In Chapter 6, many related topics were discussed. I will be focussing on agenda setting for a topic from MSNBC written by Alex Seitz-Ward titled “Hillary Clinton’s last paid speech“. The title of this speech leads you to think she will no longer be taking money for speeches, or something of the sort. This title may also lead you to believe they will be talking about her speech in the article. The first line of this speech says it is her “last scheduled paid speech”, which does not mean it’s her last over all. Also in this article they mention the up to $300,000 per speech, this would take the average American about 7 years to earn. So as the title of this article makes us think Hillary is making a big change, when in fact it is not much of a sacrifice. In this article they also do not discuss her speech it self but the person she “reached out to” during the speech. The article talked mainly about the person who has supported and helped fund her campaigns throughout the years. So while this article leads us to think about one thing(or multiple), it in fact discusses something very different. As a side note, if Hillary does in fact happen to become President of the United States, she will be getting paid for that job and I believe “speeches” would be listed under that job description.
-
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
- seo24 on About
- جلب الحبيب on About
- GonzaloOring on About
- GonzaloOring on About
- GonzaloOring on About
Archives
Categories
Meta
Hi Megan. This article I believe has special interest written all over it. These politicians talk about struggling for revenue all the time. However every time you turn around they are getting some huge handout from somewhere to help with their agenda. I find this humorous in regards to the Clinton’s when last year they were claiming they were almost broke. This does in fact makes you think where does it all go. Your right, when they do get elected for whatever position they go on the government payroll. It’s like a whole different world they live in when it comes to revenue and taking money. They also keep it so confusing it’s hard sometimes to tell whats above board or not.
I also agree with your observations and would like to add that this type of attack mirrors the “Red Herring” strategy that is diverting attention from the serious, real issues facing America and instilling fear about the qualifications and character of a potential candidate. To believe that Hillary Clinton is the only candidate that gets paid to speak would be ridiculous. Countless of back-door politics have been proven to pay off Male candidates for decades, special interest groups have countless resources to “buy” their candidates; so any attack on a female who actually has the potential to win an election is of no surprise. Those opposed to Ms. Clinton’s possible quest at the Presidency need to find a much more intelligent strategy as she will not engage in senseless rhetoric; make it a legitimate argument then we’ll see a fair fight.
I can see this article has priming in it as well. The article as it is written says that this is Hillary’s last scheduled “paid” speech. However it does not say that it is her last speech. By the way the article is written initially it is leading us to believe that Hillary is now focusing on her campaign launch for president, when actually what she is doing is campaigning for future endeavors, whatever they may be. It is my opinion that Hillary is going to campaign for her run at presidency at the cost to her constituents of $300,000 a time to hear what she has to say and do her best to distract people from her past mistakes such as Benghazi and now the email scandal. In closing I will say that I truly believe this is an example of priming because not only the writer of this article is trying to tell us what to believe, but Hillary is trying to convince the journalist what to believe.
I think from an agenda setting perspective we are definitely primed to think a certain way both about Hillary Clinton and about political speeches. We are primed to think of Hillary Clinton in a variety of ways; power monger, presidential destiny, SNL, and a variety of other priming topics. When we think of campaign speeches we are primed to think that they are written by a team of writers and that they are all planned out precisely. I think the way this article draws us in is by mentioning the money that is associated with campaign speeches. We are primed to think that speeches are written for money but we don’t really know the specifics and this article is framed around certain dollar amounts and comparisons. As far as Hillary is concerned the article has framed her in a very neutral light.