There have been many criteria over the past few
centuries that measured one's political clout and influence: divine right,
property, money, and acquaintances. In
the twentieth century, particularly the past two decades, the political power
to influence others resides in information: the more information you have and
the more you know how to use it, the more potential influence you have.
People rely on the media for their information,
as it is the most easily accessible, efficient, and passive way of acquiring
knowledge. Unfortunately, the media is
not completely reliable as it can and has been manipulated by politicians,
their parties, and their governments.
This makes the media a powerful weapon as politicians use it to effect
voters political choices through advertising, change popular opinion on issues
of state, and debasing political campaigns through smear tactics.
"You can make a candidate someone
they aren't. You can protect them from
someone they are, or make them more of what they are".-Senator Norm
Atkins(1)
"An election
is like a one day sale...the product (candidate) in a sale
(campaign) is
only available a few hours on one day".(2)
The main goal one hopes to achieve by
advertising something is to make it marketable so people will purchase it. Since what a politician hopes to ultimately
do is persuade people to vote for, or buy, their political platform, they would
be foolish to not take advantage of the captive and passive audience of the
advertising mass media. Unfortunately
politicians and their management take advantage of this medium to manipulate
voters' choices. Two cases of advertising manipulation on voters was during
-2-
the Canadian
National Referendum of 1992 and the Quebec Referendum of 1995. During the National Referendum of 1992 over
the Charlottetown Accord "three hours of free broadcast time was made
available during prime time on every radio and television network that met the
statutory criteria"(3) according to
the Referendum Act. The act also states
that "half (of the time) is allocated to the 'Yes' and half to the 'No' side"(4). This allotment of advertising time did not take into account the print advertisement
that was plastered all over the daily and weekly news periodicals calling for
people to vote for their side. In
the Toronto Star all the month of
October the "Yes" campaign, fronted by Brian Mulroney, took out ads
that had powerful bylines printed in
bold type like this one of October 17:
"Vote Yes for Canada's Future"(5). This statement is an attempt to manipulate
not only the voter who will take the time to read the reasons in smaller
print, but also the voter who only
glances through the paper as their attention is caught, even if it is only for
a second, to the bold type and the
powerful finality of the statement.
These are examples of direct use of
advertisement to sway voters' decisions.
There is a more indirect method as well where politicians use the news
media to try to convey their message and hope the news will air or print
it. During the National Referendum campaign the "No" side relied on this
factor more than the "Yes" side did.
In a Globe and Mail article before the vote, the reporter regurgitated
what Judy Rebick had said about the "Yes" side being "top-heavy
with politicians, government types, and opinion leaders"(6), and how the
public respects the "No" side as it is "something that comes
from the grassroots"(7).
-3-
Similar to the National Referendum, the Quebec
Referendum also followed the same guidelines set out by the Referendum Act
concerning media advertising allotment.
The only difference was that the advertisement was localized to Quebec
only. As with the 1992 Referendum the
local periodicals in Quebec were littered with advertisements for votes: in
Quebec's French-language newspapers "the federal government took out
full-page ads"(8) which stated
"in huge bold letters...NUMBERS DON'T LIE and goes on to explain how
Quebec...will receive 31 per cent of all federal transfer
payments"(10). This ad was meant to
persuade Quebec citizens to vote no as Canada is very generous to them.
Politicians in Quebec also took advantage of
the indirect media advertising when they recited political rhetoric to
reporters hoping it will be printed:
Pierre Paradis , Liberal House Leader, said
the poll numbers
suggest that the
No side's message that separation is the real
issue is getting
through to the public. "The more
the stakes
become
clear...the more people will be inclined to say No"(11).
This statement by
the Liberal House leader works just as well as a paid advertisement as a result
of it being short, concise, and the main messages are clear: separation is the
real issue and the clear person, that is to say the person with clarity of
mind, will vote no.
"Corruption may then be seen as just one
of the many ways a person
can persuade
someone who exercises public authority...so
long as the
power-holder acts within the rules".(12)
-4-
Not all
politicians in power try to corrupt others through the media, as the quotation
may suggest, but politicians have used the media to influence, change, or even
confuse peoples' views on issues of state.
