The Mass Media and Latino Politics

Studies of U.S. Media Content, Campaign Strategies and Survey Research: 1984-2004

Federico Subervi-Velez

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2009
• ISBN:
  9781135599218
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Filología
• Subtopic: Estudios de comunicación

The Latin-American population has become a major force in American politics in recent years, with expanding influences in local, state, and national elections. The candidates in the 2004 campaign wooed Latino voters by speaking Spanish to Latino audiences and courting Latino groups and PACs. Recognizing the rising influence of the Latino population in the United States, Federico Subervi-Velez has put together this edited volume, examining various aspects of the Latino and media landscape, including media coverage in English- and Spanish-language media, campaigns, and survey research.

1
INTRODUCTION

Federico A. Subervi-Vélez

The subtitle of the book The Latino Wave, by Jorge Ramos (2004), states How Hispanics will elect the next American president. Published before that year’s presidential election, Ramos—who during the last two decades has been the main anchor of Noticiero Univisión, the evening national news program of the leading Spanish-language television network in the United States—asserted that Latinos would be a deciding factor in the campaign that year. He also suggested that Latinos were a key to Bush’s successful 2000 presidential campaign. Starting in chapter one, titled “Making history: How Latinos decided the 2000 election,” and throughout his book, stemming primarily from interviews with Latino political leaders, scholars and field work, Ramos makes his case about the political impact of Latinos. He also points out, sometimes more implicitly than explicitly, that the media, particularly Spanish-language media, are an integral part of that process.

While the precise impact of the Latino vote in the presidential campaign may be argued, it certainly was a crucial factor in Los Angeles on May 24, 2005 when Antonio Villaraigosa became the first Latino mayor of that city since 1872. A few days later, the cover of the May 30, 2005 edition of Newsweek magazine proclaimed in bold letters “Latino Power: L. A.’s New Mayor—And How Hispanics Will Change American Politics.” The inside pages of that edition featured not only the story behind Villaraigosa’s electoral victory, but also an overview of some trends in the surge of Latino political power in the United States, as well as past and future strategies used by Republicans and Democrats to win Latino votes.

One of the main tenets of this book, The Mass Media and Latino Politics, is that it is more than long overdue time for political communication scholarship to assess how this ethnic group and the media directed to them have played distinct and niche roles in American electoral politics and, moreover, that political campaigns and research about those processes and events should pay more attention to the intersection between media and Latinos when assessing the political socialization and mobilization of Latinos. Building on historical assessments and on contemporary social science-based research, the pages document how the language and rhythm of political communication in the United States are changing very rapidly, and that Latinos and the media and messages directed to them are at the core of that transformation. In ways and at rates not commonly observed in previous decades, the media and messages of electoral campaigns are being culturally diversified, but more specifically so, “Latinized.”

Across the nation, from local elections to presidential campaigns, when there are potential Latino votes at stake, the strategies and operations, the news and propaganda, and the whole modus operandi of the imagemakers and disseminators are being redesigned and directed with more precision. Thus, on the one hand, it can be observed that a goal of many candidates and their respective parties is to enhance the outreach—be it in Spanish, in English or in both languages—specifically targeted to win the favor and votes of Latinos. On the other hand, more frequently than in the past albeit still only occasionally, the general market (mainstream) media feature stories on Latinos, Latino issues, or on campaign efforts directed at them.¹

As the writing for this book was coming to a close in fall 2006, the national focus on Latinos increased exponentially during the public discussions, Congressional deliberations, and the president’s proposals to deal with immigration reform. The repercussions of the often heated debates were seen in the Congressional elections of November 2006 when Latinos voted heavily for Democratic Party candidates, a pattern that might well be repeated in the presidential campaign of 2008. Undoubtedly, more than in previous decades, Hispanic-related issues and themes will be part of the general political rhetoric and propaganda, and even more so in the efforts to attract or discourage Latino voters.

