Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts

Thursday, August 2, 2012

Focus Group Summary Data : What We Learned About Young Voters in 2012 Presidential Campaign


During spring 2012, members of the COM 398: Controlling Spin class conducted four separate focus groups to determine how engaged young voters (defined as between 17-30) were in the presidential primary.  Specifically, we wanted to determine what issues or concerns were affecting their perceptions of the 2012 campaigns, how they acquired political information about the race, the level of their affiliation with political party or ideology, and their assessment of how effectively the presidential primary campaigns were at addressing their interests.

Four focus groups were conducted, two within the COM 398 class, one with students in COM 102 and a fourth at the Bigler High School Journalism Conference held at Wilkes University on April 13. A total of 43 individuals participated, almost evenly split between females and males.  Specific demographic breakdowns will be included with each focus group.

(1) FG#1        

5 males and 5 females; all 10 were registered voters.

Political affiliation: 5 registered Democrats, 3 registered as Independents and 2 as Republicans. All 10 were Wilkes University Communication Studies majors enrolled in the COM 398 class and had been following the 2012 presidential primary throughout the semester.  Ages ranged from 19-23.

Issues that they wanted to hear about in the 2012 presidential campaign, in order of frequency: (a) jobs; (b) growing student loans and debt; (c) making the educational system a top priority (not just higher education); (d) gay rights (including marriage)/civil and human rights; (e) health care, and (f) issues of women’s rights.

Excerpts regarding “issues” from discussion:

“Outsourcing jobs to India and China—especially Apple’s iPod in China, is affecting jobs here. Production jobs need to be returned here…we need federal incentives for businesses to in-source jobs in U.S.”

“The poor job market combined with escalating college loan debt, functions as a double-edged blow to my generation’s ability to create a secure future.”

“I will leave college with over $50,000 in college debt. It will take many years to pay that down, even if I get a job after graduating in May.”

“Education should be the last program cut when budget cuts are applied.”

 “We need to stop accepting poor teaching…and graduating students who fail.”

“The U.S. is long past the point of singling out a group as being unprotected by their civil rights, including marrying whomever they choose.”

“Gay marriage is an issue of civil rights and equality—and not religion.”

“My recent visit to a local emergency room would have cost over $14,000, but I was covered by my parent’s insurance. I support Obama Care.”

“We need to make contraceptives available to everyone. Do not outlaw birth control.”

Birth control is a health care issue for many people. I strongly disagree with candidates who link birth control to religion and morality. For me, birth control is a health issue, and not always used as a contraceptive.”

When asked how candidate character and personal traits, as well as campaign strategies, might influence who they vote for in 2012, FG#1 mentioned in rank order: (a) being relatable; (b) honesty; (c) stop negative ads; (d) demonstrate foresight and long-term vision for the country; and (e) stop using devil/god terms; left/right polarizing language.

Excerpts from FG#! On “candidate character or traits” that will
Determine who they will vote for in 2012:

“Be relatable. If you want my vote you should not be condescending when speaking to or about young voters, middle-class voters or women.”

 “Put constituent needs ahead of self-interests.”

“Honesty is the key. Determining who is honest is very hard in a political campaign.”

“Please embrace nonpartisanship—I am so sick of campaigning in Republican or Democratic terms. Address the whole nation’s needs.”

“Stop the negative ads!  I tune them out.”

“In this election I can’t tell if an ad is the voice of the candidate or funded by some multi-millionaire PAC. The ugliest ads that attack others get away with it because a PAC sponsors it. This election’s ads are nastier than ever.”

“We really need campaign finance reform—now.”

“ I know people want to hear how a candidate will make their lives better right now. But I expect a President to have foresight, long-term vision for how we can move forward.”

“Polarizing language, like devil/god terms insult me. Don’t candidates realize young voters can see right past those cheap tactics?”

The group was also asked how they get their information about the presidential campaign.  Acknowledging that this specific group may be better informed than most because of their enrollment in this class, they acquire information about the 2012 campaign from: (a) conversations with their friends who follow politics; (b) Twitter from on-line news sources; (3) on-line news, mostly headlines from CNN; (d) Jon Stewart and the Comedy Channel; and (e) a tie between blogs and local newspapers.

Excerpts regarding how they acquire political information:

“I learn the most from our conversations in class and outside of class. I am interested in why my friends feel the way they do about the election.”

“I read CNN headline news…seldom more than that unless it is something that interests me.”

“I get my news on-line. I don’t read local or national papers.”

