Know Current Events: Political Satire

In order to understand the public, you must have a stable comprehension of what is going on in the news and what is currently surrounding the public. Current events are important in understanding the public's placement in emotional, financial, and sociocultural environments; this way you can strategize ways to approach your target audiences with this background information.

Soft news is one trending way that people are receiving their news. Soft news would be described as something that's main purpose is to entertain, while providing news on human interest topics, such as disaster and scandal, according to Matthew A. Baum in the American Political Science Review. Currently, there are a lot of news-broadcaster-types providing soft news every night. Here's a breakdown of three you've probably heard of, and may want to check out:

Jon Stewart (host of The Daily Show) Mon-Fri @ 11PM EST on Comedy Central 
Jon Stewart has always been the "funny guy", but since 1999 when he increased the ratings for The Daily Show by 400%, his humor really took off with a whole new purpose. Jon Stewart reports the news to you with a sarcastic attitude, one that makes it very clear which side he's on of any story. BUT it's okay! Because through his platform, he can get away with reporting in such a way that hard news outlets never could.

Book: America (The Book): A Citizen's Guide to Democracy Inaction by Jon Stewart & The Daily Show writers

(Source : The New York Times)

Stephen Colbert (host of The Colbert Report) Mon-Fri @ 11:30PM EST on Comedy Central
A spin-off of The Daily Show, The Colbert Report uses satire to explain, well, everything. More specifically, it's more likely to comment on the conservative. You can think of Stephen Colbert as somewhat of a "fake" anchorman.

Book find: I AM America (And So Can You!) by Stephen Colbert

(Source: zap2it)

John Oliver (host of Last Week Tonight) Sundays @ 11PM EST on HBO
Last Week Tonight comes on once a week in both the U.S. and the U.K. With a host with such a loud personality as John Oliver's, this show has a following weekly that matches the tastes of other satirical news shows, like Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart. John Oliver reports on general current events over a longer span of time.

(Source: Sesame Workshop)

"Habemus Papam"

Less than a month ago, Pope Benedict XVI announced that he was resigning his papacy. He is the first pope to do so in over 600 years. On Wednesday, Cardinal Bergoglio was selected to become Pope Francis, the first Latin American pope in history. Pope Francis' selection is exciting on a variety of levels. On a fundamental level, he is the first pope to come from the Jesuit order. Pope Francis is coming into papacy in a very sensitive time; he is responsible for transitioning the church into modern times, where technology rules.

Pope Francis must also juggle a variety of modern issues plaguing the Roman Catholic Church. There have been divisions over women's role in the church, the church's role in politics and the still fresh child sexual abuse scandals.

So far, it seems that Pope Francis will be a revolutionary figure in the church, already calling for change and positioning himself in positive media spotlight.

What do you think about Pope Francis' new challenges? Let us know!

Celebrity Political Endorsements: A Hindrance or Help to Presidential Candidates?

Celebrity endorsements have become increasingly more influential in our celebrity-fixated culture. Everywhere you look it seems that celebrities are rallying behind some product or brand. In light of the upcoming Presidential Election, those celebrity endorsements have turned political, as famous individuals are vocally supporting the Presidential candidates. Beyonce, Jay-Z and George Clooney are well-known Obama campaign supporters while Romney has received political endorsements from Clint Eastwood, Donald Trump and Cindy Crawford. Celebrity endorsements have proven to be successful when it comes to product marketing, but when these celebrities and politics mix- are these endorsements helping or hurting the candidates?

The audience a celebrity appeals to can potentially have a great impact on how those individuals vote. If a particular celebrity appeals to young individuals, these potential new voters may actively seek more information about the candidate and be more motivated to head to the polls. How the youth of America votes has been regarded as of crucial importance in this upcoming election. Candidates are employing several tactics in order to secure those young votes and celebrity endorsements can be a way to do just that.

On the other hand, the public’s perception of an endorser can adversely affect the candidate. It is no coincidence that brands often pick celebrities who are relatively scandal-free to be a spokesperson for their product. For example, Lindsay Lohan, a recent Romney supporter, has been a controversial endorser as her public image is marred by a party-girl reputation and numerous stints in rehab. The credibility of a celebrity can be reflective upon the candidate.

