Media's Influence On 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.

Television is utilized by candidates as a way to get their pursuing issue to viewers. However, television has altered candidates’ goals from pursuing issue to pursuing image. In the Kennedy-Nixon debate, individuals who had listened to it on the radio and watched it on television had two different opinions on who won. Individuals who had listened to the debate on the radio had to agree that it was a tie, however individuals who had watched the debate on television had thought the Kennedy crushed Nixon. The reason behind this, was that Kennedy’s image was “crisp” on television. “... Kennedy benefited because his image was ‘crisp;’ Nixon’s light-hearted suit wrong makeup, bad posture -- was ‘fuzzed’” (Source C). This has a negative impact on television, because a candidate’s image can

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.

The 2016 election has been the first election where social media has been a key player to how people got their information. Statistics say “44 percent of American adults said they had learned something new in the past week about the election from social media.” However, with social media such an important influence on the younger generation it is important for all of this information to be legitimate and truthful. Google and Facebook have recently changed their policies to try to stop fake news articles from popping up within their ad space. The spread of fake news articles skews the public's perception of the candidates. The guardian talks about how the American voter is not just one demographic (college educated individuals, white men, minorities etc. ) because of this lack of (straightforward), it's hard to get an accurate prediction on who would have won the election. Additionally, the media affected the election negatively because they did not give the general public enough information to understand the statistics that they were

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.

As a barely twenty-year-old junior at a sheltered private college, I have to confess that it’s been very hard to conceptualize and realize the severity of the 2016 election. What started off as a race of what seemed like a million different candidates, the polls quickly zoned in on two candidates we could’ve never predicted to be the voting citizens’ final choice. It’s both overwhelming, and simple, deceitful, and truthful – this election seems to be full of contradictions and half truths, and the opaque nature of a once seemingly transparent media complicates matters further in an election that seems convoluted even on paper. Along with the legislative branch, the media itself has turned into a monster we never thought we’d have to wrangle. We are surrounded by propaganda, caricatures, and cartoons everywhere we turn, especially in print media like

The article begins by explaining the main purpose for the research inquiry. If this recent election has proven anything, it is that there is vast wealth of election coverage. Citizens can now access political information, and news coverage from almost anywhere through a variety of mediums. This increased access has opened a new dimension. Partisan media effects have been researched in the past. However, this article points out that there is a lack of inquiry on the timing of partisan media influence during the election cycle.

In the 2016 Presidential Election, the popular vote was won by Hillary Clinton, even though Trump won the presidency thanks to the Electoral College. This is undeniable evidence that there are more Democrat voters in the United States than anyone else, which can be tied to the influence of the media on voters. One example would be shortly after the tragic Las Vegas shooting, CNN provided a graphic attempting to explain how a bump fire stock worked, because that was an attachment the shooter had used. However, the firearm did not include a bump fire stock, but it did include a grenade launcher and silencer, which are completely unrealistic attachments available only to the U.S. Military. The media is swaying the views of voters by portraying the President and other conservatives falsely as well as other biased stories that entail obvious

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.

Television has been a part of American presidential elections since its introduction in the 1960’s. The first debate featured president Kennedy and future president Nixon in not only a battle of words but also looks, which would turn elections on their head. Yet television has had a negative impact on presidential elections due to an image over ideals mindset, nationwide consensus, and thirst of ratings from broadcasters. These changes has led to television creating a false image upon which the presidency projects itself towards the American public.

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.

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.

Both campaign contributions and media coverage has significant power to determine the success of a presidential candidate, and each of them seems to be interconnected with each other. The media has the power of fast deliverance of information, reproducing to an audience of mass quantity, and ability to distort the candidates’ authenticity. Though it largely relies on the campaign contribution that gets the attention of the media. However, it is the media that is more important in determining the likely success of a presidential candidate because of their coverage on a stimulating competitive race, complexive variety of biases, and techniques on issue framing.

In campaigning, media coverage plays a large role for candidates. They use the media to make their name heard and image seen. “Nearly everything a candidate does is geared toward the media, especially television” (Stuckey, 1999, p. 99) Candidates make appearances on talk shows,

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