This trend goes as far back as Nazi Germany when the streets of Germany were littered
with propaganda posters and literature condemning other countries and their
ideologies, for instance: (found below a poster of a massive skeletal Bolshevik
soldier) "Only one man can save us from the monster of Bolshevism-Adolf
Hitler!"(13). Propaganda has always
been an affective form of manipulation and has stood the test of time but there
are other forms of media manipulation that have altered viewpoints. The time that preceded world war two in
Canada the issue of conscription was a very volatile issue which Prime Minister
Mackenzie King endeavored to deal with a referendum. Barring the result of the referendum,
Mackenzie King new he would have support on any decision he made as most
periodicals knew whom they had to aid during the war. In a letter from J.W. Dafoe, editor in chief
of the Winnipeg Free Press, to George
Ferguson the editor of the news room , Dafoe clearly states, in regard to
Mackenzie King's "conscription if necessary, but not necessarily
conscription" policy:
Of course, the
coming of the war will change the [approach to]
the editorial
page...unless something happens that we simply
cannot stand, our
business will be to go along with the
government and
help them out in every possible way by
explanations,
intelligent publicity and so forth.(14)
-5-
Mackenzie King's
government were confident that no matter the outcome of the war or the
conscription issue the media would support their decision, and since print news
and radio were the only information medium of the time, the content was easily
controlled. Since conscription was
passed and very little resistance was put forth by opposition, it must be concluded
that the media was successfully controlled in favor of Mackenzie King's
government and the reality of conscription was taken easier by the public.
A more recent use of the media to change
people's minds was immediately after the Quebec referendum when the federal
government cabinet team was put together to "fulfill the promise made by
Mr. Cretien at the massive Montreal No rally"(15-). This cabinet team "sprung out of sudden
haste"(16) and its airy "mandate is to try and give recommendations
to the Prime Minister...on all the possibilities for change in the
union"(17). The lack of real
direction and purpose in the mandate of this team suggests that its emergence
was to assure the public that the government is still in control and has
alternate plans to deal with the problem.
The reality is that there can be no control over something that the
government only has a half say in, there is no control on the side of Quebec
because the Parti Quebecois has political power at this time.
-6-
"Oh Lord,
teach us to utter words that are gentle and tender
because tomorrow
we may have to eat them"(18)
Nothing is more
vulgar, heated, or viscous than a political campaign. It does not matter how good one's intentions
are, it is inevitable that a politician will make personal attacks on their
opponents, and reduce the race to a battle of smear campaigns. Similar to political advertising, politicians
rely on the media, both personal direct advertisement and indirect advertisement through journalist
news reporting. In the recent past the
most controversial media smear tactic was during the last federal election when
Kim Campbell
made a an
advertisement criticizing Jean Cretien's physical disability. It was a collection of people commenting on
how embarrassing it would be if he were to be Prime Minister due to the
paralysis on the left side of his mouth.
Ultimately this tactic failed and in turn Jean Cretien used the bad
publicity that Campbell brought on herself to portray her as petty and
desperate.
In a more recent paradine, the Quebec
Referendum was also a forum for bashing the opponent both directly through
campaign advertisement and indirect free exposure through the news. The No side malignantly condemned Mr. Bouchard's
"campaign slip when he spoke of the 'white race' in Quebec and its low
birth rate"(19) . To make the
matter worse, the Liberals "also found fodder in...Jaques Parizeau blaming
money and the ethnic vote"(20) for the Bloc's loss in the referendum. The response of the Parti Quebecois and the
Bloc was to resort to the same tactics by "accusing the No side of
-7-
overspending and
other illegal acts... and perhaps costing the sovereigntists a victory".(21)
Another verbal thrashing Mr, Bouchard took came
at the hands of ex-Prime Minister Pierre Truedeau. Bouchard sarcastically alluded to the
constitution matter of 1982 and implied Truedeau was a liar; "when talking
about the distortion of Quebec history, Pierre Truedeau is certainly an expert
in that matter"(22). Truedeau floored Bouchard by saying that "the
federalists would have done better in the recent Quebec referendum
"(23) if the Yes side didn't
"make Quebeckers, especially former premier Rene"Levesque, look like victims"(24),
Politics is a very dirty game, and
if you don't develop a thick skin to deal with the rhetoric then you will not
survive the smear campaigns.
"I fear three newspapers more than a
hundred thousand bayonets"(25)
The
mass media in all its manifestations has a mandate to be a forum for views both
directly and indirectly through advertising and journalist reporting, This massive forum has been the place, for
many years, that politicians have had their voice. Like many other institutions, the mass media
has been utilized as a tool of the political world with which politicians,
their parties, and their governments capture the fixated and passive audience, thus making the
media a powerful device to affect voters political choices
-8-
through
advertising, change popular opinion on issues of state, and debasing political
campaigns with smear tactics.
No comments:
Post a Comment