Media: The De Blasio Election, Research Paper Example

Introduction

It is a generally accepted reality that today’s media has an inestimable impact on the trajectories of ;political careers,  and that a failure to efficiently employ the media typically translates to a virtually insurmountable handicap.  To some extent, the circumstances are not new; even in those eras in which the public was influenced only by newspaper and print media, candidates and elected officials were under intense scrutiny, and subject as well to the ideological inclinations of the journalists and the print forums reporting on them.  In plain terms, the arena of major political activity is a relatively small one, with extensive boundaries in place securing some degree of privacy for those involved, and the public requires the media to apprise it of the actual occurrences, agendas, and machinations of the processes.  On the most overt, if not idealized, level, the democratic system of campaigning and informed elections cannot exist without this dissemination of the current realities.

At the same time, even reality becomes subjective, or at least open to interpretation, when it is recognized that media factions often have agendas all their own.  The larger reality then exists of a public influenced, not by fact, but by perspectives, and perspectives provided by a virtually omnipresent media reporting through a vast array of modern outlets.  Then, and as will be explored, there is an inherently cyclical aspect to politics at the higher levels, and the party platform embraced several years earlier is dismissed by what appears to be a public demand for its converse.  All of this is evident in examining the campaign and election of New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, as both elements reflect the extraordinary impact of an unprecedented degree of media attention, reportage, and motivations.

Background and Media Focuses Prior to the Campaign

To gain an understanding of the actual role of the media in de Blasio’s campaign and election, it is first necessary to assess the social and political conditions of New York City before these processes were in motion.  Equally importantly, all of this is translated by the media for the public consumption; consequently, an examination of the trajectory of mayoral tenures in recent New York history reveals a profoundly interactive relationship with the media.  Newspapers, television reporting and commentary, online informational sites and blogs, and even social media combine to create an immeasurable impact on the entire political sphere itself, with a not unexpected emphasis on the role of the mayor.  This, moreover, is accepted by candidates and mayors as an inescapable force.  There can be no overstating of this force, particularly in urban areas wherein the public is media dependent.  Ideally, the media presents unbiased coverage intended to only offer information, and assist the public in determining the worth of officials.  In reality, the processes are by no means so impartial: “The politicians are created in the reportorial image today.  The reporters are created in the entertainment mold” (Rich 6).  Image is the keynote, invariably, as the media both shapes and projects alternately favorable and negative ideas of officials to a public eager to believe that the ideas are in fact information.

The sheer power of the media in this matter relies on several factors exponentially linked.  Given the import – and attention paid to – the office of New York Mayor, image is by no means merely an ancillary aspect of public relations.  It is the identity of the mayor as put forth by the mayor, their administration, and the varying influences of the media, and it is generally perceived as the identity of the city itself.  That the media plays so enormous a role here is due to how events are translated by the press for the public, as well as by actual mayoral statements.  Language, it is held, defines the event in the public consciousness in a way transcending the actuality of the event.  The ways in which a circumstance is depicted attach the greater meaning, so political language becomes political reality. Then, the language establishes the mayor as a prism through which the life and meaning of the city exists (Rich 10).  That image is paramount, then, becomes far more comprehensible.

As de Blasio has already learned, and as mayors before him knew as well, image is by no means within his control. It is arguable that the media perceives its role as providing an alternative to image as presented by the mayor’s office, a process itself not necessarily marked by deliberate bias.  Depending on the medium and the entity, a single element of an event may be focused upon as central, thus shifting the emphasis made upon it in ways suggesting a lack of due attention from the mayor (Rich 10).  There is no escaping the reality that media outlets typically exist to reflect specific ideologies, and in turn cater to the thinking of their audiences.  Consequently, more liberal media consistently reproached Mayor Ed Koch for his perceived failure to properly respond to the AIDS crisis of the 1980s, a stance all the more vehemently presented by that media’s insistence on Koch’s greater responsibility as a gay man, his public image notwithstanding.  More recent examinations of Koch’s record in addressing AIDS contradicts the criticism; he made extensive efforts to secure funding for care and research, invariably fighting the constraints of a severely limited budget and a general public disfavor or antipathy simultaneously (Soffer  310).  Similarly, David Dinkins would come under media assault for perceived failures to adequately address issues of racial inequality.  As mayors before de  Blasio discovered, time after time, reality and image are frequently disparate entities, and the media has virtually limitless power in shaping the image of the mayor as it deems best.

