The Obama Phenomenon (Manjoo)

True Enough: Learning to Live in Post-Fact Society is an incredibly insightful book that examines the current state of how people's opinions and actions are affected by so many different factors. Author Farhad Manjoo cites specific examples of how reality as we know it is becoming a thing of the past. To further examine two of the examples Manjoo writes about, let's take a look at a monumental time in our nation's history: the 2008 presidential election between Barack Obama and John McCain.

In True Enough, Manjoo explains an interesting theory known as the "hostile media phenomenon." The term was coined by Lee Ross and Mark Lepper, researchers who conducted a study on people's opinions towards bias media coverage. A group of pro-Israeli students were surveyed at the University of Stanford regarding the media coverage of the disputes between Israel and Palestine. Another group of pro-Palestinian students was also surveyed, and their results showed an interesting trend. Pro-Israeli students believed the media was favoring Palestine in its coverage and Pro-Palestinian students believed that the media was being far more favorable to Israel in its news coverage. Most thought that the media was on the other team's side, which was an astonishing discovery.

This same phenomenon is quite evident in today's society. A poll conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press showed that 70% of people thought that the media wanted Obama to win the election, while only 9% thought that they favored McCain. Although the majority of both Republicans and Democrats surveyed shared the same opinion, a staggering 90% of Republicans surveyed thought that the media wanted Obama to win the presidency.

Also, a study by Harvard's Project for Excellence in Journalism concluded that the media bias isn't a myth at all. It says that it was far more likely for media outlets to spin something positively towards Democrats than Republicans during the 2008 elections. This is coming from a university that is considered one of the more liberal schools in the country.

This really isn't groundbreaking news, however. The theory that the media favors Democrats has been an argument of Republicans for years now. Although many Democrats and even Republicans deny this theory, you can't help but wonder. Could the media really have favored Obama over McCain in its coverage? Could they be up to their old antics of pushing a liberal newscast on the public in hopes of persuading them to vote a Democrat like Obama into the White House? Perhaps, but I'd like to offer a different theory for the media's more extensive coverage of Obama.

In today's society, everyone is looking to be entertained. Newspapers are dying because no one wants to read more than a couple paragraphs of news every morning and many flip on their HD TVs to the local news just to catch the top headlines and the weather report. People today need something fun, something that can hold their attention for longer than 20 seconds. Media has had to conform to this and many outlets are offering up "infotainment" instead of hard news. With that being said, could it have been that Obama was just that much more interesting than McCain and that's why the media seemed to favor him? Did news outlets simply need to put stories on the air that captivated viewers and made them want to watch through the commercials? If that was the case, Obama was the obvious choice of the two candidates to report on. He's charismatic and one hell of a speaker. Some would say he had a Dr. Fox Effect on the public.

In True Enough Manjoo writes extensively on the Dr. Fox Effect. In the early 1970's, a young researcher named John Ware decided to play a trick on some of his colleagues. He hired actor Michael Fox and advised him to play the role of Dr. Myron Fox, a warm, charismatic speaker. Fox gave a lecture called "Mathematical Game Theory as Applied to Physician Education," something Fox knew nothing about. During the lecture, Fox said nothing of any real significance and used math jargon to persuade the audience into believing that he knew what he was talking about. When a professor asked what the basis of Fox's conclusions were, Fox simply asked the professor how much work he had done in the field. The skeptical professor had no answer and simply backed down from Fox. When polled, most of the audience said that Fox was well-organized and that Fox presented enough evidence to back his claims. "The suggestion that a person's speaking style could so strongly seduce an audience-that the way you said something might be more important than what you'd said-really makes you look twice at how the public evaluates so-called experts," said Ware.

Ware was astonished and conducted another study by splitting hundreds of students into smaller groups and having different people lecture them on a certain subject. Ware found that expressiveness was more important to students than actual content. Ware also conducted a similar study with patients and their doctors. A doctor who was warm and friendly, but gave bad medical advice was far more trusted than one who was cold but more knowledgeable.

Now let's apply this to Obama. In regards to politics, Obama had very little experience. He spent seven years in the Illinois Senate and only two years in the U.S. Senate. That's about it. Nine years of significant political experience and only two of those were at the national level. To me, no one can be a true "expert" on national politics with only two years of experience as a United States senator. Also, the war in Iraq was a major issue during the election. Obama had plans for Iraq, but, unlike most past presidential candidates, he lacked any type of military experience. Even USA Today reported on his lack of experience and whether or not it would have an effect on the election.

