I've just watched the videos Sarah posted on our bloggingenglish-blog and I have to say that they are sooo embarassing! I mean why do they even want to do things the American way if they are not even able to do so? These videos are simply ridiculous. Their lyrics don't even make sense (especially the one from Berlusconi). Which dream are they talking about? That is so weird.
I was supposed to write about my observations on the elections and I noticed that now, that the platforms are known to everyone (who's interested) and the statements are clear, the candidates start to argue on a more personal level.
For example, there was this story about Obama's mentor and pastor who made racist remarks (so it had been understood by some Americans) concerning the "white and rich America" and, now, for the first time Hillary Clinton commented on this story. She said that man would never had been her pastor, if she had known about his ideas and speeches, unlike Obama. So she uses the bad press Obama had during the last weeks and tries to put herself in a better position.
In Italy it is quite the same: Berlusconi and Veltroni were supposed to have a battle on two television channels. The first channel invited Veltroni but Berlusconi didn't want to show up because the show is rather left-wing oriented and then it was Veltroni who did not want to participate in the battle on Porta a Porta.
It seems like they all have run out of proper ideas in order to convince the voters and so they start playing games.
venerdì 28 marzo 2008
lunedì 17 marzo 2008
U.S.elections vs Italy's elections
I followed three online newspapers during the last week which are the New York Times, Berliner Morgenpost and Corriere della sera in order to find out how the upcoming elections in Italy and the United States are being followed by the journalists in different countries. Of course, I expected the NYTimes to be particularly focused on the elections in the U.S. and the Corriere on elections in Italy. Instead, I noticed that both newspapers are more concerned about the American elections. There was no article on Italy's elections in April in the Times during the last three days. All I could find was an older article that said that the government in Italy had been interrupted caused by different opinions within the government. Whereas there is a huge amount of information as far as the U.S. elections are concerned. There are statistics, videos, opinion polls etc.
The Corriere being an Italian newspaper deals a lot with the elections in its country but there are no statistics or opinion polls. The articles are about the campaigns Veltroni and Berlusconi are holding in this period and what the politics want to change in Italy's politics. There is no special section regarding the elections and candidates of Italy but there is a special section that gives the reader all the information about the American elections. There are links and guides on how the American president is being voted and videos of the 3-year-old Hillary Clinton. I think this is a weird. I mean the position of the president of the United States might be the most powerful in the world and they're posting those kind of videos on purpose in the States where people should vote for Clinton/Obama ecc but why giving more information about a foreign country than about your own? I think here it is pretty much obvious what big influence America has on Europe.
Then I had a look at a neutral country which is Germany. In the Berliner Morgenpost I couldn't find articles on Italy, either. I typed "Italy" in the search space and all I could find was an article that said the government had failed and Italians will go to political elections for the 62nd time after World War 2. There was no article about who will be the next candidates ecc. As far as America is concerned there were a lot of articles. I think there was one for each day and they're similar to the ones in the Corriere and the Times. They give very detailed information about the candidates of the left wing (Clinton/Obama) and about their campaigns. There was also background information about Obama's priest and longtime friend who held speeches in which he was against the "rich white America" and information about Clinton's people, too. The German newspaper follows the American elections very detailed and the Russian elections, too. There were articles like "Who is the man Vladimir Putin?" ecc just like for the Americans. Instead, Italy wasn't mentioned at all. I think America is seen much more important to Germans even for historical reasons and so is Russia.
I used the following websites in order to fulfil the task:1) Corriere della sera speciale esteri
2) Corriere della sera politica 3) Berliner Morgenpost 4) Berliner Morgenpost/Italy 5) New York Times.
