Popular Politics

Popular Politics

Media and Politics

That media popularity has become an important aspect of the life of a politician is an undeniable fact. In a world where status is first priority and everything else comes second, this is also the case in politics I mean, how could it not be?
If you want the votes of the population, especially the younger part, it is highly recommended that you try to get their attention through some sort of media.
As the appearance in the media become more and more crucial any errors are equally devastating, even small ones. Even a tiny thing like one politician briefly looking at another politician’s ass can be turned into a big deal by the media and applied many meanings. Suddenly the poor politician is accused of all kinds of stuff. During an election campaign this could prove to be the key that turns the tide resulting in defeat. Knowing this you can’t really blame politicians for hiring consultants known as spin doctors. For those of you who don’t know the purpose of these people it is to advise (find the verb) the minister on how to come out trustworthy, overall just to appeal to the public and, most importantly, to avoid standing out in a negative way.

2 Spin Doctors Per Minister

According to an article on politiken.dk the top ministers will henceforth be allowed to have 2 spin doctors paid by the state, in other words, paid by the individual citizen. One might ask oneself; is that really what you want your tax money to fund? Couldn’t this money be used much more effectively elsewhere in terms of helping Denmark as a nation? 23 high salaries, that’s a lot of money. Furthermore, why is it even necessary for a politician to have more than one person focusing all his attention on the media appearance of this one politician?
One fulltime job dedicated to this line of work should be enough in my opinion. Hiring another is unprofessional, irresponsible and disrespectful to the citizens of Denmark.

Johanne Schmidt-Nielsen – a Worrying Example

In the parliamentary election 2011 in Denmark, a party called Enhedslisten experienced great progress. The party went from 2.2 % of the votes at the previous election to 5.7% at the latest election, an increase of more than 100%, which is rarely seen. One might argue if this was caused by more people actually agreeing with the party’s ideology or it was a mere case of popularity based on media appearance.
One member of the party, Johanne Schmidt-Nielsen was becoming more and more popular during the election campaign due to her convenient appearances on television, where she did very well. This might lead one to believe that the overwhelming and surprising increase in supporters was not just the result of an ideology becoming more widespread but, more so, the result of Johanne gaining status through the media.
Imagine youngsters having doubts in whom to support. Assuming they are the least bit interested they would try to dig deeper into the politics of the parties. They would watch television and inevitably come across Johanne Schmidt-Nielsen, as she was all over the media during this particular campaign. It would appear to the youngster that this person is pretty cool, well-spoken and what do you know, she’s also conveniently good looking. Suddenly the mind of the youngster is made up. Certainly, supporting a cool human being such as her can’t be wrong.

This is where my worries begin. Things as looks and status shouldn’t play a role in deciding the future of Denmark, however, it’s not the people that are wrong. It’s the media, which have so much power that we, as normal citizens, don’t even realize it. Obviously the media is about making money, but along with power comes responsibility. The media has too much power. It’s threatening the nation of Denmark.

Mediapulation

We get heavily manipulated by every show we watch, website we use or news paper we read, is this fair? One might question the way the media present information, and make it more objective, but everything we get news from wants you to share their viewpoint.

The media has changed our views on a lot of things, especially politics. The consumer gets manipulated by the television in almost every commercial; this also goes for election campaigns.

In an election campaign by Obama he made a contest, where people could win a dinner with him, in person[1] He differs majorly by involving the public, his fans and both the black and white community. This of course, acts up in the media, and creates monstrous amounts of attention around him, both by news stations supporting him, and by Republican stations like FOX.

I believe this one of the best stuns made, to get him to be displayed like a good guy, even through the eyes of a republican. Getting attention on every news channel is every candidates dream, and Obama did it every day during the election.

This is one of many examples how the media can win you over a lot of voters, especially by getting attention on the enemy’s news channel.

But the medias intentions are not always all good. After he won the election, and became the president of the U S A, and broke his promise of pulling out all soldiers in Iraq, he got all the spot light, especially by Republican news stations, having him rightfully as a scapegoat. This decreased his popularity drastically, but why would this make the population hate him, its only one broken promise? Because average the American is against war, and when a black person becomes president, and promises to pull back the troops, but instead he spent record high amounts on war[2]. I like Obama, but the fact that, regardless of his anti-war campaign, spent more money on military than Bush did, is absurd, and is no way to treat your voters.