With regard to the social and political realities of New York City prior to the de Blasio administration, the cyclical aspect of how the city, if not the nation, alternates between opposing agendas reveals factors serving de Blasio’s interests.  These are, moreover, factors directly linked to media coverage, particularly during the crucial campaigning periods.  As the Koch administration faced its end, the media devoted extensive coverage to a series of scandals connected with it, seemingly committed to destroying any further mayoral ambitions on Koch’s part.  The 1989 election of David Dinkins, as the first African American New York mayor, was then at least partially prompted by the media’s promotion of a turning away from the Koch power base; reports in fact frequently criticized the Koch regime as resembling the broad influence administrations of Jimmy Walker and Boss Tweed (Schneier, Murtaugh, & Pole 94).  The media in essence dictated that it was time for a return to Democratic liberalism, and Dinkins’s appeal to minority voters was all the more drawn upon.

Giuliani’s victory over Dinkins in 1993 further reinforces the seeming cycles of alternating party agendas, a cycle certainly fueled by media choices regarding issues to emphasize.  Fusion characteristics notwithstanding, Giuliani represented the appeal to a strong commitment to fiscal responsibility, which in turn generated a focus on exalting the city’s earning potentials.  This agenda was, as supported by the media, virtually a zeitgeist for the New York of the 1990s, and there was unprecedented support for Giuliani’s efforts to “clean up” the city.  Even more interesting, in terms of how public feeling and media operate exponentially, is the ensuing election of Michael Bloomberg upon the end of Giuliani’s term.  This election marked the first time in New York City history that two Republican mayors were consecutively placed in office, a reality likely owing to the impact of 9/11 (Schneier, Murtaugh, & Pole 95).  More exactly, and given the media’s approval of Giuliani’s response to the event, it is probable that he would have secured a third term if the law permitted it; as this was not possible, there appears then to have been a momentum to retain the same leadership, which translated to electing a mayor from the same party.

De Blasio’s Emergence

It is widely known that the Bloomberg administration generated both extreme favor and disapproval from the media, and the former was in place despite acknowledgment of policy decisions veering to extreme conservatism.  Once again, and following three terms in office enabled by Bloomberg’s having changed his party affiliations, it seems the city was eager to elect an alternative in terms of ideology and image, and the victory of Bill de Blasio marked the first election of a New York City Democratic mayor in 20 years.  More to the point, and as consistently reinforced by media reports of the campaign processes, de Blasio provided a vivid contrast to the Bloomberg Republicanism.  From the beginning of his campaign, de Blasio’s emphasis to the public and the press has centered on issues of equality and the need for the city to address these. Violent crime was at an all-time low during the campaign period, just as New York rents and homelessness rates were at unprecedented highs, and this provided de Blasio with the “grass roots” platform necessary to secure victory.

Perhaps more so than Dinkins, de Blasio vowed to end the perceived racist practices of the police force, and he insisted as well upon providing affordable housing to the city’s poor.  His opponent, former Giuliani official Joe Lhota, directly challenged these strategies as inevitably returning the city to an era of widespread crime and heightened racial tensions (Susman), and it is arguable that de Blasio’s win reinforces the need within the public to embrace agendas departing in content and purpose from those more recently in place.  Without question, the dichotomy of viewpoints was emphatically seized upon by the press, with the ultimate effect of presenting de Blasio as the champion of the oppressed.