The Corriere being an Italian newspaper deals a lot with the elections in its country but there are no statistics or opinion polls. The articles are about the campaigns Veltroni and Berlusconi are holding in this period and what the politics want to change in Italy's politics. There is no special section regarding the elections and candidates of Italy but there is a special section that gives the reader all the information about the American elections. There are links and guides on how the American president is being voted and videos of the 3-year-old Hillary Clinton. I think this is a weird. I mean the position of the president of the United States might be the most powerful in the world and they're posting those kind of videos on purpose in the States where people should vote for Clinton/Obama ecc but why giving more information about a foreign country than about your own? I think here it is pretty much obvious what big influence America has on Europe.
Then I had a look at a neutral country which is Germany. In the Berliner Morgenpost I couldn't find articles on Italy, either. I typed "Italy" in the search space and all I could find was an article that said the government had failed and Italians will go to political elections for the 62nd time after World War 2. There was no article about who will be the next candidates ecc. As far as America is concerned there were a lot of articles. I think there was one for each day and they're similar to the ones in the Corriere and the Times. They give very detailed information about the candidates of the left wing (Clinton/Obama) and about their campaigns. There was also background information about Obama's priest and longtime friend who held speeches in which he was against the "rich white America" and information about Clinton's people, too. The German newspaper follows the American elections very detailed and the Russian elections, too. There were articles like "Who is the man Vladimir Putin?" ecc just like for the Americans. Instead, Italy wasn't mentioned at all. I think America is seen much more important to Germans even for historical reasons and so is Russia.
I used the following websites in order to fulfil the task:1) Corriere della sera speciale esteri
2) Corriere della sera politica 3) Berliner Morgenpost 4) Berliner Morgenpost/Italy 5) New York Times.
domenica 9 marzo 2008
Political debates as cultural differences
Our task for this week was to analize the language of political debates in the U.S. and in Italy and to compare them as there will be presidential elections in both countries later this year. I decided to analize the debates of senator Hillary Clinton - possible presidential candidate of the Democratic party in the U.S. - and of Walter Veltroni - presidential candidate of the Partito Democratico in Italy.
First of all, I'd like to mention that I noticed a very big difference concerning the behaviour of the voters, too. Watching Hillary Clinton's debates I thought her voters to be quite fanatic. They were applauding, cheering and celebrating her and every word she said. Whereas there was no such fanaticism in Italy when Veltroni held his debate. In my opinion, this has quite a big influence on how political campaigns are being held in these two countries.
Clinton's speech is very personal in the sense that she often refers to herself ("I personally") and to the voters by saying "you", e.g. "You are not invisible to ME.", "..from the bottom of my heart", "America needs a comeback like You gave ME a comeback" etc. I think by saying so she tries to put herself on one level with the voters and she wants to make her voters feel like she is one of them and like they're candidating all together to move into the White House. In fact, during her Super Tuesday Speech she said that she is the one who will stand for "your dreams, your values, your fututure and go to YOUR White House."
Hillary Clinton also uses often the words "challenge", "heart", "family" and "future". She addresses to young people, poor families and the middle class in general. At the end of every speech I saw Clinton thanks her family, especially her husband, her daughter and her mother, who - as Clinton says - "was born before women could vote and now she's watching her daughter on this stage". I think Hillary Clinton tries to get especially the female voters' attention here and to remind them of the process the female movement went through during the past 40 years. I think it is just possible that she's trying to say that the next step of women's liberation would be a female president. Furthermore, I noticed Clinton ends every speech by saying "God bless you." - which would not at all be common for European election campaigns - as she wants to let everyone know that she is a religious person who has faith like many other Americans, too.
Finally, I want to mention Hillary Clinton's strong gesture and her facial expressions towards her audience.
Regarding Walter Veltroni of the 'Partito Democratico' there is much less to say. His debate does not seem to be prepared as much as Clinton's debate. His gesture is not determined and during his speeches he his often sort of interrupting his debate to find the right words. Veltroni's speeches regard families with a low income, university students and self-employed people who run small companies. He often mentions that Italy's economy and inflation is the worst in Europe and that the Italian voters need to have faith and belief in their country. Veltroni wants the small companies to produce as much as they can without being pushed away by the multinationals. Moreover, he appeals to his audience by saying that tax liability is the most important thing in order to show respect for each other.
