It's Time For Some Campaigning!

Every four years, citizens of the United States get bombarded with advertisements, campaign stops, front-page articles, debates on television, etc. All of these 'beneficial' resources are ways to provide the voter with the knowledge that they need to make a valid decision for a candidate. Based on the information they receive, combined with their own personal beliefs, a voter should have all that they need to vote for the candidate they believe will be best for the country. One could argue that there are more media outlets available that criticize, or poke fun, at the upcoming election, as opposed to providing the voter with the information necessary to make an informed decision. The press acts as an outlet for this information. However, there are plenty of other 'viral' outlets that provide information as well.

I believe that for this election, the campaigns have been plagued with hegemonic ideals. The press is the 'delivery boy' for these ruling elites. We have seen countless stories--I believe more in this election than any other--about prominent politicians, officials,  and even celebrities who support a certain candidate. We also see that trusted networks can promote a bias in the election. Raymond Williams' definition of hegemony proposes ideas further than the ideology of manipulation by ruling elites. He mentions that it "is a whole body of practices and expectations, over the whole of living: our senses and assignments of energy, our shaping perceptions of ourselves and our world" (Goldman, p. 364).

The way that new media outlets--blogs, vlogs, and websites where you can upload videos such as YouTube--are being used in this election falls right in line with Goldman's idea of managed critique. To viewers, these videos may be seen as pushing back against ruling elites. Goldman would argue differently. These ruling elites have no problem with these outlets being available because any form of "doubt concerning the status quo is employed to steer the viewing audience back towards the reaffirmation of established forms of conventional morality" (Goldman, p.368). Allowing these outlets to continue pushing anti-McCain, or anti-Obama videos, may in fact do something good for society: produce more voters. If this is a possible outcome, then the possibility that managed critique is working is true. Dry, boring advertisements may not be the answer anymore. Perhaps cheery ads provide more for voters. Either way, when these videos are uploaded and viewed, it may appear like a challenge to the status quo, but it really is supporting ideas of elites through this idea of managed critique. Viewers think they are informed, and will head to the polls.

More voters may head to the polls on November 4, but are the voters really getting informed about their candidates and what these candidates plan to do if they are elected? It appears that more of the ads we have seen lately have been attacks on the other candidate. This is an interesting way to inform the voters. It provides no other message than the fact that the candidate who sponsors the message will not be like their opposition if elected. Ruling elites see this as a message nonetheless.

Whatever form of advertising is used to support, attack, or denounce a certain candidate, I've concluded that the media texts I've discussed are examples of managed critique and that they reinforce the status quo. Perhaps the best thing to do to facilitate change would be to not vote for these ruling elites at all. 

Assignment #3: Talking back to a piece of media.

Assignment #4: My own creative piece.