The changing demographics help explain part of these new trends in political communication. U. S. Census Bureau data suggest that Hispanics, after making the greatest proportional gains three decades in a row, are now the nation’s largest “minority” group. With more than 43 million people nationwide (approximately 15% of the total), they now outnumber the African-American population of 38 million (13%).² The increase in economic power has also been evident, especially as the annual purchasing power surpassed $960 billion and advertising and marketing strategists sharpen their focus on the Latino niche or niches.³

Another explanation for the increased attention to Latinos is their large numbers in various states that have been major battlegrounds for deciding the outcome of presidential elections. New Mexico and Arizona, but even more so Florida, were pivotal states in the 1996 and 2000 elections. In 2004 the Latino voters were substantial and thus targets of focused attention in these three states plus four others also considered up for grabs or battlegrounds: Colorado, Illinois, Nevada, and New Jersey. During the 2002 gubernatorial elections in Florida, Texas, New Mexico and New York, Latino voters were also heavily courted with Spanish-language and English-language campaign propaganda. Democrat and Republican candidates even tried to reach out by sprinkling Spanish-language phrases in selected stump speeches.

It should thus not be surprising that Latinos increasingly are an integral part of the emerging political dynamics at the start of the twentyfirst century, and will continue to be so particularly in areas with large Latino concentrations (de la Garza and DeSipio, 1992, 2005; de la Garza, Menchaca and DeSipio, 1994; García-Bedolla, 2005; Geron, 2005; Estrada, 1997). The increased Latinized political communication trends are also certain to continue. As will be discussed further in this book, this is correlated with the growing—albeit still limited—media attention given to Latinos during political campaigns.

Even to the casual observer, it should be quite evident why it is important to study mass communication processes related to politics. In essence, the mass media are the main disseminators and transmitters of political information and, as a result, are central players in politics. Media contributions to U. S. politics have been debated and studied for many decades, including the political communication books by Bennett (1992, 2001, 2002), Bennett and Entman (2005), Graber (1994, 1997, 2000, 2005), Graber, McQuail, and Norris (1998), Hart (1999, 2000, 2005), Jamieson (1996, 2000), Jamieson and Campbell (2001), Jamieson and Waldman (2003), Kaid (2004), Patterson (1994), and Perlmutter (1999), among others.

Unfortunately, the academic evidence that highlights the relationships between media and politics stems almost entirely from studies of the U. S. Anglo European populations and general market English-language media. The field of political communication has for too long practically ignored Spanish-language newspapers and television, as well as other Latino-oriented media, which together comprise the largest and best established of all ethnic mass communication channels in the United States (Fishman, Gertner, Lowy and Milan, 1985; Subervi-Vélez et al., 1994; Subervi and Eusebio, 2005). With very few exceptions (primarily the previous works of this author and his associates), political communication research has even neglected assessing the coverage of “Latino candidates or issues” in general market media and of media effects on Latinos (or any other ethnic/racial minorities). Latino voters—actual or potential—and their uses of media in any language have also received minimal attention in academic circles.

This book begins to fill some of the void by focusing simultaneously on Latinos, the mass media, and politics. While numerous works have delved into Latino politics,⁴ and a few into Latinos and the mass media,⁵ studies that assess the intersection of these are scarce. In this book they are brought together in every chapter to show that studying the mass media can enhance the understanding of Latino politics in the U. S., including issues related to the political knowledge and participation of this population. It is also important to note that while parts of this book date back to the 1980s, they provide the historical foundations to explain why the language and rhythm of political communication in the United States are indeed being transformed.

Latinos are one of the foci of this book because, as alluded to above, they are an integral part of this country’s political dynamics. The number of Latinos registering to vote has increased steadily since the 1980s as a result of strong voter registration drives around the country. Likewise, voter turnout also has increased steadily. In the 1988 presidential elections 3.7 million Latinos voted, representing 3.6 percent of the total votes cast (DeSipio and Rocha, 1992). Four years later, 4.2 million Latinos cast their votes, representing 3.9 percent of the total votes cast (The Tomás Rivera Center, 1996), and in 1996 it was 5 million, representing 5 percent of that year’s votes.

