And the Results are In...

The results are in and incumbent Jay Nixon has won a second term as Missouri’s governor beating Dave Spence by winning 54% of the vote. Since the election has concluded this will be our last blog post. Over the course of this assignment it was our mission to watch terms and rhetoric by candidates and how they could influence the media as well has comparing them to industry terms. During this time we learned about the candidates, what issues were important to them and about the influence politicians can have over the media. Overall, we feel that we learned a lot throughout our research and we hope you did too. We both have included a personal sign off to you, our readers.

Morgan:

During this assignment I had the privilege of concentrating on comparing the candidates to each other and then comparing their rhetoric to journalism. Being a journalist myself, it was very interesting to me. What surprised me the most about this blog was that I developed an understanding of not just what a politician can do to influence media and the public, but also the nuances between the candidates rhetoric. Not just their platforms, but the way that their platforms were presented. 

I found Spence to be very combative and determined to prove he was not a “career politician” like Nixon. Nixon was more reserved and concentrated not on proving he was better than Spence, but also that he had the record to prove he knows how to fix Missouri’s problems. 

In the end, I preferred Nixon’s rhetoric to Spence’s. While I agreed with some of his beliefs and values, Spence was just too attacking and in-your-face for me.  I also agreed with some of Nixon’s ideas and found his softer tone to be more appealing. I hoped that you all learned as much as I did through our research and enjoyed our posts.

Kathleen:

Welcome back to Word Watch for our final blog posting. Thank you so much for reading our blog during these past several weeks. We’ve enjoyed writing it, and I hope you enjoyed reading it.

As a journalist, student and registered Democrat, I learned a lot, particularly about rhetoric. I discovered that the way politicians talk isn’t’ always intended to clear up their beliefs and values — more often than not, it is designed to hide them.

            Journalists and politics can manipulate rhetoric. They select key phrases to pain they pictures they want to display. It could be that they want to sell more papers, or make a candidate seem a certain way. Either way, this assignment has taught me a few things:

            - Always read everything critically. Communication has a purpose. The world is full of loaded language.

            - In journalism, being there is the first step. Sometimes, having a reporter there means you’re the outlet who gets to select a quote and you’re the one who gets to pick what the story was from the day. Every other outlet can take a back seat.

            -Being vague is accepted.

            -Contradictions are not as big of a deal as you would think. 

Overall, this blog barely scratched the surface. The amount of material is overwhelming and a rhetorical analysis of it all would mean drowning in words. For any future bloggers out there, it might be interesting to see how rhetorical changes after elections. It will be a whole new discourse once the dog fight is over.

Wheat and Soybeans

We have come upon the eve of the election and we soon find out who will be Missouri’s next governor. Will it be incumbent Jay Nixon or newcomer to politics Dave Spence? Even though the campaigns are almost over, there is one more topic that can be covered in terms of comparing the candidate’s rhetoric to each other and to journalism. That subject is agriculture.

With most of Missouri being rural, agriculture is a huge industry.  It is also a subject that Spence and Nixon mostly agree on. They both believe that Missouri’s governor must step in and stop the farming regulation coming out of Washington D.C. As Missourians, they both know the importance of the agriculture to the state and its economy, as well as knowing that the industry needs help. They have also both been endorsed by various farming groups such as the Missouri Farm Bureau for Spence, and the Missouri Soybean Association for Nixon.  But both also have different plans on fixing the problems in the industry.

Nixon is more concerned with creating a wider market forMissouri products around the world bringing more income to Missouri farmers and the economy. Nixon even traveled to China to make an agreement with the Chinese that resulting in 4.6 billion dollars of Missouri good being exported to China. Nixon has also signed bills to improve conditions for farmers, recognized various farmers and agricultural programs and visited farms affected the recent droughts and that have received some form of aid during his tenure as governor.

Nixon is once again relying on his record in convincing people that he is the best choice to continue growing Missouri’s agriculture industry. This is one issue where Nixon also tries to be bipartisan by signing bills that both the left and right agree need to be put into action. Nixon is not trying to attack Spence on this and is attacking more concerned with the actual issue at hand.

