“MUCKRACKING IN 21ST CENTURY U.S. MEDIA

                  “ Today technology is in its golden age. Lincoln Steffens, Ida Tarbell and many other muckraker never imagined the tools and techniques; spy cams, computers, Freedom of Information searches now make muckraking a very potent form of journalism in 21^st century. The internet has done in the newsroom what the telephone a hundred and more years ago did not. There are no inadequacies, but substantial methods to reach sources and facts rapidly more than ever today. While it is true that the supplemental tools of news gathering has enormously emerged, the days of traditional news organizations as gatekeepers of information are nearly over. They’ve almost lost their watchdog function. This is why we can’t see contemporary muckraking examples in dominating media organizations today.

 The general conception on contemporary muckraking today is not quite optimistic as it is evident by the unsubstantial performance of mainstream media organizations to support this institution. The investigation units have been agonizing for financial and timing props and are often sacrificed for rating wars. Media executives tend to outsource watchdog mission of journalism to non-profit organizations and think-thanks.

 On the other hand we can’t see widespread public demand on muckraking today as much as that was in 18^th and early 19^th centuries. The   public  has always clamored to know more during American Revolution, Vietnam War and Watergate.

   “Muckraking”, in other words “Exposé-Investigative Journalism”, has been eroding in last century, exclusively on major TV networks because of the media executives’ inclination to prevent rising costs, law-suits rather than supporting journalistic efforts. They intend to maximize their revenues which are conducted on weaver ratings and advertisers. This inclination generates sort of chain effects in media industry. As a result, the business of journalism has been emerging to business of entertaining. To see celebrities on primetime news is not surprising and absurd anymore in the middle of a news story reported from Baghdad. The other outcome of this transformation is prognosis of punditry.  Media organizations don’t give any credit to investigative units as they give to their precious pundits.

 Fortunately there are solutions and alternatives to keep muckraking and non-profit news sustainable.  Blogs, non-governmental and non-profit organizations, Investigative Reporters and Editors, Inc. (IRE), philanthropists who support muckrakers, many advocated newspaper reporters who provides deep, detailed and analytical reporting on their books seem to be alternative solutions. Yet re-activating public demand would be the most influential method to remind media organizations their watchdog responsibility.

 In this context, my study aims to analyze the obstacles and solutions in 21st century muckraking with the assistance of recent trends. The first part of the study includes determinative factors of decline of muckraking today in the context of investigative journalism. The second part implicates the solutions and alternatives. 

 I’ve consulted a variety of academic and journalistic resources. I’ve also analyzed studies conducted by PEW Research Center, Columbia Journalism Review, and American Journalism Review, Neiman Foundation, Investigative Reporters and Editors, Inc. (IRE).

 MONEY AND TIMING MATTERS 

 Before we analyzing determinants of declining muckraking, we need to observe general trends in news reporting in U.S media outlets today.  When we ask the question: “How healthy is news reporting in 21^st century?” most of the journalists’ responses are pessimistic. They are not satisfied with the quality of news that has depreciated due to increased bottom-line and financial pressures. These pressures generally tempt news organization to emphasize journalism that’s easier and cheaper to do, that targets the audience that advertisers desire most, and that intends to entertain rather than to inform.  

 According to PEW Research Center’s 2007 survey financial pressure is now overshadowing concern about the quality of news coverage, the flagging credibility of the news media, and other problems that have been very much on the minds of journalists over the past decade. Large majorities of local print journalists (82%) and national print journalists (69%) say staffs at their news organizations have decreased over the past three years. Two-thirds of internet (69%), national and local journalists (68% each) say that increased financial pressure is seriously hurting the quality of news coverage. [i]

 Evidently financial pressure on journalists and highly increased cost of news gathering makes investigative journalism less popular. Investigation reporting has been perceived as financially expensive by media executives after the market-driven journalism start to rise in 1980’s. The new trend has put profit maximization at the first place. Once they face with financial crisis, the investigation units would be the first  to make cutbacks. Therefore financing long-term, rough, expensive and risky muckraking stories an became unfavorable option in newsrooms.