“Now I get Twitter updates from Politico. I read what comes to me as a text.”

“Most of my friends get their political news from Jon Stewart or the others on the Comedy Channel. I think their sarcasm is more objective than most political newscasts—they ridicule everyone equally.”

“I don’t have the time to watch 30 minutes of news. It doesn’t interest me.”

Comments on how engaged they are in the campaign and the political process over-all, included repeated comments like this following:

I am a registered Independent. I don’t want anything to do with the major political parties. They don’t speak to my needs as a young college student. Maybe I am a Libertarian.”

“Ten years from now, almost no young voters will identify with either the Republican or Democratic party. A real generational divide has emerged and it won’t go away.”

(2) FG #2 

This focus group was conducted in mid-March and involved 4 males and 4 females, all Communication Studies students enrolled in the COM 398 class. Again, they were probably better informed than their peers because of the content of the class. Of the participants, 3 were registered Democrats, 2 were Republican, 1 Independent and 2 were not registered to vote.  Ages ranged from 19-24.

Regarding the issues that mattered to them, they agreed with the topics raised in FG #1, but in addition added the following:

“There needs to be a separation of church and state. That separation should be there but listening to this campaign it is clear the church still influences the political process.”

 “I strongly oppose censorship on the internet. This is actually related to job creation and revenue development.”

 In terms of how they get their political information, this group expanded on the role of social media:

“Everyone our age is reached through the social media—first and frequently.”

“People want to be entertained, especially our generation. That’s why Jon Stewart is a source of campaign information. I watched the GOP primary debate in SC with my friends. And we made fun of everything—the moderator, the candidates and how seriously they took it. We didn’t take it seriously at all.”

“My family is not very politically involved. I was taught that you can’t trust politicians and that they are all liars.”

“I have not been taught how to vote…or why.”

The relevance of the two-party system came up repeatedly in FG#2:

“The two party system is ridiculous; it is judgmental and labels people.”

The parties spend way too much money and spend too much time fighting. That’s just not relevant to me. In fact, it makes me want to stay away from politics.”

“For me, and many of my peers, it’s time for No parties, just people.”

Final note: when asked if they had to vote for President at that time, which of the leading candidates would they vote for, 15 said they would vote for President Obama and 3 for Mitt Romney.

(3) FG#3  

The third focus group consisted of 8 Wilkes students enrolled in COM 102: Principles of Communication class, which is required of Communication Studies, Integrated Media, and some undeclared students. All eight were registered to vote. There were 4 males and 4 females, aged 18-23.  They were asked a similar question protocol as FG #1 and 2. Four of the eight were registered Independent, 2 Democrats, 1 Republican and 1 Libertarian.

Regarding issues or topics that concern them, this FG agreed with FG #1 and 2 and ranked jobs and the economy as the number one issue that concerned them. However, the other issues difference somewhat. Issues in rank order: (a) the economy, specifically jobs; (2) education and (3) and abortion as related to birth control.

Excerpts from discussion of issues in FG#3:

 “No one seems to know how to fix the economy. I will vote for someone who can restore a sense of well being.”

 “Obama is doing damage.”

“I look ahead and I don’t see jobs.”

“Abortion is an issue that will heavily sway who I vote for.”

“I could argue for hours on birth control and abortion, but that is a personal stand.”

When asked how they get their political information, FG#3 expanded the discussion into how they learned anything about politics.

Excerpts from FG#3’s discussion of sources of influence and information:

“I don’t follow politics.” {Mentioned by four participants)

 “My parents never pushed politics, they never encouraged me at all. However, my high school did.”

“In my high school history class, we were given voter registration forms when you turned 18.”

“My parents heavily encouraged me, and politics was discussed daily at home. They are involved in local politics and pushed me to become a Democrat, so I became a fan of the Republicans.”

“I have friends who are active in politics. I listen to them.”

FG#3 participants acquire political information about the 2012 campaign from: (a) friends—conversations and Face Book; (2) SNL and comedy shows; (3) CNN and to a limited degree (4) local papers. Only one follows national news; one follows local news coverage “of the corruption.”

“I get information from CNN on basic issues and the candidates.

“When my friend who is interested in politics posts something on Facebook, if I’m interested I will look.” (Several agreed about getting information from Face Book postings by their friends.)

“I get most of my information—all subjects-- from Face Book and Twitter.”

“I watch Saturday Night Live and enjoy when they make fun of the candidates, esp. after the GOP debates.”

“I talk to peers…that’s where I learn about the campaign.”