The preceding modern history of the New York mayor’s office then provides a fascinating perspective on how tides of public feeling are inextricably connected to media coverage.  The relationship is in fact so “intimate” that it becomes difficult at best to determine which element is in fact influencing the other.  The question inevitably arises: does the modern media sway public thinking to a degree evident in election results, or is the media instead following the public lead on what it deems necessary in terms of change?  There is no ready answer, simply because the forces are so exponentially linked.  Nonetheless, and as will be explored shortly, a significant aspect or presence of the de Blasio administration is profoundly based upon how the media has – thus far – abetted its own promotion of itself, and as a vitally needed force to restore equality to the city. In no uncertain terms, the media, vastly expanded in form and access, has literally accompanied de Blasio on every step of his journey to the mayor’s office.

Relationship of De Blasio and the Media

Given the expanse and varying scope of today’s media, it is specious to assert that de Blasio enjoyed consistently favorable coverage during his mayoral campaign. Such a scenario for any candidate for any office of stature is in fact virtually unthinkable. As noted, modern media encompasses multiple platforms, and takes forms in which a single media source, such as the New York Times, may feature analysis and reporting from widely divergent points of view.  Then, the same omnipresence of the media adds a further component of timing and response; when, for example, a Bill de Blasio is featured in a news story, in print and online, essentially promoting him, rival media sources are quick to seize upon the information reported, challenge it, and offer contrasting assessments.

All of this, it is also important to note, occurs in an arena in which the lines between “hard news” and editorial commentary are blurred. Literal debate occurs on television broadcasts and, while stations and press sources typically promote Democratic or Republican, gradations in the general support for the individual candidate are in place to evince something of an “unbiased” view.  Then, research of modern media discloses distinct patterns in media leanings, in that Democratic and/or Liberal candidates consistently receive more favorable press.  Terminology is employed branding Republicans as “right wing” and “ultra-conservative,” deliberately appealing to the public’s wariness of reactionary candidates, while Democrats are not labeled in any so specific a manner.  It is observed that this bias may not be overtly intended, and more a consequence from the simple reality of so many journalists as sympathetic to the Democratic party (Covert, Wasburn 4). Howsoever it happens, nonetheless, and as extensive studies support, the majority of political coverage definitively favors the Democratic candidate.

In no uncertain terms, this media tendency served the de Blasio camp very well during the campaign.  In very little time, de Blasio was promoted by the leading newspapers of New York as something of a champion of the people and a needed voice for the oppressed and marginalized.  Several key issues were focused upon by the media, and these essentially became the identifying attributes of his persona as a candidate. That de Blasio affirmed these attributes in his press releases and speeches indicates both some measure of commitment to the causes espoused and a strategic sense of taking advantage of the media tides. Even de Blasio opponents acknowledge that his platform has consistently been one adhering to the principles of the Democratic Party, and that his emphasis on addressing broad issues of inequality, particularly in regard to wages and education, has garnered him significant media coverage of a favorable kind.  This in turn enabled de Blasio’s securing the lead in the Democratic primary contest, certainly over the less advocacy-minded Christine Quinn (Milkman 87). Contrast in political agendas, evident early in the race and exacerbated by media coverage, established a unique platform for de Blasio.

Critical in all of this is the reality that, upon announcing his candidacy in January of 2013, it was uniformly held that de Blasio was by no means a front-runner.  By the early spring, after Anthony Weiner, formerly a U.S. Representative, and prior New York City Comptroller Bill Thompson joined the race, de Blasio was perceived as the weakest candidate (Susman).  What seems to have then ensued was an increasing media focus on him, despite the assessment of likely failure.  Here was a paradigm of how the media generates interest, which in turn creates a growing public awareness of a candidate and consequently a stronger political presence for him demanding further coverage.  As the “underdog,” de Blasio’s emphasis on promoting equality in the city was presented as a grass roots rallying cry, and deftly accommodated what may be seen as a public ambition to depart from the perceived elitist fiscal policies of Michael Bloomberg.  The cycle, in a word, had turned yet again, and it appears New York City was eager to once more be governed by a Democratic mayor, and particularly one who blatantly upheld the traditional Democratic ideals of combating inequality and empowering the ordinary citizenry.

