Clever use of media can promote Bloomberg
Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg entered the US presidential race last week. The billionaire’s quest for the White House began with an ad funded by his $31 billion campaign corpus. At a time social media is playing an integral role in US politics, Bloomberg’s use of television demonstrates how wealth is still the horse that powers the mass media cart.
Presidential candidates with the strongest grasp of media have shaped the political landscape for some time. In 2007, a junior US senator from Illinois managed to market hope and change to a cynical electorate. Directing campaign staff to spearhead outreach online and offline, then-senator Barack Obama was adept at using the tools of 21st century new media. With backing from Goldman Sachs, it wasn’t long before the neoliberal politician was able to clinch the Democratic nomination. Obama knew where to focus when selling a political platform in the age of Facebook and Twitter. The “Yes We Can” music video propelled the Obama phenomenon.
Distinguishing himself as a candidate against Wall Street recklessness and a critic of “mind-set that got us into the [Iraq] War,” his campaign was bolstered when John McCain, then presidential candidate for the Republican Party, picked then Alaska governor Sarah Palin to be his vice president. Palin was widely seen as an incompetent candidate after an interview where she seemed unfamiliar with the names of major media outlets.
Despite starting another war in Libya and having an administration made up of career politicians from the Bush and Clinton dynasties, Obama was able to retain the aura of political change when he beat his Republican opponent Mitt Romney in 2012. Lackluster debate performances lowered his 2012 election margins over Romney, but his campaign’s mass marketing expertise delivered another four years of power.
And now, enter Bloomberg. The unprecedented digitalization of the political landscape has been naturally used to empower the US most privileged sector – billionaires.
In the 2016 election, US President Donald Trump’s Twitter account propelled his rise as defined by a Republican primary with over a dozen opponents the media deemed more credible and qualified. Despite losing the popular vote to former secretary of state Hillary Clinton, Trump could garner about 63 million votes and win the electoral college.
Trump’s rise was helped by the free airtime he received from news commentators of major cable networks who consistently covered his campaign and its appeal to white nationalists. His tweets then, as they do now, disseminated right-wing fanaticism. Mainstream commentators nonetheless widely publicized them. They emphasized the nature of his viral performance, calling it “unpresidential,” instead of spending time accurately covering the proposed policies of other candidates.
Trump’s far-right, xenophobic sentiments were acknowledged, but only in the context of the way he communicated them. Racism in past presidential campaigns, such as George H.W. Bush’s Willie Horton ad or Richard Nixon’s use of the Southern Strategy, was more discreet. US history shows past presidents, including many Democrats, have implemented many of Trump’s policies. The difference was that in 2016, a country changed by social media finally had a sobering look at itself.
In this climate, Bloomberg’s use of traditional media may swing the pendulum away from online platforms. It is certain that Bloomberg, a media mogul, will keep his informational arsenal. Bloomberg News sent a memo to its 2,700 employees telling them not to investigate the former mayor’s campaign. The network’s coverage will steer clear of covering Democratic rivals, but focus on Trump, keeping with the practice of mainstream media holding the president’s spectacle in the spotlight. Spin will play a focal part in Bloomberg’s media spectacle regardless of how the media he doesn’t own spin his campaign.
The rest of the media, just like Bloomberg News, will likely ignore the substance of Bloomberg’s agenda or his record of controversial policies such as the racist stop-and-frisk practice and his support for the Iraq War. Corporate social media will especially generate stories on Bloomberg’s character as removed from his career. Their algorithms are made for creating a spectacle, and are not meant for principled policy discussion.
Social media has taken presidential politics by storm. Facebook has collaborated with Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg’s campaign while traditional mainstream media outlets openly attack candidates like Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard and Senator Bernie Sanders for rejecting the Washington Consensus. Sanders has accumulated the most individual donors of any candidate in the Democratic primary but struggles to gain the social media coverage of a front runner. Bloomberg’s international recognition that arguably predates Sanders’ will likely contribute to that trend. For US elections, grassroots appeal and a commitment to social justice don’t determine whether a candidate can clinch the attention of a major newsroom. In the Trump era, building on decades of media deregulation and centuries of political disenfranchisement, Bloomberg’s candidacy showcases how social media and traditional media work together in the interests of their owners.