Media Influence On Presidential Elections

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.

I do believe that television has had a positive impact on presidential elections. In modern times there is a need for television for these types of events. The authors mentioned agreed with the fact that television has had a positive impact on presidential elections. One source, Source D, is a chart of the ratings for presidential debates. I believe that television has had a positive impact on presidential elections because the world has changed in recent years, the people have changed, there is a trust in the people who are on television, and there is a more honest aspect when someone sees it themselves.

Television uses the issues debated and discussed and focuses on the way the candidates respond to issues. There is an increasing focus on why a candidate is saying what they are saying rather than the actual content of their policies or ideas on an issue. This focus is used to formulate an image of an individual candidate, which tends to have a bigger impact than the politics itself. For example, in the most recent election, there was a focus on Clinton’s speech because it was presumed that she was just trying to protect herself and hide her emails. In document A, the author states, “One of the great contributions expected of television lay in its presumed capacity to inform and stimulate the political interests of the American electorate.”

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

People say television has increased people's awareness of politics to make elections more fair and accessible. However, I think TV has had a negative impact because it promotes a superficial image and provides content that will give the TV station good ratings.

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.

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.

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 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

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.

The media, a powerful source of information but what are the affects? While the media is seen by many as a vital source of information offered through a variety of different outlets, the theoretical underlining affects of the media demonstrates how stories from within it can influence society. The imprtance of not only recongnizing but understanding the media’s affects remains a vital priority in all forms of information today in how it is received and interpretated by different audiences. The level of effect of the media however, has been disputed heavingly, as with different forms of media such as online have developed a different affect for the mass media consumer. When regarding the level of effect the media holds, the 2016 Presidential campaign presents a prominent case study that shows a limiting affect of the mass media that

In sharp contrast to past elections when candidates campaigned in-person, the 2016 election has been significantly mediated through mass media. With such a large influence on voters, the media not only determines which issues and events are salient in voters’ minds, but also how voters evaluate candidates. Moreover, media coverage, depending on its content, can influence whether voters think about candidates in terms of campaign issues or candidate attributes.

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