This momentum of media support fueling public interest has not been without issues, and it is interesting that one lies in the difficulty in holding to the Liberal stances once office is attained. De Blasio was so committed to his Democratic ideals that, during the 2013 campaign, he publicly rebuked the centrist positions so frequently adopted by Democrats upon assuming office.  It is in fact arguable that the public, encouraged by the media, insists on an extremist political stance not feasible when the realities of running the city, and fairly accommodating all interests, are the priority.  It is hardly surprising, then, that de Blasio has been harshly criticized by more outspoken Democratic and Liberal leaders, as well as by celebrities such as Liam Neeson (Cassidy). At the same time, the media itself has not reversed its general support of de Blasio. Writing for The New Yorker, John Cassidy plainly affirms that de Blasio has indeed fulfilled his primary campaign promises.  The Albany legislature approved de Blasio’s plan for day-long pre-school for the city’s four year-olds, granting the bulk of the funding de Blasio had insisted upon.

Similarly, and in accord with another de Blasio pledge, the New York City Police Department abandoned its controversial stop-and-frisk policies, so long perceived as a means of racial profiling.  That the police themselves did not favor the policy, according to Police Commissioner Bill Bratton, is essentially ancillary to the achievement (Cassidy).  Thus far, and certain other issues as problematic and discussed shortly, the media has essentially continued to support de Blasio, laying a significant foundation for a second term.

It is, however, crucial to examine just how the media exercised its initial promotion of de Blasio, and in more specific ways.  Perhaps most importantly, the de Blasio campaign emphasized the need to address the severe inequality within the city, a position reflecting a range of concerns from tax breaks for the wealthiest residents to charter schools co-opting the city’s public school facilities and inevitably creating a dichotomy in educational opportunity between high-income families and the poor.  De Blasio presented himself completely as opposed to any measures enabling fiscal class divisions, and his rhetoric here took the form of the “tale of two cities” approach, a sound byte widely taken up by the media.  New York, he asserted, had been allowed to become virtually plutocratic, and he would level the financial playing field through addressing inequality in housing, jobs, and educational opportunity.  It is difficult to conceive of a campaign strategy more rooted in traditional Democratic ideals.  It was, in a word, embraced by the media, and the de Blasio campaign was then firmly based on a platform of supportive coverage.

In retrospect, in fact, it appears that there was little in the way of de Blasio campaign effort that was not extolled by the media, and in ways reflecting cultural concerns as well.  It is arguable that the de Blasio team, comprehending the potential import of Mayor Bloomberg’s status as a divorced father, deliberately set a course in which de Blasio would exemplify family values and commitment.  Whatever the impetus, however, the effect was striking and largely applauded by a media more typically cynical about such overt expressions.  Early in the campaign, d Blasio explicitly and consistently directed press attention to his wife, Chirlane McCray.  This is an approach which took the traditionally “dutiful” presence of the wife as accompanying the candidate to new levels.  Ms McCray often addressed rallies in lieu of her husband and at his request; in a truly surprising move, de Blasio’s first television commercial was narrated  by his 15 year-old son, Dante (Barbaro).  The family scenario as insisted upon by de Blasio certainly generated criticisms, and rival factions accused the candidate of exploiting his family as characters in political theater.

To such charges, however, de Blasio countered that his wife’s and children’s involvement in the campaign was nothing more than a familial commitment, and entirely of their individual choosing.  The candidate consistently expressed absolute confidence in his family’s willingness to be a part of the campaign experience, asserting that his children were in fact long accustomed to participating in the processes as essentially a facet of their life as a family.  De Blasio also promoted the idea that such events enabled him and his wife to be together, a romantic component not overlooked by the media, and generally applauded by it (Barbaro).