Spence also want to help the agriculture industry, but by treating it more like a business. This falls into his platform that he is not a “career politician” but a businessman who can lead. Spence plans on stopping the farm regulations and reorganizing the way the industry is controlled in the legislature.  Spence believes that this is the best way for the industry to get back on its feet.

This plan goes back to the fact that Spence is focused on the economy and running the Missouri government as a business. Because Spence is a business man, if he can explain why this is a good way to run a state, he can garner more support. He also gone on record saying that Missouri relies too much on agriculture and another way he can fix the current problems is by diversifying Missouri's economy. Which is also something that he as a business can help with.

Spence is also attacking Nixon on his inaction of stopping farm regulations that have been thrown at Missouri farmers. As it has been mentioned before, Spence is trying to convince the public that Nixon leadership should be doubted and that he knows what it best for the state because of his background in business.

This race and the current droughts have caused agriculture to come up frequently in journalism. Many times it is not called agriculture but instead called farming, unless it is talking about a program, such as an academic agriculture program. Farming seems to be more personal of a term rather than agriculture and more people can feel a connection with farming and farmers. Journalism also brings up agriculture a lot because politicians see it as an important subject. 

Many candidates have been visiting farms, trying to pass bills pertaining to agriculture, and speaking to agricultural groups trying to find out what they want/need. This brings a lot of press coverage to the industry as well as its problems.  In one way this is good, because if more people know what is going on more people are inclined to help. On the other hand, politicians use agricultural and those in the industry as a way to gain free press. They influence the press into giving them and the industry a lot of coverage. Overall, while the press covers agricultural simply because it is important to Missouri, it also provides candidates and politicians an opportunity to persuade the press to cover them and gain free press.

Abortion: important without a cause?

            As the campaigns wind down, we wanted to examine one last topic area before Tuesday’s election, so we saved the best for last.

            Today, we’re talking abortion.

            Legally speaking, very few elected officials have any impact on the legality of abortion.

According to Article II of the United States Constitution, only the President can appoint Supreme Court justices, who would then be able to overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade verdict that made abortion legal. 

            Even though statewide candidates, including those for governor, have little influence over the larger issue of the legality of abortion, we still obsess about candidates’ abortion position.

Pro-life or Pro – choice? What about partial birth abortion? When does life begin?

            The media continues to fuel this discussion by covering these issues on races where they have little impact on. The St . Louis Post-Dispatch ran this article July 15^th discussing Nixon’s position on abortion and how that impacts law in Missouri.

            While this article fed the frenzy and our obsession with abortion, it also answered our question about why their stances matter.
            Turns out voters like to know the answer to the pro-life or -choice questions for several possible reasons:

            1: It reveals something about ideology. A stance on this issue is not like picking a favorite color. This decision speaks volumes about a candidate and the philosophy for how they view reproductive rights.

Nixon and Spence debate. Photo by St. Louis Post-Dispatch

            2: When absolute power is absent, fragmented power will do. According to the same Post-Dispatch article, Nixon had just announced that he would allow legislation that restricted abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy

            These restrictions might seem small, but these insignificant changes can add up to tight restrictions on abortion. Effectively, regulations can restrict the procedure to the point that it isn’t necessary to have it illegal if you can make the legal parameters narrow enough. We’ve seen attempts to use vague wording and state legislatures to effectively outlaw abortion — like Mississippi’s personhood amendment.

            So voters, ask away! Understand that when Nixon says he’s pro-choice, that informs not only his stance on abortion, but also issues like the availability of contraception.

             Understand that when Spence’s website says he is Pro-life and “committed to protecting human life at all stages.  That is why he has been endorsed by Missouri Right to Life for his strong pro-life beliefs,” that this ideology will influence smaller decisions that could add up to major change.

Pro-Choice, Pro-Life, or something else?