“We don’t pay attention to politics, or news in general. I would tell the next generation of young voters to stay better informed and educate themselves, even if they don’t want to.”

“I stay out of political discussions. I don’t like the rift it creates between people.”

FG#3 was also opinionated about the two-party system.

Excerpts on the two-party system from FG#3:

“I am a Democrat and will always be a Democrat. However, I am not blindly voting for someone just because of their party.”

“It [two-party system] works, so why add more parties? That would make it more confusing.”

“The Tea Party is way too extreme.”

“If I have to pick, it would be the lesser of two evils. A no party system makes sense. It should be the person or individual candidate and not the party that shapes voting.”

“Republicans today are what Democrats used to be—militating for change and social reform.”

When asked who they would vote for, if the election were held on the day of the FG, this group had a tepid response. Two said possibly Obama, one possibly Romney and five said they didn’t think they could vote for any of the current candidates

(4)  FG#4. 

On April 13, the fourth focus group was held as part of the annual Bigler High School Journalism Conference at Wilkes University. Knowing the participants would be high school-aged, the questions were adapted to the “next generation” of voters.  FG#4 had 17 participants, 9 males and 8 females. The ages ranged from 14-18. Students were from 6 different high schools in northeastern PA. FG#4 differed from the other three in several key ways. They were younger. They were more politically informed. And, they seemed to have been strongly influenced by the Libertarian Party.  Even though they were from 6 different schools, the affiliation to the Libertarian Party transcended any one school’s influence or location.  If they were to register now, seven of the 17 would register as Libertarians; 4 Democrats; 4 Republicans and 2 as Independents.

(The FG moderator did a follow up on how they were defining Libertarian to make sure they knew what the party was. All seven gave clear, detailed explanations of the Libertarian Party.)

When asked where and how they first were introduced to the importance of politics and voting, their responses were, in rank order: (a) reading on-line newspapers daily; (b) national broadcast media, including on-line broadcasts; (c) classes and teachers at school;
(d) Jon Stewart and Colbert Report and  (e) Twitter and Face Book postings by friends.

Excerpts on sources of information from FG#4:

“I listen to Glen Beck.”

“I have a history class that discusses the election and the parties every day. I get a lot of information from our discussions and my teacher,”

 “I actually watch Jon Stewart and the Colbert Report to learn about the campaign and debates.”

“I follow some blogs and Fox News.”

“I get all of my news on-line. It is easier and faster.”

When asked about the issues that mattered to them, FG#4 participants were both vague and strongly aligned with religion.  They cited the following as issues that concerned them: (a) jobs/employment and  (2) birth control and abortion.  Almost no comments were made on education.

Excerpts on issues from FG #4:

“Life begins at conception. I am pro-life and that shapes my vote.”

“Separation of church and state is important. The Republican views on birth control and a woman’s right to choose are being taken way too seriously.”

“There is a big divide between us and our parents and grandparents. Their issues—social security, Medicare, Iraq—those are not my issues.”

“I will not vote for anyone who supports abortion.”

When asked about the two-party system, FG#4 was the least hostile to political parties. However, they were strongly supportive of third parties, specifically the Libertarian Party. When asked if the election were to be held now, six would vote for Ron Paul, five for Obama and three for Romney. The others had no opinion at this time.

Excerpts from FG#4:

“In the Northern Tier the Tea Party Republicans are solid. I am with them.”

“Government should not regulate business or an individual’s freedom. I am behind Ron Paul.”


Key Take-Away Trends from Four Focus Groups of Young Voters Conducted at Wilkes University - May 2012

Four separate focus groups involving 43 individuals were conducted from March through mid-April by the COM 398: Controlling Spin—News, PR and Politics class at Wilkes University.  The participants ranged in age from 14-24.  Twenty-five of the 43 participants were already registered to vote, with 18 not registered.  After analyzing the data from the focus groups, five key take-away trends among these young voters—and the next generation of voters—suggest a changing electorate.

•Young voters get almost all information about the 2012 presidential campaign from conversations with friends and from social media (especially Face Book and Twitter).  CNN Headline News, Jon Stewart and the Colbert Report were mentioned more often as  “political news sources” than any other broadcast or print sources.

“Everyone our age is reached through social media—first and frequently.”

