Alicia Ward

This segment is being discussed now because the presidential election is 3 weeks away. Citizens of America are focusing on the presidential election. We are also recognizing and examining how the media is used to help or hurt a candidate. The media plays an important role in how our society sees each candidate.

To answer the question of who care, I personally think that a lot of people’s views of Arnold Schwarzenegger have become changed a lot within the past year. I think that what Arnold S. did was pretty amazing. Take a look at his personal background for a moment. He went from no experience in politics to the governor's office of the largest state in the United States. For the past year he has been the governor of California and therefore holds a lot of responsibility.

And he did it by focusing on the entertainment media rather than the traditional news print media. His method of going on radio talk shows and appearing on television shows grabbed a lot of people’s attention and personally I think has worked well. He went on the Oprah show and the Jay Leno show to get the message across that he was running for governor and what his points of view were.

One main point in this segment is the way Arnold approached as running for governor. Arnold S. transformed himself from the ‘Terminator’ to the Governor by taking a unique approach to marketing himself and his image to the voters of CA. His approach was to use entertainment media rather than the traditional news media such as press releases, reporter interviews etc. In most cases, a candidate is hungry for any type of media coverage and attention they can get. Usually candidates will accept interviews whenever possible to get as much free press coverage as possible. Candidates for local and state offices usually can't get as much press coverage as they'd like whereas presidential candidates like Bush and Kerry. Both Bush and Kerry can get interviews and press coverage when and wherever they go. Arnold created a 'media machine' that got him coverage close to what you'd see for a presidential candidate. And what I found very interesting was mentioned in the segment about how Arnold’s staff treated him like a 'brand' and as a 'brand' he should not be overexposed. So they were very selective about when he would be on air or interviewed and with whom.

Another main point of the segment is Arnold’s viewpoints towards certain things. Initially Arnold had a very strong and firm point of view on how to cut spending. He also charmed and mesmerized a lot of people in Sacramento. Arnold worked his charm to help himself get elected. Once elected he realized that he had to do some compromising to get things done so his hard line spending cap became much softer. The final state budget was a softer "Balanced Budget Amendment" rather than his original spending cap. So basically even Arnold, the governor of California, had to compromise to the system to get his budget passed.

Arnold changed the way the media was used to enhance his opportunity to become governor and his immense popularity is bringing a great deal of attention to California. Many people are interested in particular what Arnold and his administration is doing in Sacramento and the efforts being made to help the state of California.
His quick transformation from political inexperience to one of the most important political positions in the country was due to his celebrity talent but also to a unique way of using entertainment media to gain publicity around himself and his run for office. It will be interesting to see if what he did will change the way others use the media to run for office.

In a time of presidential elections this is a rather interesting story about how someone approached the situation and decided that he would not follow the normal through the print media process. He instead went on a bold new path using what he was familiar with - entertainment media.

I have several thoughts on the one about Bush addressing the UN in the On The Media segment- World on Bush on World. The article stated that Bush addressed the UN for about 24 minutes and used that time to pretty much defend his position on attacking Iraq. One could argue that he should have spent some time on addressing why he made the decision to attack Iraq and then spent the majority of his time invoking support from the UN and its member countries to help stabilize the country and get the Iraqi people back to a more normal lifestyle. To help them get farms producing food; to get schools back in condition to support education. - Communications is sometimes a two-way sword - on one side Bush is trying to be firm and consistent in his messages and thereby win the support of US voters by convincing Americans that he is not soft on terrorists. On the other hand, he is scaring some heads of foreign countries because the fear he will not be flexible or reasonable in modifying his position on Iraq. So being firm can have both a positive and a negative effect - depends on who
is hearing the message and what their point of view is. - Bush often comes across as unwilling to admit a mistake or to modify his position as more or new information becomes available. Being firm is important but being flexible is also important.

Kerry on the other hand has the opposite image problem. He comes across as being too flexible and changing his mind on important matters. - An interesting point was made in that article when one of the speakers indicated that if Europeans were voting for the US President they would vote 6 to 1 in favor of Kerry. He then said that if American voters knew how popular Kerry would be with Europeans, it would hurt Kerry in the US because many people in the US might think that the Europeans are too soft on terrorist and like Kerry because he seems less aggressive than Bush. - So the net message I got out of the article is how important communications is in forming opinions and gaining or losing support. It underscores the fact that you really have to work carefully to deliver a message that works well with people who support you as well as people who don’t support you. Bush needs to say what he wants to say in a manner that reflects conviction without conveying a message of being inflexible. He needs to deliver a message that says we will do what we think is necessary to protect our country and we'll do it alone if we have to but that we really would like to get support from the rest of the free world.