 MARKET-DRIVEN MEDIA

 The consolidation wave in media industry, high amount of dependency to the market conditions and advertisers are other vital facts to determine the diagnosis.  Media consolidations has been lessening independence of journalism and limiting distinct voices. How can we expect the major networks to chase after the scandal where their sister companies are involved and then to report it? Rupert Murdoch, AOL, General Electric or Walt Disney Company would never worry about contingent investigations on their other divisions.

 Furthermore, TV’s sole revenue is their advertisers. In the past, news and documentary programs were funded by a single sponsor who exercised great influence over the program like Murrow days.  As television production grew more expensive and networks demanded greater control over their programming, financial support shifted from sole to multiple sponsors. This has fostered more commercialism on broadcast news reporting. As a result the proportion of national and local journalists saying that commercial pressure is negatively affecting coverage has climbed dramatically since the 1990s. Reporters are under the pressure to make commercially viable products because of

The TV program sponsors. If the news stories hurt one of the advertisers, they may suggest to change the story or not to air it.  

 IRRESISTIBLE ATRACTIVENESS OF ENTERTAINMENT AND RATING WARS

  As a consequence of seeking less expensive way of news making and maximizing ratings, entertainment became a favorite phenomenon for  media executives. As journalism is losing its major responsibility, informing people, media gurus discovered “INFOTAINMET” notion of media which well-worked in TV’s.

 Infotainmet became the most efficient way to be successful in rating wars. To maintain their audiences’ attention before they switch their channel, TV outlets bear to make less comprehensive and analytical coverage of news instead of investigative-hard news stories. Then who needs boring investigating stories and facts?

 This is the reason why public intellectuals, pundits, commentators cooperate and celebrities cover all 24 hours news cycles. Besides they are less expensive, the speculations and comments they make are the most efficient ways to entertain and attract the viewers’ attention. Once they are able to entertain ratings start to flow.

 Consequently, since TV’s began to intertwine news and entertainment, news reporting has become tenuous and poor quality.

 OLD FASHION MUCKRAKERS OUT MARKETABLE PUNDITS IN

 Since it is far cheaper and efficient to fill their airtime with the live political stand-ups, pundits, experts, commentators and freaky news shows, today TV news rooms are like 24 hours open-CVS pharmacy stores. They have to have 24 hours available pundits to supply viewers demand. If you are a marketable pundit no matter how much expertise you have even outside of your field, you would be welcome to the air. Therefore TV news cycles are stuffed by experts who have an expertise on almost everything such as infotainers, friction creators, and agitators and so on.                              

  SOLUTIONS

 Even so if we are not able to see a muckraker on TV’s because of TV the  executives choose ratings, money and punditry what are the alternatives and solutions going to be? Especially on TV’s, news became almost commercial products; narrowed, softened and rendered to entertain. However public demand would always be there to know more detailed, analyzed and investigated new stories. Thus potential muckraking cannot be restrained by prominent media organizations.

  Although traditional media organizations are still preeminent actors to determine what is going to be the “NEWS”. There is tremendous amount of news sources that feed public demand today. Blogs, philanthropists, think-thanks, non-profit organizations, public interest groups and academic institutions who supports investigative reporting intensively are the crucial alternative solutions.

 For instance there are already powerful non-profit news organizations, such as National Public Radio, Christian Science Monitor; Journalism’s founders include those affiliated with legacy news media-such as Annenberg, Scripps, Tribune, Reynolds, Gannett-plus long time supporters like Carnegie, Ford and Pew Charitable Trusts.

 There is also rising trend among non-governmental and non-profit organizations that support muckraking and citizen journalism voluntarily. AARP (American Association of Retired Persons) is one of the biggest supporters of journalistic works. In 2005, U.S Foundations granted $158 million for media and communications. Knight, the leading journalism founder, announced more than $21 million in journalism grants in 2006 and more than $50 million in 2007.

 There are also many individuals and organizations which have been funding specifically investigative journalism today. For instance McDonald’s Joan Kroc gifted $200 million to National Public Radio and also left $5 million to KPBS, NPR’s San Diego affiliate in 2003. Also the Carnegie Corp. of New York,, gave NPR $200 million last year to support education coverage.