However, both candidates do not really explain in which way they want to achieve their goals and by which means. In my opinion, senator Clinton's language is more direct (or at least she herself seems to be so) than Veltroni's language. Clinton is naming her goals, e.g. better health insurance for U.S. citizens, whereas Walter Veltroni, in my opinion, is just listing all the problems concerning Italy's politics ( which the Italians are already aware of ) but doesn't really tell where he is going to start the change.
I think it is difficult just to stick to political debates and to build your opinion upon what politicians say in order to get the voters' majority. It takes much more to decide where to put the cross on a election day. The internet is always a good source to get information and to see political debates from different points of view, e.g. Hillary Clinton's speeches uploaded by someone who is actually going to vote her against videos put online by someone of the opposite party.
First of all, I'd like to mention that I noticed a very big difference concerning the behaviour of the voters, too. Watching Hillary Clinton's debates I thought her voters to be quite fanatic. They were applauding, cheering and celebrating her and every word she said. Whereas there was no such fanaticism in Italy when Veltroni held his debate. In my opinion, this has quite a big influence on how political campaigns are being held in these two countries.
Clinton's speech is very personal in the sense that she often refers to herself ("I personally") and to the voters by saying "you", e.g. "You are not invisible to ME.", "..from the bottom of my heart", "America needs a comeback like You gave ME a comeback" etc. I think by saying so she tries to put herself on one level with the voters and she wants to make her voters feel like she is one of them and like they're candidating all together to move into the White House. In fact, during her Super Tuesday Speech she said that she is the one who will stand for "your dreams, your values, your fututure and go to YOUR White House."
Hillary Clinton also uses often the words "challenge", "heart", "family" and "future". She addresses to young people, poor families and the middle class in general. At the end of every speech I saw Clinton thanks her family, especially her husband, her daughter and her mother, who - as Clinton says - "was born before women could vote and now she's watching her daughter on this stage". I think Hillary Clinton tries to get especially the female voters' attention here and to remind them of the process the female movement went through during the past 40 years. I think it is just possible that she's trying to say that the next step of women's liberation would be a female president. Furthermore, I noticed Clinton ends every speech by saying "God bless you." - which would not at all be common for European election campaigns - as she wants to let everyone know that she is a religious person who has faith like many other Americans, too.
Finally, I want to mention Hillary Clinton's strong gesture and her facial expressions towards her audience.
Regarding Walter Veltroni of the 'Partito Democratico' there is much less to say. His debate does not seem to be prepared as much as Clinton's debate. His gesture is not determined and during his speeches he his often sort of interrupting his debate to find the right words. Veltroni's speeches regard families with a low income, university students and self-employed people who run small companies. He often mentions that Italy's economy and inflation is the worst in Europe and that the Italian voters need to have faith and belief in their country. Veltroni wants the small companies to produce as much as they can without being pushed away by the multinationals. Moreover, he appeals to his audience by saying that tax liability is the most important thing in order to show respect for each other.
However, both candidates do not really explain in which way they want to achieve their goals and by which means. In my opinion, senator Clinton's language is more direct (or at least she herself seems to be so) than Veltroni's language. Clinton is naming her goals, e.g. better health insurance for U.S. citizens, whereas Walter Veltroni, in my opinion, is just listing all the problems concerning Italy's politics ( which the Italians are already aware of ) but doesn't really tell where he is going to start the change.
I think it is difficult just to stick to political debates and to build your opinion upon what politicians say in order to get the voters' majority. It takes much more to decide where to put the cross on a election day. The internet is always a good source to get information and to see political debates from different points of view, e.g. Hillary Clinton's speeches uploaded by someone who is actually going to vote her against videos put online by someone of the opposite party.
Iscriviti a:
Post (Atom)