The authors of this
article both specialise in politics, working as White House correspondents for
the most successful newspaper in the world, The New York Times. Being an online
article, the authors were able to provide greater depth of detail that the ABC
Radio National’s Breakfast program
was unable to, choosing therefore to focus on the lead-up to Obama’s same-sex
announcement, and the reasons behind it. Citing ‘advisers’, the article pushes
the theory that Obama was pressured into the announcement, noting especially
that Vice-President Joe Biden’s unanticipated support for same-sex marriage
only days prior “undoubtedly accelerated the timetable” (Calmes & Baker,
2012). Emphasis is created on the notion of Obama’s views on same-sex marriage
being evolutionary – something that Obama referenced in his speech, while
“invoking his Christian faith in explaining his decision” (Calmes & Baker,
2012). From here, the article moves towards how Obama’s speech will be received
by voters, citing the speech may lessen Obama’s support amongst the white
working-class and many African-Americans. The inclusion of comments made by
openly gay Democratic representative for Massachusetts, Barney Frank,
contradicts these claims, in which he states, “every time somebody does
something that’s supportive of our rights, it turns out to be popular and not
very controversial.” This shows preference of the authors against holding a particular
opinion, in favour of remaining largely neutral.
Radio: Kelly, F. (2012, May 10). ABC Radio National Breakfast [Radio broadcast]. Sydney, NSW: Australian Broadcasting Corporation.
Fran Kelly, host of the ABC Radio National’s much vaunted Breakfast program, brings more than 25 years of experience in current affairs journalism -ten of which were spent working in the heart of Australian politics- in discussing Barrack Obama’s stance on same-sex marriage. Kelly begins the piece by playing a sound bite of Obama’s speech supporting same-sex marriage, before providing a powerful comparison, stating that only the previous day voters in North Carolina had approved a state constitutional amendment forbidding same-sex marriage, civil unions and domestic partnerships. The motivation for Obama’s statement is then brought into question when Kelly invites American Political Commentator and Author David Mark to weigh-in on the subject. Mark alludes to increased pressure on Obama from members of his own cabinet, and from influential donors, as probable reasons of Obama’s speech, maintaining “the White House must have felt there was more upside than downside or else they wouldn’t have taken the stance” (Mark, 2012). Kelly segues into the question of this ‘upside’ smoothly, highlighting data which suggests voters as a whole won’t be overly concerned over Obama’s speech, having largely already made up their minds, before ending the segment in reference to Australia’s similar political climate involving the same-sex marriage debate, providing proof of relevance to an Australian audience. While the information provided within the piece is vastly similar to that of The New York Times, the radio medium allows for a greater sense of viewer interaction; provoking discussion rather than a single, definitive opinion.
Television: Channel 7. (Writer). The Morning Show [Television broadcast].
Sydney, NSW: Seven West Media Ltd.
As with ABC Radio
National’s piece, Channel 7’s The Morning
Show opens their segment by playing a recording of Obama’s speech on
same-sex marriage; choosing to include a small portion of footage as opposed to
the ABC’s longer, audio-only
depiction. This can be seen as a difference of mediums, while the time
allocated to each segment indicates The
Morning Show felt the topic wasn’t as newsworthy as the ABC did. From here,
a very brief reference is provided to the pressure Obama faced; citing gay
rights groups as the primary reason, something that was not noted by The New York Times or the ABC. Calling
on US correspondent Angela Cox next, the point is raised that while Obama’s
support of same-sex marriage is “a really big deal” (Cox, 2012), from a
practical point of view it means very little in terms of policy changes,
calling the announcement “symbolically very important” (Cox, 2012). References
to Obama’s evolution on same-sex marriage, Vice-President Joe Biden’s support
for, and North Carolina’s vote against the issue segues into an affirmation of
a probable decline in support from white working-class and African-American
voters. The Morning Show is typically
very news-focused, citing relevant facts and ignoring unnecessary information.
While not as in-depth as The New York
Times, the presentation of the story through the television medium still
provided the most pertinent information, in a far shorter period of time.
Peer Review: Weaver, D & Wu, W. (1996). A
journalism & mass communication quarterly potpourri. Political Communication. 13:2, 250-254
David Weaver was a
distinguished professor at Indiana University, maintaining a faculty position
within the School of Journalism for 27 years, much of which was spent teaching
political communication. Weaver addresses the question “can economic news
coverage affect election outcomes?” (Weaver, 1996) Citing a 12 year study from
Goidel and Langley that found economic coverage was “consistent with economic
indicators” (Weaver, 1996), the conclusion was made that media emphasis on the
negative will cause public opinion to shift accordingly, and vice versa. From
here, the scope of the article shifts towards how media outlets reach their
audiences across differing mediums. Weaver cites a 1995 study by Martinelli and
Chaffee which argued each medium attended to a different level of audience
participation; newspapers provided increased exposure to political learning
while television garnered greater audience attention and therefore larger
knowledge base. A comparison with Jan P. Vermeer’s study (Vermeer, 1995) on
election competitiveness further corroborates the hypothesis that news coverage
can affect election outcomes, in which Vermeer concluded areas with multiple
media sources “can expect less consensus if opinion diversity extends to
opinions about political candidates” (Weaver, 1996). Weaver continues to
references further studies, before concluding that while the media may play a
role, significantly it is an individual’s “firm linkage of ethics and morals to
one’s self-concept” (Weaver, 1996) that underpins their decision making
processes.