Celebrities have been more vocal about their political affiliation in recent years than ever before. Among the many factors that motivate us to vote for a certain candidate, should celebrity endorsements be one or is it already? Let us know what you think!

This guest blog post was written by PRowl Public Relations staff member Cara Graeff.

Senate Vote Spurs Communications Storm

Last Monday, April 16, Republicans in the United States Senate blocked a Democratic effort to open the floor for debate on President Obama’s Buffet Rule causing both parties to ramp up strategic communications efforts.

The measure to block the Republican cloture failed 51-to-45, with the Democrats needing at least 60 votes to introduce open debate on the measure. One Republican and one Democrat crossed party lines and four Senators did not vote.

The bill would have opened the debate, and likely passage, of the so-called Buffet Rule, which raises the tax rate on the superrich to at least 30 percent. The bill, made famous by billionaire investor Warren Buffet, was proposed by President Obama last September.

President Obama and the Democrats are trying to use this bill, along with others, to control the message of the economic debate, usually a Republican stronghold. With effective media relations and constituent relations, Democratic politicians can use the Buffet Rule to gain the support of the lower and middle classes of America. Democratic organizations have already began attacking vulnerable Senate Republicans and Mitt Romney over the tax rate.

Republicans are also attempting to control the message by pushing their platform that raising tax rates on the superrich would cut jobs in a volatile economic environment. However, more targeted messaging needs to be used in Massachusetts and Nevada, where Republican Senators are most in danger. Mitt Romney, the foregone Republican presidential nominee, also needs to communicate reasons why he is against Buffet Rule in order to win votes in November.

Finally, the public relations implications for the voters may be the most important. They will either positively or negatively associate the Buffet Rule with Democrats since it is the voters’ friends and family who will be affected by the tax.

Is Standing Up to Senate on Transportation Bill Good PR?

The United States Senate passeda 2-year transportation bill last week. The bill passed the upper house by avote of 74 to 22 in a bi-partisan effort that President Obama and the Democratsin Congress have celebrated as another boost to the nation’s economy. Unfortunately for the Democrats, Republicans in the US House of Representatives rejected the Senate’s bill last night with a procedural vote. Now the question remains, is standingup to a bi-partisan Senate good PR in an election year?

The transportation bill would have extended federal highway trust fund spending for another two years, allowing federally financed infrastructure improvement programs to continue. It consolidates 196 federal transportation programs into about a dozen but it also keeps the projects intact and properly funded. The bill would have given stability to construction firms, which could then start purchasing equipment and hiring new workers at a crucial point when the US is recovering from a recession.

Senate Democrats and President Obama would have touted the bill as another pre-election victory, pointing to the anticipated boost in employment numbers to support their platform. This would be especially crucial for the Democrats in a presidential election year, where down-ticket races are sure to be affected by presidential choice and administration policy.

Republicans in the House could have pointed to the bill as an example of compromise and effective lawmaking, helping them to fend off challengers in primary and general elections this year. This can no longer be used to their advantage.

Now the Democrats will point to the House’s inability to pass the bill as another example of the polarized politics-as-usual approach to lawmaking that has permeated Washington for too long. This might hurt the Republicans in the upcoming election, especially if the Republican primary leads to a brokered convention. The rejection of the Senate’s transportation bill will likely backfire on Republicans as Democrats will use it as ammo to paint the right as weak on job creation. Good PR? I think not.

Election 2012 as a PR Learning Tool

Whether you’re a political news junkie or someone who has never really had interest in Washington, as a PR student it is important to pay close attention to this election season. So many skills we use in PR will be put to use by candidates over the next seven months, and it is important that we are able to pick up on them. Here are a few things to look out for along the campaign trail:

The Language of Persuasion

PR rhetoric and political rhetoric have a deep rooted bond when it comes to persuasion. The goal of both is to identify and capture audiences, then eventually get those captivated audiences to act on their opinions and beliefs.