This is only one of many ways the media is able to control voters, and how much power it has in both bringing the good and bad out in people.

However, the consumer often looks at the political viewpoints presented critically. This is good, and it should remain that way. If it doesn’t , they would drown in viewpoints and have no ability to judge whether they agree or disagree, this goes for products, with regular commercials, by letting the customers sub-conscious think about how great it would be with a soda right now. This is done by little flashes the eye won’t catch, and was used in cinemas, but it was banned very quickly.

With that said, the ever-improving communication methods we use, is a necessity to survive in the jungle that consists of the work industries and larger cities.

One might see the excessive use of commercials as a desperate method, to generate more customers, this goes for internet commercials as well. We all know the “you’re visitor number 99,999” to trick people into clicking, and generating ad-money, and forcing a viewer to see their product. These forced commercials are very effective at times, because they can see what your interests are, through last visited sites and so on, so they will have a very good idea about what you like, so they can target the commercial directly at you, and that is a great way of generating sales for any kind of business online.

---

[1] http://www.barackobama.com/get-involved

[2] http://www.cafetax.com/2010/09/20/bush-vs-obama-spending-the-truth/

Our new modern and digital generation

“The world as we know it, is about to change.” This is an old quote I remember from a movie I once saw. It makes me think about the subject “Modern and digital world” and about how the old days were. I remember my first telephone, my first computer. Nowadays, I nearly don’t remember the last computer I had or the last phone I owned. The change of the media and the change of the world go hand in hand and are unbreakable.

Back when a mobile phone was as large as a back, people spoke about the new modern and digital generation. They believed that in the future people would walk around with their mobile phones in their pockets and not in a suitcase. They would also have computers that were so handy, that they could bring them home to a friend. Those who did not believe them said that they were crazy.

Funnily enough they were right. Those people, who were called stupid and full of imagination, were right! It makes me think. Why do we not believe in people who speak positively about the future? Why I’m I not believing in them, maybe because it’s too good to be true? Who knows?

The media have changed the world. The technology has changed the world. The Third World War has changed the world. But who has really changed the world? The human species have changed the world. Like the dinosaurs changed the way they were made, back when they were living, we are also changing our way of living. The dinosaurs evolved into a new species, what they eat, what they hunted and where they lived. Today the human species are changing the way their mind works. We are not changing into super humans or any other kind of development. The world around us is changing. Not because we want to, but because in some way we have to keep getting forward. We evolve in the digital way. How we are using automatic pistols all over the world and how we are communicating with each other.

If you go ten years back in time and tell someone that he in the future will be able to buy his food online. It would shock him. He would think that you’ve lost it. The technology, the media, the world are changing all the time and we are not able to stop it. Our technology is reaching further and further. When I see what we have accomplished to make until now, I would not be surprised if one day will be driving around in cars, which float.

Just like the technology, the web and the rest of the world have changed, I also think the media have a major impact on the development of our community. A long time ago the media were only one man on his horse, traveling around and telling news. Nowadays you can’t click on a website without getting news, in one way or another. Because we have such great knowledge, we can now put everything on the net and everyone will be able to exploit it. We no longer have people who do not know so much as we had back then. Nowadays we always have the opportunity to find news or even learn something on the web. It can be both positive and negative. You can find information about everything. For example you can find information on how to make bombs, which of course is a negative thing of our new and modern times.

Just like there are negatives, there are also positive things about the evolution. We are becoming more and more automatic; people are not dying at a young age. We are getting older and older because we are moving forward and developing.

I think it’s a good thing that we are evolving. I like the way that we are getting more and more wireless. We don’t need to be in one place to make one thing. I can work at home, because we have evolved. I can spend time with my girlfriend, because I can make my homework at her place. I feel more free every time we get a new medium. Each time we get more wireless, it’s like getting a chain off the foot.

If we do not come forward, we will stand still in the same hole. I would not prefer it. I look forward to the next new thing that comes into my life. Every day is a gift and each day provides new inspiration for something new.

