The rhetoric of celebrity endorsement in the current US political campaign
In an age were social media sits at the forefront of global connectivity and communication, the political arena has never had been more exposed the unpredictable nature of public engagement and response. It shouldn’t come as a surprise that the formality and ceremony of traditional political engagement has, to an extent, been abandoned. Throughout the course of the 2016 US presidential election, celebrities have used their status and personal platform to voice their stance in the debate and name their preferred candidate. This essay will explore: The current trends of celebrity rhetoric in the current campaign and how each respective party compares; how celebrity translates or carries authority and creditability in this arena; and how social media and digital platforms have been employed to share, spread and generate public debate based on this form of rhetoric. Therefore measuring the public response, success and criticism towards current celebrity endorsements.
As prominent leaders of the digital sphere, the value of the celebrity voice as a vehicle for political endorsement is rising. It is not the idea of celebrity endorsement that is new but the platforms and the reach that they afford has expanded. Wheeler (2012) has described this shift as the ‘interlinkage between political rhetoric and behaviour’ as ‘part of a historical continuum which offsets the modernist dismay directed to the
According to Webster dictionary, a celebrity is defined as a famous or celebrated person. Celebrities serves as role models, heroes, cultural commentators, charity spokespeople, and political candidates. An exploration of celebrity culture uncovers changing conceptions of legitimacy, authority, and credibility at play in our culture (The Hedgehog Review, 2005) .There is a celebrity culture that has engulfed Canada, and indeed North America for a while now because celebrity culture is alluring, even to those who are embarrassed to admit it. There has been increasing infiltration of celebrity culture into politics. The media might have deliberately and unwittingly contributed in perpetuating this celebrity culture.
Ever since the start of commercial radio in the 20’s and the since the first silver screen entered the market, broadcasting messages by celebrities has been a tool employed to endorse products.”Just about every star was associated with one sponsor’s product he or she plugged.”(1). Over the years celebrity endorsement became an essential part of marketing (more than 25% of television ads feature celebrities)(5), for the endorser it became an easy way of generating an income while for the endorsing company it became a guaranteed way to reach a wide segment of potential clients.
How presidential candidates present themselves in the media can be proven to impact election results dramatically. Political figure using social media did not start to become more common until after the 2008 election because Twitter and Facebook were just recently created, but by looking at data from the past two elections it shows that the news presidential candidates put on their social media can correlate with how people will decide to vote. After researching what topics political candidates post and how they present themselves in the media with election results it can be established that a candidate’s presence in social media can have an impact on how people might vote in an election. “By 2008 candidate websites were standard and campaigns
In the chapter “What is Popular Culture and Why Study It?” from the novel The Rhetorical Power of Popular Culture, author Deanna Sellnow deliberates on the influential supremacy of popular culture in our current society. Sellnow wrote this passage to inform those affected by pop culture on a daily basis. Everyday individuals in first world countries are somehow impacted by pop culture. Pop culture’s influential power can often times mold our outlook on the world around us. It is important to realize when pop culture is trying to reevaluate your ethical beliefs so you can have a say in whether or not you want your morals to be altered.
In the past ten years the way we as a people communicate has changed greatly. No longer is it uncommon for conversations to not be face to face and now more so than ever conversations take place through text. As with any change there will be and is push back to it. The conflict over the consequences of the social media dependent society have now intensified as a result of social media playing ever greater roles in how politics is seen and even conducted. This has been a major societal question since the presidential election of 2008 and the debate has been written about, discussed, and argued by thousands of different politicians,
On June 16, 2015 Donald J. Trump announced his candidacy for the president of the United States at Trump Tower in New York with the slogan, “Make America Great Again!” His announcement was taken with mixed reviews, many viewing his candidacy as another celebrity running for publicity without any real standing. He was compared to the likes of: Clint Eastwood, Clay Aiken, and rapper Waka Flocka Flame. What many of these celebrities have in common is their lack of success in the political field. Their run for candidacy was ripe with jokes and an understanding that they had no real chance of success. People knew that as a society celebrities had their place and it was not holding office; especially not the highest office in the nation. Celebrities
However, political communication has experienced a great deal of change within the past ten years. Now, politicians have caught on to using social media in order to connect with younger demographics of voters who are participating in elections and political conversation more than ever. Successfully integrating yourself into pop culture is a political
"You don 't get the chance to make America great by getting rid of everything that made America great,” Stated by Hillary Clinton during her campaign rally in St. Louis, Missouri to attack candidate Donald Trump from his previous diverse rhetoric. Political Rhetoric has been very popular in today’s society. Politics use this as a platform to criticize other candidates about important points that are essential to the United States and its citizens. Not only does others believe that political rhetoric is out of control but it is a negative form of art. During election time, the media and the internet are critical for candidates because it gives them easy access to the younger audience. Although social media is enormous in today’s society, this is the best way for young voters to make their voices heard. Scott Keeter a research analyst and exit poll analyst for NBS News stated that “Young voters have given the Democratic Party a majority of their votes, and for all three cycles they have been the party’s most supportive age group” (Keeter, 1). According to U.S. Census Bureau over the course of time the rate of younger voters “Dropped from 50.9% percent in 1964 to 38.0 percent in 2012” (U.S. Census Bureau, 2).However, the media continue to evolve with modern society. I believe that rhetoric such as visual political rhetoric helps the youth to get more involved with the political arguments while being educated and entertained at the same time.