Watch the next GOP debate and focus on one candidate. Get familiar with their beliefs and policies, then watch that same candidate speak at a college or at a small town hall meeting. Notice how drastically the language changes. The key ideas are the same, but the rhetoric is totally different and tailored to the specific audience.

Crisis Communication

Let’s face it--blunders, embarrassing mistakes and misused words are inevitable and expected in presidential campaigns. Every GOP candidate has been under fire for one thing or another throughout this campaign. It’s not necessarily what happens but how it gets resolved. Most slip-ups are forgotten about a week later, however if they’re handled poorly they never go away.

The next time a candidate has something negative surface from their past, watch how they handle the crisis. Do they spin the story into a new, positive idea? Do they own up to their past and move on? Think of how you would handle the situation, and how you would advise the candidate to move forward.

Get Your News from a Variety of Sources

This is the most important aspect to keep in mind during an election for everyone, not just those in PR. The only way to fully understand an issue is to hear both sides of the story. If you’re politically conservative and only watch Fox News or politically liberal and only get your information from MSNBC, you aren’t seeing the whole picture. Listen to an opposing view-- it could allow you to see an issue in a completely different light or could ultimately strengthen your own original beliefs.

What other PR tactics have you been paying attention to this election season?

This guest blog was written by PRowl Public Relations staff member Mackenzie Krott.

Spotting Persuasion Tricks This Election Season

As election season looms, there are ads and debates everywhere telling us which person is better suited to run our country. Many Americans watch these ads and tune in to the debates, but they don’t really see what is right in front of them. Politicians have been stereotyped as tricksters, and it might not necessarily be untrue. Every politician uses persuasion tricks in one way or another, and it’s important to be able to pick out these instances in order to form a well-rounded opinion. Here are some typical persuasion tricks that politicians use regularly that everyone should keep an eye out for.

Intensifying and downplaying
It makes sense that politicians want to intensify their own good qualities, but they always want to intensify their opponent’s poor qualities. On the flip side, politicians want to downplay their own poor qualities, while at the same time downplaying the good qualities of other politicians.

Emotional appeals
A great example of an emotional appeal is the ASPCA commercial with Sarah Mclachlan. The sad animals in that commercial trigger an emotional response from viewers that ideally causes them to donate to the ASPCA. Politicians prey on people’s emotions in the same way. They might not use cute animals but they use things like guilt, patriotism, and fear to generate certain emotions from voters to make them agree with their political opinion.

Nonverbal persuasion
Every politician uses nonverbal persuasion in a different way. Some politicians change the way they dress depending on their audience. If they want to seem like “one of the people” they might neglect to wear a tie or roll up their sleeves so they seem like any ol’ regular person.

Argumentation
Every politician is an expert at forming an excellent argument. This can be seen especially during a debate. One politician might ask another question after question until their opponent is backed into a corner, unsure of what to say next. This is a perfect example of how politicians twist argumentation to their advantage.

These things might seem insignificant in every day life, but when it comes to politics, it is it is important to be knowledgeable. Every politician uses persuasion tricks, to some degree, but many politicians take it over the top. In order to make a smart choice this election season, watch out for these tricks next time an ad or debate comes on TV.

Have you noticed any of these tricks in politicians lately? What’s your opinion? Let us know!

This guest blog was written by PRowl Public Relations staff member London Faust.

A Right To Know? Gov’s Food Stamp Asset Test May Be Hypocritical

Governor Tom Corbett (R – PA) wants to asset test food stamp beneficiaries, but should he be asset tested as well? After all, public funds do support his dining habits.

Corbett announced his plan to asset test Pennsylvania’s 1.8 million food stamp beneficiaries in January. The idea is the commonwealth could save money by eliminating food stamps for individuals and families with more than $2,000 in savings or net worth.

His plan is causing quite the PR firestorm. It has graced the Op-Ed pages of the Philadelphia Inquirer and other local papers several times since it was announced. Even former Gov. Ed Rendell warned Corbett in an open letter that the test would be expensive and hurt Pennsylvania’s economy.

