey through the public office and reiterates how awesome he is and what they've already told us 685987 other times. This ad however, focuses a lot on issues and how he's addressed those issues during his time in office. The ad presents all the awards he's been given and all the statistical change hes made during his time in office. It points out that real change can only be tracked by statistics, and O'Malley has all the statistics to back it up. Overall, the ad is just very high quality and very emotionally moving. The video and images themselves are super clear and fitting, the music in the background fits perfectly with the images and the voice over. You can tell a lot of time and money was spent on it. If I saw this ad, I would think O'Malley was god's gift to earth.

I think all of these ads chose to use candidate-positive strategies, image strategies, and issue strategies due to the fact that they work for O'Malley. All his ads are pretty similar to me, but they work seeing as he wins every time he runs for an office. It's hard not to believe something that has statistical evidence (for most people), and O'Malley is all about tracking statistics so he can pretty much just brag about himself in all his ads. He shows he is dependable and honest with what he can do to fix issues by showing people the statistics. That combination of positive image and honesty about issues, I think is really powerful in a time where many people view politics as tainted. It's hard to know whats true, what's false, and what has been manipulated in politics. O'Malley really makes his viewers feel like this isn't the goal of his campaign. Overall all the ads are just very positive. I think that something else that is refreshing to see.

In other news, here is what buzzfeed has to say about Martin O'Malley:

Sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_O'Malley
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mb2FBF7Pwo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=an6TXUV8XjU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPqEg3Xh7xg 
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/we-need-to-talk-about-martin-omalley#.eywadJgOW

Martin O'Malley and the polls

The poll I chose to look at was the 2016 Democratic Presidential Nomination Poll from RealClearPolitics.com. Based on Martin O'Malley's exclusion from MANY polls I looked at, and his lack of a strong presence in this poll, I think it is pretty clear what story is being told; Martin O'Malley is not looking like the democratic front runner. Hey, at least he's not dead last, right?! At this point, it is pretty clear that that Martin O'Malley is still in the shadows of the three Democratic candidates. It would appear in this poll that O'Malley has a very big mountain to climb. We are talking Mount Everest. The good news is we still have time, as we are still more than a year out from the election.

The main thing I think we can learn from polls done over a year before the election is that they can, and sometimes do shape outcomes AND that they can change! Although it is definitely arguable that these poll results are "true" or that they hold much weight, you can not deny that poll results such as these shape the conversation. That can be good or bad. If I as a voter, I knew O'Malley was my candidate of choice and I saw these poll results, I may begin to panic. When you look at poll results and 100% believe them, you would read this and think "There is no hope for O'Malley. I need to start researching a different candidate that has more potential to win that I can still agree with." As a voter, you want a candidate that can most accurately represent you and your beliefs. If you know your candidate of choice is not going to be a front runner, you might shift who you plan to vote for since you still want your candidate to represent you and your beliefs most accurately. I think that is the most influential way polls can shape outcome. As the book states, "America is rightly guided by its polls," (Larry Powell, 184). I would definitely agree with that. It can almost turn into a self fulling prophecy in that sense. The second most important factor in polling this far out is that A TON can happen in a year. Candidates responses and behaviors to things that happen in the future can definitely sway voters opinions of them. And even then, people can vote differently than how the responded in a poll. Only time will tell!

On an unrelated note, I promised in one of prior blogs to update you on O'Malley's snapchat presence once he started posting things...THE TIME HAS COME. Here is what O'Malley's snapchat has looked like lately:

 Working out and prepping for a debate? OK!!

Admit it, you laughed... "Just chillin' in Cedar Rapids!"

Martin O'Malley as a debator

 Unfortunately, it was somewhat difficult to find a video that really encompassed Martin O'Malley's most recent debate style. However, after searching high and low for a debate video, I decided this one was the most useful.  In this 2012 video, Republican governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana and Democrat governor Martin O'Malley of Maryland "face off on the economy, health care, and the 2012 election". 

From what I have observed watching various debate videos, O'Malley takes a similar factual/statistical approach most of the time. I think this approach both works to his advantage, and also sets him up to be challenged. The thing about statistics is that there are always statistics working against you. No matter how many statistics you ramble off to support your claim, there are always about five more that support your opposer's claim. 

In the video, the first topic the governors debate over is the less than satisfactory economy and the unimpressive amount of jobs that were created in the second half of the year. O'Malley is essentially asked to defend president Obama on this fact and he takes a very familiar route, by talking about the "facts". O'Malley states, "No one can argue the fact that last year we created more jobs than were created in all 8 years of George w. Bush." I think that is obviously a very important fact that needs to be given to those who oppose Obama and complain about the President not fulfilling his promises. However, it just does not serve as useful as Republican Bobby Jindal follows O'Malley's quote by stating "well lets actually look at the facts, the whole 4/3.5 years Obama has been president we've lost nearly half a million jobs." 

I think O'Malley does a great job of having a fact or statistic ready to back up almost anything he says in a debate, but the thing is, every candidate has a fact or statistic ready to back up theirs too. I think he does a poor job of being as assertive and aggressive as his republican competitor in debates. At one point you hear O'Malley mumble "not true" to something Jindal says, but he never really elaborates on it. However, there's another point in the debate with Jindal continues to talk over the debate mediator just to finish stressing a point. It just seems like the level of assertiveness in the conversation was off at points. 

If I were a campaign advisor, I would encourage O'Malley to work on his emotional appeal. I think for a democratic candidate, he argues a lot like a republican--incredibly factual and in a circle. It's a ton of blaming and dismissing what the other person has to say by stating your own statistic, which I don't find very useful. I think asking his opposer about their views and motive behind certain stances is way more powerful. Simply stating facts removes any personal aspect from the discussion. At the end of the day, we are voting for a human who will have to use complex thinking AND feeling to address issues, not a computer who simply operates off of numbers that lack any real context. I think its 100% important to have proof or have facts, but everyone needs to chill. We get it, you memorized a ton of statistics that work in your favor before this debate--show me you care about me as a voter for more reasons than just that you want to be able to prove your point by making me a statistic. 

Obviously a hot topic is always going to be economy and money. However, social issues have been taking the stage recently. I know money makes the world go round, but its the same argument every time--everyone wants more money. Its just an issue that can't be solved for every American, someone will always lose or be unhappy. So I would say lets make sure to focus on issues that are for the greater good for everyone. Social issues are something that everyone is talking about lately, and young people are able to easily get involved with social issues so discussing them can help young voters choose a candidate better.