Herman Cain and surrounding scandals

For this project my partner Abby Wulfing (from blog group 3) took a look at media coverage on Herman Cain's candidacy and the issues brought up with his campaign. He has been a controversial candidate, being a conservative African American with a history of sexual harassment and a campaign ad which ends with him smoking a cigarette. We analyzed coverage from Fox News and MSNBC.

FOX NEWS AND POLITICS

Fox news was the media outlet I used to cover Herman Cain’s campaign for the 2012 presidential Republican nomination. Fox News is predominantly known for being a program with right-wing values and interests- it was very interesting to be able to see their perspective on this Republican candidate and how they chose to portray him in comparison to other media outlets.

Recently, Cain has been involved in a sexual harassment “scandal,” bearing accusations from past employees that have worked for him. After the woman brought this information to the public, other women have been stepping forward with complaints of sexual harassment. Fox News covered this to some extent; the articles described mostly where the information came from. In this article (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/11/03/curious-case-cain-conspiracy/) the issue is swept to the side, and the journalists focus on the possibility of a “conspiracy.” They focus on who could have leaked the information while also implying that the information is not true. The article frames Cain as the victim of this “conspiracy” against him that was unleashed by his competition.

Continuing with portraying Cain as a victim, the article entitled “Attacked By Rivals, Herman Cain Clarifies Abortion Stance,” (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/20/attacked-by-rivals-herman-cain-clarifies-abortion-stance/) aims to show how Cain “clarified” his position on this issue due to criticism of his stance. In an CNN interview, he comes off as pro-choice, but after being slammed by opponents as not being a “true conservative,” Cain stated that he is indeed 100% pro-life, planning to defund Planned Parenthood and to only have abortion as an option for incest or rape. The article does not give a sound stance from Cain, though. It makes it seem like Cain tells the more liberal-leaning media what they want to hear, and when criticized by Republicans, he “clarifies” his stance based on what they want to hear.

Cain also got heat for his campaign ad that features his campaign manager taking a drag of a cigarette at the end of a speech he gives about Cain. This video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhm-22Q0PuM) has been spoofed by The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, and many other people online. This article (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/25/where-theres-smoke-theres-herman-cains-new-web-video/) does not criticize it, but true to explain the purpose of it. They take quotes from Cain’s campaign manager; his stance is that smoking resonates with Americans- he discusses how an Iowan veteran’s bar would have a lot of smokers, and this is the audience they were trying to appeal to.

Lastly, this video (http://video.foxnews.com/v/1238916475001/is-cains-use-of-cornbread-troubling) is discussing the controversy of Cain’s use of “racially charged language”; Fox News is the program that is accusing the liberal media of being racist. They accuse the liberal media of being harsh on Cain’s word choice; in particular, the controversy was over the words “corn bread,” “watermelon,” and “chicken.” Fox states that the liberal media thinks that Cain is using overly stereotypical terms to appeal to a certain type of people; they think he should stop because it’s offensive. Fox, on the other hand, accuses the liberal media of being racist and that Cain’s language is not at all racially charged. The video does not tell us exactly what network the “liberal media,” is and there is no context to the statements they are arguing against.

MSNBC AND POLITICS

Recently there has been a surge of media attention on one of the Republican Party’s hopefuls from the upcoming presidential race in 2012. Herman Cain is an African American candidate who receives substantial amounts of attention for being such, in addition to the attention directed at him in light of his recently unearthed sexual harassment charges. Although there is great variety in the presentation of Herman Cain’s candidacy and the scandals involved, one theme became very clear to me: liberal media seems to be distancing themselves from conservatives and republicans.

The first article I looked at was one that addressed Cain’s relationship with the Koch brothers, http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/11/04/8637464-cain-i-am-the-koch-brothers-brother-from-another-mother, stemming from accusations that he has received campaign money from one of their non-profit organizations. The article began with four long quotes from Cain explaining his affiliation with the Koch brothers. After the quotes and a brief explanation of the problem was an explanation of the charges against him. The feature ends with a video of Cain’s ‘brother from another mother’ quote. There was no notable emotionally-charged language that would suggest bias and ultimately the article had a neutral feel.

