I find it incredible that Hillary Clinton’s image can generate the same conversations now as it did then when she was the First Lady. There’s just that one big difference in the mix now: she wants to be our first female president. It’s difficult to agree that she has little control over her image in the public eye and the way she is portrayed in the media. Sure there will always be slip ups that she plays no part in, but I feel that given the amount of time she’s been in politics and the spotlight, it would be naive to assume she hasn’t accumulated at least some leverage to provide input on how people will see her. It only makes sense especially right now at such a crucial moment in her career. For some reason I have found it difficult to come across a good amount of anti-Hillary media when I’m surfing the web. Just about every major news outlet I follow on Facebook seems to favor her in every which way except for clearly stating so. The images I see that don’t put her in the best light are usually generated by users in the form of comments, memes, blog posts, etc. A lot of the positive coverage seems just as replayed and recycled as the article had suggested of news media back in the ’90s. So I guess we can say the narrative has been switched to play her up in the most favorable way possible and it’s pervasive across the internet. It’s constant and repetitive: this is what she stands for, this is what she’s doing for women’s rights, this is why she’s the favored candidate, this is why she’s more likely to win than her democratic opponent, and so on. It’s easy to see why people eventually buy into it, even more so now than possibly back then. The internet obviously amplifies this effect tenfold. Still, with the amount of scrutiny the candidates face today, there’s no doubt in my mind that she is fully aware her every move and word are being documented for the people of this country. Of course, she’s bound to step in the mud and no amount of control can stop the public from noticing. Who she surrounds herself with and who she chooses to advocate are also going to be scrutinized, either enhancing or diminishing her public image.  Which brings me to the forefront of her most recent debacles involving Madeleine Albright, Gloria Steinmen, and the issue of feminism.

The true nature of the generational gap between feminists wasn’t as apparent to most of us, I believe, until these two older women plastered it into our minds recently. “There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help other women.” The feminists of my generation did not take kindly to these words. It’s sexist to suggest a woman is only voting for Hillary based off gender. It’s also sexist to renounce those of us who might choose a different candidate who ISN’T a woman and suggest we meet Satan in the afterlife. Gloria Steinmen put her foot in her mouth when she implied young women were flocking to Bernie Sanders because that’s where the boys were at. Again, the feminists in my generation were not obliged to take that lightly. Many are outright unapologetic about the fact that Hillary just isn’t the candidate for them. But in all fairness one can see why these two women are so passionate about supporting their female ally, these women broke glass ceilings and have waited ages for this one crucial milestone. Even Hillary’s poll numbers show she’s gotten most of her female support from older women. Feminism to them growing up was in a lot of ways much different than the feminism we’re growing up in today. So while I may not agree with their words, I can understand why they chose to express them that way.

A question posed in class was this: How much control does Hillary Clinton have over her image? In a word, none. The short answer is that the media controls pretty much everything, and an individual has very little control over the way that they are portrayed. It would be easy enough to leave it there, but then I wouldn’t have a 500-word blog post so I’ll elaborate. The media, news sources in particular, craft their message very specifically in order to get you, the viewer, to adopt a certain viewpoint, or cater to a viewpoint that you already hold. If not for that reason, then they do it to boost their bottom line. Either way, those news sources, which by the way, 90% of which are controlled by just 6 corporations, dictate how a person or issue is portrayed. They do this by using a variety of techniques, a few of which I’ll discuss later. In the case of old ‘HRC’, a relatively small issue, her comment about baking and staying home, was blown into an otherworldly scale, which tarnished her image. Of course, the former First Lady did what she could to minimize the damage, but unsurprisingly, any coverage of her apology attempts was minimal in comparison to “Cookie-Gate.” When you think about it, it really is quite sad how little control people have over their own image. If the media wants to put you in a bad light, they certainly will and you can’t do anything about it.

Among the many different techniques used by news sources is repetition. Repetition, as we learned in the article, has the ability to construct truths. For example, if a news outlet makes an outlandish claim about a person, people may not believe them the first time the story is aired. But, if that same story is repeated over and over again, then perhaps picked up by another news outlet, people start to think “Huh, maybe it’s true after all.” Nothing about the story itself is changed; it is just repeated multiple times, which somehow gives it more credibility. If the media can persuade millions of people that what they are saying is truth simply by saying it over and over again, it is a little daunting to think of what they are able to accomplish with a whole arsenal of rhetoric at their disposal.

I think that we, as a younger generation of viewers who have been exposed to this kind of manipulation, can do a better job of recognizing this when it happens but without a good education in visual rhetoric, quite a lot gets through without us ever realizing it. That’s why I believe it is so crucial to check your sources before you believe anything to be fact. The saying that numbers don’t lie is a naïve statement; it is only too easy to hide behind facts and figures because people rarely check to see where those numbers came from. The mainstream media is powerful, no doubt, but as educated viewers we have the ability to take some of that power back by being vigilant when watching or reading news. As Jon Stewart said in his final address on ‘The Late Show’, “The best defense against bulls**t is vigilance. So if you smell something, say something.” Couldn’t have said it better myself.

While the article does give a heavy emphasis on the control that the media holds over Hillary’s image, Hillary still holds a pretty significant amount of control over her own image.We saw a perfect example in class with the news clip that we watched on YouTube where Hillary was criticized for steering away from the traditional female housewife stereotype.  She was criticized for lacking femininity and in response Hillary set up a cookie bake off against Barbara Bush to prove her femininity and to prove that she still holds traditional housewife values. Also, it’s not just Hillary that has power and control over her image, but it’s also the network of people whom she knows within the media. Being the powerful and well known politician that she is, Hillary for sure must have connections in the media that can aid her in crafting her public image.  Furthermore, her political party must hold a significant amount of control through the connections they have amongst the media. Democratic and liberal news outlets will tend to defend their political representatives so it’s in their best interest to craft a positive image for Hillary when she is attacked and downplayed by the opposing news outlets. That’s not to say that the image that the democratic and liberal news outlets release is a truthful one, for all we know the image they portray could be completely fabricated, but nonetheless this levels out the playing field and it gives Hillary significant control over her own image.

Like the article stated, with enough repetition anything can become truth, or at least it can become accepted by the general public as truth. One example found that’s quite recent is with the Obama campaign when he was running for office. His posters were plastered everywhere with the slogan written right underneath “HOPE”. This slogan became one of Obama’s main taglines and soon supporters from all over the U.S began to rally behind Obama to what they believed was the only hope for America. The constant combination of Obama’s face with the word “HOPE” eventually made it to where they both came under the same connotation and soon people began to associate Obama’s face with hope and with that many came to consider that as the truth. Another example, one found in the article, is how NBC presents a montage before their news broadcasts which serves to take the viewer through the history of NBC. The montage shows the changing peacock logo between 1952 and 1998 and it shows the news anchors that have progressed over the years. This repeated introduction before every broadcast is done to persuade the viewers that NBC is a credible news source. NBC’s claim is that they have been covering the news since 1952 so they are the most trustworthy and experienced news outlet and therefore the viewer should watch and trust what NBC says. Given enough broadcasts and given enough viewings by the public, soon the viewers will begin to adopt NBC’s claim. It is in that moment that NBC’s claims have become truth for some viewers.

These are class-generated discussion questions that you may answer if you choose in your first blog post.

1. How much control does Hillary have over her own public image?
2.  How does the use of repetition of images, scenes, phrases, etc. construct truths? What are some examples in the media and what are some examples found in the article?
3. In what major ways has feminism changed between the time that this article was written to now? How has the media’s approach toward this global issue changed?