  Who are these people? They are part of the public. Then we can interpret that people want to see more journalism from journalists and media organizations. Otherwise they would not gift big amounts of money. While these funds can be a good budget relief for media organizations, they could also reinvigorate journalistic ambitions. Who knows how many successful investigative journalists would join the profession in the future in spite of the big erosion of citizen journalism in today. 

  The digital media is another convenient place to carry on muckraking today. Bloggers, journalists who operate online overwhelmingly seem to advocate muckraking. They emphasize getting information quickly, investigation government claims, analyzing complex problems and discussing policy. In general they tend to believe interpretive function of journalism than distributive. This inclination would not be harmful unless they violate accuracy, objectiveness and seeking truth codes of journalism. 

 In addition to non-profit organizations, online media and foundations, the most crucial element that needs to foster muckrakers is public demand. The public should clamour for more news programs like the ones Edward Murrow, Bill Moyers, Walter Cronkite have advocated. They’ve exalted them and many others in their days. Supply and demand for investigating journalism were extremely high in those days. What has changed today? Info-entertainment, commercial and advertorial journalism should not be a destiny of this society. The public demand needs to be awakened again also in favor of democracy and future of citizen journalism.

 CONCLUSION

  Today American Society stands in greater need of change in muckraking because it is almost disappeared.  The central problem of muckraking is the prominent media itself. Newspapers, News Magazines and TV’s were the sole promoter of muckraking in last centuries. Surprising now they are the ones who outsource watchdog function of journalism to non-profit organizations.  

 On the one hand, traditional media has been looking for more profit-less expense.  They prefer to retreat their TV studios or offices to provide more entertaining and titillating news to public. Thus the investigation units have been agonizing for financial and timing props and often sacrificed for rating wars.

 On the other hand there is a philanthropist who can gift $200 million to media organization, fostering them to follow investigative reporting. Blogs, non-governmental and non-profit organizations, advocated journalists, individuals who support muckrakers are the solutions and alternatives to keep muckraking and non-profit news sustainable. 

 In conclusion, despite the fact that public demand is dramatically less for muckraking today, re-activating this is the crucial element to remind real function of journalists and muckrakers. No one would believe that nonprofits going to overthrow commercial media 20 years ago. Now this is happening and with the help of sensitive citizens and journalists of the society, muckraking will flourish again like in the old days.

A POST-PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION ANALYSIS

 “WHY DID OBAMA WIN? WHY DID MCCAIN LOSE? “

 

INTRODUCTION   

 

  This is one of the biggest victories in the terms of electing first African-American President, significant attendance of young voters, record-breaking fundraising, massive ground-gaming and prosperous digital campaigning.  

What was the success of Obama? First, his exceptional oratorical, communicative ability and characteristic have played a crucial role in the victory. In this way, he could attract many first time voters and reach out a rich palate of American diversity– women, blacks, Hispanics, whites-old people.  He inspired people with his story and campaigned in every state, allowing people to see and hear his message. His medium has shaped his message and the message, “change”, was perfectly delivered. Significantly, his digital campaigning and fundraising skills provided him a much advantage over McCain.

How about McCain’s failure? Why did he lose? This was an inevitable circumstance because he did not really talk and listen to people. As a veteran politician for almost 30 years he expected to know how to play the game. He could have been successful with his strategies if we were in 1980’s. Yet today’s trends need a politician who knows how to communicate.  Therefore his conventional campaigning strategies that focused on top to bottom strategies, did not meet with the demands of the 21st century political communication.

In this paper, I’ve analyzed both candidates’ performances with the following aspects of present- day political campaigning communication from understanding the context of their campaigns; developing and delivering the message, consistency of the message, fundraising, ground-game, debates, digital campaigning strategies and crisis management.

 

DIGITAL COMMUNICATION AND FUNDRAISING STRATEGIES

 

             The digital strategies have played vital role during the 2008 Elections. Similar to Howard Dean’s campaign in 2004 digital fundraising has bubbled and millions of people contributed not only money but also opinions, advertisements, websites, videos, surveys to the election. People have run their own campaigns across the country from suburbs to big cities and connected to each other with only one click. As a result we have seen the transition that presents understanding of new communication style from old school to 21^st century political campaigning. The magic words: social media websites, blogs, search engines, video podcasts have highlighted in both candidates’ campaigns. Therefore a candidate who has more knowledge on the internet and digital tools well-understood an importance of digital communication . As a result he has won.  