•There is distrust of the 2-party system among young voters, coupled
with growing registration as Independents among the 18-24 year olds.  Of the 26 participants old enough to register, their registrations included:
            Democrat                  38.5% (10)
            Independent             31% (8)
            Republican               19% (5)
            Libertarian               .04% (1)
            Not Registered         .08% (2)

Of the total 43 participants, including the high school students, while “Democrat” was most often selected, the combined registration as “Independent” and “Libertarian” totaled 42% of the young voters.
            Democrat                  32.5% (14)
            Independent             23% (10)
            Republican               21% (9)
            Libertarian               18.5% (8)
            Not Registered         4.5 % (2)

“Ten years from now, almost no young voters will identify with either the Republicans or Democrats. A real generational divide has emerged and it won’t go away.”

•Issues that concern young voters most are: jobs, mounting student loans and debt, improving quality of over-all educational system, civil rights for gays, including marriage, and separation of church and state.  Regarding issues, age matters. There was a big difference between how 18-24 year olds responded to this question and how the high school students, aged 14-18 responded.

“I graduate in May with $50,000 in debt from college.  I am concerned about my job prospects since I will be paying off loans for years.”

The U.S. is long past the point of singling out a group as being unprotected
By their civil rights, including marrying whomever they choose.”

•Young voters, and the next generation of voters, are very media savvy and see campaigns that use negative ads as divisive. Polarizing language is seen as typical of two-party campaigning.

“Polarizing language insults me, especially god/devil terms. Don’t candidates realize young voters can see right past these cheap tactics?”

“Be relatable. If you want my vote, you should not be condescending when speaking to or about young voters, middle-class voters or women.”

•At the time of the focus groups in March-April 2012, when asked, “If the election were held today, which of the presidential candidates would you voter for” young voters were leaning toward President Obama or not voting at all.
            Obama                        51% (22)
            No One                       19% (8)
            Romney                      16% (7)
            Paul                            14% (6)

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

How to Get David Cook's Vote: A Young Voter Manifesto


I Am Not A Pawn

Treat me not as a pawn in some larger game, but as a human being, capable of knowing what is best for me. I do not want, expect, or desire you to tell me what is best for my life, and I under no circumstances, want you to pretend like you know what life is like for me, or anybody else besides yourself.

You see, I get it. Politicians cannot really relate to the majority of the American public, and that’s okay with me, because I do not want an average run of the mill American who thinks that Survivor is really an unscripted television event determining what country we need to enter into military conflict with. So, please, just demonstrate that you are an above average citizen by being honest about whom you really are. I know, this is an unusual concept, but being human and being self-aware is important.

Economic Issues

Talk honestly and openly about the economic problems in this country, and worry more about resolving them than being reelected. Short term change is not going to get this country  moving forward, we need long term plans, which undoubtedly, are not going to be very popular. But, we need them. Somewhere, you know this to be true, so come out and say it, and then stick to it.  Also, I get it, the economy is in terrible shape, but; for the love of God and Country, do not take the easy rhetorical strategy and blame the other side. Both parties brought us into this—and so did the entire American public, as we ran up credit card debt for the last 20 years. So, take a real stance on the economy and have a plan that really tries to accomplish something. The thing is, I don’t even care if I disagree fundamentally with your politics, as long as you can demonstrate a real long term plan that will move this country forward, with the promise of ‘trying’ and not guaranteed success.

Take notice of that, too. Do not talk to me like you know your plans will work, or that you have some sense of omnipotence, which proves only your economic recovery plan is of any merit or is the only one with guaranteed success. The economy has never worked that way, and neither can an economic recovery plan, so, just be honest about it.

Work Together

Reach across the Aisle and work on legislation which helps the country, not the party. Democracy dies when we refuse to listen, think, and solve problems together. So, come out and speak against the people in your party who alienate, who denigrate, who postulate that the country is in trouble because of the ‘respectable senator’ from the other party.  More than ever, this country needs unity—do something about it.

David Cook
Communication Studies
Wilkes 2012

On The Quest For Truth: The Internet

This is the internet in visual representation.
Fundamentally, the internet opened the gateway to truth-seekers and news gatherers by allowing us to seek out information from sources directly—allowing us to construct our own opinions from facts. Undoubtedly, this is why younger generations flock to the internet for their news; it has a reputation for ‘truth.’ The thing is, though, you need to look for that truth.

To highlight the problem, consider this blog posting. I am here, discussing, without a shadow of a doubt, my opinion of the growing concern over people who treat opinion as news, and truth as something which must exist because it is simply published online somewhere. However, without this disclaimer, and with a slightly different approach to my first paragraph, I could easily pass on what I am saying for news-truth. From there, if I can gather web traffic, I will find myself on the top page of a Google search, and next thing you know I’m being cited in some political argument, all without any of the credentials which would legitimize me as a news source. But of course, in writing this, I answer to no editors, and there are no fact-checkers looming over me, making sure what I have to say is fair and accurate, (and balanced).

