Media Coverage Of Presidential Election

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.

That being said, however, I also think an equal (perhaps greater) problem is the role the media plays in any election. Journalists have human biases and often times they allow them to show by promoting those candidates with whom they agree philosophically or, even worse, providing more coverage for those they know will produce higher ratings.

Last but not least, the media does not take political elections as seriously as politicians might like. People on social media, horse-race the politicians to see who will win the election. They debate on who will win, rather than the politicians views on topics. Horse-races are where citizens vote on who will win the election and they see the race happen and they determine whether their vote was correct or not. They ‘run’ the politicians, just like how people run horses. “Lost in the media spectacle is any careful coverage of issues and policy proposals, or serious discussion of candidate background.” (bigthink). When the media horse-races politicians, they horse-race them by their party or their major decisions that they have made. Citizens can also race them by protests that they were involved in, in their young adult lives, for example Bernie Sanders and his early protests were covered all over the media.

Television has been influential in America’s elections since the 1960’s, and as TV continues to grow, so will the influence it has over the people. Many people believe whatever comes on their television screen, and don’t think twice to counteract the information. As America continues to televise presidential elections and politics pertaining to that, the elections will be frequently unfair and biased, the candidates won’t be able to completely focus on what’s important, like their imagine instead of their ideas. Television may give more substantial access to millions of more people, but that could change that end result of the presidency for better, or for worse.

In the 1950's, television, having been introduced to political coverage as a new medium, surpassed the dominance of newspaper and radio media as the primary public source of information regarding politics by 1962. Political processes and events of various measures were all soon televised in recognition of overwhelmingly positive public feedback. By the 1970's, live coverage of major political events were as common as seeing grass on the ground.

How is the origin valuable to your research/ how is it limiting to y our

Bias is something that has littered the media whenever politics come into play; some media outlets may favor one political party over another. While there is nothing wrong with centering yourself around a political party due to your own beliefs, it does become a problem when you’re “forcing” your beliefs onto the public. It obviously separates people, including the readers, since a group is most likely being talked about in a negative light. The culprit of this “crime” is The Blaze, an obviously conservative news network that associates itself with the Republican party, and this is shown through many of their articles and videos. Despite their obvious bias, the writer of the article seems to think it is appropriate to call out a group of people

In America today, most people have their own political views. Some are legitimate, and some are the cause of one main problem: media bias. Certain media outlets are promoting biased political views on television, the internet, and social media. People that watch and read these biased media sources are constantly believing more and more of the false information that they are presenting. Media bias and fake news in the United States is a major contributing factor to many citizens’ political views, especially as a result of news outlets that promote a liberal agenda.

Modern America is a land where freedom of speech is valued and glorified, that is, if the speaker has the correct opinion. Thousands of veterans have laid down their lives for this constitutional right, yet the left-winged media has taken advantage of their sacrifice, twisting this liberty to suit their own agenda. Because the media has such an immense impact on culture, this bias has spread to other elements of American life. Liberal partiality is prevalent in schools and the entertainment industry, as well as traditional news outlets.

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.

For this project, I chose to watch the CNN Presidential Primary election coverage. I watched the coverage on Super Tuesday, and also on Super Saturday. I wanted to see how they portrayed each candidate, and also who was represented in regards to the news anchors. Men were clearly represented more than women on both days, and white males were the most represented overall. While there were female news anchors dissecting the information, the main news anchors were males such as Wolf Blitzer. I found this interesting because the women seemed to play a smaller point in the coverage, only commenting on the results, while their male counterparts actually released and gave out the results. There were a few different cultures represented, with African Americans being represented the second most, and then hispanics. Relating to the candidates, it seems as if Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are receiving the most press even though other candidates are winning other states. I believe this is because news networks have a political race that they want to see (Clinton v Trump) and they will try to dissuade voters towards candidates such as Bernie Sanders and Marco Rubio for example. I find this very interesting because it clearly shows how the media can influence people 's minds, and the election.

For much of the 2000 campaign for the Presidency, Vice President Al Gore has been seen the candidate who will win this year’s Presidential Election. The polls show Gore as leading, political analysts have been saying “Gore all the way,” and most of the general public seem to be in agreement that Gore will succeed President Bill Clinton. But recently, the past two Presidential debates have seemed to abolish the idea that Vice President Al Gore will easily be elected President over Texas Governor George W. Bush.

When you think of politics today in America, what is the first thing that pops into your head? If you’re like me, your first thought was about Hilary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and Donald Trump. Your second thought might be about the major hot button issues in the United States today, such as Health Care, Immigration Reform, and Gun Control. Whether you’re like me or not, I’ve noticed one thing during this presidential race that cannot be avoided: media biases. The media today is a major part of politics, and often times is who we look to when deciding what candidate we want to vote for. Media biases involving politics, in my opinion, should not exist because it is unethical.

When the White House felt a retraction was not enough because so much harm had already been done, the media got extremely upset with the White House, due to the pressure they were putting on the publication (52-53). Begala agrees with Hewitt that the media has a bias, but argues that it is a liberal bias. He cites the media's obsession with the Clinton and Monica Lewinsky scandal and how, "Even when Clinton was leaving office, he was hounded and pounded by the press" (199). He argues the news coverage was unfair, brutal and unethical in the way both Bill and Hillary Clinton were treated during the scandal (200). Begala also says Al Gore was treated very poorly by the press during the election, by being misquoted. Gore made major contributions during the early phases of the internet and made a comment on CNN saying he "took the initiative in creating the Internet." Begala argues this was blown out of proportion and more than a thousand articles have been written quoting Gore saying he said he "invented the internet" (202). The people's perception that certain publications are bias can have a negative affect on journalists as a whole. While the public demands that the press question politicians, Robinson says there is public discontent when bad news is reported due to the publics distrust in news and a "kill the messenger syndrome." At times, the public will assume all media is the same and when one publication is guilty of inaccurate or bias