impeachment trial and resignation. Woodward and Bernstein’s reports
about break-ins at the Watergate Hotel and their refusal to give up the
chase got the attention of the public and Congress, which was eventually
compelled to act (Sigleman and Tuch 1997).
Here I look more closely at the 2008 presidential election; first, at
issues of language ideology, social class, and media gatekeeping as
reflected in the media coverage of former governor Sarah Palin, followed
by a similar study of the Obama campaign and rhetorical framing.
The 2008 presidential election
In the 2008 presidential election – and in all elections to come – the
mainstream media outlets found themselves competing with cable
television offerings and, more significantly, the internet. An
unprecedented wealth and variety of information, analysis and opinion
became – and continues to become – available. This has both complicated
and amplified the framing process.
There was a striking and unprecedented contrast between candidates in
- Some mainstream news outlets capitalized more extensively on
these contrasts than others. On one extreme (the conservatively oriented
Fox news programs) news reporters and commentators were very positive
about Governor Palin and negative about Senator Obama; MSNBC News
reporters and commentators took the opposite stance.^10 When rhetoric got
out of hand, responsible media and watchdog organizations that set out to
correct the public record were usually lost in the roar of the crowd.
To establish one point very clearly at the outset: every politician, every
public speaker, every individual adjusts style and language to suit their
audience and elicit desired reactions.^11 We adjust without thinking about
it, for the most part. In politics, however, there is a performance aspect to
public speaking, and thus the way in which politicians shift can be very
deliberately planned. Whether spontaneous or planned, some individuals
are more successful than others at shifting in style to engage the audience.