This brings us to the great problem of our time—those who seek out ideologically congruent opinions of ‘news,’ and consume only those sources.  Seeking out alternative viewpoints is necessary in the construction and development of ideas, and is how we, as human beings, achieve. If, in a proper debate, one fails to listen to the opposition, he or she gains nothing, but simply loses out on an opportunity to learn and grow. Even if at the end of it all, you still disagree with what the other side had to say, you learned more about their side, making it easier for you to argue against it. The more you listen, the better your own arguments sound, and eventually, you might even think for yourself—because, let’s be honest here, there is nothing worse than a person who spews the same ideology word for word, that was on some crazy website or radio talk show, without having any idea what it really means or comes down to. And we all know at least one of those people; the person who adores Obama like the sun without knowing what he’s done, or the Republican who thinks Obama is the devil without knowing any political decision he’s made.

If increased ignorance was the biggest problem we had from all of this, I wouldn’t be concerned. The real problem is delineation from open dialog in the political realm. We already see it in Congress, as both sides refuse to work together—not because there isn’t common ground, but because one side needs to be correct. As we move forward, and my generation begins to enter politics, or in the least, begins co have an influence on politicians, this fissure will only continue to grow. What kind of world will we live in if we truly believe we can simply ignore anybody who ever told us ‘no.’

David Cook
Communication Studies
Wilkes 2012

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

How to Get Mikel Hartsough's Vote: A Young Voter Manifesto


A candidate attempting to become an elected official needs to take a stand on several issues for me to even consider him to have potential. He or she must also be fairly sincere and  speak with unrehearsed rhetoric. A personal issue is the first one that comes to mind, one of the reasons I didn’t vote for Hillary Clinton is her stand against video games. She compared them to tobacco and alcohol, and considered them to be extremely dangerous. A candidate needs to stay away from my music, movies, and videogames. There is already a rating system in place, Hillary just emulated Nancy Reagan to gain some press, not to defend something she believed in. A politician must endorse stem cell research, make no reference to his religion, and regard education as a top priority.  I like a candidate who doesn’t always side with his political party, it shows they care about the issue more than a win for their affiliation.

Then I get to the essentials, I don’t think we should be involved at all in the middle east, our healthcare system still needs to be reformed, and the economy can’t fix itself at this point.  Immigration needs to be regulated more fiercely, I feel that young adults and high-school kids take priority over illegal immigrants in the hard labor job market. Gay marriage is not a high topic of interest to me, but if a candidate is strongly against it I question his priorities. I don’t think that gay marriage should be a high priority in politics, the reason it gets so much attention in this country is because of the religious aspect, and how many religions consider it an abomination, it is not an issue that a government should be concerned with.

Education needs to be regulated more so than it is now, but carefully. Standardized testing can be effective, but not in all scenarios. I believe the ability of a teacher should be judged by their peers and students, not by government and parents. Privatized schools should not receive any kind of federal funding, public schools should take priority over them. The prep school I went to showed no signs of needing funds, the school expanded every year, and tuition increased with its popularity. Granting the school I went to extra funds would not be money well spent. School administrators should be given the same salary as teachers. Lastly when the government deems it necessary to make budget cuts, education should be the last thing that comes to mind.

When a candidate uses devil and god terms to win over an audience, he loses my vote. When the argument comes down to left or right wing agenda, I stop listening. I feel as if too many politicians treat their job as if it’s a win or lose scenario, and don’t concentrate on the people’s best interests.


Mikel Hartsough
Communication Studies 
Wilkes 2013

Wednesday, February 22, 2012

Love Each Other As I Have Loved You: A Catholic Lie


I was raised as a Catholic. My family went to church every Sunday for more than half of my life. My mom taught CCD, my grandmother sang in the choir, my grandfathers were Eucharistic Ministers, and my cousins were altar servers.  It’s fair to say that the teachings of the Catholic Church have had a significant role in my moral development. However, I am also an average woman with modern American values. And the values of Americans have changed over time to include groups of people that were previously ostracized. Sadly, not a single institution ostracizes people like the Catholic Church and their current target is women.

The Obama Administration began their “War on Religion” a few weeks ago with the announcement of a mandate in the President’s much scrutinized health care plan that all employers must provide insurance coverage for birth control pills. Naturally, this didn’t go over well with the Catholic Church.

