Television is utilized by candidates as a way to get their pursuing issue to viewers. However, television has altered candidates’ goals from pursuing issue to pursuing image. In the Kennedy-Nixon debate, individuals who had listened to it on the radio and watched it on television had two different opinions on who won. Individuals who had listened to the debate on the radio had to agree that it was a tie, however individuals who had watched the debate on television had thought the Kennedy crushed Nixon. The reason behind this, was that Kennedy’s image was “crisp” on television. “... Kennedy benefited because his image was ‘crisp;’ Nixon’s light-hearted suit wrong makeup, bad posture -- was ‘fuzzed’” (Source C). This has a negative impact on television, because a candidate’s image can
Presidential candidates have power over how they’re shown in TV, whereas before TV they didn’t have much choice but to show up and campaign to just be the best leader they can persuade others that they’ll be. Source A explains the immediate contact the media can give, it can penetrate people’s mind and get viewers like never before, but just because that’s available doesn’t mean it’s the best option on how to portray our presidential elections. If anything, maybe television made the viewers feel closer a few decades ago, but now it’s nearly a barrier we can’t get past, so instead the television‘s impact on showing presidential elections has given the elections a negative impact. No one wants to watch short answered arguments where quality of imagine does better than the impact of your real words and actions. All the TV has done is go for someone’s image, quick answers, and the unfocused aspect of what truly matters, if your president is who will make your world a better place or
Television is an important educational tool in society, however, it does not have a place in presidential elections, due to the inequality and lack of substantive discussion in televised debates, as well as irrelevant physical standards being placed upon presidential candidates. Journalists agree that political debates are an ineffective method for deciding the leader of the country, and they are not worth the use of television resources. Should the decision of who is in charge of a massive country be made based on physical appearances, such as height, hairstyle and other superficial traits? Using these methods of deduction to decide an elected official is extremely unintelligent and ineffective compared to the alternative, an intelligent interview printed in an article or magazine. Citizens of a society are incredibly resistant to change, but examining journalists’ opinions and articles proves that a significant change must be made.
We hold debates between the Republican and Democrats before the primaries, and then we hold debates between the two remaining presidential candidates. Upon first glance it may appear that the presidential debates are held to get to know the candidate’s positions on the various issues that are important to the American people; however, the format of the debates make it difficult to accomplish that task. Instead, it is more plausible that these debates are held in order to discover what the candidates are like personally because the debates provide ample opportunities for us to discover the candidate’s values. Ultimately, we want to find out the values that these potential presidents have because we want someone we trust to lead the
Television promotes candidates’ image over their policies. Instead of the candidates discussing what they are going to do for the country, they simply argue why they are better than each other. The candidates being televised gives the audience a sense of knowing them, which causes them to lose the audience's interest in political ideals and to be “judged by standards formerly used to assess rock singers and movie stars”(Source B). Instead of the candidates
The second presidential debate demonstrates an indecisive clash between opposite personalities; the rehearsed demeanor of Hillary Clinton juxtaposes the raw audacity of Donald Trump. Despite their dissimilar appearance, the candidates employ like strategies – they deflect accusations and criticize their adversary. Clinton suffers to succeed in this format. Neither knowledge of policy nor experience in office effectively counter accusations against personal character. This observation is nonetheless irreverent. Although Trump dominates the debate format, he alienates the electorate.
In campaigning, media coverage plays a large role for candidates. They use the media to make their name heard and image seen. “Nearly everything a candidate does is geared toward the media, especially television” (Stuckey, 1999, p. 99) Candidates make appearances on talk shows,
Freedom of the press is part of the five main freedoms represented in the first amendment of the constitution of the United States. The constitution was ratified in 1791 putting freedom of the press in full development. Since then many cases have evolved with this freedom, and the freedom had some role of developing future amendments and technology in modern day. Freedom of the press had a history even before its ratification, it helped to solve many court cases, and is used throughout modern times.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. The first amendment to the United State's constitution is one of the most important writings in our short history. The first amendment has defined and shaped our country into what it is today. The amendment has constantly been challenged and ratified through literature, court cases, and our media. In fact, media is driven by the first amendment. Without it, we as citizens wouldn't be able to view or listen to what we want,
On September 26, 1960, John Fitzgerald Kennedy met Richard Milhous Nixon in the first nationally televised presidential debate in American history. The candidates clashed on a variety of domestic issues, including education, infrastructure, health care, and economic policies. The audience was unprecedented in size. Approximately seventy million Americans watched the debate. By the end, Kennedy was a star. Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike lauded his poise, confidence, and charisma. On the other hand, viewers criticized Nixon’s haggard expression and sweaty countenance. As it turns out, television had the greatest influence on these perceptions. Those who watched the debate overwhelmingly asserted Kennedy’s clear victory, while
I believe advertisements targeting children should not be banned in the United States. Doing so would be unconstitutional due to the Freedom of Press amendment. Advertisements can help children by promoting healthy eating habits while at the same time teaching them that advertisements are just ploys for businesses to get more money.
It is often easy to forget why we, as Americans, have the freedoms that we do. The liberties that other countries do not have are liberties that we take for granted. Being able to write and publish anything was very important to the framers of the constitution. So important in fact, that is was included in the first amendment. The framers included freedom of the press in the first amendment because it allowed the public to be educated on everything that occurs with their government and for citizens to be influenced by others ideas to form their own opinions.
Before televised debates, presidential candidates were assessed on their campaign slogans, individual plans to better America, and their moral character. Consequently, the September 26, 1960 Kennedy-Nixon debate forever changed the way Americans would assess their future President of the United States of America. The Kennedy-Nixon Debates
Freedom of expression, and open access to media, are as fundamental to the survival of Progress as the sun and rain are to the survival of planet Earth. Yet censorship remains a traditional response of any group that finds itself offended at another's message or creative indulgence.
No matter how fervently someone believes in the justice of his cause, suppression of the free exchange of ideas is failure at best or downright wrong. The power or might behind an idea does not make the idea right. Many powerful people throughout history have been wrong. Few people, if any, would judge "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" to be subversive or wrong. In 1939 Ambassador Kennedy was so caught up in the fears of the times that he was willing to use the power of his money to protect the world against a film. When people are caught up in the movements of their time, all people must be extra zealous to guard and encourage freedom of expression. Otherwise, a mob mentality reigns, and people