In 2000—the closest and, at the time, most controversial national election—even more Latinos cast votes, anywhere from 5.9 million (5.6 percent) (de la Garza and DeSipio, 2005) up to 7.4 million (7 percent).⁶ According to various analyses of the outcome of that year’s presidential election, including the opinions of Ramos (2004) and a number of the people he interviewed for his book, Latinos’ votes were instrumental in Bush’s victory. The same is being stated about the outcome of the 2004 campaign, in which close to anywhere between seven and eight million Latinos voted, albeit the percentage of the share of the total number of voters did not increase notably.

One of the more telling factors related to the constant growth in the number of Latino voters is the impact they are having in countless state and local elections. Not surprisingly, the number of Latino elected officials has risen steadily since the 1980s (Hero and Tolbert, 1997; Moore and Pachon, 1985; NALEO, 2006; Vigil, 1988, 1997; Welch and Hibbing, 1988). According to figures compiled by the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO),⁷ in 1984 a total of 3,128 Latinos had obtained such distinction; as of June 2002, the figure then was 4,464, including one governor (Bill Richardson, Democrat, New Mexico), and 22 Congressmen. And greatly thanks to Latino votes in the 2004 and, subsequently, the 2006 elections, there are more than 5,129 Latinos in elected and appointed offices, including the three Latinos elected to the U. S. Senate, 23 to the House of Representatives, plus two Cabinet level appointees—Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, and Secretary of Commerce, Carlos Gutiérrez. Clearly, Latinos embody a significant force in U. S. politics. As the population ages and obtains higher education and income levels, and as more of its members become U. S. citizens, its political clout should also increase.

De la Garza (1992), de la Garza and DeSipio (2005), and other researchers have pointed out, however, that Latinos have yet to realize their potential fully. For example, statistics indicate that Latino political participation is still lower than non-Latino participation, and that the number of Latino elected officials still lags in proportion to their concentration in most communities (Calvo and Rosenstone, 1989; DeSipio and Rocha, 1992; Leal, Barreto, Lee, and de la Garza, 2005; NALEO, 2006). This holds true even after the mid-term elections of 2002 and the presidential elections of 2004. As Lopes (1995) has asserted, political potential alone will not elect more Latino mayors, city council members or legislators. For Latinos to enhance their political power, be it in local, state or national elections, they need, among other things, information about how and why to become politically involved. When they speak, their views have to be covered and widely reported. In essence, to enhance political socialization and mobilization, ample mass communication efforts are vital and can be decisive. In other words, the media are indispensable and crucial in those processes.

This fundamental connection between information and community interests was observed decades ago by Tichenor, Donohue and Olien (1980: 11) who, in their well-documented study of community conflict and the press, affirmed:

[I]t is quite clear that possession of information, or access to it, is a potentially crucial resource for the power position of groups that are seeking to realize or protect their collective interests.

Graber also has stated that the mass media serve as “powerful guardians of political norms” and that media “images are especially pervasive when they involve aspects of life that people experience only through the media” (1997: 3). And, she adds, “[a]ttention to the mass media is all-pervasive among twentieth-century Americans” (1997: 3).

The mass media are therefore the second foci of this book, because at all levels of society they are the most pervasive sources of news and information, particularly regarding issues and events with which the audience has no direct access or experience. For millions of Hispanics,⁸ the media may be a very important source of current news and information about American political life and about Latinos’ political life in America. For the U. S. population as a whole, general market media also provide information and representations—albeit limited and sometimes even distorted—about Latinos and their political representatives, interests, goals, etc. (Subervi, Torres and Montalvo, 2004, 2005).

