Obama Revelations

#1: Changing Campaigning - How Obama's Campaigning Changed the Game

The Internet has changed the game. (Image thanks to abcnews.go.com)

Barack Obama may have been only one of a handful of presidential candidates with the opportunity to use the world of Web 2.0 to his or her campaigning advantage, but he saw and leaped on the opportunity, harnessing it to great effect. Even today he uses his YouTube channel to post videos to his online following. The videos can be fairly straightfoward, but a form of free advertising and expression nonetheless. Here's one of the most recent videos, from November 1st of this year:

Get out there and vote, from Obama. Reminiscent of FDR's fireside chats, these videos allow any number of people to tune in very easily, puts a face to the voice, and allows for Obama's campaign team to track the hits and general popularity of the internet techniques Obama used.

From Hoynes and Crouteau's Media & Society, "Candidates have complete control over their media images when they produce their campaign commercials. Television advertising is a central part of most electoral campaigns, and some evidence suggests that voters receive more information about candidates from campaign commercials than from news coverage." (Crouteau & Hoyes 237)

This observation is a tad out of date because, as Obama has proven, the Internet can be just as, if not more, effective than television in its appeal to an audience. From The New York Times came an article touching on this very subject. From Clare Cain Miller comes the article "How Obama's Internet Campaign Changed Politics".

The article smooths a lot of the furled areas of this revelation. "Mr. Trippi argued that those videos were more effective than television ads because viewers chose to watch them or received them from a friend instead of having their television shows interrupted." (Miller) On top of this, the article shows that the YouTube videos were watched for a rough total of 14.5 million hours, which would cost $47 million dollars to broadcast on television. There we already see Obama's clever utilization of modern technology.

'How many hits does my new vid have?!'

(Image thanks to i.telegraph.co.uk)

Because this is a new form of campaigning, we aren't as comfortable with what a candidate might look like through a screen, safe from criticism. Now that we're seeing what Obama has actually been doing for the past two years, a lot of people feel deceived and probably neglected. "Deception" has been a big word surrounding Obama since his presidency, and his Internet marketing, his intoxicating promise of 'Hope' and 'Change', were definitely contributing in making the product a reality.

The probable intensity of the influence of the Internet on Obama's campaigning is clearly said by Arianna Huffington, editor-in-chief of the Huffington Post. From the same article, "'Were it not for the Internet, Barack Obama would not be president. Were it not for the Internet, Barack Obama would not have been the nominee.'"

#2: Setting the Stage - Obama's Media Dominant Campaign Raises the Bar.

(Image thanks to mindtoss.com)

As it has been said in our class text, Media & Society,

...the cultural practices of the people who adopt a particular technology shape the development and uses of that technology"(Media & Society 312).

Another revelation about Obama would be how his use of technology is reflected through this observation from one of our class texts. As I talked about in my first revelation, Obama's use of YouTube got him 14.5 million hours of free advertising. That such a tactic seemed effective in winning the presidency makes Crouteau and Hoynes' observation quite potent.

The curious implications raise questions about the future. What will future presidents do with this past occurrence? Will the next candidates battle for dominance on the Internet, following the seemingly successful trend Obama has started? The social attraction his online presence gathered will be hard to ignore for future candidates.

#3: Hit or Stick, the Race Card & Obama - What Obama's racial profile has meant for his presidency.

(Image thanks to bagnewsnotes.com)

From Street's book, “Obama has been noticeably reluctant to explicitly align himself with the historical struggle for black equality or to confront the continuing problems of race and racism in America and Global Affairs” ( Street 80).

I felt this was a revelation because of how some voters did in fact vote for Obama because he's black, his middle name Hussein, or whatever rumor or fact they heard. It's important to consider Street's observation, because any hint of Obama manipulating his racial profile during his campaigning has not been followed up upon in his presidency, at least not yet. Race has been a rather underplayed topic in the media, and thus far no atrocious outbreaks of racial violence have erupted, as far as we know. Maybe that connects to Obama's ability to make the media love him.

#4: Obama's public "appeal" came from...where? - What Obama has done with his presidency.

"President Obama's decision to increase military spending this year and in the future will result in the greatest administrative military spending sine World War II. This decision is beind made in spite of continued evidnece of extreme waste, fraud, abuse, and corporate welfre in the military budget. At the same time, spending on "non-security" domestic programs such as education, nutrition, energy, and transportation will be frozen..." (Censored 2011 67).

