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?

Crafting the Rhetoric of Job Creation

“Job creation” has evolved into the rhetorical end game for this election season.

The candidates attempt to link other policy areas to how they will stimulate the economy and create jobs. But when we look at the way the candidates describe their job-creating policy, and how Missouri jobs are described by the Missouri Economic Research & Information Center, there is a clear disconnect between the policy proposals and reality. 

Spence describes his job policy on his website:

“Dave believes we can create a strong pro-jobs environment here in Missouri by reducing burdensome regulations and eliminating unnecessary red tape. He also realizes that our state-level efforts will be moot if we do not fend off the overreaching federal government.”

What Spence describes as “burdensome regulations” are more commonly referred to by MERIC as “policies” or “standards.”

Spence also refers to the jobs he seeks to create as “21^st century jobs,” but according to MERIC, manufacturing is one of the fastest growing industries.

These jobs are hardly 21^st century computer programming work; instead, manufacturing is an industry often threatened by outsourcing and technological advances of more efficient machines replacing human jobs. 

According to his site, Spence focuses on 94% of the state’s 133,215 businesses with 50 or fewer employees.

Small businesses have a nostalgic element and carry connotations of mom-and-pop stores on every corner, but when a small business hires a new employees, it doesn’t make headlines.

On the other hand, when a major car company like General Motors announces a 1.4 billion dollar plan in Missouri worth more than 3,000 new jobs, it makes the news in articles like this. Journalists reframe the term “manufacturing” because they're associated with job creation rather than downsizing and outsourcing.

That meaning changes when the jobs start coming in rather than leaving. 

This video demonstrates how Nixon relies on these big name investments for his job rhetoric. It fits with his emphasis on his accomplishments as Governor and with the larger, overarching power of the incumbent — which he uses freely. 

It's All About the Economy

During the election one of the biggest issues is the economy. With the current economic state of the nation, people want a governor who will bring results. Both candidates concentrate heavily on the economy but take different approaches to the way they articulate their plans to strengthen Missouri’s economy.

Both candidates rely heavily on their past records to convince the public that they are more fit to improve the economy.

For Nixon, he concentrates on what he has done to fix Missouri’s problems during his tenure as governor. He puts emphasis on his ability to balance the budget, create jobs and keep Missouri’s AAA credit rating.

Spence touts his record of growing his company Alpha Packaging. He says he created jobs and kept a balanced budget during the tough economic times.

Their emphasis on their backgrounds is the only part of their rhetoric they have in common. Both have very different views on the current state of the economy, as well as how to fix it.

Nixon believes Missouri’s economy is doing very well and recovering from the economic crisis.

Nixon is trying to convince the public that he is doing a good job. As the incumbent it is important for him to show that what he is doing is working, so the people believe he can continue to make the economic situation better. Even though Nixon says he believes Missouri is recovering well, he has a detailed plan to keep the momentum going. In his plan he does mention creating jobs, along with ways to increase the products Missouri exports and continuing to balance the budget without raising taxes.

Spence on the other hand has a very negative view on Missouri’s economy. According to Spence Nixon has actually hurt the economy.

Since he is facing an incumbent, Spence has the challenge of showing how Nixon is not doing a good job. Spence repeatedly attacks Nixon, calling him a “career politician” and calling for change. Spence also attempts to differentiate himself from Nixon by referring to himself as a business man. Spence does this because he needs to prove to the people that he is more capable of being governor and fixing the economy because he is so different from Nixon. In his detailed economic plan, Spence concentrates on job creation. Spence is showing that he believes jobs are the way to revitalize Missouri’s economy. Again in his plan he touts his ability to create jobs at his company.

When it comes to the way journalists cover the economy, they do not concentrate on jobs as much as the candidates. They give reports on all aspects of the economy. While reporting on the candidates, journalists are more likely to talk about jobs and the unemployment rate than other topics, because that is what the candidates talk about. Overall, journalists do not seem to favor either candidate’s opinion and just stick to the facts.