Is Democracy Being Threatened By The Internet

Everyone keeps talking to me about “democracy being threatened” and it’s quite some bullshit. That topic and all the articles stating it should say “old democracy is being threatened” instead because there are many politicians who turn the internet into an advantage instead of a threat. Just try and search Twitter, Facebook or YouTube for your favourite politician.

With this entry I intend to clarify why democracy may be threatened by the internet.

Almost all politicians begin to see the advantages of the internet. Barack Obama is a great example of a person who takes voters by storm with the internet’s possibilities. On Barack Obama’s homepage there’re around 1.5 million accounts which belong to supporters and keep in mind that it only took him 2 years to become president[1].

What many politicians (including Danish ones) like Obama must’ve realised because they got successful is the following:

· The internet is a fairly cheap place to advertise

Accounts for Facebook and Twitter are free and then you can create “groups” which remind ordinary people of a political party. Websites made of templates (usually a blog like this) can easily be bought and managed for less than £50 a month. A professional isn’t needed but will definitely improve the blog for campaigning.

· It’s quite an ubiquitous tool to spread information with

Today many young people carry smartphones everywhere, which can access the internet and it’s a known fact that the people who politicians are focusing on reaching are swing voters which most often are people under the age of approximately 25.

· The newspapers and the TV news reach less and less people[2]

In 1985 75% of those who watched TV saw the news. In 2010, 25 years later, only 20% of those who watched TV see (verbal tense) the news. Therefore politicians have to begin adapting to the internet.

· Through very popular social networks like Twitter and Facebook[3] it’s possible to make readers/followers share what they read with their friends, who might share it once again.

In the advertising industries it’s a fact that viral advertising (the advertising based on sharing and like a virus) will be perceived with less of a critical mind than ordinary advertises.

Let’s not forget to mention the internet services like YouTube, which enable us and the politicians to publish videos.

· The internet enables persons to establish relations with people who live far away without travelling.

This point doesn’t need further explanation does it? Else comment.

Of course there is a downside to the internet in connection with campaigning. For one the fact that earlier on insignificant persons had a hard time becoming significant, but now they can easily create an account on Facebook or Twitter and then publish small entries about their personal opinions. It’s still pretty important to be popular so that people read and share your entries, but it’s really easy to do. This applies to YouTube as well.

This means that if one person has had a bad experience with a politician he/she can publish the story and in no time it’ll be spread across the internet and modern media might snap it up and give the story a boost on TV.

In conclusion the threat to democracy lies in the fact that every person who was insignificant earlier on has gotten more power because he/she can publish his/her opinions very easily. It’s also possible for everyone to share their experiences or others people’s opinions which they have in common.

Politicians should take the internet as a challenge and use it to their advantage by adapting into blogging, uploading videos and even spreading bad rumours about other politicians. I distance myself from this, but it is a possibility). Especially politicians must accept that the internet is a modern thing which many people use so they have to use it as better than them.

Please feel free to comment if you have any extra opinions on the internet’s threat to democracy.

---

[1] http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/11/propelled-by-in/

[2] https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fweb1.millercenter.org%2Fdebates%2Fwhitepaper%2Fdeb_2010_0518_internet.pdf – page 1

[3] http://www.digitalbuzzblog.com/facebook-statistics-stats-facts-2011/

The Role of the Media

Does the new form of stage-management affect election results? In my opinion the media is the election. I don’t think a whole country would be able to hear about anything without the media. Actually I think it would be impossible for a country to have a democratic society without it.

Think about it, if there was no way of communicating with every region of a country, then it would be only rumors and the word of people spreading amongst citizens. How would a king get the people’s faith if the people didn’t even know the guy? Of course there are factors involved like taxes, protection and labor. But the thing about having a king is that it isn’t the citizens choice, and if there would be other upcoming candidates they wouldn’t have a chance of showing what they are worth or what they are capable of doing for people. It would clearly be impossible to have democracy without the media.