(Image thanks to openentrance.com)

Project Censored provides us with an example of Obama's corporate, military interests. While Obama has made some small motions towards increasing healthcare, education, and other domestic interests, we're seeing a lot of flow between Obama and Corporate and Military's pockets. Did Obama ever say "I will freeze spending on domestic solutions so military ventures may be the major focus of our money" during his speeches both behind the lectern and behind the YouTube page? This revelation supports the 'Obama Deception' idea floating around the media.

#5: Presidential Modeling - The nature of today's politics.

(Image thanks to breitbart.tv)

Which of these mean would be most appealing on a screen? Probably Obama. Why? Age, difference (he stands out, that doesn't have to be a bad thing), he's well spoken, the list goes on. Street described our nation as having an “image-centered elections system and political culture” (Street 166). I think this has become prevalent in today's campaigning, and especially this past presidential election. Hilary Clinton appeared to be a swamp hag determined to devour your children and soul for leisure, while Obama was essentially depicted as Jesus Christ in a magazine or two.

How healthy is such a politicla culture? What if a candidate is too fat or thin, tall or short? If voters are put off and change their votes...what kind of voting results are we working with? What should votes be based on? I'd say political intentions and all that other political jazz.

#6: Too long of a handshake? - Obama and the Banks

(Image thanks to static.seekingalpha.com)

Censored 2011 shows more of Obama: "President Obama used his sixth signing statement to negate provisions of US legislation that would have compelled the World Bank to strengthen labor and environmental standards" (Censored 2011 101). Presidents evidently have to balance the interests of the public and the corporations. I guess the idea behind democracy is that the public will be favored, as such probably is the majority's will. Obama seems to like to keep the corporations happy, the banks seemingly most of all.

Perhaps that has to do with the healthy amount of contributions Wall Street and the banks gave his campaign. How would we know whose hands shook whose? That we don't, and probably never will, know the truth of Obama's agenda is the overarching revelation. The guise of politics, huh?

#7: Obama's reality construction - Candidate Obama v. President Obama.

"Would an Obama presidency really ‘turn the page’ away from big-money influence and melt the icy stranglehold that concentrated wealth has long had on US politics and policy?" (Street 3).

(Image thanks to comicrelief.net)

This is a big picture revelation; this revelation made me think about Obama's contrasting persona: one for the public, one for the blank signature spaces on several policies and enactments. Obama is the public's hero, and remains upholding a solid loyal following, but his adverse actions have been exposed. Does it matter?

Obama has, through the lens of the media (not just the news), maintained the image of a heroic, valorous entity that will save us. Street's question, which I cited above, is an important question when considering what Obama has done thus far.

#8: Where importance lies - What is the right time to look good during a campaign?

From Media & Society, "Candidates who can demonstrate their electability by doing well in early polls are much more likely to attract the campaign contributions--before any votes are cast--that are essential to run an effective campaign" (Media & Society 239).

(Image thanks to politicolnews.com)

CHANGE! STAND FOR CHANGE! Look at the positivity flowing in that image. Obama is the people's person, the riled up masses simply a backdrop to his glorious visage. Here's what helped Obama so much, those early poll appeals, that early cash flow. Obama's campaigning effectiveness was based partially on his campaign squad's insight and knowledge, which was a direct product of the amount of money he had to give people. The more their paid, the more their motivated, at least in some cases.

The observation from our textbook rings true, and it's interesting. What if Obama hired that guy instead of this guy for his campaign predictions and productions? Would we have a different president? The importance of the parts of the whole is incredible in this game.

#9: A Change in Mind - Obama's appeal to a new audience.

(Image thanks to hollywoodtoday.net)

Postman said, in his book Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business, "What kind of audience was this? Who were these people who could so cheerfully accommodate themselves to seven hours of oratory?" (Postman 44). Postman is talking about Lincoln and Douglass' speeches back in the day, speeches that lasted hours upon hours, speeches that the audience loved and absorbed.

How long would the audience last in Obama's picture? An hour? The change in our exposure to media, Postman's peek-a-boo world, gave Obama's campaign support, because his videos online were short and voluntary. We love snippets of information that gets diluted by distractions. Obama's YouTube videos provide that. You can absorb his image (and maybe his words) in a few minutes, and then click to related videos that are probably internet memes about Obama, which can be crude and funny. I've said it before: The Internet has changed the game. But, was it for the better?

