Media Coverage on Presidential Candidates

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.

How presidential candidates present themselves in the media can be proven to impact election results dramatically. Political figure using social media did not start to become more common until after the 2008 election because Twitter and Facebook were just recently created, but by looking at data from the past two elections it shows that the news presidential candidates put on their social media can correlate with how people will decide to vote. After researching what topics political candidates post and how they present themselves in the media with election results it can be established that a candidate’s presence in social media can have an impact on how people might vote in an election. “By 2008 candidate websites were standard and campaigns

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.

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 widely known that to run for president you must have money, and lots of it; which is why, campaign spending has become a hot topic of debate lately. Campaign spending has gone through the roof within the past three presidential elections, in 2012 campaign spending hit an all-time high at nearly $2 billion, raised by president Obama. Beginning in 2004 exponential increases in campaign spending began, the question is now raised where does it all go? Campaign spending goes to an assortment of things, but in recent years more sending has gone towards media expenses, especially as social media, with the younger generation, has taken off. Media spending on adds and other media expenses have also increased. Another question arises is where this money comes from, traditionally large corporations or employees who support the candidates donate large sums of money. In the election of 2008 specifically, presidential candidate Obama rebuked this idea, and used the strategy that if every individual gave a little money then it would be more beneficial than if few gave large amount of money, which was successful. He also emphasized this idea by setting a limit on the amount one person could donate. As to strategies that many candidates use they focus on states with the higher electoral vote, states which are more competitive, and places and states in which they are more competitive in. For

Senator John McCain, a Republican from Arizona, has had a long and distinguished career in both the military and in politics. A United States Naval Pilot and Captain who received the Silver Star, Bronze Star, Legion of Merit, and Purple Heart, McCain then moved onto the House of Representatives and Senate (“Biographical Data for John S. McCain”). In April of 1999, McCain announced his candidacy for President, stating his mission to “restore integrity into the office, reform government, and renew the American dream”(“The John McCain Story”). Senator McCain’s platform is “classic GOP conservatism…a strong defense, less government regulation, tax reductions, local oversight of education…”(“The Issue:

Campaign spending and its correlation between the outcomes of winning the vote of the public versus losing votes to a challenger in an election. In a comparison of voters, are individuals more likely to vote for a candidate that spends an exuberant amount of money campaigning versus the candidate who frugally spends on a campaign? The importance of studying the phenomenon of campaign spending, more versus less, looks into proving whether what is spent conclusively influences the voter more than what is being stated during the candidate's campaign. Billboards, radio and tv ads, literature, do all these things make a difference, more so than a town hall meeting? Does more money equate to more fame, which in turn brings the voters to the polls to vote for that candidate?

“Elected officials and candidates for office, especially Republicans, bemoan how the media impedes their ability to effectively govern or conduct a campaign. Bob Dole, for example, argued in 1996 that his presidential campaign against Bill Clinton was stumbling because of the news media’s leftward tendencies, particularly those of the New York Times (Kurtz,

During the 2016 Presidential campaign between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, there were many campaign advertisements from both sides that strongly resonated with voters. Clinton’s role model ad, for example, sent a powerful message by illustrating Trump’s substandard behavior as a presidential candidate. On the other hand, Trump’s “Hillary Clinton won 't Change Washington” ad demonstrated Clinton’s ineffectiveness as a leader as well as being part of the problem and not the solution. For example, one of the reasons that Trump was able to win the 2016 presidency was to increase voter turnout from the white working class male by connecting Clinton to the Washington elites. As a result, this paper will be examining the effects and implications that both of these campaign ads had towards the electorate in terms of how each candidate’s message played a role in the outcome of the 2016 Presidential election.

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.

The rise of popularity in presidential television debates leads one to the question of it having a positive and or negative impact on candidates campaigns. Television allowed people to see the debate in a new perspective, visually, however it idolizes and highlights candidates to make them seem as if they are celebrities, instead of focusing on their intellect and topics to improve the nation. Therefore one can see the impacts of television as negative, for the media is downplaying the actual value of presidential campaigns and focusing on less important irrelevant entertaining topics.