I think the key issue in this article is that the presidential candidates with better communication skills than Kerry or Bush have gotten beaten in elections because of mistakes made in the presidential debates. It is important for these candidates to do well during the presidential elections. Millions of Americans are watching and keeping close contact with the presidential elections. -The article suggests that Kerry needs to say what he wants to say in a very clear and concise manner to get his message across. He needs to avoid his tendency to run on with too many words. It will be interesting to see how each of the candidates responds to the various questions and how they overall perceive themselves. The article also speaks about Bush needs to avoid saying something that either doesn't sound right or can be interpreted the wrong way. He sometimes trips up on his words or phrases. His words of choices are very important and need to be looked at in depth. Interestingly, some of Bushes mistakes make him sound more 'normal' and the fact that he himself jokes about his own mistakes makes it easier for us to accept the mistakes without judging him to harshly. This is something that I personally found interesting. So once again, communications is key and live television is the most powerful way of communicating your position on things to a large number of people. Mistakes or conveying the wrong attitude on national TV can be the end of someone's political chances. Therefore these presidential elections are important and very crucial. - The TV media and the presidential debate format can help a candidate enormously or can kill him/her almost instantly.
To view this article go to the following website:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usatoday/20040930/pl_usatoday/wordsmayfallshortindebate
(article:Words may fall short in debate)

Colin Powell is a very high ranked individual in the United States. Within this article Powell called the problem occurring in Dukar as genocide. That is how he described the situation.

Genocide is generally looked upon as the most extreme form of behavior. The Holocaust is an example of genocide. In referring to genocides it is when the ruling government tries to eliminate a whole group of people. It means basically to ‘get ride of’ or ‘wipe out’ a segment of people.

The news and media is beginning to make news all around the world. When this occurs the society starts to expect some sort of outcry. When media provides and informs us with news from around the world, several questions develop. You begin to think about the correct actions to take and often times the government as well as the society is pressured to take the appropriate action. What those actions are are questionable.

The media, especially television has the most opportunities to create an impact on the world. It also plays a strong role of changing behavior. I think that these high ranked and powerful people realize that and that is way they make it harder for the US to get information.

Many ask why some information takes so long to get to the United States. Something we must realize is that it is difficult to get a Visa, which allows you to travel to foreign countries. Then once you get the Visa there are restrictions to where you are able to travel. Also there are risks that are involved in retrieving information and gathering materials. Often times reporters, cameramen, journalists etc. place themselves at risk and even possibly risking their lives. Take for example today there are numerous people reporting on the wars and providing us with war coverage. Many places do not want reporters and television cameras present, especially if that area has crimes being committed. Think about it- if you were committing crimes the last person you want in your presence is reporters or journalists and/or television cameras! They don’t want the media to take action!

Countries that have problems such as these had high ranked people who are completely aware of what is going on. They therefore place restrictions and limitations on accessing information and/or coming into their territory. The United States has excellent media and news coverage because we, as United States citizens, are able to access information and not many restrictions and limitations are present.

Images have a huge impact on the society. Take for example the photographs taken within the Iraqi prisons. These photos show prisoners been abusing and in horrible conditions. Obviously photographs, images and television cameras capture the ‘truth’.

The term genocide is not usually used and is rarely used by a high ranked person. I personally believe that Powell used this word in particular to get a reaction. Right now I think that the world is in a way ‘numb’ to what is going on daily. Each day there are numerous crimes being committed, attacks and bombings, and more people dying. I think that after a while of this, people including myself become ‘numb’ to everything.

By using this term, Powell got everyone’s attention and caught him or her by surprise. It was a good way to grab the audience’s attention. Because Powell is a very powerful person in the US, he knew that he needed to use his power o address a serious problem that is occurring today. His way was effective to drawing attention to a serious particular problem in a foreign country.

Oprah Winfrey Gives Cars to Audience, which you can find at the following website: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040913/ap_on_en_tv/people_oprah_s_surprise
I actually thought that is news article delivered a pretty amazing story. I can only imagine how much it meant for those people who probably could only dream of owning a new car. Oprah gave each member of the audience a brand new car from General Motors. This created a lot of talk amongst the community.

I honestly really like Oprah and it is a show that I occasionally watch. I think most people would agree with me when I say that Oprah is a woman of great wealth. I believe she has the power and/or influence to provide something of great value to the less privileged. I truly respect those actors and actresses, entrepreneurs, athletes and those who are wealthy that help contribute to charities or help the less fortunate.

In various cases Oprah uses her own money to provide support to the less fortunate and in other cases she uses her influence to get large corporations to help those in need. I personally think that she is a great person for caring for others and going out of her way to help individuals and families within the society.

Oprah’s show can be used as an example of how communications can help get people to do things. For example, Oprah communicates the need to Pontiac. General Motors realizes that this
could be good for them as well because by giving away some of their Pontiacs on Oprah's show they earn a great deal of public support and awareness. General Motors also recognizes that this could be a great opportunity for them to get the public’s and audience’s attention. Other means of communication, such as TV and newspaper coverage make the whole deal very attractive to General Motors.

Everyone in the end comes out to be a winner. The people in the audience all received brand new cars and were obviously happy. Oprah herself is happy because she has been viewed as a terrific person through her daily afternoon show. And General Motors is happy because the show created a good image for them. Everyone likes a good ending!