                On the one hand President-Elect Barack Obama was younger and web savvy. Beyond the internet, he was personally interested in the rise of social networking, Facebook, YouTube, and user-generated content. Marc Andreessen, coauthor of Mosaic, founder of Netscape, and co-founder of social network Ning who had a 90 minute on one on one meeting with Obama early in March 2007 affirms that Obama already knew how to combine politics and digital communication. “In particular, the Senator was personally interested in the rise of social networking, Facebook, Youtube, and user-generated content, and casually but persistently grilled us on what we thought the next generation of social media would be and how social networking might affect politics — with no staff present, no prepared materials, no notes. He already knew a fair amount about the topic but was very curious to actually learn more.”[1]

Instead of classic top-down method of controlling the message, Obama let people to create their own messages. He added a new high-tech gateway to his campaign strategy by encouraging his supporters to interact online and run their own campaigns. Consequently the new strategy has brought many positive feedbacks to his campaign. Those supporters have brought millions of others and the campaign has reached to massive online database as well as donations. 

            Moreover his expanded online reach, by collecting names, e-mail addresses and hometowns gave him a flexibility to mobilize and accumulate people for campaign events and speeches. The rich database has also allowed Obama’s campaign to know and touch even people’s specific demands on local base. His campaign could also generate people who were not really involved in politics before. Michael Cheney who studies online campaigning, a professor of communications and economics in University of Illinois clarifies how Obama campaign was distinguish and successful on the digital strategies. “The online strategy only works if candidates are willing to give up the traditional top-down method of controlling their message, letting supporters craft their own and giving them a stake in the process. Obama’s events generated a few thousand new e-mails and addresses. Obama can mobilize people when he needs to. ” [2]

                       On the other hand Sen. John McCain and his campaign have looked less accomplished on digital strategies throughout his campaign. He drew a politician profile who

hires people just to create his web sites and do fundraising, organizing and voter outreach programs. He did not understand and elevate importance of digital world.

            In a contrast to Obama, McCain was not really attached to online crowds. His internet knowledge questioned many times. Yet being a big political figure since 1982, he was a well-known candidate and he could have used this advantage to convey and consolidate his messages effectively throughout the internet. According to Pew research on both candidates’ online performances, McCain’s campaign web site has had fewer bells and whistles, with fewer videos and fewer social networking capabilities than Obama’s. [3] Johanna Blakley, deputy director of The Norman Lear Center at the University of Southern California Annenberg School for Communication also points out weakness of McCain’s online outlook. “I would not be surprised if the McCain design team realized that a flashy, Flash-driven site might alienate a group of voters looking for something simple and honest—an antidote to the slick, new poster boy, Barack Obama. This old-school site designs may be a calculated choice.”[4]

            Overall Obama’s online operation broke down the numbers and beat the pants off McCain. The great promise of Obama’s digital campaign was that online fundraising. Suchlike Howard Dean’s success in 2004, 3 million donors made a total of 6.5 million online donations for Obama adding up to more than $500 million and they were in increments of $100 or less. Here are some other significant outcomes of Obama’s digital strategies. According to ADD Adult Strengths, there are nearly 6,000 % more pages on Barack Obama’s website than John McCain’s. 3,032% more hits for Barack Obama than John McCain and Barack Obama’s Facebook page had nearly 4 times more followers and posts than John McCain’s page. There are 147 comments on Obama’s MySpace page but none on John McCain’s. Barack Obama cranked out 10 times more tweets than John McCain, had 2254% more followers on Twitter. Obama had nearly twice as many search results for his name as John McCain, and more than 5 times as many videos posted on YouTube. [5]

THE MESSAGE

 

            Joseph S. Tuman gives definition of successful political message in his book. “A message with traction is a message that succeeds with voters, mostly because it appeals to them, resonates with them, or perhaps touches them in some way. More importantly, as the word traction implies, the message also succeeds because it becomes one the voter remembers-hopefully all the way to election day.” [6] In political oratory, effectiveness of the message strictly depends on not only the message itself but also its consistency which requires speaking with one voice, not putting out messages that conflict with each other, and sticking to a single message long enough so that your audience comes to automatically associate the message with your campaign. Once we look at both presidential candidates’ abilities to show, control and deliver their messages during the election, we clearly see that Obama has had a huge advantage over McCain. Despite minor alterations he played the “message game” with these all proper components. In contrast his rival, McCain has struggled with his muddled messages in the sense of almost every issue and made a lot of flops throughout his campaign.    