Two consequences of this are particularly noteworthy.  The first is that de Blasio’s rivals, even while deriding this “exploitation” of family, soon echoed the strategy.  Democratic competitor William C. Thompson devised a campaign schedule for his wife, Elsie McCabe Thompson; Huma Abedin, wife of candidate Anthony Wiener, made a rare public appearance to support her husband during questioning about his alleged online misconduct; and Christine Quinn’s wife, Kim Catullo, also was noted at events (Barbaro).  In a very real sense, the seemingly old-fashioned and tangible emphasis on family as evinced by de Blasio was effective to the extent of encouraging the same from his opponents. Secondly, it appears that the media was influenced by public reaction to the strategy as it created influence, and this indicates an important cultural aspect of the campaign.  On one level, the presence of the de Blasio family within the campaign processes is certainly subject to a degree of cynicism, as noted.  Authenticity of commitment notwithstanding, this was nonetheless a specific effort with consequences for the candidate: “The family-centric strategy has allowed Mr. de Blasio, who is Italian-American, to portray himself as a paragon of modern, middle-class, multicultural New York” (Barbaro).  What ultimately matters, however, is that the public accepted the efforts as genuine, which in turn compelled the media to regard the de Blasio family appearances with respect.  In this instance, then, it is likely that the media followed the public lead in perception, as the latter expressed high approval for the reinforcement of the cultural values of family.

There were other issues marking the de Blasio campaign, ranging from the controversy over the candidate’s insistence that horse-drawn carriages are inhumane to the complex factors regarding charter school funding.  What is evident in virtually every issue, however, is something of a unilateral media support, or certainly a disinclination on the part of the media to criticize de Blasio.  With regard to the schools, the media generally favored de Blasio’s agenda, and it seems the enemies of de Blasio became, in a sense, media targets.  It was reported, for example, that Families for Excellent Schools, an organization funded by wealthy investors with the purpose of securing private, or elite, education for young children, spent over $3.6 million in ads attacking de Blasio.  That the mainstream media seized upon  and widely reported this powerfully suggests a viewpoint echoing de Blasio’s disapproval of inequality as enabled by wealth: “The attacks on him were…’a power play by charter operators… intended to send a message to de Blasio not to mess with charter schools’” (Cassidy).  Here, as elsewhere, the media joined forces with the Democratic ideals promoted by de Blasio, thus expanding the actual campaign itself through inestimable journalistic support.

With regard to de Blasio’s central emphasis on inequality, the media again demonstrated – and demonstrates still – an unusual degree of confidence.  A survey of articles in the press, online commentary, and television reporting of the mayoral race reveals a fascinating consistency; namely., even as this media typically referred to the de Blasio inequality agenda as difficult at best, there is little evidence of media condemnation.  The impression is of support provided for an admirable cause, likelihood of success notwithstanding.  For example, the press devoted considerable attention to fiscal realities rendering the New York City economy as inherently unequal.  The city is, in a word unique, and fiscally skewed: “New York’s economy is absurdly dependent on its main driver of inequality—the finance industry” (Surowiecki).  Then, and seemingly more likely to generate criticism of de Blasio’s intent to diminish financial inequality, there remains the uncomfortable reality that the top one percent of the city’s earners pay 43 percent of its income tax (Surowiecki).  In plain terms, these are realities virtually inviting media assaults on any scheme to promote fiscal equality.

