Media The Campaign And The Message Analysis

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.

The media has always played an important role in the President’s relationship with the public, but just what kind of affect does it really have on the executive office? The first televised presidential debate in 1960 between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon marked the beginning of a new era – the inaugural shift of the media’s role in politics. Since that time, the media has continued to transform the way the president is perceived by the public through print, broadcast, and more recently, social media. All of said outlets have played vital roles in not only a president’s campaign, but also in their presidency and likability throughout their time in office. While the White House is still the source of most presidential news, the media are the shapers of the story and can frame it pretty much any way they want. There used to be limits on certain issues or realms of the presidency that were to remain untouched, however, first amendment freedoms take precedence over almost any restriction the government could try to place on the media. The purpose of this paper is to explore the relationship between the media and the president throughout recent years, looking briefly into the past to establish the scale of the dramatic change, and to study their reciprocal connection of how each utilizes the other.

Journalists play an important part in the democratic process. Traditionally, the roles of the news media are to provide a forum for debate, represent opposing perspectives on the day’s issues and hold public officials accountable while serving their constituents. However, in recent decades, media has given way to biased forms of news— partisan media. In Matthew Levendusky’s “How Partisan Media Polarize America,” he explores if these partisan media influences viewers. The book’s second chapter, “What Do Partisan Media Actually Say?” concludes that partisan media promotes a larger agenda separately to Democrats and Republicans, attack the opposing side while denouncing compromise, and usually side with their candidate of choice during

A common mistake that occurs during past research is the assumption that partisan media effects are static. This however, is not the case. The article points towards an evolving and dynamic media effects during election cycles. To

No campaign in the history of presidential runnings has ever been the same. Yes, past campaigns and presidential candidates have shown their similarities between each other, but none has had the same events occur. The major variable is time. Society has shown a history of changing ideals and appeals. Each year, slowly but surely, society’s view is shaping and shifting. The presidential candidates know this factor and have to change with society to gain their social appeal. Within this time shift, we can analyze past polls and outcomes of primaries that have shown to be somewhat misleading.

The aim of this paper is to look at the relationship between the mass media, specifically television, and presidential elections. This paper will focus on the function of television in presidential elections through three main areas: exit polls, presidential debates, and spots. The focus is on television for three reasons. First, television reaches more voters than any other medium. Second, television attracts the greatest part of presidential campaign budgets. Third, television provides the candidates a good opportunity to contact the people directly. A second main theme of this paper is the role of television in presidential elections in terms of representative democracy in the United States.

“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,

Chun-Fang Chiang and Brian Knight discuss the significance that media bias has on voters in America. They conducted a study in which subjects select a candidate to vote for after reading a biased newspaper article. After the research is conducted, they determine that media is influential in determining who people will vote for, but there are different degrees of influence. For example, people are more willing to be influenced when their source is more credible and when the voters tend to be more moderate.

Political scientist, journalists, and politicians alike often discuss the role of the news media’s place in affecting campaigns, and voter perceptions. Claims of media bias in political news coverage have risen over the past two decades. Scholarly research has explored concerns that broadcast and print media shape voting decisions in democratic processes.

On a July day in 2015, reality television star and real estate mogul Donald Trump announced his candidacy for President of the United States in the 2016 election. Following his announcement, the mainstream media openly mocked Trump, and some found great humor at the idea of his campaign, wondering how long it would take before he dropped out of his “doomed before-it-began campaign,” as many called it. By being openly dismissive of Trump’s campaign, the media did not remain non-partisan. Despite the media’s bias, Donald Trump is within single digit percentage points of being the next President of the United States, and no one in the media is laughing at him now. The media in the United States can influence many things, especially politics. Different forms of media all take different angles and at times will morph a story to fit their perceived narrative, and that is a problem.

In the article “Hype Versus Substance in Network Television Coverage of Presidential Election Campaigns”, authors Julia R. Fox, James R. Angelini, and Christopher Goble analyze political coverage on broadcast news during the final weeks of presidential elections. In the end they found that in the final weeks of campaigns many voters are still undecided. “Voters making up their minds at the end of the campaign tend to be less partisan and more likely to use-and to be influenced by-media messages in making their decision ” (Fox, J., Angelini, J., & Goble, C). This tends to be enough to cause a last minute “swing” in an election. With this being said the authors also found that these broadcast news stations very rarely address the critical

The media has been and always will be the main source for news and information about any issue, namely the Presidential Election. The way media portrays a candidate can affect how the nation views them as a whole, but different media sources portray a candidate differently based upon their audience and who owns them. Clinton’s portrayal in the media can differ greatly from source to source. In sources with conservative heavy audiences like Fox she is looked down upon and unfavorable comparisons are made while in sources with liberal heavy audiences like the Atlantic she is both defended and questioned. This essay will compare three different articles from three different sources which will be NPR, Fox, and the Atlantic.

Another way media frames political issues is inserting media’s own position on the issue. The media’s position tends to be more liberal and promotes more democratic policies and issues. This bias coverage stems from a long growing relationship between the media and liberal forces (Ginsberg, Lowi & Weir, 1999). However, any bias can distort new coverage and influence audiences in that direction.

The effects of mass media and social media have changed the way people have experienced presidential campaigns in many ways. With the development of new technologies through the last hundred years many different ways of experiencing the campaigns have taken place. Newspapers, radio, television, internet and social media websites have changed the ways we all have experienced elections.

The 2000 Presidential Elections are upon us and who do we turn to for information regarding the candidates? What issues will be the hot topics for the election race? For that matter, what will be the hot topics in the media for next week? Just as this paper must be structured, organized, and center around a main idea, so must all information presented to an audience. Information can only be easily processed if it contains some kind of structure. This includes the information that is provided by the media. The media have to structure their ideas and stories on a daily, weekly, and even monthly basis. This process is known as agenda setting. Television, radio, and print medias all use agenda