             Obama’s prominent message “change” has well-matched with the moment in the sense of his profile as a new “change agent” and worrisome current economic, political conditions of the country. Nothing could have been more appealing than “change” and “hope” after 8 years of fallacies. Obama’s chief campaign adviser David Axelrod had a phrase that he often used to describe this approach: America was looking for “the remedy, not the replica”. [7] Almost everything about Obama’s campaign was representing a completely new transformation in politics. His premise built on one simple message: “Bush policies have failed and McCain is carrying his tattered banner of a failed administration.” Obama has executed consistency of this message from the beginning until the end. His well-applied core message has provided him coherent and apprehensive look and gave him a more flexibility to deliver his other messages on economy, domestic issues and foreign relations. 

            As a young, passionate and flawless orator, Obama’s sole disadvantage was his lack of inexperience. However it turned out successfully because his message was refusing all features of old style politics. He was using the words “promise”, “believe”, “hope”, “future”, “enough” and “dream” very often. Eventually these words have remained to resonate in everyone’s ears during the campaign and reassured the voter’s expectations.   

            Moreover Obama campaign had ads that were more carefully and strategically crafted than McCain’s. Many of them have succeeded to disqualify McCain’s messages that were not representing any change but as a successor of Bush administration. Obama’s campaign executed every possible component to show that McCain can not overtly break with Bush.    

            On the other hand as a veteran politician, McCain has remained with many rhetorical fallacies, flip-flops, contradictory and shifting messages in addition to Bush factor. So, he could not be successful to create and centralize his message that ensures well-suited correlation with his opinions. Therefore his messages have failed to persuade people’s opinions on “change”. 

            Certainly he could not help the fact that Bush was so unpopular. Therefore McCain’s core message, “I’m more experienced and I am the maverick” did not say much as a compelling idea especially for who had voted for Bush %90 of the time. Vast amount of people in the country believed that the country was on wrong direction because of Bush’s policies.

            Once we look his muddled messages and implementations we see many unfortunate examples on the checklist. One of the biggest negative turnouts in his campaign was his Vice President choice. He attacked Obama’s inexperience and then chose a running mate who is unqualified to step in and serve as president, if needed. Then he became a supporter of the ideas that he was oppose to in the past.  For instance, he had opposed to offshore oil drilling as it is too risky and short-sighted then he promoted it as an answer to energy independence. The other most damaging flop, “the fundamentals of our economy are strong”, was hard to sell especially when big financial companies were collapsing one by one. On the day before the Federal Reserve System bailed out AIG with an $85 billion loan and McCain insisted that taxpayers’ money cannot be used to rescue AIG. Then the next day he flopped again and sad it was right to protect the millions of Americans who have accounts at AIG.

            As a result the muddled and uncontrolled message was one of the major reasons for McCain’s failure. Jeff Berkowitz gives further explanation on the issue: “McCain campaign had no central positive theme. What was McCain’s message? ‘I am not Bush’. Kind of like Nixon saying, ‘I am not a crook.’ Hardly words of inspiration. McCain had themes for his campaign. He had themes for his campaign but no central theme. Country First? More a bumper sticker than a theme. Further, McCain did not quite understand or believe in his campaign’s core arguments.”  [8]

            Coincidentally the history has repeated. As John Kerry defeated in 2004 by GOP for being a “flip-flopper”, this time one of the biggest GOP veterans, McCain labeled by the same.