The church famously preaches abstinence until marriage at which point they believe contraceptives of any kind are unnecessary. However, what the male dominated religion may not know is that besides preventing pregnancies, birth control is also prescribed for acne, heavy periods, and regulating estrogen levels. Fifty-eight percent of Catholic women agree with the President’s decision and 98% have admitted to using contraceptives. Therefore, I don’t see the argument. Women want and need birth control pills. Why is it fair that we should pay more for a simple solution to common health issues because they are gender specific?

The Catholic Church has a long history of targeting women though. During my eight years of religious education I was led to believe that women should not have sex before marriage. If a woman chooses to sin, by giving in to the natural human urge, and has sex she should not use contraceptives to protect herself against diseases or unwanted pregnancies. In the case of an unwanted pregnancy women should not, under any circumstances, including rape and incest, get an abortion. Women who have children out of wedlock are going to Hell.

Their hypocrisy is off putting to me. They tell us that we are surrounded by God and that He made everyone perfectly and loves equally and as his servants, they are supposed to be preaching those ideas. Instead they make it their business to ignore the idea of separation of church and state and voice their conservative opinions any time the progressive government makes a decision they don’t agree with. Now they are making the case that the government can’t force a religious institution to provide healthcare coverage that conflicts with their values. I say, as long as Catholic affiliated institutions are taking government funding they should be forced to comply. Additionally, they should respect that women know what is best for them health wise.

By now you’ve probably guessed that I don’t agree with many of the things Catholic leaders preach about and I stopped attending Mass regularly quite some time ago. It wasn’t because I lost faith in God. It’s because I lost faith in the Catholic Church. They have lost sight of what is most important. Their mission is to spread the word of God and last time I checked, that word was Love not Damnation.

 “My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you” - John 15:12


Kayla Mattioli 
Communication Studies
Wilkes 2012

Monday, February 20, 2012

A True Patriot: Barack Obama SOTU 2012



President Barack Obama started out his fourth the State of the Union (SOTU) in a smart way: patriotism.  He said the Iraq War was successful and the killing of Osama bin Laden was also included in this section of the speech.  While I agree that finally murdering his assembly was pretty much the greatest take down since Adolf Hitler took down himself, I cannot stand beside the President on his position of the Iraq War.  It’s really not his fault, as he inherited it from President George W. Bush, there is no way he can possibly actually believe it was a success.  There was no way that war could be successful because it wasn’t started for a real reason at all.  It started with a war on weapons of mass destruction.  Then we found out those didn’t exist.  Then it was dubbed Operation Iraqi Freedom.  Where the transition was made from WMDs to freedom, the world may never know.  The point is, I think the President was saying what he had to.  It’s not like he could go out and admit losing American soldiers’ lives didn’t end in a successful way so much as just end.  That wouldn’t show confidence and could even be misinterpreted as anti-American.  Which is the last thing he needs.

Next, Obama moved to the American Dream, another move to instill feelings of patriotism and togetherness in the American people.  He wants to bring jobs back to America by stopping offering tax breaks to companies who outsource would-be jobs for Americans.  He called this a restoration of American values.  That was smart.  It makes people think of moving jobs overseas as not only irresponsible, but as a move specifically against America.  Which, yeah, it pretty much is.  That inference is accurate.  To move our economic potential somewhere else is a very me-centric way of thinking.  Based on the way the American economy has been heading these last 10 years or so, that’s not working out so great.

On the same lines, Obama said he wants to become more energy independent as well as for more United States markets to go international with their products; investigate unfair trading in China; and train more Americans in a specific trade.  All of these ideas can be said in sum by using just three words: jobs, jobs, jobs.  And this is very important to the American people right now.  Millions of folks are out there struggling because their either under qualified due to a failure of an educational system or because there just aren’t jobs in their specialty available.  The aforementioned actions would open up millions more jobs for Americans and give the economy a major boost.

Then, Obama started talking about education and I had a lot of moments where I just didn’t know why he was saying what he was saying.  If I were to offer advice to him it would be this: DO reward teachers; DO offer the tuition tax credit for college students; punish educational institutions for unreasonable raises in tuition rates; DON’T torture teachers and the children by keeping kids in school against their will until they’re 18.  That last one is a biggie.  Because there really is no benefit to it.  There is a tiny possibility a student or two will change their tune between the ages of 16 and 18, but it’s not worth all of the other kids’ educational and possibly emotional suffering.  It’s a waste of teachers’ time and tax-payers’ dollars.