In a bit of investigative blogging, I’ve decided to file a Right To Know request on Gov. Corbett’s dining expenditures. I’m sure the former attorney general has more than $2,000 in assets. Why should public funds pay for his food?

Compromise Ahead of Elections? What's the catch?

The United States House of Representatives and Senate passed a year-long extension of the payroll tax cut last Friday, Feb. 17, marking another legislative victory for President Obama ahead of the 2012 elections. Want to know the best part? The bill was passed through with bipartisan support and a hefty helping of compromise. Crazy, huh?

The payroll tax cut, which was temporarily extended last fall, was packaged with an extension of federal unemployment benefits. The $143 billion economic package will reach over 160 million workers. A big reason the bill garnered bipartisan support in both houses was because of two conservative-leaning provisions: one reducing the time that individuals can stay on unemployment and another helping to support doctors who treat patients on Medicare. Both Democrats and Republicans hope that it will help sustain the country’s economic recovery.

But if Obama supported the bill, why did it pass? It turns out, voting yes (or in some cases, voting no) to a bill before an election can give candidates great PR ammunition.

Obama is likely to tout this bill as his latest effort to boost the economy, a subject that will dominate the upcoming presidential election. He will use this bill, along with the American Recovery and Investment Act and the recent drop in the unemployment rate, to take credit for moving the economy forward post-recession. If this is properly communicated to target audiences (think American’s unemployed, underemployed and the middle class) it could result in a big boost in public opinion for Obama.

Democrats are likely to piggyback on Obama’s economic messages, a strategy that worked well for them in 2008. They can add this to the list of legislation that they voted for to help the economic recovery. This makes them look like strong advocates for the middle class, a powerful position in the wake of the Occupy movement.

Finally, Republicans who voted for the bill might choose to promote their bipartisanship in the promotion of economic growth. This could work well if Obama has a high approval rating in their states. Republicans who voted against the bill can position themselves as strong advocates of the conservative, top-down approach to macroeconomic policy. However, the corresponding messaging might appear insensitive to unemployed or underemployed individuals.

Whichever way you want to look at it, the payroll tax extension was a strategic vote. Only time will tell if it pays off, and for whom.

Santorum to Receive the Thrash Metal Vote?

“You take a mortal man

And put him in control

Watch him become a god

Watch peoples’ heads a ‘roll”

Those are the lyrics of Megadeth’s front man Dave Mustaine, who also happens to be Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum’s latest fan.

Mustaine wants to put Santorum in control.

The Megadeth front man endorsed Santorum to MusicRadar.com a little over a week ago. Social and traditional media has finally picked up on Mustaine’s endorsement and has been having a field day, another case study of the PR ramifications of a questionable endorsement.

@TheTweetOfGod, a popular spoof account, tweeted yesterday, “Dave Mustaine Endorses Rick Santorum. Pro-life, meet Megadeath.”

@HuffPostHill tweeted, “The Gwar endorsement is really going to tip the scales http://bit.ly/zvADSD”

Campaigns are no stranger to these negative endorsements. Opponents of the Obama campaign tried to associate him with some of the more radical teachings of his former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, in 2008. Obama’s campaign was forced to go on the defensive and deny contemporary connections between him and Wright.

Mustaine’s endorsement of Santorum shouldn’t rise to the level of the Wright endorsement. If it does, Santorum’s staff should release a statement thanking Mustaine for his endorsement but making it very clear that Santorum does not share the same values as the Megadeth front man.

Whatever Santorum does, he probably shouldn’t publicly lay claim to the thrash metal vote. I’m not sure if that would go over well with his religious conservative base.

Political Cannibalism

“Eating or defeating your own is a form of sophisticated cannibalism.”

Former Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) famously said that in his farewell speech to Congress, originally referring to the surge of the Tea Party and the corresponding rise in partisanship and disparaging rhetoric directed towards traditional Republicans. Unfortunately for the candidates vying for the Republican presidential nomination, Specter’s words have not resonated throughout his former party as he intended.

Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, the two leading candidates for the Republican presidential nomination, are on the verge of cannibalism.

The two Super PAC-backed foes are slamming each other with political attacks and negative campaign ads. Both candidates are pouring millions of dollars into TV commercials like this anti-Gingrich ad, which attempts to link Gingrich’s employment with Freddie Mac to the collapse of the housing market.

The Gingrich campaign has been actively attacking Romney for everything from his business ventures to his time as a governor. It even launched a series of robocalls accusing Romney of forcing Holocaust survivors to eat non-kosher food.

The two heavyweight campaigns are effectively cannibalizing each other with these vitriolic attacks. President Obama will be able to weave a familiar narrative with the thread of these attacks to use against whoever wins the primary. My advice to the republican candidates: play nice or get you’ll get booted out of the sandbox.

North Korea's PR Stunts Don't Fool Me

The North Korean response to the passing of former “Dear Leader” Kim Jong-il was well executed, almost too well executed to be genuine. Behind the country’s thinly veiled PR stunts lies a leader who is inexperienced and scared. I guess that this is a good time to remind everyone that the views and opinions found in this post are my own and do not represent those of PRowl Public Relations.

Kim Jong-il was an interesting man, to say the least. Many have gone as far as to call him paranoid and possibly deranged. He has been a consistent thorn in the west’s side and has issued numerous nuclear and chemical threats against neighboring South Korea.

Kim Jong-un, Jong-il’s 27-year-old son and the “great successor,” led the ceremonies on Tuesday morning as the country bid farewell their former dictator. The death of Jong-il means the potential end of an era marked by increasingly authoritarian policies, state-sponsored brainwashing and attention-hungry PR stunts.

However, it doesn’t appear that North Korea is giving up on its PR stunts quite so fast.

On Monday, North Korea released footage of thousands of citizens publicly crying over their former leader’s death. The tapes showed masses of mean and women neatly lined up and violently weeping.

I don’t mean to sound crass, but this kind of stuff just doesn’t happen naturally. It seems to me that this public spectacle must be a product the years of brainwash or some brand of state-sponsored propaganda released after the passing of their Dear Leader. I mean, Jong-il’s rule didn’t exactly do much good for North Korea. I doubt that recent famine has boosted the public’s moral to the point that they’d freely weeping for him.

North Korea then launched off at least one short-range missile into the waters near South Korea, North Korea’s long-time enemy and an ally of the west. This missile test was supposed to be a show of strength but to me it was just a thinly veiled PR stunt trying to mask Jong-un’s cowardice.

North Korea is no stranger to these publicity stunts but I think the country’s bark is worse than its bite. Jong-un is inexperienced and he has just inherited a world full of enemies and problems, including humanitarian crises within his own country. North Korea’s thinly veiled PR stunts don’t fool me for a second. Jong-un is unprepared to deal with the realities of leading a country, especially one as besieged as North Korea. Keep launching test missiles North Korea, because that’s all you’ll be able to do for a long time.

Perry and Cain Take Big PR Hits for Political Blunders

Temperatures across the northeast may be unseasonably warm, but a few Republican presidential candidates seem to be experiencing a bit of brain freeze. Both Rick Perry and Herman Cain publically dropped the ball in the last week; resulting in another big drop, this time in the form of poll numbers.

It all started last Wednesday, November 9, when Texas Governor Rick Perry blanked on the name of the third government agency he would give the ax to once in office.

“Three agencies of government when I get there that are gone: commerce, education and the um, uh… what’s the third one there? Let’s see…” Perry stumbled and turned to Ron Paul, who helpfully offered to send the Environmental Protection Agency to death row. When pressed by the moderator, Perry stumbled again, “I can’t, the third one, I can’t... Oops.”

Perry took a big PR hit from his “oops” moment. A recent Washington Post/ABC poll shows that 42 percent of Republicans view Perry in a favorable light while 38 percent now view him unfavorably. Only four percent of perspective Republican voters say they would vote for Perry in the primary.