Abortion and contraceptives have always been one of the most controversial social issues and it is the same way in Missouri. The issue is even more prominent now after Todd Akin’s comments on “legitimate rape.” While this issue, like others, still falls behind the economy and job creation both candidates have shown their stances on the issue.  

For Nixon, he follows most liberals by being pro-choice and pro-contraception. Nixon showed this belief this past summer when he vetoed a bill that would allow religious institutions to not comply with the new federal mandate that birth control and other reproductive health procedures, including abortions, must be covered by health insurance policies. The language he used to explain why he vetoed the bill was quite interesting. In his explanation, Nixon went out of his way to make it clear that he did not see this bill as a religious or first amendment issues that some were making it out to be. He instead claimed that his reasoning for vetoing the bill was that the new measure would put a large amount of power in the hands of insurance companies. Nixon felt that that the amount of power was too much. Missouri’s legislature voted to override Nixon’s veto this September.

Nixon is trying to avoid this being an issue about religious freedom and first amendment rights, which didn't happen. What makes his response so interesting is that he has gone on record saying that he did not agree with federally mandated health insurance, yet he is supporting a mandate that controls how insurance companies and businesses provide coverage for patients.

When it comes to abortion, Nixon is trying to reach across party lines. Last year, he allowed the veto deadline on a bill that places restriction on late term abortions after 20 weeks pass. However this brought some backlash from his party, because he simply let the bill pass without his signature and did not openly endorse or veto it. In this situation, Nixon is trying to show he can be bipartisan and wants to work with both sides to create a better Missouri.

Spence’s stances on the issues are displayed on his site with his other conservative values. But like many other republicans, Spence is shying away from the subject since Akin’s gaffe. Spence has also been silent on his opinion about whether Akin should haves stopped his campaign. However, Spence was not silent when it came to Nixon vetoing the birth control bill. He blasted the governor for siding with Planned Parenthood and saying that that is not what Missouri wants.

Spence is trying to instill doubt in the people of Missouri by claiming that Nixon does not know what the people of Missouri want and that he does not care about our first amendment rights. Since this is such a controversial issue, this attack could be dangerous to Nixon. Not only will it alienate people who are against birth control use, but also others who see the veto as religious groups having their rights infringed upon.

In journalism, the coverage of abortion control and birth control really comes down to three terms. Pro-choice, Pro-life, and Anti-Abortionist. These terms define a person’s stance on the issue. Pro-choice is always used to describe those who are for abortion and birth control. On the other hand, pro-life and anti-abortionist are used interchangeably to describe the side that opposes abortion. The issue here is that one of the terms has a negative connotation. This allows journalists to show their personal views on the topic by which term they use. They can also influence the public based on which term they used. A term with a negative connotation, such as anti, automatically seem worse to people. While the use of these terms is not being influenced by politicians, it is still an example of how the media can influence the public. 

Balance fuels energy rhetoric

As the 2012 Missouri Gubernatorial race enters the final stretch, we decided to take a look at Governor Jay Nixon’s attempt to “balance” the environment and the economy to create energy policy.

Wordle of September 2010 article

This September 2010 article reveals several dog whistles, or hints to an intended and specific community, which show that Nixon doesn’t intend to sacrifice business interests for the sake of the environment.

Nixon doesn't explicitly say this. In fact, the article calls Nixon’s energy plan “sparse on specific policy proposals.” Nevertheless, Nixon makes his intentions clear to journalists and his audience.

He does this by choosing a venue that allows him to control the message and by targeting a receptive audience. Nixon spoke about energy policy energy executives and people the article identifies as “industrial consumers.”

Nixon crafted his message to this small target audience, and the setting at Washington University allows him more control over the conversation than a more public discourse, such as a press conference or town hall, would allow.

If Nixon were speaking to a crowd of business and environmental lobbyists, he would have to appeal to both, but instead he uses a narrowly selected audience, so he can use loaded language.

For example, Nixon assures the audience about his willingness to work with corporations by saying,

“It's critical to Missouri's energy future that academia, industry and government maintain a strong, working partnership that is focused on innovation."

