U.S.: Mixed messages = mixed-up audience
Some notes from the US. Lots of coverage on John McCain’s two faces today: 1) the climate change campaigner in his new 30-second TV ad ‘Global’, and 2) the five-gallon hat friend, talking to Big Oil in Texas about his plans to lift restrictions on drilling for oil and gas.
The ad goes out in New Hampshire and a number of other states. Not Texas. So, as Grist suggests, there are mixed messages. But actually, not quite. There are two clear, uncomplicated messages–they’re just targeted at two different audiences. (David Cameron is having a lot of success over here at the moment with the same tactic. During the Crewe & Nantwich byelection, no mentions of climate change. But “in a speech to environmentalists” (who esle?) Cameron promised he won’t drop green policies.)
Watch the ad here:
So what affect is this mixing up of messages having?
What affect is it having on the US voter?
There’s a fascinating piece on the widening divide in America between Republicans and Democrats, over at Environmental Science and Technology. Polls conducted by Pew in April 2008 found that:
- The percentage of Americans who believe there is solid evidence that the earth is warming slipped to 71%, down from 77% in January 2007.
- That slippage is mostly on the Republican side, which dropped from 62% to 49%,
- The number of Republicans ranking climate change as a top priority dropped from 23% in 2007 to 12% in 2008
- Compared with 47% of Democrats and 38% of independents.
Do they lead, or do they follow?
Is McCain following public opinion, or is he setting out a lead? I had always considered McCain, from my limited knowledge, an honest and enlightened Republican. He was advocating action on climate change years before any other prominent Republicans. “John McCain stood up to the president and sounded the alarm on global warming five years ago,” says the voiceover on the ad.
I’m sure McCain would think that he is leading public opinion rather than following it. But the timing of his two messages indicates that isn’t really the case. He’s a politician, and he knows, like all good communicators, the value of tailoring the message to fit the audience.
This tailoring of the messages is having a confusing and dangerous impact on Republican voters. And I would argue that Democrat voters are more certain about the issue of climate change because their messaging from their leaders is less equivocal, less multiple.
Republican scepticism, along with Iraq and the economic crisis, are leading to less action on tackling climate change. Although good news in that there is a new bill going through the US House of Representatives. And, as blogger La Marguerite notes (although maybe too pessimistically?), the $4 a gallon price shock has done what three million green bloggers have not managed: behavioural change.
The more we know, the less we worry…?
More from the great article from EST:
In February, researchers at Texas A&M University published a survey in Risk Analysis suggesting that the more Americans know about climate change, the less concern they have about it.
But that depends on what it is they know, and the definition of concern. Less concerned because it’s clearer and they know what to do? Or less concerned because it all seems a bit overexaggerated?
Two researchers, Malka and Krosnick, challenge that finding in a paper submitted to the same journal. Again, quoting EST, the researchers:
reanalyzed polling data from 2006 and 2007 and found that for Democrats, more knowledge led to more concern, but for Republicans and those who did not trust scientists, more knowledge did not translate into anxiety. In fact, people who did not trust scientists at all were less worried if they knew more.
“The different information sources that each group seeks out may lead them to different conclusions,” Malka says.
And that’s really the point
McCain knows that different voter audiences seek out different informaton sources, seek our different conclusions. e.g. I buy the Guardian because it is most likely to tell me what I want to hear. And so it’s one message for the Texas oil lobby, and one for the general voting New Hampshire public.
PS. No nuclear?
Great analysis of the advert from Avi Zenilman at the US website Politico: McCain is a huge supporter of nuclear, but his new ad doesn’t mention it. Despite McCain himself saying, in New Hampshire, “How can you possibly talk about alternative energy sources without nuclear power?”
Comments
Leave a Reply