Media assault, however, did not emerge, just as the media today points to de Blasio’s agendas with something like moderate optimism.  Generally, and throughout the campaign, the press overtly assessed – and, crucially, reported to the public – de Blasio’s plans for promoting equality in the city by means of a multifaceted approach with one main objective: “The key to battling inequality therefore lies, as de Blasio has argued, in expanding New York’s incredible shrinking middle class” (Surowiecki).  The most in-depth analysis of de Blasio’s proposals did not reveal much cause for hope; essentially, too many factors, ranging from rents and living costs far beyond national averages to a continued lack of middle-class jobs since the recession, render any idea of financial equality remote at best.  Even when these issues were presented, however, the media typically refrained from castigating de Blasio; the implication, rather, was that a man with an honorable agenda is heroically combating a city intrinsically unable to be changed so dramatically.  News stories following the campaign, and even those reporting on the de Blasio victory, have uniformly provided him with support that is at its worst qualified.  The media has valued de Blasio’s commitment to affordable housing, and applauded his ambition to recreate a New York City middle-class.  It values these things today, and the entire trajectory then goes to illustrating the exponential and intimate relationship between modern media and the voting public.  Throughout the entire campaign, opinion polls revealed rival Anthony Lhota as invariably 40 points or more behind de Blasio’s lead (Susman), and this in itself underscores how the public responded to the media’s favorable presentation of de Blasio, which in turn compelled the media to maintain its support.  If, as discussed earlier and as history affirms, the New York City public is cyclical in how it chooses its mayors, the media augmented this process through exalting the candidate for mayor representing the Democratic ideals and policies “whose turn had come.”

Conclusion

In a very real sense, the mayoral campaign and election of Bill de Blasio is remarkable.  On one level, de Blasio’s victory may be seen as inevitably occurring through the identifiable cycles of New York voters alternating between parties and ideologies, and as a predictable consequence following 20 years of Republicans as holding the office.  This in itself, however, would likely generate media criticism, as would a great deal of the de Blasio platform, and the converse was the reality.  It is not extraordinary, even today, that a Democratic candidate would assert traditionally Democratic ideals of equality and family values; less likely is that the expansive and typically severe media would so uniformly offer its support here.  To an extent, this too is predictable, as the media often favors the Democratic candidate.  Nonetheless, de Blasio emerged as a dark horse who eventually triumphed, and this may be seen as largely owing to the intense relationship between the public and the media, wherein influence from one quarter generates influence from the other, and an exponential tide of opinion is the result.  Without question, the uniformly consistent media support of de Blasio enhanced the values and policies the candidate put forth, and consequently swayed a voting public itself prompting further media support.

Works Cited

Barbaro, Michael.  “De Blasio Takes His Modern Family on the Campaign Trail.”  The New York           Times, 7 Aug.  2013.  Web.  9 May 2014. <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/08/nyregion/de-blasio-takes-his-modern-family-on-the-campaign-trail.html

Cassidy, John. “The Education of Bill de Blasio.” The New Yorker, 31 Mar. 2014.  Web. 10 May 2014.  <http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2014/03/the-education-of-bill-de-blasio.html>

Covert, Tawnya J. A., & Wasburn, Philo C.  Media Bias?: A Comparative Study of Time, Newsweek, the National Review, and The Progressive Coverage of Domestic Social Issues, 1975-2000. Lanham: Lexington Books, 2009.  Print.

Milkman, Ruth.  New Labor in New York: Precarious Workers and the Future of the Labor Movement.  Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2014. Print.

Rich, Wilbur C.  David Dinkins and New York City Politics: Race, Images, and the Media. Albany: SUNY Press, 2012. Print.

Schneier, Edward V., Murtaugh, John B., & Pole, Antoinette.  New York Politics: A Tale of Two States.  Armonk: M. E. Sharpe, Inc., 2009. Print.

Soffer, Jonathan.  Ed Koch and the Rebuilding of New York City.  New York: Columbia University Press, 2012. Print.

Surowiecki, James.  “Coring the Big Apple.”  The New Yorker, 23 Sept. 2013.  Web.  10 May 2014.  <http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2013/09/23/130923ta_talk_surowiecki>

Susman, Tina. “Bill de Blasio wins New York mayoral election.” Los Angeles Times, 5 Nov. 2013.  Web.  9 May 2014. <http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/politicsnow/la-pn-new-york-election-de-blasio-20131105-story.html#page=1>