Matching Items (4)
Description
Although smaller and more local elections could have implications more dramatic to an individual than larger district-, state-, and nation-wide elections do, very few citizens vote in them. Moreover, citizens are limited in procuring further information on candidates, issues, and the overall election when there are fewer sources of such information across various mediums. While existing literature on political communication and voter participation does not yet extend far enough to sufficiently address the most local aspects of media effects on elections, the political science field’s dominating frameworks would suggest that an increase in news media, social media, and ground mobilization tactics would increase civic engagement and voter participation. My research, which focuses on hyperlocal elections, both supports andrefutes certain elements of that suggestion. Based on surveys of potential voters in a university’s student government election and a school board election, interviews with two student government presidential candidates, and an analysis of social media engagement, my research compares three mass media platforms and two elections to characterize the effects of media on hyperlocal elections—that certain tactics have drastically different results on different populations. My research expands the body of media and politics knowledge to include hyperlocal elections, suggesting that civic engagement on the local levels require increased further study.
ContributorsRomanov, Andrew Samuilovich (Author) / Wells, David (Thesis director) / Brodie, Mark (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / School of International Letters and Cultures (Contributor) / Department of English (Contributor) / Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication (Contributor) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor)
Created2015-05
Description
In the 2016 Presidential Election, Republican candidate, Donald Trump, used a communication strategy in which he labeled his opponents and naysayers with negative nicknames. Throughout his campaign he labeled opponents as "Crazy Bernie," "Crooked Hillary," "Little Marco," "Lyin' Ted," "Low Energy Jeb" and "Goofy Elizabeth Warren." Donald Trump repeated these nicknames at rallies and over his social media platforms. Donald Trump was elected President in November 2016 and took office the following January. Did these nicknames that Donald Trump used resonate with voters? And if so, who did they resonate with the most? In order to research these questions, the U.S. eligible voting population was given the opportunity to complete a survey asking them a series of questions about choosing the word that best describes these politicians that Trump has labeled. They were also asked questions regarding what political party they are registered to and who they voted for in the 2016 Presidential Election. Results indicated that Trump voting respondents and registered Republican respondents felt the words Donald Trump used to label his opponents described those politicians best, in comparison to other groups and demographics. These findings demonstrate that the nicknames Donald Trump used during his campaign did resonate with certain groups of voters.
ContributorsBrewer, Jennifer Marie (Author) / Renzulli, Virgil (Thesis director) / Bovio, Sonia (Committee member) / Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2018-05
Description
A study on the effectiveness of different graphic design elements, such as color and shape, in political communication over a digital medium. The study was conducted through an online survey of young adults (18-25 years old). Participants' preferences for the design elements are compared to their online and offline political participation and their primary sources for political information.
ContributorsRyan, Daiquiri Ice (Author) / Lennon, Tara (Thesis director) / Woodall, Gina (Committee member) / Blyler, Lisa (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication (Contributor) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor)
Created2014-05
Description
Popular culture has a longstanding tendency for being affected by, and reversely affecting, politics. Films, in particular, can exist as either purse “escapism” or heady pathways for political commentary. During the Second World War, governments in both the United States and Great Britain used film as a vessel for their own messages, but after the war ended, the two nations allowed their respective film industries more free expression in commenting on wartime and post-war politics. Film also provided particularly vivid political commentary during, and in the years immediately following, the Cold War. Though film has a longstanding history of being a force for political commentary, the medium’s specific engagement with the Cold War holds particular significance because works produced by the two nations’ film industries paralleled the social trend toward political activism at the time. While films produced in the UK and the United States in the 1960s addressed a wide range of contentious political issues, a huge body of work was spurred on by one of the most pressing political tensions of the time: namely, the Cold War.
The United States and Great Britain were major, allied forces during the Cold War. Despite their allied positions, they had unique politico-social perspectives that greatly reflected their immediate involvement in the conflict, in addition to their respective political histories and engagement in previous wars. As the Cold War threat was a large and, in many ways, incomprehensible one, each country took certain elements of the Cold War situation and used those elements to reflect their varied political social positions to a more popular audience and the culture it consumed.
In turn, filmmakers in both countries used their mediums to make overarching political commentaries on the Cold War situation. This analysis looks at five films from those countries during the 1960s, and explores how each representation offered different, often conflicting, perspectives on how to “manage” Cold War tensions, while simultaneously reflecting their conflicted culture and political decisions. The films analyzed reveal that each country focused on contrasting perceptions about the source of the threat posed by Soviet forces, thus becoming tools to further promote their distinct political stances. While the specifics of that commentary changed with each filmmaker, they generally paralleled each country’s perspective on the overall Cold War atmosphere. The British message represented the Cold War as a very internal battle—one that involved the threat within UK borders via the infiltration of spies the tools of espionage. In contrast, the American films suggest that the Cold War threat was largely an internal one, a struggle best combatted by increasing weaponry that would help control the threat before it reached American borders.
The United States and Great Britain were major, allied forces during the Cold War. Despite their allied positions, they had unique politico-social perspectives that greatly reflected their immediate involvement in the conflict, in addition to their respective political histories and engagement in previous wars. As the Cold War threat was a large and, in many ways, incomprehensible one, each country took certain elements of the Cold War situation and used those elements to reflect their varied political social positions to a more popular audience and the culture it consumed.
In turn, filmmakers in both countries used their mediums to make overarching political commentaries on the Cold War situation. This analysis looks at five films from those countries during the 1960s, and explores how each representation offered different, often conflicting, perspectives on how to “manage” Cold War tensions, while simultaneously reflecting their conflicted culture and political decisions. The films analyzed reveal that each country focused on contrasting perceptions about the source of the threat posed by Soviet forces, thus becoming tools to further promote their distinct political stances. While the specifics of that commentary changed with each filmmaker, they generally paralleled each country’s perspective on the overall Cold War atmosphere. The British message represented the Cold War as a very internal battle—one that involved the threat within UK borders via the infiltration of spies the tools of espionage. In contrast, the American films suggest that the Cold War threat was largely an internal one, a struggle best combatted by increasing weaponry that would help control the threat before it reached American borders.
ContributorsNelson, Taylor Lynn (Author) / Miller, April (Thesis director) / O'Flaherty, Katherine (Committee member) / Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication (Contributor) / School of Historical, Philosophical and Religious Studies (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2016-05