In the 1990’s, the Internet was this new and crazy idea. The media and television stations were able to yield more power over the public image of Hillary Clinton. Today, the Internet plays a vital role to daily life, and with the evolution of social media, celebrities, politicians, and other public figures are able to control their image more. Although the media still has the ability to manipulate any visuals from public figures, having social media takes away the middleman (the media) in a way. If someone follows Hillary Clinton’s account directly on Twitter, then watching the news might not be a top priority.

It is important to note that Hillary Clinton is a special case since she is running for presidency. Even with social media, television and news station possess a large role in how she is portrayed since the presidency campaign is a high coverage topic. Nevertheless, I believe the news stations hold more influence over the older generations, whereas Internet-based media has a stronger presence in the younger millennial generation. For example, there are viral posts comparing Hillary Clinton against Bernie Sanders, her main competitor for the Democratic nomination, and highlight how “old” or “out-of-date” Clinton is with younger voters. Official media organizations are not responsible for those posts, but instead it is the young adults who are social media users.

Either way, wherever or however people rely on obtaining information, repetition is a crucial factor when enforcing ideas or statements, whether good or bad. There’s a saying that if you tell yourself something enough times, then you will eventually start to believe it. If the media portrays a message enough times, people will start to believe it – similar to war propaganda. A present day example would be Jimmy Kimmel’s Lie Witness News, which showcases how people are willing to lie to sound like they are knowledgeable about the topic. While visual manipulation is probably present, the message continues to be the same and doxa is created, people continue to believe and comment on how ignorant those people featured in the video are. That can be hard when the public relies on news stations to be honest and factual, when in reality they are biased or altering the news.

As stated in the HRC article, images from the 1992 campaign are recycled for stories and therefore, can be re-contextualized for whatever story the media intends to portray. The video shown during class, “Hillary Clinton for Millennials”, used several images and videos from that time period. While the video was published to YouTube in 2015, it displayed visuals from decades ago. News recycling is not something new and will not be eradicated in the near future. From the HRC article, there are multiple motives for the use of news recycling: appearance of consistent and factual stories, saving money, and impression that the news stations was there capturing the important events. Although these are conceivable motives, at what point is news recycling not suitable? There are certainly more current videos and images of Clinton, yet decade old images and the squiggly, colorful aesthetic of the 1990’s were prominent in the “Hillary Clinton for Millennials” video. This exemplifies how the media is trying to create a common belief about Clinton using news recycling. As Hillary Clinton continues to run for presidency and be in the spotlight, her control over her image deceases more and more everyday. Clinton’s social media posts can only sway the public so much, and even then, those posts can be manipulated and reframed by the media.

Personally I do not think Hillary has much control over her public image. Anything Hillary does can be spun to make it seem like she’s rude/nice/crazy/anything you want. Even when the Monica Lewinsky news broke, the media controlled how the public saw Hillary. They used old photos of her crying to make it seem like was super upset. I’m sure she was upset but they used old photos to get their point across. The media even uses certain camera techniques to portray Hillary in a certain way. For example with spectator positioning, they are able to make viewers feel they are the recipients of Hillary’s anger. Plus you have more conservative media outlets that will never portray Hillary in a good light. While Liberal news outlets will rarely make conservative politicians look good as well. I think very few politicians have control over their own public image. Anything you say as a politician is blown up and made a huge deal.

The use of repetition constructs truths by engraving an idea into your brain. At first when you see an image/story you may not believe it. However after you see something a couple times across multiple networks, you start to believe the story. Hearing the same story from different sources over and over somehow makes us believe the story is more credible. A recent example of repetition in the media was the Bruce Jenner transition news. I remember at first I didn’t believe it when only a couple news outlets were reporting the news. I thought in my head that there was no way Bruce Jenner, the world’s greatest athlete, could feel stuck in the wrong body. I remember after a couple magazines/other news outlets reported he was transitioning that I thought maybe it could be true. Once I heard Diane Sawyer, a credible journalist, was doing a special on Bruce Jenner, I knew the rumors had to be true. It just took seeing the rumors multiple times for me to believe it to be true. An example from the article of repetition being used comes from NBC. The NBC introduction of the changing logos over the years and different anchors serves to constantly remind us of the history of NBC. Seeing the history of anchors over and over makes us believe NBC is a credible news source.

I think feminism has really changed and stayed the same since this article was written. There’s still a pay gap, reproductive rights issues, and many other things. However, I think feminism in the 90’s was a big deal and paved the way for the feminists of today. Feminism in no way is near perfect today, but I think women are for sure taken more serious now. Back in the 90’s, a woman was only thought to be able to support her husband in the White House. Today, we’ve had various women run for president and we may even seen one become our president in the next year. I don’t know if the media’s approach toward feminism has truly changed. I think women are still criticized/judged much more heavily than men.

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?