Essay on Impact Of Television in Presidential Coverage

Truman was in an awkward situation. The war in Korea was extending into its third year which made Truman unpopular. After conducting several polls, he announced he was not going to seek re-election, and supported Adlai Stevenson to run as the Democratic presidential nominee. On the other hand, Republican candidate Dwight D. Eisenhower was preparing to run and win the presidential race. The question is what the difference between Stevenson's Campaign and Eisenhower's was? Incredibly, the answer was creativity. During the 1950’s there was no precedent of using short commercials for campaign purposes. The costume was to purchase thirty minutes blocks to broadcast

Television in today’s world is vital for more than one type of situation. These situations can be an addition to entertainment, news, as well as politics. This combination, though, can have its faults as well as benefits. Television channels are owned by different brands of people such as democrats, republicans, and more. Media in politics can become biased based on the channels being viewed, or the commercials being distributed into the public. Due to this, television has made the presidential elections more unfair than just. As television introduces the image of the presidential candidates rather than their told plans and goals, we can gain a better understanding on their personal image rather than the principal of their reason for presidency.

In the United States, television has been influential in presidential elections since the 1960’s. Television has a way of “turning away from policy sphere,” it judges candidates based on their appearances, not their message. Television has shifted the key point of presidential debates: from pursuing issue to pursuing image. Therefore, television is misleading, having a negative impact on presidential elections.

Television has been influential in United States presidential elections since the 1960’s. But just what is this influence, and how has it affected who is elected? Has it made elections fairer and more accessible, or has it moved candidates from pursuing issues to pursuing image? The media only impacts the American Society, especially for the presidential election as it increases the talks in politics and gives the president a higher role to follow. The television race captures more popularity than what a citizen is actually voting for.

Over the years Campaigning in the U.S. has changed drastically because of technological advances, the internet, social media, and the real-time information sharing across the globe. One study suggest that over the years, examining 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012, political advertising has become more negative. The Wesleyan Media Project’s charts states and 2004 election 45 percent of the ads were negative, where in 2012 about 65 percent of the ads were negative.1 There are many speculations on why these negative ads are increasing with every election, but one fact is that campaigns can use negativity to bring attention to a certain topic and sometimes benefit from the free media coverage if the controversy is popular enough.

In the 2012 Presidential election, the majority of outside spending was a result of the Citizens United decision1. The unique increase of money translated into an increase in television ads, radio ads, and direct mailings. Unfortunately, the large increase in political rhetoric caused a move to political extremes rivaling those at the end of the Civil War2. It explains that micro-targeting of advertising allowed corporations and Super PACS to create echo chambers, where only points of view in agreement with the audience were expressed. Polarization was an issue before the Citizens United ruling, but the unique increase in rhetoric caused the “worst polarization in 120 years.

I believe that television has been a positive impact for presidential elections because the world has changed into more modern

Over time, TV lost its viewers and ratings because people turned away from politics. In order for the television stations to gain back viewers and ratings, the stations “dumbed down the issues by forcing the candidates to respond instantaneously” (Source C). This made the debates more interesting, boosting ratings and viewers. This also provided less information about the politicians. Dumbing down the information has turned the debate into game making it less about the politicians content and more about arguing over pointless things and ratings. However this has furthermore decreased the interest in politics. Even the stations that dumb down content “are failing, more often than not, to get good ratings”(Source

Television is a form of communication that can be used to transfer information to the general public, and its full value and effects can be seen at all times, especially during election seasons. To some extent, this medium has helped people make informed decisions on which candidate is suitable to be president. However, this positive influence could distract people from focusing on policy and turn the election into a popularity contest.

It is very common among the United States’ political sphere to rely heavily on T.V. commercials during election season; this is after all the most effective way to spread a message to millions of voters in order to gain their support. The presidential election of 2008 was not the exception; candidates and interest groups spent 2.6 billion dollars on advertising that year from which 2 billion were used exclusively for broadcast television (Seelye 2008.) Although the effectiveness of these advertisements is relatively small compared to the money spent on them (Liasson 2012), it is important for American voters to think critically about the information and arguments presented by these ads. An analysis of the rhetoric in four of the political

The invention of the television has had an impact on all aspects of American's lives. It has affected how we work, interact with others, and our foreign relations. One part of American society that it has especially affected is presidential elections. Television has impacted who is elected and why they were elected. Since the 1960's television has served as a link between the American public and presidential elections that allows the candidate to appear more human and accountable for their actions; consequently this has made television a positive influence on presidential elections. But it has also had a negative affect on elections, making presidential candidates seem like celebrities at times and making it easier to publicize mistakes

Media is known as the “king maker” for many reasons, such as shaping candidates in audience’s perspective. Television has been a big influence in shaping voters choice and labeling political parties, even though some believe media information can be scant in regards to candidates. Media can be anything from television to social media networks and how many people think that media is a great influence, some also think it can be a problem. “It only takes 140 characters to damage a political campaign” in which Smith is referring to social media as being a problem. (Smith, K. 2011. Pg. 9) At the state and local levels party affiliation remains the most important. “In television age, journalist became the chief influence in the selection of candidates

The development of the television in the 1940’s first gave way to a new and direct way to communicate publicity allowing a positive change to happen but over the years it has started to have a negative impact on presidential elections.

Since 1952, television has played a major role in presidential elections. Television allows candidates to reach a broad number of people, and personalities, to help push along their campaigns. Campaigns help the candidates just as much as the voters. The candidates get to be identified, and known to the voters, and the voters get to hear and see how a specific candidate identifies with their needs and wants. The best way to get this information out there is through the most used form of media, television.

So what are the ramifications of this definition on the media? Well the answer to that question is in the phrases ?the people are the main political force? and ?engage in frequent and meaningful debates about relevant issues.? The relationship between these two statements is where the media enters the equation because it is the media that provides the public with the relevant issues. Under the Federal Communications Act of 1934 and subsequent legislation and court decisions? broadcasting was to serve the "public interest, convenience, and necessity, ascribing certain democratic functions to the media? (Gseis.ucla.edu). The press and then the broadcast media were thus to provide information, ideas, and debate concerning issues of public significance in order to promote a democratic public sphere. Broadcasting was conceived as a public utility, with the airwaves established as part of the public domain, subject to regulation by the government to assure that broadcasting would meet its democratic responsibilities. Today the relationship between the media, politics and society has changed significantly. Even though they are all interconnected they have specific interactions which each other that should be