Building on the above, an underlying axiom of this book is that analyzing the mass media is imperative for a better understanding of the politics related to this country’s Latino communities. A corollary axiom is that political information about and for Latinos transmitted by way of the mass media is crucial for the mobilization and citizenship development of Hispanics and their interests in the United States. It is assumed that studies seeking to understand the dynamics of Latino politics in this country can benefit from analyses of the political content of the media. That understanding can also be enhanced with assessments of the mass communication strategies of this nation’s major political organizations, i.e., the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. Knowing something about Latinos’ use of the media and whether that is related to their political knowledge and participation can be quite revealing, too.

These axioms and assumptions are built on previous research in political communication and thus underlie the various chapters of the book, which correspondingly answer three fundamental questions: What are the political messages for or about Latinos disseminated by the mass media? How have the major political parties used the media to gain Latino votes? And, what evidence exists that exposure to the media influences Latino political participation?

The chapters that follow provide some answers to these and other related queries. Before turning to these, however, it is important to consider the reasons for studying ethnicity, particularly those pertaining to Latinos, in the context of political communication.

ETHNICITY: A CORE AND PERENNIAL FACTOR IN U. S. SOCIETY

During the last part of the twentieth century and continuing on in the new one, the ongoing debates concerning ethnicity, ethnic identity and pluralism, and diversity in American society have been a distinguishing social concern (Ferrante, 2000; Fischer, Gerber, Guitart and Seller, 1997; Schaefer, 2006; Takaki, 1994). Not that ethnicity ever ceased to be important for many individuals and segments of the population—it always has been and continues to be (Parrillo, 1996). But a whole paradigm of social science theory and research was built on the tenets and ideology of a unidirectional assimilation process—one in which the ethnic heritage and identity of recent immigrants or minorities constantly decreased until they became “assimilated” into the great American “melting pot” (e.g., Gordon, 1964; Park, 1950). Similar theoretical foundations have been evident in writings about mass communication research on or about ethnic minority groups, e.g., the works by Kim (1988, 2001) and others summarized in Subervi-Vélez (1986).

More recently, it has been argued that “multiculturalism has always been part of the American scene and is no more a threat to the cohesiveness of society today than at any time in the past,” (Parrillo, 1996: 3). Parrillo even acknowledges that assimilation “remains a powerful force affecting most ethnic groups” but one that “has been relatively ineffective with racial minorities” (1996: 3). He thus postulates: “assimilation and pluralism are not mutually exclusive entities, nor are they necessarily enemies of one another” (1996: 3). In his view, “both assimilation and pluralism have always been dual realities within American society” (1996: 4).

What he and other scholars are pointing out is that the adaptation by ethnic minorities to the dominant society is more complex than the assimilationist model, and not necessarily linear. Ethnic identification continues to serve as a core and perennial value for many segments of the population. For example, instead of transforming their ethnicity from the original or minority group society to a full immersion into the identity of the dominant society, Royce (1982) and Padilla (1985) observe a phenomenon they refer to as situational ethnicity. In such cases, particular aspects and dimensions of the ethnic minority heritage are retained and/ or expressed depending on a number of factors and contexts, such as the perception of in-group and out-group acceptance or rejection of the particular ethnic attribute(s). In chapter 3 of this book, the implications and applications of the concept of situational ethnicity become central to the formulation of a theory on political communication pertaining to Latinos.

Ethnic group classifications, ethnicity and ethnic identity also remain important in U. S. society because stereotyping and discrimination based on national origin, race, and/or culture persist in spite of the progress made in education, employment, housing, and media representations. Thus, there continue to be notable multidimensional differences between groups, including socio-economic status (Goldberg, 1997), media exposure and use patterns (Ríos, 1993), portrayals in the media (Gandy, 1998; Gandy and Matabane, 1989; Greenberg ...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Foreword
• Acknowledgments
• Preface
• About the contributors
• 1 Introduction
• PART I Foundations
• PART II Studies of media coverage of elections
• PART III Campaign strategies, political advertisements, surveys
• Bibliography