            It appeals to the community he is talking to, and uses subtle language like “maintain a strong, working partnership” which reminds industrial consumers that he is already working with them and he will continue the partnership.

This implies their arrangement is mutually beneficial, and it leaves room for mutual benefit through unspecified “innovation.”

Nixon frames the competition between the environment and the economy as two categories with an easily defined middle ground where he will search for a way to “balances competing interests.”

In reality, low energy costs and avoiding environmentally irresponsible policies are mutually exclusive.

As of 2010, coal was responsible for 83 percent of Missouri’s electricity, and part of the reason Missouri enjoyed the seventh-lowest power costs in the nation, according to the article.

The article demonstrates that the members of his audience, including Karen Harbert, president of the Institute for 21^st Century Energy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in 2010, understand his rhetorical cues and mimic’s Nixon’s loaded language of rhetorical “balance.”

“For Missouri the question is going to be balance" rooted in the resource base here, "which is coal, natural gas and a little bit of nuclear," she said”

Even the opening line of the article picks up the rhetoric of balance which Nixon and Harbert used.

“Gov. Jay Nixon emphasized the need to balance economic and environmental interests on Friday, as he laid out a plan for the state's energy future.”

The reporter, the audience and Nixon understood the underlying message, but is it fair for journalist to spread that rhetoric? Let us know what you think!  

Coal, Oil, Wind and Solar

A couple of weeks ago we talked about the topic of the environment and conservation. One of the things that we found was that the candidates had little interest in conservation. This week we look at another facet of the environment, energy.  People have been arguing about renewable energy, offshore drilling and ways to make America less dependent on outside countries for our energy needs.

The candidates in gubernatorial both have different stances of the importance of this subject to the state of Missouri. Spence’s stance is almost non-existent with the only mention of anything related to the topic of energy, is his perspective on the federal Cap and Trade mandate. The cap and trade mandate has the mission of reducing the amount of pollution that gets releases into the atmosphere.

Nixon on the other hand, has a lot to say about the topic. He outlines his beliefs about energy on his site. For Nixon, all types of renewable energy should be explored. He uses terms such as innovative and necessary for Missouri’s development.  This shows that he is looking to improve more than just Missouri’s economy and look at every aspect of needs.

He also links renewable energy and finding alternative energy sources to creating jobs. Nixon believes that by looking into all available energy options, more jobs can be created by pursuing these options. 

He continues to use this type of positive languages when speaking about energy. Nixon is for pretty much for advancing every form of renewable energy, such as wind and solar, as well as creating more oil pipelines to decrease our dependence on foreign oil.  He has also endorsed a plan that will build anuclear reactor in a Ameren Plant that he says will begin the next generation of nuclear energy.

Nixon’s continued support of all these types of energy and his upbeat attitude and language shows the Missouri people that he cares about all the facets of Missouri, not just the short termed issues that at the forefront of people’s minds.

This leads to the question, can Spence’s lack of rhetoric and opinions on topics such as energy hurt his chances in the race. While Spence has many issues listed on his site, the descriptions of his stances are sparse. His rhetoric is so focused on the economy, it can lead one to believe that while he is capable of fixing the economy, he may lack the ability to effectively help Missouri will all of its issues. 

Good Fences Make Popular Policies

When it comes to the Missouri gubernatorial incumbent’s opinions about national healthcare, Governor Jay Nixon is excellent at straddling the rhetorical fence.  

Nixon uses rhetoric to enforce his position in terms of an individual state, and draws contrast between his domain —Missouri — and the national legislation, according to this PoliticMo post from June:

“Nixon called the health care reform the ‘Washington health care law,’ as he has made distancing himself from the partisan back and forth that happens in the nation’s capitol a key pillar of his reelection campaign.”

            -PoliticMo post

The PolicMo blog, this article from ozarksfirst.com and even this NRP report, all feature the same quote from Nixon’s healthcare discussion during June.

