How an American businessman turned the world of politics and Public Relations on its head.

For better or for worse, there has been an unstoppable force in politics. A force that has changed the way people will utilize communication, and the strategy in which a candidate can gain support in an election. This force is Donald Trump. While many, including myself, may not agree with much of his political polices, I have to acknowledge his widespread support. The man is doing something right, the question is, what? The answer is complicated but relates back to his way of utilizing media. Trump understands broadcast media, and has been able to have it feature his personal brand.

As the world of Public Relations is evolving in an era of social media and constant communication, Trump has seemed to crack the ever-changing code. Over the past century the idea that all publicity is good publicity has become more accepted. In a controversial statement, Irish author Brendan Behan noted, “there is no such thing as bad publicity except your own obituary.” Behan, known for his wit and intelligence rose to prominence during the 1920’s, and made this proclamation way before its time. His perspective on public relations is now more relevant than ever. A large reason why his words remain true is that Americans have become numb to shock. Our overconsumption of media and information is to blame. We are constantly berated with outrageous stories, particularly through television, that alter how we’ve analyzed media in recent years.

People like Trump benefit from the current 24-hour news cycle. The outpour of information never concludes in the current state of television. If a topical event takes place it is almost guaranteed to be featured on multiple networks, providing vastly different approaches in covering the same subject. This is seen through an info-graphic from the Media Research Center. This organization investigates statistics in regards to media distribution and consumption. The specific info-graphic highlights the amount of airtime each republican candidate received on ABC, CBS, and NBC nightly news coverage solely from scandals. In just March, Trump received over 67 minutes of coverage for five separate scandals. Ted Cruz received 11 minutes of coverage from two scandals, which John Kasich had no coverage from scandals. These events can be clearly defined as negative, as Trump’s instances included sexist comments made towards women, and misconduct from his campaign manager. While these negative events may slander Trump’s image or character, they’re clearly not affecting his polling numbers, as he currently leads in delegates comfortably over his constituents. The allocation in “controversy coverage” also mirrors the current standing in delegates in the GOP race.

Just how much do we talk about Donald Trump? Well, according to another Media Research Center statistic, a lot. Specifically, about 6 times more than both Ted Cruz and John Kasich, and 5 times more than Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. Megan Burnside is a writer for LexisNexis, an online engine for scholarly information and articles. In one of her pieces, she explains how “America isn’t ready to dump Trump.” She adds to this statement by providing media statistics. Burnside notes, “ that Trump dominates 50 percent of mainstream print, broadcast and online media coverage.” Donald Trump has been mentioned 108,832 times in the last 30 days on networks like Fox News, MSNBC, and comedy central. Based on the general opinions of these networks towards the candidate, it is clear that the support of these networks towards Trump is vastly different. Comedy Central stars like Trevor Noah and Samantha Bee have rarely discussed Trump’s rise with optimism. On the other hand, Fox News has often proclaimed Trump as the most legitimate individual to represent the party. This furthers the notion that Trump has understood the importance of staying prevalent in the media cycle, no matter what.

Trump knows himself, and he knows his personality. He has often used his celebrity persona to jumpstart an influx of conversation, giving him a platform like no other candidate. Trump’s inclusion in the GOP race has resulted in record debate numbers according to Neilson Reports. These reports measure television ratings, providing an accurate estimate of how many individuals tune into a program. Specifically, the first GOP debate of the election season attracted an audience of 24 million. This is the most watched primary debate in our nations history. The contest additionally garnered 9 million more viewers than the most ever watched democratic primary. His popularity is also noticeable when observing his live crowds. In his Super Tuesday victory speech Trump boasted, “every place we’re speaking, if we have 10,000 people it’s like a small group. We had 35,000 people the other day in Alabama…this is a movement.” These massive audiences are telling of his status in society. His confidence in discussing these numbers also acts as sound bytes. Sound bytes are becoming popularized by figures like Trump who offer polarizing phrases that feed the current news cycle.

Donald Trumps initial draw as someone the public is already familiar with has propelled his rise. His branding of himself is an important PR attribute; throughout the race he has maintained his ideology that the Trump name is a product. He has spent years making sure his name is affiliated with excellence and success. He has also understood who his audience is. Trump knows that many Americans are tired of the US political system, and that people are hungry for an outsider. He knows that there is a portion of the nation that responds well to his blunt, sometimes crude way of explaining topics. It can be refreshing to have someone tell it like it is in a sense. This is explained the by Cohn Marketing, a prominent marketing organization based in Denver, Colorado. In an article issued on their company’s website Cohn Marketing stated, “Trump’s hitting hot-button issues… he’s doing so in outlandish, Trump-like fashion, but his rants aren’t just rants. They are targeted and strategic.” In PR an audience is defined as ones publics. These publics are in fact a target group, and specifically the one that a PR company sets out to influence. Trumps understanding of his publics is a primary reason why he has been able to accumulate as many delegates as he has throughout the campaign process.

