Interesting Bedfellows
If, a week ago, I had told you that Kevin Maguire and Richard Littlejohn would agree on something, you would have dismissed me as insane.
Yet, much to my amusement and surprise, this week they managed to set aside their significant ideological differences and unite in the service of a common cause: hatred of Peter Mandelson.
Maguire argued that Mandelson is “a figure who personified a lack of trust in politicians”, and Littlejohn concurs, calling him an “odious, discredited creep”. Likewise they both agree that the appointment was a sign of weakness. The only difference between the two articles is that Maguire manages some degree of restraint, confining himself to a few unfavourable observations, while Littlejohn engages in an extended offensive offensive.
Who said these sort of people couldn’t agree with the other side?
Sphere: Related ContentFraming the Candidates
After Obama’s lashing out at the media’s portrayal of him in the New Yorker, John McCain seems to be keen to jump on the bandwagon. Painfully aware that he is being upstaged in the US and global media by Senator Obama, a problem exacerbated by his foreign policy tour, he has created an attack advert. What makes this attack different however is that it is aimed not at his opponent, but instead at the mainstream media itself.
Set to the tune of Can’t Take My Eyes Off of You, it criticises media pundits for taking an uncritical view of the Obama campaign that borders on the sycophantic. Correspondents talking of getting a thrill running up their leg at the very thought of him make for unsettling viewing. Although it would be impossible to believe that individual correspondents could be totally objective, the level of subjectivity and fawning praise is cause for concern. The job of journalists is to criticise and ask difficult questions, not heap praise on someone for being a smooth talker.
Nonetheless, this may be a move John McCain comes to regret. The problem is in the way his point is framed. In journalistic theory framing theory is the idea that the way in which we make our points affects our perception of the point itself.
As an example look at the Iraq war. To put forwards a pro-war argument you can use two different statements:
1. “The war is not about oil, it is about weaponds of mass destruction”;
2. “The war is about weapons of mass destruction”.
Both statements make the same point, but the weakness of statement 1 is that it draws attention to the oil issue. It framed the argument by reminding people of the criticism. Hence when Obama, rightly or wrongly, complained about the front cover of the New Yorker it backfired by propagating the image beyond the circa one million readers of the magazine, and appearing in nearly every newspaper in the world. Likewise his strong denial of the rumours and innuendo which spawned that cover may actually have made them more persistent.
Likewise this advert by the McCain campaign could end up being an own-goal. It criticises the media for paying attention to one of Obama’s strengths: his charisma. In so doing it reminds the audience of McCain’s own weaknesses in this regard and undermines the overall message. The sight of journalists so effusive about Obama’s personal qualities may not be so concerning for a swing voter but rather a demonstration of his “Presidential” qualities. McCain may regret providing his opponent with such a backhanded compliment.
The footage has a feeling of a message to the Republican Party rather than swing voters. It is also a sign of frustration. Rather than complain about the lack of media coverage from the sidelines however, the Republicans should be rising to the challenge and finding other ways to get their message across.
Sphere: Related Content
