The Media and Ballot Boxes: The Latest in the Electoral Arsenal
BY: DEENA SABRY
@DEENASABRY
As social media takes the world by storm, David Lublin analyzes the way both candidates in the 2016 US elections use platforms like Facebook and Twitter to gain more support.
Professor of Government at the American University’s School of Public Affairs in Washington, D.C. Lublin delivered a lecture at the Prince Alwaleed Center for American Studies and Research (CASAR) on September 19.
For Lublin, also former mayor of Chevy Chase, Maryland, of particular importance is how the media plays a major role in setting the agenda for the elections by determining what is both said about and by the candidates.
He believes that the inherent problem is that the media usually focuses on reporting what is deemed negative and controversial, thereby influencing what the voters are exposed to and focus on.
“The media loves bad news. If it’s negative and controversial, they will talk about it … We once had a vice presidential candidate who went to [a] school [and] he misspelled a word in English … This became a national controversy, like ‘Is the vice president stupid? Is he uneducated?’ But when you think about it, is whether or not he can spell really of national importance?” he said.
He provided another example of the reactions triggered by presidential candidate Hillary Clinton giving a speech on education. His analysis of the media seemed to point that it was geared towards finding any political motivation behind her speech.
They did so by asking questions such as why she is talking about education at this point in time, and whether she is doing it in order to appeal to millennials and college students, instead of focusing on her actual proposal.
The vast reach of social media is also key, in Lublin’s view. He explained that it has proved an effective tool for candidates to increase their chances, as people are more influenced by local validation.
For instance, a television advertisement about Donald Trump might not appeal to all viewers, while if someone comes across their friend sharing a video of him on Facebook, they are more likely to believe it since it is better to get a recommendation from a friend.
“When I ran for office in my town, one way I got support was that we circulated a letter with lots of signatures of neighbors so that even people who did not know me might say ‘oh I know Bridget and I like what she thinks so I’ll vote for David’,” he said.
Visiting Associate Professor of Political Science Gamal Soltan explained how Obama started a trend in appealing to the youth in an effort to bring them to the ballot boxes.
“[Obama] was successful in mobilizing young, new voters and the two candidates are trying to repeat the same experience … It is difficult to bring them [young voters] to participate but once they are there, the candidate who can win their support is likely to win the election,” he told The Caravan.
One of the social media websites that has had a noticeable effect in the election campaigns is Twitter, especially with both candidates explicitly attacking one another through their tweets. Nonetheless, it seems that out of the two, Trump is more successful at generating Twitter attention because of his controversial statements.
“His ability to dominate Twitter has been a real advantage because he’s been able to drive the media cycle by getting attention through new statements [that are] negative and controversial. In order to get attention, he says something outrageous. But in order to get more attention, you have to be more outrageous. The problem with being more and more outrageous is that you start to alienate more people,” explained Lublin.
In an attempt to become more outrageous, Trump attacked Khizr and Ghazala Khan, parents of US Army Captain Humayun Khan who was killed during the Iraq War in 2004. Both parents were at the Democratic National Convention (DNC) in Philadelphia where Mr. Khan gave a speech rebuking Trump for his comments on Muslims.
Trump responded by attacking the couple in an interview with MSNBC. He said Mrs. Khan was standing silently because her faith would not allow her to speak. He also added that Mr. Khan had sacrificed nothing. Trump’s comments resulted in great outrage from media outlets and even some of his supporters.
“Trump is easily baited. If you argue with him, he will argue back … Attacking the parents of a son who died for the country does not make you look good … And this is when Hillary Clinton got her biggest lead in the polls,” added Lublin.
While Trump dominates Twitter, Clinton outshines him at various talk shows. She is constantly featured on shows that are mostly popular among the youth like The Ellen DeGeneres Show, Between Two Ferns with Zach Galifianakis, and The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon.
This has raised various questions regarding Clinton’s constant determination to appeal to young voters. Soltan explained how this could be attributed to the fact that without them, her chances of winning are very slim.
“Both candidates find it difficult to appeal to young voters … The kind of values they express do not make them fit or qualify them to appeal to young voters. For Clinton in particular, this is a very important issue. By and large, the democratic party has a lot of young support; however, those young supporters have a negative attitude towards her … She is very concerned that if those young voters stay home, this will drastically reduce her chances to win the elections,” he said.
With the elections rapidly approaching, both candidates continue to appeal to the media and make headlines. Whether it is by creating photogenic moments where they are surrounded by a number of supporters at events or by attacking one another on social media, they are the main focus of many American and international media outlets, and many news comedy shows, like Saturday Night Live (SNL), continue to create comedy skits out of the controversy both candidates create.