Actions speak louder than words, and while Mr. Trump is a man of many words, it is his track record that has perhaps helped him the most. An advantage that Trump has is that he has concrete businesses and economic ventures he can point to. The sheer image of a Trump hotel or golf course is daunting. The massive and powerful representation of these buildings is familiar and impactful. This is a strategy most other candidates cannot use. Cohn Marketing again notes, “Trumps business triumphs will prevail long after the election cycle is over.” The branding of Trumps own name on his industries shows that he has been PR savvy even before politics. This has paid dividends for his campaign, ultimately allowing him to point to his obvious economic achievements. This also enables him to continue to operate in an avenue that he is familiar with. While the amount of self-confidence and branding used by Trump is no stranger to the business world, his incorporation of it in politics has completely altered the strategy of constructing a successful presidential campaign. This statement holds a great deal of truth; it is one of the reasons why Trump has been able to navigate through the primary process. Specifically in a process where he has had more success than other candidates who are far more established in the political sphere.

Trump has changed the way public relations should be studied. His incorporation of self promotion and social media use in order to stay relevant in a 24-hour news cycle is fascinating. Additionally, his careless attitude in regards to attempting to steer away from controversies is very unique, especially in the political world. This transparency, while harsh has helped him garner support from a wide range of people. While his ways have completely changed the world of public relations, his impact on politics has been extremely negative. An avenue has been established for future politicians to follow in Trumps footsteps. This attitude has almost stripped the sensitivity and patience needed in order to act as a world leader. The mere concept that Donald Trump may have inspired younger politicians to follow in his footsteps is a scary concept, a concept that will be known as The Trump Effect.

What will it take for the USDA to protect the American people? Lately it appears that our government isn’t worried about reforming its safety procedures. The calls for financial profit and economic growth are draining out the nations cries for change.

While more people are becoming more inclined to inquire about the food and drug industries, the power that these organizations have over the American people are still overlooked. This is due to the strong ties that these companies have to the US government. These connections are exposed through many mediums of communication, specifically in the documentary Food Inc., and in the piece “Resisting Food Safety” by: Marian Nestle. This impact is pivotal to be aware of, as it directly impacts the nations present state, and future. While the cost effective and efficient nature of using technological and scientific mutations in the food industry is undeniable, the compromise of individual safety through the production of GMO’s and emitted pollution via pesticides are too impactful to ignore. This aspect of the nation’s food industry is enabled by large corporations, often more powerful than the government, that therefore directly influence the health of our people and planet.

One of the most impactful aspects of the food industry is the production of feed for livestock. This is due to the fact that feed that is meant for an animal can be equally as influential on the health of the person eating it. The issue of animal feed divides people, essentially depending on whether they value a greater chance of personal health, or cost and efficiency. In the article “You Are What They Eat” it is noted that there are many potential risks in the production of feed. David Bossman, a former president of the AFIA stated, “feed can become contaminated…people make honest mistakes.” It’s impossible to ignore the inconsistency in the food safety based off this dialogue. Furthermore, corporations have been known to expose feed to clay, potentially increasing the risk of toxic contamination from the farm to the dinner table.

The current governmental systems regulating food and drug corporations are the reasons why we are so susceptible to the contaminations mentioned by Bossman. Mass confusion and danger can be attributed to the divisions of power, and the lack of size of the USDA and the FDA. Marian Nestle delves into these issues in her piece “Resisting Food Safety.” The sectors of separation between the two organizations are complicated and specific. For example, the USDA begins inspections at the slaughterhouse, while the FDA’s inspections end there. Additionally, the USDA inspects meat and poultry, while the FDA does not. These differences in authority can cause mistakes, as the two groups must work together closely, often analyzing products from the same corporation. Even more worrisome is the vast array of industries that they must oversee. Nestle includes, “The USDA has 7,000 inspectors or so, and they oversee 6,000 meat, poultry, and egg establishments.” In a more specific instance, it is also cited that in today’s poultry industry, “each USDA inspector must examine 35 birds per minute.” These statistics are alarming, as the room for error appears large. Clyde Haberman of The New York Times provides a similar take on these practices in his article, “Action and Dysfunction in the U.S. Food Safety Effort.” Haberman focuses on the FDA, as he notes that the organization accounts for the examinations “of roughly 80 percent of the nation’s food supply.” This large amount of responsibility, accompanied with the noted thirteen fractions of power within the FDA, its complexity alone is enough to turn some heads. Ultimately, the calls for reform from Haberman and Nestle are warranted. While the US government invested a combined $995 billion in the USDA and FDA in 2000, it is clear that both organizations are in dyer need of a larger workforce, as well as increased funding.

