I've been reading the posts about Hillary Clinton, the language she used and the shades of intended meaning about her remarks. Maria Niles covered this aspect in her post. Beneath the surface of her remarks there is so much more going on.
Let me state flat out that I do not know or specialize in social linguistics, public relations or have a clue on how to run a political campaign. But I do know when something is said but another meaning is intended. And that always leads me to questions. I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything. I guess what I am attempting is sharing a process of how I feel about this incredible turn of events concerning Hillary Clinton's public image.
I found a few possible answers in an unexpected place. In March 2008 I attended Media Re:Public conference. There were many speakers at the conference but the one relevant to this topic was given by Professor Manuel Castells, Annenberg School of Communications, University of Southern California.
My understanding of the major points:
You can harness power by fear or by envisioning a better world. If you can convince enough people to feel or experience a connection with you or your ideas you are in business.
So what happened in Hillary's statement? I think it was a verbal demonstration that she had the power. And Hillary implied intentionally or accidentally that her power emanated from a specific demographic group (Caucasian working class males) to validate that a certain socio-economic group supported her; and by extension you can too. And the opposite message, i.e. "You don't want some smart ass college kid walking in here, you don't want to be confused with facts and figures. I understand you, how could he? He is the other."
Unless you are not from that specific racial or socio-economic group. Here is a quote from The Republic of T:
Perhaps no one in the Clinton campaign understands this, so let me make it plain. Black folks can hear that dog whistle too. I guarantee that in Black homes across America, where two or more are gathered and listened to that interview, one turned to the others and asked “You all heard that, right?” And the answer came back, “Mmmm hmmm,” followed by a collective sigh.
Over at The Centretarian blog there is this:
The only reason she remains in the race is to illustrate 'white people' will not vote for the 'boy' who dared challenge them. After she wins West Virginia she will crow and cackle over the proof white people will not vote for Obama. She is masterfully orchestrating racist sentiments for her own political advantage just like Wallace, that other Democrat, did. Lift the screen and under the elitism charge, is Wallace's ravings about thoughtful intellectuals. When she refused to say whether Barak was a Muslim she was a cynically cute as George at his worst. By the end of his life I think Wallace regretted what he did. Also he lived in less enlightened times. He can more easily be forgiven.
I leave you with one of the concepts Professor Castells mentioned in the video. He said it takes four times the effort to get people to hear something other than what they believe. Maybe it is time to be more aware of what is being said and act accordingly. No more excuses.
Other Resources:
In the International Journal of Communications, Professor Castells has a full article on Communication, Power and Counter-power in the Network Society. This will open as an Adobe PDF in your browser window.
Brian Leirer has an interview with Amy Gershkoff on micro-targeting and politics.
Over at The Angry Black Women there are a group of comments that express very specific emotions on using fear and race as a demonstration of power.
CE Gena Haskett also a Contributing Editor at BlogHer.
On March 27th I attended Media Re:Public forum that was held on the campus of the University of Southern California, Annenberg School for Communication.
The actual folks that created the forum was The Berkman Center for Internet & Society at the Harvard Law School.
Truth was I got in on a mercy ticket. I also thought the forum would be different than what actually occurred. More on that in a future post.
Anyway I went to a number of sessions and of course I brought old faithful. In this video, Torey Malatia is talking about a new project that is being created. My understanding is that it will be a social participation portal. The name of the project is Vocalo
Contributors can create content that can be uploaded to the site. Some of that user generated content could be ported over to the radio station and once folks get digital that content could also be displayed on a digital channel of the radio station.
There are a number of concerns I had that I wished I could have asked him about.
He mentioned that there are segments of the population that basically has no relationship with public radio and that group sees no need to develop one. He did not mention race but he did mention class as a possible reason for the disconnect.
I wouldn't disagree or agree but I think it is also a matter of content. There has been a systematic homogenization of public radio for years. I do like many of the programs but NPR and American Public Radio does its best to sound like every one is exactly the same with the same wants and needs. It is Lake Woebegone. (No disrespect intended)
Er, no. There is no room for non-pasteurized content or people. And if you don't connect with the multiple communities that a radio station services why should I listen?
I'm getting off track again. Where was I? Oh yeah, Another question I wanted to ask Torey about the decision not to be transparent about the connection to the radio station.
Hey if you are going to fling words like "social networking" then you really have to understand that you gotta be up front from jump street. Hiding your connection to NPR will do you no favors.
Say to your listening community - NPR wants you. I'm going to give him a freebie. Find out where the local poets hang out. Commission them to create content for the site. Make it clear they own their own stuff and give them a running start on how to podcast for you.
Boom. Content and word of mouth marketing in one swoop. Then do the same for the painters, the gardeners, the low riders and anybody who has something to say and has been waiting to be asked.
Just a thought.
I didn't believe that corporations and foundations gave away millions of dollars out of a need to advance the public good or to assist in making this world a better place to be. Nope. I chalk it up to how many ways can you say tax write off or cost of doing business and wait for the show to begin.
I may have to re-think my biases. I attended the Media Re:public conference that was given by The Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University. The conference was held at the University of California. I was hip deep in the academia and Journalists and other folks. More on that later.
As I listen to Elspeth talk I realized how many programs I have seen that had been funded or underwritten by the MacArthur Foundation. What I didn't know was the extent that the foundation gave to both U.S. and International organizations.
So this is a seven minute discussion on what the MacArthur Foundation does and why they are interested in participatory media.
Other Resources:
Amy Jussel of Shaping Youth lead me to a twelve publications by the MacArthur Foundation that have an free open access online version.
Amy King over at Amy King's Alias let folks know that the MacArthur Foundation and Guggenheim fellowship winner John Ashbery has been name MTVu Poet Laureate. You can sample his poetry on the MTVu site.
Taking a break from the rain inspired Doo Dah parade review I want to share with you a series of videos taken at the Obama Rally at UCLA on February 3, 2008.
For those that don't care for politics please feel free to skip my next couple of posts. I want to show what is not being aired on American news programs. I currently endorse no particular candidate but I do believe in being informed. The sound bites provided by mainstream media are insufficient for our current needs.
Michelle is a powerful speaker. This clip gives a glimmer of that but I got more stuff to share. One of the things she has touched on was that the separation that has occurred within the past 12 years has truly damaged our collective identity of who we are as Americans. I've felt this ways for quite some time but this is the first time I've heard it identified in a political sense.