Then, Obama moved onto the subject of immigration.  To no one’s surprise, it’s the same thing he has been saying for years.  Guess he’s not rushing to actually jump on that issue.

Here he discussed the almighty dollar.  He said he wants to extend tax breaks to small businesses to help them grow more easily, continue providing grants to medical and technological projects, capitalize on this country’s natural gas resources and provide money to improve local infrastructure.  It was like the republicans’ worst nightmare except the part about natural gas.  I agree with pretty much all of this except I am a little annoyed at the desire to siphon all of America’s natural resources.  It’s hurting the earth.  Which is sad.  Because we all live here and Earth can’t even defend itself, save for hurricanes and tsunamis.  We need to work harder on alternative energy.  Can you even imagine the strides we could have made here if instead we had spent the gargantuan number of dollars pumped into Operation Iraqi Freedom on energy research?  Obama also said later in his speech he wants to provide more jobs for veterans.  I think we should educate and train them for use in various energy projects, the ones who aren’t retired, anyway.  But, that is a ridiculous idea which I have no defense for.

Other positives on the money front included the fact that Americans can officially refinance at historically low rates, saving up to $3000 per year and a crack down on large-scale fraud and vowed to have the Financial Crimes unit protect investments so the disaster of the economy of 2008 will never happen again.  I don’t know a lot about refinancing or the economy, so I don’t have a whole lot to say about all that.  But what I do know and what I will say is that’s a bold claim, being that Obama will not be president forever.

He also promised a crack down on insider trading in Congress.  Am I alone in being really taken aback by this?  Maybe I’m just not paying attention or try to see the good in people too much, but the fact that insider trading is happening within Congress is astonishing.  Because obviously people know about it.  Because it is a big enough issue for the President to address it in the State of the Union Address.  It’s just another example of the rich using corrupt methods to get richer.  If these rich people want to complain about the economy, how about the top one-percent all give ten-percent of their money to the government and fix it.  Instead, they’re too concerned with making more money they don’t need and will never use.

The idea of interacting with Iran at all makes me shake in my boots.  Remember when they sent that pink plane back?  They know where we live.  And they do not like us.  But, I have little hope Obama or anyone else is going to go over and develop any sort of diplomatic plan.  This is America.  We don’t say, we do.  Ask Japan.  They learned that the hard way.  But none of us are looking to the total destruction of Earth that may be World War III and I’m afraid what we’re doing messing around with Iran and North Korea is going to be the start of something terrible.

Obama concluded his speech with: "Each time I look at that flag, I'm reminded that our destiny is stitched together like those 50 stars and those 13 stripes. No one built this country on their own. This nation is great because we built it together. This nation is great because we worked as a team."  I agree.  And I think we can do it again.  Yes we can.


Cathryn Frear
Communication Studies
Wilkes 2012

Sunday, February 19, 2012

You Stay Classy Barack Obama: State of the Union 2012

Karl Marx 
If Obama’s theme for the State of the Union last year was “Innovation”, then this year’s big buzzword was most definitely “Fairness” or more specifically “Cooperation from everyone to achieve Fairness”. Obama’s stated many times throughout his hour speech that “if everyone does their fair share” the problems facing America such as jobs, immigration, debt, war, and even the environment will all be fixed.  A sentiment I understand, but know that in this political and societal climate might be too idealistic. I also thought the wording of this quote was dangerously similar to the defining principle from Marx’s communist manifesto “To each his own ability”. The statement proved a gutsy move for Obama who has often been criticized by the far right as a socialist putting him at a vulnerable place for the GOP to take advantage, especially with an election coming up in November.

Of course being a Junior in college soon about to enter the real world of a jobless, and debt ridden America, I was interested in Obama’s plan to increase the job market while fixing the sure to be devastating financial aid and student loan crisis that has already begun to plague this country. His solutions for financial aid were as usual vague but involved cutting off government assistance to any University who does not give all they can to students in need of financial aid. I was unsure of the effectiveness of this plan since it sounded like Obama was leaving the responsibility of financial aid directly on the school itself and not the government through loans and grants. I also thought this policy was definitely different from normal democratic beliefs in bigger government showing Obama’s bipartisan values which in itself is a comfort. His bold statement to tax millionaires 30 percent every year to help small businesses and job growth, delineated from his usual non-specifics in his State of the Union addresses and is commendable.