#10: In the End - What Obama has meant for me, for us.

(Image thanks to blog.northstarmanifesto.com)

Postman gave some tenets of today's television. Here's part of one: "Every television program must be a complete package in itself. No previous knowledge is to be required...The learner must be allowed to enter at any point without prejudice" (Postman 147). Analyzing Barack Obama and the nature of politics (and its relationship with the media) has made me question what's important to a voter. Postman's tenet here, the cited part, is fulfilled in Obama's YouTube videos. Each video is independent, where a viewer can follow an entire story and message.

My revelation is that the development of this form of media exposure is detrimental to political accuracy. Debates aren't what they could be because of this tenet. Could you imagine a candidate recalling back to specific periods of history to prove a point? No one would know what he or she is talking about. With Obama I've seen promises broken and contradictions fulfilled. I've seen audiences riled at the thought of hope, and masses let down at the decay of that hope. Perhaps the nature of Obama's intentions weren't overly clear because of how they were conveyed to us.

Media Meditation #6: Would you cook and sell meth to help your family?

Bryan Cranston's character, Walter White, answered yes. His cooking and selling of meth is quickly the main point of plot development for the incredible show Breaking Bad. You might know him as Hal from Malcolm in the Middle, but Bryan Cranston's best characters is certainly Walter White.

Appearing above, in front of his partne

r Jesse Pinkman, who played by Aaron Paul, Walt tries to balance meth cooking, a wife, son, and soon-to-be-born daughter, and the complete separation of the aforementioned elements all while quickly (sort of a spoiler) getting diagnosed with lung cancer.

A lot of how this unfolds has been seen in the 3 seasons that have aired so far. Season 4 has been confirmed and I can't wait.

The production technique that has been most influential in shaping the strange, looming, and intoxicating aura that the show

boasts, is the seemingly random opening scenes of most of the episodes. A series of scenes consists of a pink stuffed animal floating in a pool, and getting picked out by a pool net. Curious. This happens before any of that is given context, so the viewer is so disoriented. Normally this might be a negative, but the show eventually makes it all make sense, and the rest of the show is so good it doesn't matter.

One of the most charming parts of the show is its ability to explore the discursive shift. It shows a world, drug dealing, that is depicting with only one side, the side of the media, to most Americans. A lot of people probably view cooking and selling meth as a low form of life, set aside for people with no other skills or aspirations. The show breaks that one sided, subjective view by showing the human side of the business. Walt is an impressive chemist, and teaches it as his local high school. He brings that to the drug trade and makes a mean product: the most popular, pure meth seen in Albuquerque (oh, yeah, it's set in New Mexico, which makes for some fantastically unique scenery and landscapes).

He goes into the drug trade, working with Jesse to sling crystals. He works with Jesse's friends. Here's one of them, Skinny Pete:

He talks and acts like a person your everyday working American might view as a hooligan, drug addict, or low life. But through his lines and actions, especially in dealing with emotional situations that everybody, even drug addicts, go through, he shows he is human, and is just like everyone else. He consoles Jesse, gets impacted by situations, and justifies his actions. They all do. They all try to, at least. That's one of the biggest issues in the show: Justification. Especially for Walt. This what I mean by their exploration of the discursive shift. Showing the other side, the complete side, of drug addicts, drug dealers, drug lords. This point is given life if you watch the show.

Watch the show.

Rhetorical questions seem to appear on their own through the situations in this show. "Is Walt going to..." "What if I was in the situation ... was in?" Take the title of this post for another example. Beautiful people is probably being used in this show. Walt's wife, Skyler, is bangin'. She looks like a mother, sure, but she's a hot mother. I feel that in the situation they are in, a less attractive female lead might have been just as appropriate, but the producers decided on hot, probably following the still very alive notion, full of truthiness, of: Sex(iness) sells.

The big word that comes up, especially early in the show, is maybe. Maybe, maybe, maybe. Maybe Walt will settle this with words, or maybe with that pistol. Maybe Skyler will be accepting, or maybe she won't be. Maybe Jesse will get clean, maybe he won't. Maybe they will be successful in cooking and selling, maybe not. There are many more maybes, but they would reveal too much information about the show, and I don't want to ruin this experience for anyone!