In another article, http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/11/06/8660471-cain-has-a-last-word-on-harassment-case , there was a pretty noticeable progression in the portrayal of Cain. He was first described as ‘combative’, and the only quotes from him made him seem quite attitudinal towards reporters, then defiant as he ignored his advisors to answer reporters’ questions. It ended with the fact that he remains ahead in the polls, ultimately giving the feature a positive tone. There was one point that I noticed, though, when the reporter mentioned “the 500 people who paid $200 to attend the event saw two candidates largely in agreement”, that served to devalue their views (in my eyes, at least). This reminded me that, although the story was stating facts and was mainly neutral, it was written to appeal to a certain audience.

One thing I noticed in the articles with a more negative tone towards Cain is their repeated referral to Cain as a former pizza company executive with no previous political experience. While this is true, it was repeated a noticeable amount. The most obviously argumentative article was “Racial politics return with Cain allegations” http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45182328/ns/politics-decision_2012/ . The article begins with strong language that implies that Cain is wrong by bringing up his race, and uses the term ‘high-tech lynching’, used by many of his supporters, against him. The whole article seemed to argue against Cain’s use of race in his campaign. This article in particular seems to alienate republicans and conservatives, using lots of language to imply that readers are “us”, conservatives are “them”.

Over the course of reading these articles, although most of them were very neutral in their portrayal of the issues, I began to realize that there was a certain distance from Cain and his supporters. Although I do agree with the stance that this media takes, and I think they did the best they could to point out the facts of each matter in an unbiased way, I sensed a deliberate disconnect with everything conservative and republican.

OUR COMPARISON AND ANALYSIS

The differences between the two media outlets in relation to the coverage of Herman Cain’s campaign were vast, noticeable, and alienating. On one side was Fox News, the other MSNBC.

The coverage was biased on both sides, but more noticeably biased with Fox News. The events and issues being written about and discussed were seen through a different lens for each respective network.

Fox News is aimed towards a politically conservative audience, while MSNBC is aimed towards a politically liberal audience. This showed in their accounts of stories. There was a strong sense of the “self” and the “other”; in other words, the stories were reported in a way that represented one viewpoint and not the other. Fox News did not seem interested in reporting the actual facts, but more interested in alienating “liberal” audiences and attacking their views. On the other hand, MSNBC focused more on the presentation of facts, but they were not completely unbiased, either. The rhetoric of the articles made sure to imply that they did not agree with or support someone.

As for history and how it’s created, we learned that one has to be careful when constructing ideas about the past. These guidelines are important in understanding how history is constructed:

Our attitude toward the past is governed by three principles:

1. the past is gone forever;

2. to understand the meaning of a text, you must first put in the context of its time and place;

3. you cannot tell where you are going unless you know where you are coming from

(Fasolt)

The second of Fasolt’s principles is one I’d like to focus on. If one is to understand the meaning, the time and place is important to consider. So is the source. At this present time, where history is being recorded and shaped, it is a shame that neutral, unbiased information is not readily available to us. The politics of the matter are more important than the content to Fox News and MSNBC; readers see issues through their lens of opinion.

Each media outlet represents a different ‘leading class’ that is controlling the news and, thusly, our history. It is understandable that they are not completely unbiased, as having an opinion is merely human nature. But the discrepancies noted in representations is without a doubt helping to shape our view of history; by reporting from a certain viewpoint, media sources make it hard to form your own opinion of issues. The fact that bias is hard to avoid forces people to pick one media outlet or the other, further alienating opposing viewpoints and creating a vicious circle of opinion and distance.

To know history, one has to understand the context around the history; the source that information comes from might have their own motives. Nothing is as it seems, and this project has made it clear that in order to form your own opinions you must try and see through the language of reporting to get to the truth of the issue.