Politicians are using the media to get their messages and opinions out to the public. Personally I think this is the right way to do things, not just because most people will hear about them, but also because in this way every party will get their chances of showing the public what they are worth and what they stand for. Through media, people also get to witness or hear about politician’s mistakes or maybe even their failures to keep their word. I think it’s important for the public to see what kind of politicians they are handing, not only their vote, but their trust for them to make their country a better place to live and for them to keep their country safe and worth fighting for.

Of course there are good and bad things about today’s media. A really bad way the media affects society, would be their ability to crush important people or even strip them of important titles by uncovering things that the person wanted to keep secret. Most of the time the media does this to get more viewers for its (decide – do you opt for referring to the media in the singular or the plural in this paragraph?) newspapers, radio channel or online paper. Since the media are often making stories or articles about things that will attract readers, and since what most readers want to read about is scandals and other’s misfortune, the stories often get too involved in things that shouldn’t even concern normal citizens. Stories like ministers having a driving accident or other bad things like that. These kinds of stories put important people in bad situations towards gaining people’s trust, and in this ridiculous way, great people might lose their chance of ever getting the position/promotion they want.

It isn’t only the media that’s got power over people like politicians today. A normal citizen who’s got access to the internet does also have great influence over elections. Let’s say that I’m a blogger who’s got about a hundred readers. If I were to write something bad about a politician, it could be something I’ve experienced, seen or heard. And if it’s something my readers were to find interesting, then they would maybe consider telling their friends about what I wrote and that would mean that a lot of people were to hear bad things about the politician, whom I wrote about, because I didn’t like him. People would rather tell their friends about something they’ve heard from another person, say a blogger, then they would if it was something they had read in a newspaper.

I guess my final question to you would be. Do the media play a too big of a role in say elections?

rewrite

1) Give your opinions on the opportunities as well as the threats to democracy that the new digital media landscape represents.

Personally I think it’s good that we get these new options, this new way of communicating with people around the globe... I think it’s a huge advantage for many people, and many people have already been talking great, great advantages of this invention.

Look at the politicians. They try to catch the youngest generations, but how are the ever going to do that when none of us are watching television compared to the time we spend in front of our computer? This new weapon of “mass information” provides the politicians with the things they need. Attention. Attention and commercials, to use “against” us. The youth… I don’t mind this mental war they are trying to play with me. I know they lose. They always lose. Or do they? They’re getting better and better at create these commercials, specialized to a language the youth can understand. Whether it’s Lars Løkke or it’s Helle Thorning… This specialized language I talk about is pictures and text we understand... Pictures of busty ladies or action related violence, text’ that provides me with the stuff I need from politic. A fast and direct speech… If we get these two words served with a nice picture they’ll be invincible regarding to the fight (prep.) getting votes, every election.

When we talk about threats I think there’s a lot of stuff to talk about. This new social media plays a massive role in the digital war. There’s a lot of **** going on, online… I’m talking about weird and creepy movies; I’m talking about a new way of communicating massive treats against mankind… For example we’ve been seeing a lot of movies with Osama Bin Laden and other “great” dangerous leaders. They now have the chance to spread a lot of fear in a matter of minutes. And this is a very dangerous weapon. It can be a great diverter if you want to take the heat of some other **** you are doing at the very moment. Such as the terror with Anders in Norway. He exploded tons of glass, while he went shooting a bunch of kids, on a, now famous, island.

Another example could be the terror that’s been going on, the famous page “www.4chan.org/b” … This is a page where you can upload… well everything… A lot of terrible videos have been uploaded and some of this has been on TV2… I’m thinking about.

The video where a girl throws a lot of puppies in a lake, and they stream the whole “show”. This video has been criticized a lot during the whole film on TV2 but I think that the Danish media did a great job to minimize this video and avoid confusion. But I think that it was easy for the Media to lower the story because this is quite normal in the eastern countries, and that “helped” the Media…

But if I have to make a conclusion on this new weapon I think it’s a positive weapon after all.

Billions uses this media everyday, which makes it a very good invention. And I think that mankind will improve when we look at security, and when you learn how to improve your security you’ll learn how to handle the threats I’ve been talking about. But then again, you can turn it around. Because we know that every time the security improves, the creativity of the scammers improves too. So I guess this will be a fight that will continue as long as there’s mankind than 1 man on the earth….