Even though Barack Obama got elected to two terms as president, largely due to him being a great orator, he and his administration, and even Democrats in general, have had a huge problem in effectively communicating their message to potential voters.
It's sad to say, but it seems as if Obama, his administration, and many other Democrats just don't know how to effectively play the media game and regularly win that battle against Republicans. As filled with BS and hyperbole as many such Republicans' rhetoric is on different media outlets, it's often times effective with voters.
This trend started quite early in Obama's first term. Remember when Republicans were having frequent town hall meetings to criticize the Affordable Care Act, spread myths about it, and infiltrate fear about the bill in people's minds? Yes, most of the rhetoric was hogwash, but President Obama and company didn't seem to take the nonsense seriously, would take a while to respond, before finally saying something like, "Yeah, that's BS. Here, check out our site for more information about the bill." As sad as it is to say, it seemed from the early going that Obama and his administration underscored partisan media outlets' and politicians informal fallacies' effectiveness, and simply thought the American public was smarter than it actually was. While on one hand I commend the president for thinking his work at the Oval Office is of greater importance than responding to BS claims via different media outlets, it's also a bit naive of him to not be fully cognizant about the contemporary media game, with regard to radio shows, cable "news" networks, the internet, social networks, and their importance and level of effectiveness in persuading voters.
Before the Affordable Care Act had even been implemented, the country disapproved of it. This was largely due to Republicans winning the media battle. They talked to a wider range of people, tried spreading fear more (and without many rebuttals), and spent more money on the matter. The president may have shrugged off the early poll numbers and thought, "Well, once the bill gets started and people see and feel its positive effects, they'll change their tune." However, that's not how things work anymore. The Republican Party effectively altered the bill's name from the Affordable Care Act to Obamacare, and as sad as it is to say, the Affordable Care Act had higher approval ratings than Obamacare, even though they're exactly the same thing. While the GOP brand has been tarnished, their branding of Democrats has been quite effective, and sadly, Democrats just haven't cared to fight back on the matter.
Sadly, with our attention spans getting shorter by the second it seems like, it appears as if an increasing number of media outlets, and people in general, seek the short catchy sound-bites as opposed to the long drawn out explanation. To this point, the Republican Party has dominated on that front against the Democratic Party. Heck, these short catchy sound-bites were one big reason why then candidate Obama started becoming so popular: "Hope and Change" and "Yes We Can!" Outside of some of those early catchy slogans, however, Democrats have appeared almost incapable of matching Republicans on the matter.
" Drill Baby Drill!"
"Guns don't kill; people kill!"
"Obamacare kills!"
"Adam and Eve, Not Adam and Steve!"
"No We Can't!"
The list goes on and on... The key to effective messaging by politicians is to not treat their constituents as idiots, but to also give them something to remember.
It's like with music. Democrats may have found a way to provide the public with moving, effective lyrics, but Republicans have provided the public with a catchy beat and pointless lyrics which people can easily remember. As anyone knows, which method is more effective in garnering popularity? The latter. So, Democrats need to find a way to maintain those lyrics (their identity), but to do so in a more condensed, catchier fashion. If the two parties have catchy songs, Democrats will then likely be able to use their lyrics to better use to appeal to more voters. Hopefully they can learn from their mistakes during these past six years on the messaging front to improve their image and odds come the 2016 elections.
It's sad to say, but it seems as if Obama, his administration, and many other Democrats just don't know how to effectively play the media game and regularly win that battle against Republicans. As filled with BS and hyperbole as many such Republicans' rhetoric is on different media outlets, it's often times effective with voters.
This trend started quite early in Obama's first term. Remember when Republicans were having frequent town hall meetings to criticize the Affordable Care Act, spread myths about it, and infiltrate fear about the bill in people's minds? Yes, most of the rhetoric was hogwash, but President Obama and company didn't seem to take the nonsense seriously, would take a while to respond, before finally saying something like, "Yeah, that's BS. Here, check out our site for more information about the bill." As sad as it is to say, it seemed from the early going that Obama and his administration underscored partisan media outlets' and politicians informal fallacies' effectiveness, and simply thought the American public was smarter than it actually was. While on one hand I commend the president for thinking his work at the Oval Office is of greater importance than responding to BS claims via different media outlets, it's also a bit naive of him to not be fully cognizant about the contemporary media game, with regard to radio shows, cable "news" networks, the internet, social networks, and their importance and level of effectiveness in persuading voters.
Before the Affordable Care Act had even been implemented, the country disapproved of it. This was largely due to Republicans winning the media battle. They talked to a wider range of people, tried spreading fear more (and without many rebuttals), and spent more money on the matter. The president may have shrugged off the early poll numbers and thought, "Well, once the bill gets started and people see and feel its positive effects, they'll change their tune." However, that's not how things work anymore. The Republican Party effectively altered the bill's name from the Affordable Care Act to Obamacare, and as sad as it is to say, the Affordable Care Act had higher approval ratings than Obamacare, even though they're exactly the same thing. While the GOP brand has been tarnished, their branding of Democrats has been quite effective, and sadly, Democrats just haven't cared to fight back on the matter.
Sadly, with our attention spans getting shorter by the second it seems like, it appears as if an increasing number of media outlets, and people in general, seek the short catchy sound-bites as opposed to the long drawn out explanation. To this point, the Republican Party has dominated on that front against the Democratic Party. Heck, these short catchy sound-bites were one big reason why then candidate Obama started becoming so popular: "Hope and Change" and "Yes We Can!" Outside of some of those early catchy slogans, however, Democrats have appeared almost incapable of matching Republicans on the matter.
" Drill Baby Drill!"
"Guns don't kill; people kill!"
"Obamacare kills!"
"Adam and Eve, Not Adam and Steve!"
"No We Can't!"
The list goes on and on... The key to effective messaging by politicians is to not treat their constituents as idiots, but to also give them something to remember.
It's like with music. Democrats may have found a way to provide the public with moving, effective lyrics, but Republicans have provided the public with a catchy beat and pointless lyrics which people can easily remember. As anyone knows, which method is more effective in garnering popularity? The latter. So, Democrats need to find a way to maintain those lyrics (their identity), but to do so in a more condensed, catchier fashion. If the two parties have catchy songs, Democrats will then likely be able to use their lyrics to better use to appeal to more voters. Hopefully they can learn from their mistakes during these past six years on the messaging front to improve their image and odds come the 2016 elections.
Comments
Post a Comment