 

CRISIS MANAGEMENT  

            During the election both candidates have faced many obstacles that urged them to make instant decisions and give immediate responses. As a fundamental crisis during the elections, financial meltdown has played a crucial role to look at both candidates’ crisis management abilities. Also various verbal gaffes delivered by candidates have undercut their campaign messages. For instance,  “lipstick on a pig”, “the fundamentals of our economy are strong”, “Joe the Plumber”, “Obama’s socialist Tax plan”, “ACORN”, “ Rev. Wright”, “Bill Ayers” controversies. Eventually the candidate who controlled his temper and messages during theses crisis and surpassed the other candidate had reasonable advantage managing the crisis.

            For instance Sen. Barack Obama expressed a full-confidence when financial rescue package controversies have emerged.  What he has done was acting calm and not postponing the debate or suspending his campaign. Obama told voters at a campaign event in Denver, Colorado, that it’s important to stay calm, because things are never smooth in Congress. “There are going to be some bumps and trials and tribulations and ups and downs before we get this rescue package done,” he said. “I’m confident that we are going to get there, but it’s going to be a little rocky.”[9]

             Then he arranged a meeting with high-level economic staff and gave a look like a president. He also called his rival McCain and asked him to release a joint statement about principles that both men wanted to see in financial rescue package.  He knew that McCain had stumbled when he made a decision to suspend his campaign.  It was very clever political maneuver that ended with Obama’s victory. He did not only reassure the voters as a confident candidate but also disposed McCain’s crisis management strategy. 

            On the other side, McCain was repeatedly accusing Obama and Democrats of putting “politics ahead of country”, but did not conduct any appreciable message or proposition to conquer the crisis. Instead he played a political gambit that aimed to illustrate a good example of bipartisan leadership.  Then he offered to postpone the debate and suspend his campaign. However people were expecting a strong message that he is able to manage the crisis.  As Boston Globe’s editorial called it a “Stunt”, McCain could not manage this term successfully. “This impulsive stunt made him appear unsteady and underprepared, too. America can work through a financial crisis and handle a campaign at the same time. In politics as on Broadway, the show must go on.”[10]

DEBATES

 

            As we have seen in three presidential debates, both candidates have profiled real contrasts on their debate styles and presentation skills. The body language that they’ve used was also opposite of each other. At the end, Obama swept all three debates. [11]This was inevitable result for who represented the future and not the past with his messages and was able to use his body and voice effectively.   

            Obama gave more cerebral, reflective responses; because McCain gave gut-level, immediate responses throughout the debates. While Obama was displaying average people’s problems and generalizing the topics, McCain was attacking Obama’s characteristics and not talking about his policies.  His attacks contained platitudes sometimes. For instance “That One” comment was one of them. [12]The “Otherness” was the last thing that McCain needed to show his maturity and experience to the voters. While Obama seemed even-tempered and pleasant to McCain’s attacks, McCain seemed tired, out of touch and angered.

            Moreover, Obama’s body language and charisma were invincible in contrast to McCain’s. He maintained his energy and rhythm until the end. Unlike Obama, McCain has suffered to give audience a real smile and hand gesture. He could not use communication skills effectively as much as Obama could.

 

THE GROUND GAME

 

             Another victory of Obama during the elections was his ground game. His campaign efficiently combined digital strategies, fundraising and door to door system in 50 states with thousands of volunteers. He reached out even most rural counties in the country and got people’s votes.

             Like Bush in 2004, Obama has taken his fight directly into suburban and rural GOP strongholds in order to curb McCain’s potential margins. For instance Obama had 82 offices in Ohio, one of the biggest battlegrounds in the elections, nearly twice as many as McCain. Labor unions backed his effort with more than 12,000 volunteers.      On the contrary, a ground game was absent from McCain’s campaign, even in their stronghold, Ohio.

            Moreover Obama’s “New Organizers” campaigners, as a new progressive movement has established “Neighborhood Teams”. It was a perfect example of bottom to top campaigning. [13]

As a result Obama’s ground game strategy was able to register millions of new voters for the November election. The founder and CEO of New Media Strategies, Pete Snyder gives further evidence to explain Obama’s ground game success. “The Obama camp recognized that something very different was going on here. It threw out many of the old political adage and assumptions, including the granddaddy of them all, Americans don’t tune into elections until after Labor Day. Obama’s campaign geared its online and off-line engagement and advertising to build on this unprecedented early interest and mobilized it into an effective ground game to get out their vote.” [14]