Mind over media
February 8, 2006
David McFarland
“The television screen has become the retina of the mind’s eye.” Media theorist Marshall McLuhan alerted us to the fact that the forms of media, more than the actual content delivered through them, is what shapes human activity. The choices that are presented to you on the ballot are largely a construction of what you have seen and heard through media. Political parties are brands and an election campaign is the opportunity for them to promote and sell their brand to you, the democratic consumer.
Various forms of media both present and interpret political brands. It is no surprise then that the largest part of any party’s election budget must go toward media exposure and advertising because, at the end of the day, it is the 30-second sound bites and the screaming headlines that will stick in peoples’ minds. Be
honest, how many of you actually read or researched the policy platforms of the political party you voted for? Even if you did, it is probably safe to assume that you read it on a news website alongside its own analysis and commentary that interpreted what it meant for Canada. Successful election campaigns are dependant on extensive, positive exposure on television, in newspapers, and over the Internet. When freshly-minted Prime Minister Stephen Harper assumes office on February 6 it will be because media outlets chose to pump his face into Canadian living rooms, a tidal wave of favourable polling data was presented each day, and the editorial endorsements of respected national newspapers lined up behind him. Cynics call this manufacturing consent, while most will say this is the name of the political game. Yes, the
Conservatives offered new vision and leadership for the country along with a moderate and coherent platform, but that alone would never propel them to power (just look at the Green Party). But even negative exposure and spin can have its effects on swaying public opinion. Take the Liberals’ campaign, for example. The bulk of their paid airtime was spent demonizing the Conservatives rather than promoting their own brand. However, the fact that Martin’s Liberals were not annihilated despite their pathetic and desperate tactics, but held on to just over 100 seats, proves that this strategy can work. The tide of support began to sway back towards the Liberals in the last weekend of the campaign, signifying that the ads had done their intended purpose – sow seeds of doubt into some voters’ minds about the Conservatives
winning. People internalize what they see, even if they know it is a blatant distortion of the truth. What and who gets amplified in media is often a sensitive issue, especially in the image-saturated televised leader’s debate. The perennial tension of these debates is whether to limit representation to only the “major” parties who have a chance of forming government, thereby giving them time to fully explain their stance, or to allow for broad exposure to the myriad of political brand options. The Green Party finds itself in this pickle, having consistently received 4.5% of the popular vote (meaning more than 600,000 Canadians vote for them). It will be difficult for them to ever gain more support if they do not have media coverage in these debates. There is often much discussion surrounding media bias. Let’s
face it: all media presents information in an interpretive framework. Newspapers particularly cater to specific demographics and enhance a particular take on issues. The editorial endorsements of all the major newspapers in Canada, save one, were in favour of the Conservatives in this past election. Canada’s national newspaper-of-record, The Globe and Mail, gave Harper an endorsement in 2006 after favouring Martin in 2004. Most notable was La Presse, the largest French paper in Quebec, known for its left-leaning tendencies. The editorial boards of all these papers felt that it was a time for change. It doesn’t matter that there remains a strict wall of separation between editors and journalists – once the cat is out of the bag that a newspaper supports a particular political brand, its coverage is viewed through that lens despite its adherence to objectivity. In theory it is the Canadian citizenry that chooses its government. Yet opinions are not formed in a vacuum. Seat projections and polling numbers coupled with endorsements and nightly image-saturation can lead to an inflated sense of change sweeping through the land. This momentum helped to solidify in many a person’s mind that the best vote for change was to stamp their vote with Stephen Harper. The challenge will be for Harper to prove that he can deliver his policies the way they were packaged to Canadians, or else Canadians will be looking for a refund.
Now you go...
Got something to say?