Herman Cain faired equally poorly in the past week. Cain stumbled his way into a foreign policy gaffe just as he distanced himself from the litany of sexual harassment allegations against him. When a journalist asked him if he agreed with President Obama’s response to the rebel uprising in Libya, Cain responded: “Okay… Libya…” He then paused for a full ten seconds, tried to get his bearings and ended up failing miserably. He offered lukewarm response well two minutes after the question was asked and came out of the interview looking very rusty on foreign policy. A recent CNN/ORC poll puts Cain’s support down to 14 percent, well below that of Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich.

Josh Gordesky wrote a piece for Ragan.com offering some helpful advice to prevent these Rick Perry/Herman Cain brain freeze moments. His three preventative measures to combat temporary amnesia are to take good notes, practice at least three times and to take some time to visualize yourself speaking in front of an audience before you go live. These are wise words of advice for anyone speaking in public, when presentation and memory is crucial.

Only time will tell if these two candidates can make up for the ground they lost this week. Rick Perry and Herman Cain need to take some time to really learn their positions, policy proposals and current events to have any chance becoming a frontrunner again.

#Occupy Social Media

How can social media networks aid and implement large scale social revolutions and thought movements? Just ask the folks over at the Occupy movement.

The Occupy movement started with an online call-to-action by Adbusters, a fringe culture magazine with anti-capitalist tendencies. Adbusters urged Americans to begin an occupation of the financial district of New York City on September 27, 2011. Now, 41 days later, tens of thousands of Americans are occupying cities all across the country thanks to amazingly effective social media communication.

So how did they do it? Hashtags, videos, Facebook events, and total social media infection. The idea spread like a virus; from Twitter to Facebook to YouTube to youth across the nation. Once the movement attracted the attention of traditional media there was no stopping it.

Social media’s role in modern social movements came to light during the Arab Spring in early 2011. Populist movements in Egypt and Tunisia used social media, namely Facebook and Twitter, as a communications and organizational tool. When government -controlled media outlets spewed only propaganda, the people turned to social media for the truth.

The Occupy movement has taken this idea and expanded on it. Social media can now be the catalyst for social movements, not just a medium through which they operate. Too bad Occupy can’t use social media to come up with a coherent platform; that might just be too much to ask.

NATO Launches Tweet-Seeking Missile at Taliban

NATO, the most advanced military alliance in the world, just unveiled a new weapon in the fight against terrorism: the tweet-seeking missile.

The International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), NATO’s security and development arm in Afghanistan, unleashed a slew of these tweet-seeking missiles against a Taliban-run Twitter account last week after Taliban gunman opened fire on the U.S. Embassy in Kabul. The Taliban account was quick to retaliate, spurring a digital firefight between NATO and Taliban social media soldiers.

@ISAFmedia was quick to condemn the Kabul attack, saying: “Re: Taliban spox on #Kabul attack: the outcome is inevitable. Question is how much longer will terrorist put innocent Afghans in harm’s way?” The ISAF then tweeted the number of civilians that insurgents had killed that day.

Taliban-affiliated @ABalkhi quickly returned fire, saying: “@ISAFmedia I dnt knw.u hve bn pttng thm n 'harm's way' fr da pst 10 yrs.Razd whole vllgs n mrkts.n stil hv da nrve to tlk bout 'harm's way'.”

The ISAF, faced with a direct attack did not retreat (or retweet for that matter). The account shot back: “Really,@ABalkhi? UNAMA reported 80% of civilians causalities are caused by insurgent (your) activities goo.gl/FylwU.” The ISAF attack was a success and the Taliban account was forced to retreat, firing only a weak response which was ignored by ISAF social media soldiers.

This short firefight could be the first battle in a long social media war, so how did the ISAF fare? Victory on all fronts. The direct response was a bold tactic but it worked well when paired with credible evidence. Then the ISAF social media soldiers secured victory by not responding to the Taliban’s petty final attack.

Twitter warfare may become a new frontier in the war on terror as NATO continues to battle for the hearts and minds of the Afghani and Iraqi peoples. NATO has won the battle and if they continue to engage the enemy, they will win the war.