Big lie is a technique not so much that the show uses, but that the show's plot uses. Walt lies to Skyler and everyone he knows because he obviously doesn't want to go to jail and lose everything he loves. This puts him in a shitty spot because he's doing the illegal to support his family after he's gone. Bear that lung cancer he has in mind. Bribery works in the same way, because the meth dealing business and lung cancer bribes, as I see it, Walt into the meth cooking. He learns that you can make serious money by selling meth through his brother-in-law's seizure of drug funds through his work in the DEA. Enticed by the money, Walt decides to get into it.

Reality construction is on the other side of the scale with the discursive shift. Because while the show can expose the drug world in a fair light, showing the drug addicts in a human scope, there is concern at how justified the show makes drug dealing out to be. You are, in the end, pushing out product that innebriates users heavily, sometimes to dangerous levels (overdosing, otherwise not-occurring violence, etc.). Is Walt making enough money to support his family worth the massive scale production and distribution of an undeniably harmful substance? To watch the show with healthy media literacy, such questions needs to be kept in mind.

Media Meditation #5: Childish Gambino

This is the face of Donald Glover. (Image thanks to www.thelongdrivehome.com)

This is the face of Childish Gambino. (Image thanks to www.inyourspeakers.com)

Look...so similar.

Donald Glover, writer, actor, comedian, rapper, has been making music under the alias of Childish Gambino for awhile now. If you've read this blog before you might recognize his face from some videos in a previous post. He's one of the bro rapists in the Bro Rape video, and also was (is? Hopefully.) a front man for Derrick Comedy.

He's written for 30 Rock, acts, in a main role, on the show Community, makes great music (remixes under the other guise 'mcDJ'), and is a comedian. I have nothing but respect for him and I've chosen Childish Gambino for my meditating.

Here are a couple of great tracks:

AND

Both rather different, both rather great.

The reason I chose Childish Gambino, Donald Glover, is because he is an embodiment of convergence, and because music, his specifically for this post, is fantastic.

I've been a fan of this guy before his name got out there, back when he was making the first Derrick videos. It's awesome to see he's making it big (it seems like he is, at least), and he's continued to prove that he deserves stardom.

Donald Glover's production techniques are, as he emboldens through his lyrics, different. His Childish Gambino songs usually use music from his alter persona, mcDJ, as a backdrop for his rapping. The music isn't what you might think would be the back beat to rapping, but it works. He has released mix tapes using other artists' songs, some that certainly don't lend themselves to the rap/hip-hop genre. Those songs are solid as well.

A lot of his lyrics seem to either make fun of or embrace a multi-faced 'rapper' persona. At times he will pour out his soul, which I've seen online described as "Donald Glover coming out through Childish Gambino", and at others he will be using strength in his words to bolster and enliven his ability to rap and live.

His album covers and titles seem to utilize nostalgia and symbols in their appeal to an audiences. For me at least, this album cover brings back memories:

(Image thanks to childishgambino)

This is from his upcoming EP release, so I can't say much about the content, but the picture captures some of the ideas behind Childish Gambino's work. I remember fall for the first time, not surprisingly as a child, and all of the memories from those child hood years where leaves of autumn were a new change each season, an incredibly exciting arrival.

Another album of his, Culdesac, reminds me of my childhood more because I grew up near, basically on, a culdesac. It's a corner stone of suburban living.

His lyrics will also, while being strong, occasionally play the race card. One line in a song goes, "I'm young and I'm black and the world is my oyster...."

He has chosen to mention that he's black, mention his race. And why not? It's a fact that certainly has been influential in the rap/hip-hop genre in the past.

As I said before, Donald Glover is the human manifest of the aesthetic shift. Technology has converged into platforms of great performance and ability. Donald Glover has followed suit. Expressing himself in not just one, or two, or three, but four mediums(!), he has spread his message fast and hot, reaching minds and dropping his thoughts on, to quote from the interview found below, "the spices of life."

Glover also has some interesting relations with the technological shift. From ANALOG to DIGITAL seems to have been an easy, maybe gradual, process for him. Derrick Comedy videos were on YouTube to start, so they had the DIGITAL ways captured early on. They, Derrick Comedy, were also a performing sketch troupe in New York City. They had a dual platform of expression, at least, and that helped get their names above the rest of countless YouTube uploaders.

Donald Glover has this dual-platform idea, but now it's a quadruple-platform of expression. Clearly it's been working for him. As he continues to put out his work, I will strive to enjoy it. Hats off to him!