"Without going into great detail, having the government order you to buy something like that is not something that in the past I’ve supported.”

Jay Nixon
From PoliticMo

Journalists grab on to this quote because it is easily removed from the context while still retaining meaning and states in a fairly straightforward fashion Nixon’s policy.

It is also important to note that articles and blogs often attribute the quote to the original reporting done by St. Louis Public Radio.

In journalism, the early bird gets the word. The original reporter got to pick his quote, which became the quote not only for the article, but also for the coverage for the entire event.

 Because various publications spread and reuse the quote across the state, the power lies with the person who picks the main quote from the original interview.

If you click here to listen to more of his statements about healthcare, you’ll hear several other quotes that depict more moderate stances, but first, you’ll hear him firmly denying his support for the legislation:

“I don't think we should have a federal law that orders people that they have to buy insurance. I never have supported that.”

 “I think I’ve been pretty clear…that the health insurance mandate is not something that I think is a good thing.”

                                                                                          

And then he goes on to itemize the parts of the bill, which he does support including:

-Allowing children to stay on their parent’s insurance plan longer

-Preventing insurance companies from dismissing you when you get sick

-Expanding insurance for elderly and children

            But according to Nixon, the national legislation isn’t the solution, so he gets to support helping people, without supporting the bill, by straddling the proverbial and in this case, rhetorical, fence by pivoting back to what Governors love best — promoting states’ rights while requesting federal funds.

            “But he calls for the federal government to provide ‘some dollars’ and let states run the insurance programs, ‘because we're much more close, as far as what health care needs to be covered.’”

                                    - St. Louis Post-Dispatch

Let us know what you think! Can any governor solve healthcare? And is Nixon straddling the fence, or just trying to find some middle ground?

ACA or Obama Care?

Healthcare reform has been a touchy subject ever since the Supreme Court’s decision regarding the Affordable Care Act (ACA), also known as “Obama Care.” This act concentrates on health insurance and it’s affordability. It has also been a high point of contention among Democrats and Republicans since Obama signed the law in 2010.

Because of its prevalence, both Nixon and Spence included their stances on healthcare reform and policy in their rhetoric. A local proposition also prompts candidates to talk about their views on the ACA. Proposition E gives Missouri voters the chance to block the creation of an insurance exchange, which is an important part of the federal law. If this proposition passes, Missouri politicians cannot set up this exchange without approval from the state legislature and the voting public.

Both candidates use different language when talking about health care policies. The most obvious difference between their rhetoric is the way they refer to the ACA. Spence refers to the law as “Obama Care” following the trend of republicans trying to mock the act and give it a negative connotation. Spence also uses terms such as the act being a burden and a federal intrusion. By using such negative phrases, Spence hopes to make the act sound unappealing and bad for Missouri.

Spence is clearly on the attack, both against Nixon and the act. As in most of the issues we have looked at, Spence must be on the offensive and show how Nixon is failing and why he is the better option.

Nixon stays more positive about the act, calling it by it’s proper name. But where Spence is very clear on his stance and rhetoric against the ACA, Nixon is not. Nixon has been called out several times for being vague when talking about healthcare. He has gone on record saying he only agrees with some parts of the act. To combat these attacks Nixon tries not to talk about the ACA at all and just sticks to his plans to give everyone the opportunity to have affordable health insurance.

Nixon’s avoidance of the topic of the ACA leads back to his stance against some of the mandates in the law. These views stray away from the party views and Nixon does not want to alienate his Democratic supporters. Another reason is that Nixon can potentially be seen as a flip-flopper, changing his stances to sway undecided voters. If he is seen this way it can have a serious impact on his credibility and turn voters away from him.

Spence has attacked Nixon several times for his vague health policy views, calling him a hypocrite. Spence is taking advantage of Nixon’s weak rhetoric and turning it against him which also affects Nixon’s credibility. In this situation Nixon cannot rely on his status as the incumbent because both his opponent and the media have called him out and caused these threats to his credibility. So far, Nixon has only acknowledged these threats by saying that he has been clear on his stance.