American health is the primary concern of the food industry’s inclusion in government practices. The lack of regulations on food and drug corporations effects future generations. American director and producer Robert Kenner commented in his film Food Inc. that “one in three children born after 2000 will contract diabetes.” This statistic is alarming as it shows how the socioeconomic climate of our nation and the food industry are directly correlated to an American’s health. Another devastating effect of this claim the film is seen through Barbara Kowalcyk’s story. Kowalcyk tragically lost her son to e coli after he had eaten a hamburger from a “Jack in the Box” chain restaurant. It is remarkably terrible that a perfectly healthy toddler can lose his or her life in days after simply eating at a fast food restaurant. Occurrences like this one make it apparent that our food can be lethal. It almost sounds irrational due to the common shared ideology that organizations like the FDA are established to protect people. This often leads people to not look towards the food industry when they are sick, even though their illness may be directly linked to it. This attitude is highlighted in Nestle’s work. Nestle recounts an instance in which she attended a family party decades ago. Many guests had contracted food poisoning from the evening. Nestle states that they “did not report our illnesses to health authorities…we did not try to trace the source of the outbreak.” She additionally goes on to note that she assumed that these minor sicknesses were “a normal part of daily living.” These perspectives are ones held by many in the nation. It is often difficult to have the awareness to trace back a food-borne illness to a specific company, as food poisoning is so common. However, this explained commonality is what is most alarming. While one instance may highlight a minor case of food poisoning, another situation may include an outbreak of listeria or e coli.

On the opposition of individuals like Nestle and Kenner are authors like Blake Hurst. Hurst explains his support of the food industries use of GMO’s in his article “Organic Illusions.” In the work he preaches about the positive influence on production that this practice, among others, enables. He states, “Millions of hands would be needed to produce food on America’s farms without modern technology.” This thesis does have some truth to it. While the use of pesticides in the raising of livestock has received some heat recently, it can be acknowledged that these strategies do save time and money. Another viewpoint that Hurst mentions in his writing is the improper understanding of the word organic in society. One of Hurst’s frequently used sources is a study conducted at Stanford University. The study highlights the finding that organic simply means the product is more environmentally sustainable, rather than it being healthier. He additionally cites that while the organic industry is growing, it’s from an extremely small base. Specifically, organic products account for “only 4% of dollar value of all food sold.” His disdain for a makeover of the raising of livestock is extremely apparent, and one that counters attacks made by Nestle, and Kenner amongst others.

The power of corporations within the food industry has proven to be too powerful for them to sustain, however, strong ties to the US government have prevented them from reforming. The documentary Food Inc., and the piece “Resisting Food Safety” by: Marian Nestle. This influence is important to be aware of, it impacts every citizen in the nation. Ultimately the choice of companies to prioritize cost effectiveness over the safety of their consumers is the primary reason for a call for change that has struck the US as a whole. Moving forward, it is important to be aware of the impact that the food industry can have in daily life. More specifically, what can one do to invoke evolution in the industry, as well as educate others on the current epidemics the nation is facing.

1. The writer’s project can be defined, as what the author attempted to convey to the audience is his or her piece. It can include themes and messages included in the writing to get their point across. To identify the writer’s projects in the pieces I analyzed, I looked for key terms and phrases they used. In addition I researched the authors in order to get a better understanding of their viewpoints and backgrounds. My own project in the blog article is to help purport the idea that the food industry needs to be exposed for the wrongdoings they’re enacting currently in the social landscape. I wanted to advance my ideas by using information provided in class through texts and videos.
2. The most helpful section in the sorting it out workshop personally was the section that enabled me to extract key terms from each source. This made it easier to make connections between the sources. In regards to my draft, the section allowed me to organize which sources I wanted to couple together and synthesize further. Specifically, Nestle’s and Habersman’s analysis of the USDA and FDA became clearly connected.
3. Synthesis is defined as the comparison of multiple texts and sources in order to make connections, arguments, and discrepancies. This came alive when I wrote about Hurst. Hurst’s ideas differed greatly from the rest of the sources that were compiled. His opposition made it easier to compare and contrast, and ultimately synthesize.
4. Personally, I feel much like I’m much more knowledgeable of the food industry and the effect that it can have on my family and me. Moving forward, I will be more health conscious, and sympathetic for those falling victim to these large corporations.
5. Initially my focus was on the corruption of lobbyists and the US government as a whole. As I continued to draft my focus became specifically on the corruption of the USDA and the FDA, and the impacts that these organizations have on society.
6. Organizationally I wanted to provide sources that aided my thesis in the beginning of the blog, while providing an alternative perspective at the end. This would show my priority in the work, yet provide an opposing viewpoint.
7. I synthesized works by Hurst, Nestle, as well as the film Food Inc. This was used in order to show the difference in priority of those critical in the food industry, as well as depicts varying opinions on safety.
8. I was told that my previous ledes weren’t opinioned or provocative enough in earlier drafts. As a result I attempted to show clearly what side of the discussion I fell under.
9. I would like to better my synthesizing capabilities even more. I feel like I can do better in that regard.