As usual, in this speech Obama’s prowess in articulation and personal presence was on full display, never once giving the audience the impression that he was reading from a teleprompter. In fact, upon re-watching I’m not sure if he really was or not. Lame jokes about “crying over spilled milk” aside (The First Lady’s face at that failed attempt at stand-up was absolutely priceless), Obama presented himself in his usual cool, calm and collected manner that we have come to know these past 4 years; a manner which usually comforts us but can also leave us wanting for more passion and anger for certain issues. I thought he also took the high road in not directly criticizing any of the GOP candidates now scrambling (somewhat ineloquently) for his position.  I guess he believed that there would be plenty of time for attacks later this year when either Mitt Romney or God forbid Rick Santorum becomes the official GOP candidate vying for the oval office.


Sarah Mitrotz
Communication Studies
Wilkes 2013

Tuesday, February 7, 2012

Chrysler & Clint Eastwood



This year’s Super Bowl had its share of entertaining and interesting advertisements, with one of the most acclaimed and controversial being the Chrysler ad titled “Halftime in America”. The ad features acclaimed actor and director Clint Eastwood in somewhat of a “pep talk”, speaking directly to Americans about our struggles and our future in overcoming them. The controversy lies in the fact that some believe the ad to be “pro Obama”. Some think the ad spins the audience to want to continue on America’s current path and maintain the policies Obama has put into place, thus supporting and keeping him in office for another term.

After analyzing the Chrysler ad, I have come to the conclusion that the “pro Obama” accusations are in a way true. Firstly, Obama is known for his aid of the American car industry, and to keep him in office would obviously be beneficial to Chrysler and the city of Detroit. Also, all the analogies used in the ad would strongly suggest that Chrysler is somewhat supporting Obama and his policies. Eastwood goes on to say “It’s halftime in America too. People are out of work and they’re hurting and they’re all wondering what they’re going to do to make a comeback and we’re all scared because this isn’t a game.” I believe this analogy of “halftime” is referencing the fact that Obama is in the middle of his possible second term, thus referencing halftime of a football game, which is something Americans can all relate too.

The controversy that is ad is drawing is also planned I believe. By Chrysler gaining all this attention to their ad, more and more people are checking it out. This is a fantastic tactic in order to gain consumers and viewers. Also, by using Clint Eastwood, a notably anti Obama celebrity who commonly speaks out against the President’s policies as the spokesperson, this somewhat gives the impression that there is no correlation to supporting Obama.

As for the spin used in the wording itself, I feel Chrysler did a great job of catching the viewers attention and somewhat motivating them. I looked over the ad and counted the number of times different words were used. The word “we” was used 14 times, by far the most. This shows that the primary focus was to make the audience feel united as one and feel that America’s problems were all of ours. Repetition is effectively used as a powerful technique.

“Because that’s what we do. We find a way through tough times and if we can’t find a way, then we’ll make one. All that matters now is what’s ahead. How do we come from behind? How do we come together? And how do we win?” These words echoed in my mind, making me feel like I could conquer the world. They also make me believe that America is on the right path for success, and the success will come from sticking with what America is doing. And that is, in turn sticking with Obama.


Mike Dargatis
Communication Studies
Wilkes 2012


Eastwood spends halftime promoting America


“It’s Halftime in America” was not a promotional speech for Obama. In my opinion, the commercial was simply a reflection of the American nation. The use of American icons paired with metaphorical dialogue represented the United States while addressing the main issues most are concerned about, the economy and jobs. The purpose of the commercial as I interpreted it was to reach out to everyone watching and provide hope for a better future.

I admit Chrysler’s ad didn’t necessarily promote the product. Instead, the commercial became a unifying device that spoke to the nation without bias. The main argument that seems to be presented in the media is that Chrysler’s commercial was favoring Obama. I think those who consider the commercial to be liberal or in support of Obama are fishing for controversy.

Anyone could just as easily see the ad as anti-Obama; however, I can’t agree that bias was present in any aspect. Because the beginning of the commercial states everything that is wrong in America, it suggests that we need to take a different approach in the next half. With the new election coming up, the second half is about to begin and since Obama is our current president, the ad proposes that he is to blame for a rough first half.

Although I point out that some could interpret the ad to be anti-Obama, I don’t think it was meant to be. Chrysler may have purposely made the commercial questionable to bring extra attention to their company. Since the basis of the commercial appeals to each individual American’s main concerns such as jobs, the economy, and the future of the country, I fully believe the ad was meant to be a patriotic inspirational speech, not a campaign promotion for either party.

Don't believe me? Watch it below.


Devoni Novak
Communication Studies
Wilkes University 2013