The growing connection between politics and Hollywood has happened for a number of reasons, in a somewhat cyclical fashion. Politicians need Hollywood stars to support their campaigns because celebrities are useful in fundraising attempts and recognition. They have the advantages of fame, wealth, and can easily command press attention. In return, celebrities endorse candidates whose policies are beneficial to their industry. For example, while Clinton was in office he argued for “industry self-regulation and a television rating system, as opposed to formal government regulation” (Ormand and West 38). For this and other reasons, Hollywood stars donated large sums of money to Democratic candidates in return. In 2000, Hollywood contributed $20 million to Democrats as opposed to the $13 million that was contributed to the less Hollywood-friendly Republican party (Ormand and West 40).
Appearances on entertainment shows, gives candidates an escape from the highly critical national press to a much more friendlier environment for them. A great example would be interviews on Comedy Central’s The Daily Show or Colbert Report. Another beneficial outlet for campaigns is social websites that were mainly used in the 2008 election and continued through 2012 elections. “For example, nearly six million people viewed the New York Time’s posting of the first Obama-Romney debate on YouTube”. (Dunaway & Graber. 2009. Pg. 316) In 2012 the Obama campaign turned to Twitter to target direct messages to voters and contributors, they also had more than sixteen million e-mail addresses. Others sources of direct social media that campaigns use are candidate-sponsored websites, campaign websites, and special interest pages for groups such as senior citizens, veterans, college students, or young
Have you ever wondered what influences us to behave the way we do? Look a certain way? Or even looked for an explanation to what causes us to apply a certain perspective regarding personal and controversial issues? One of the answers to these questions may revolve around the influence we absorb from celebrities. A definitive term for celebrity is an iconic figure to a category or group who has achieved success in one or multiple aspects of their lives. As a result, these individuals have drawn in publicity and fame. Over the years with the advances in media and other forms of communication, celebrities have become topics of discussion worldwide, rather if it’s at school, with colleagues or at the dinner table, it is fair to say that
In campaigning, media coverage plays a large role for candidates. They use the media to make their name heard and image seen. “Nearly everything a candidate does is geared toward the media, especially television” (Stuckey, 1999, p. 99) Candidates make appearances on talk shows,
In sharp contrast to past elections when candidates campaigned in-person, the 2016 election has been significantly mediated through mass media. With such a large influence on voters, the media not only determines which issues and events are salient in voters’ minds, but also how voters evaluate candidates. Moreover, media coverage, depending on its content, can influence whether voters think about candidates in terms of campaign issues or candidate attributes.
In the writing by Briggs (Young People and Political Participation: Teen Players) she notes that “social media are a critical new space for political discourse and engagement, which political institutions cannot afford to neglect” as the younger audiences use social media, and the people they follow as a guide it seemed vital that modern day politics has to infiltrate social media formats. This can be utilised by politicians and their agenda to widen the scope of their message. In the Praeger Handbook of Political Campaigning in the United States, Benoit investigates how successful an organised strategy using new media to win an election can be for political candidates. He states that “the innovative use of new media contributed to President Barack Obama's presidential campaign win in 2008” (Benoit, 2016). Obama's presidential campaign was one of the first to set the standard for political strategy online. The literature talks about the expansion of the internet and how that has provided a suitable platform for political agendas to grow exponentially. With the focus of the research project highlighting the specific use of social media it is important to reflect on the initial stages of online political campaigning, and to understand how Trump has cultivated this style of political
Social media has grown at phenomenal rates over the past decade, with its rise being easily visible in several fields such as publishing, business, and activism, among others. The rise of its use in the field of politics is well known by those who are on and off social media, as a result of increasing number of politicians using this global platform to their maximum advantage.