But what's even more astonishing is the fact that his opponent, John McCain, did have the experience. He was elected to the House of Representatives for Arizona in 1982 and served there until 1987. In 1987, McCain won a seat in the Senate, meaning McCain was a senator for over 20 years when he ran for office. He had 10 times more experience than Obama. McCain also sponsored 31 bills that became law, which is given an "exceedingly good" rating by GovTrack. McCain also served several years in the United States Navy and was even a prisoner of war.

The interesting part about the candidates' experience is that the voting public knew that Obama was outmatched. According to the same Pew Research Poll, 73% of voters knew about Obama's qualifications and 78% were aware of McCain's. The public wasn't just uninformed, they simply ignored it. But why did they ignore such a major factor in an election for the leader of their country? How does McCain, a political "expert" and war hero not win the 2008 election? Well, to be honest, he just may not have been interesting enough.

Obama's journey to the presidency really began at the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston. Obama gave the keynote address at the convention in which he spoke about his humble background as a poverty stricken boy and his story of hope as he graduated from Harvard Law and became a politician. His speech launched him into the public eye. Many saw him as a potential presidential candidate in 2008, even though most Democrats had never even heard of him before the address.

Obama began his run to the White House and gained many iconic supporters, including Oprah Winfrey. His speeches about the need for change and hope for the country captivated audiences everywhere. His charismatic tone and warm smile persuaded many to open up their checkbooks and support their future president. Also, Obama's campaign utilized technology and advertising in a way that had never been seen before. Obama used the internet in particular to target the young demographic of 18-29 year-olds and guess what, it worked. In fact, Obama drew his highest support from that age group. He won 68% of their vote (about 15 million votes), according to a civicyouth.org study. According to a USA Today article, most young voters saw Obama as "cooler" than John McCain and that factor did indeed affect their vote. Obama humanized himself. The public didn't look at him as a scary, deceitful politician, but rather as the guy next store you'd shoot hoops with and invite to your Super Bowl party or book club.

McCain, however, was not regarded as a very charismatic and warm candidate. He wasn't hip or cool like Obama, in fact, he was old. The problem wasn't so much his age, however, it was the fact that he played the part of a 72 year-old. He hardly utilized the internet at all in his campaign and he even admitted to being rather illiterate when it came to computers. His speeches were boring and his debates were just as likely to make the viewer fall asleep.

According to the Pew Research Poll, 66% of viewers thought that Obama did a better job during the debates than McCain, who only received 21% of the vote. Also, Obama raised twice as much money as McCain. The public favored Obama and it showed in the election. Obama won by 192 electoral votes in 2008 and became president, not based on experience, but based on the way he presented himself and his policies. It was genius and it worked. Barack Obama was indeed Dr. Fox. A man who most likely knew far less about being president than his opponent, the cold, yet knowledgeable (but less trusted) medical doctor, John McCain.

Now I'm not saying that the country would have been better off with McCain as president. I'm just presenting a theory on why I think Obama won the election not on his experience, but on his personality. Even hardcore, right wing personality Glenn Beck admitted to Katie Couric that McCain would have been worse for the country if he was elected. But one does have to question the consequences of a president being elected on the basis of his personality.

According to a recent Rasmussen Report, 42% of Americans strongly disapprove of Obama while only 31% strongly approve of the president. This gives Obama an Approval Index rating of -11. When Obama was first sworn into office, his rating hovered around +30. Could it be that Obama's lack of experience is finally catching up to him? Or is it just the case that at this time, with a new health care bill being passed, more Americans are likely to be strongly opposed to any type of change?

Either way, the fact of the matter is that Obama is the president now. He ran a superior campaign and, whether he was elected due to his eloquent speeches and warm personality, is irrelevant to the fact that he's here now, and he's here to stay...well at least until 2012. Is Obama a great president? Would McCain have been better in the White House? We may never know. The question is shrouded in the opinions and biases of Americans everywhere. And, let's face it. I'm no expert, I'm just a third year student at USF trying to pass a class. Can you even trust my sources and information? Can you even trust author Farhad Manjoo and the points he makes in True Enough? I'll leave that one up to you.