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.