When it comes to referring to the ACA in journalism, journalists can be seen using the proper name and Obama Care.  Even when an article calls the ACA by its name, somewhere in the article the phrase Obama Care can still found. This is even more prevalent among bloggers.  The Republican use of the term has caught on and is still used in a negative way in most cases. There are people who just find the phrase catchy. Republicans have managed to influence media personalities into using Republican terminology to the point where the term is an accepted synonym for the ACA. This is one example on how politicians and their rhetoric have an impact on the way the media covers a story and the terminology that is used. 

Hunting: A hobby for all seasons and parties

When it comes to conservation, the language used by the Missouri gubernatorial candidates fits with regional instead of party rhetoric.

In Missouri politics, camouflage and an orange vest are just as essential to a wardrobe as a business suit and briefcase.

In this area, conservation and hunting are closely related. They’re areas of concern for everyone who makes a living tied to the land or who enjoys the environment recreationally.

Politicians try to establish hunters’ rights and conservation as a priority through their rhetoric. Whereas Nixon hits the target and relates to hunters, but Spence could use some target practice.

Nixon seems to understand the technique of relatable rhetoric. His website features “sportsmen” as one of his issues, and opens with a quote linking environmentalism to hunting by using language like “bounty,” “wildlife,” and “harvest”

“We all want a cleaner, safer and healthier state to pass on to our kids and grandkids, and a bounty of wildlife to harvest for generations to come.”

This language overlaps with the language used to describe policy on the Missouri Department of Conservation’s website.

Nixon’s site lists four focuses about conservation policy. The goals center on hunting, and even support a traditionally conservative value — gun rights.

•                “Supporting Missouri hunters & anglers;

•                Encouraging the next generation of outdoorsmen and women;

•                Strengthening Missouri’s State Parks and natural areas;

•                Protecting sportsmen’s Second Amendment rights.

Nixon’s website is topped off the pictures below of him dressed in camo and holding a turkey, which fits perfectly with the hunter-oriented rhetoric on the website:

It's surprising that we don't find Spence decked out in hunting gear or posing with the carcass of whatever animal is in season.

Instead, his website features a stunning lack of content related to hunting and conservation. In a small blurb labeled “Conservative Values,” Spence mentions his support of the 2^nd Amendment, and his membership in the National Rifle Association.

Why doesn't he tout this? Why isn’t he proclaiming his love for camo and deer stands? And why do we expect our politicians to relate to our pastimes?  

Do We Care About Conservation?

In this election, conservation and the environment have taken a back seat to issues such as the economy and education. 

On Jay Nixon’s site, he mentions agriculture, rural communities and energy policies, but does not talk about conservation.  On the other hand Dave Spence’s site doesn't mention any type of environmental issues at all. The candidates' lack of information on their views of this issue shows that they do not believe that the environment is a huge issue in Missouri. This lack of rhetoric can still tell us a lot about the candidates and the way this issue is covered in journalism.

Nixon is the candidate that does not completely ignore this issue. He recognizes that agriculture makes up a large part of the Missouri economy and exports. One of his platforms states that he will make policies to benefit rural communities and help agriculture. Here, Nixon is recognizing the issue, but is not making it the center of the campaign. Like Spence, he believes other issues such as education and the economy both take a front seat to the environment and conservation.

Dave Spence is all about the economy and job creation. His lack of looking at other issues that could potentially be important to Missourians shows his background in business and his belief that there is one main issue that the people of Missouri care about.

Because of the way that candidates have not been drawing attention to the environment, the media has not been drawing it to attention either. The candidates have been able to influence the press into not recognizing it as a relevant issue in this election.  Nixon did make some headlines with the environment when he called for hunters to donate deer they have killed to a charity to help feed the hungry.

Overall, the environment is an issue that is being left out of this race, because the candidates and the press see other issues to be more pressing. The real question is that while this shows that the environment is not a huge deal to the candidates or media, is it possible that it is still an important issue to the people?