Negative Campaigning Has Been An Essential Part Of Any Successful Political Strategy Essay

“Since media are part of the political class and talk mostly to the political class, the myth of popular polarization took root and grew.” (Fiorina, Abrams, Pope, 2005, p. 167). Recently media has played a huge role in the country’s politic; they share information, report events, and frame opinions.

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.

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

More and more people are getting their news from social media sites like Twitter, Facebook, Snapchat, Tumbler and many more, and candidates are using this to their advantage. This election is probably one of the first were candidates have actually used social media sites as their direct communication line to potential voters. Social media today had gone from gossip and family pictures to a location for political strategy. Thanks largely to trumps regular social media first declarations and its actually working particularly with the younger voters. A study released last year from the Pew Research Center that Marissa Lang cited showed that “Among 18- to 29-year-olds, nearly two-thirds said social media is the most helpful means of learning new things about politics.” (Lang, 2016). Even if the candidate isn’t the one posting the video or message in the end it will still end up on social media. For example, Trump had announced his plan to ban all Muslims from entering the united states in South Carolina not on social media however it found its way there and spread like wild fire. This sent those who were outraged to respond in disgust and those who encouraged it to share it so that their friends could see and so on and so on. Even if those who shared it did it to

As during any election cycle, nearly all types of media are currently flooded with campaign advertisements that viciously attack various candidates’ politics, character, or sometimes both. People are willing to go to extraordinary lengths in order to gain power over others. This is likely due to the fact that everyday citizens are so susceptible to influence from those above them. As demonstrated in World War II, individuals are extremely susceptible to impact from authority figures.

Robert J. Samuelson’s essay, “Picking Sides for the News,” details the problem of citizens only hearing the news that they want to hear through statistics. Samuelson begins his essay by giving the reader the opinion of Americans in regards to news being reported. He goes on to say that Americans are increasingly choosing to listen to news based on “partisanship,” meaning conservatives listen to Republican news and liberals listen to Democratic news. Samuelson highlights the fact that most Americans are starting to not believe what they hear in the news, partisan growth resulting because of the distrust. Samuelson concludes his essay by describing why the reader should care. He believes the reader should care because the media’s bias’ are shaping

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 most recent presidential campaign between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, many new election tactics were presented – especially the use of social media, reality entertainment personalities and trying to gain millennial support by relating to them in various ways. As the use of this new tactic went up, the extremities in other aspects of the campaign only increased as well. There became an almost lack of seriousness and rise in hate and bullying, especially in advertising pro their campaign and against their candidates.

The national media is instrumental in allowing the electorate to develop opinions about contemporary issues. The media is incredibly influential and its power can be wielded for the benefit of all, or it can become a detriment to society. Some media outlets seek to sensationalize the news, sacrificing informing voters in favor of the bottom line. It is through people and organizations who seek to provide the most accurate and impartial view of an event that popular sovereignty gains much of its power. A commitment to informing the public, even when the information conflicts with a writer’s social and political philosophy, can be a difficult one to maintain. Yet, reporters uphold it everyday. This can be seen in the news site CNN (Cable News Network), which is known for having a liberal bias. Despite said bias, it does not shy away from portraying Hillary Clinton, a democrat, as a flawed candidate in an effort to be unbiased. Such a commitment is essential to creating a political and social dialogue in our nation, and as the saying goes, “when dialogue fails, democracy fails.”

Campaigning is a key component in presidential elections. The most popular form of political persuasion is campaign ads. During the 60 seconds our attention is captured, presidential nominees do their best to convince voters that they can make “The American Dream” a reality in all aspects (providing more jobs, better health care, stronger families and a stronger economy). In Hillary Clinton’s (the democratic presidential nominee) “Family Strong” ad, she provides a chronological timeline of the beginning and growth of her dedication to families and children. On the other hand, Donald Trump (the Republican presidential nominee) takes a different approach. In his latest “Anti Hillary” campaign ad, Trump compiles a 60 second video depicting Clinton’s most shady moments from her email scandals to her seemingly cold view on the Benghazi issue. These presidential campaign ads display rhetorical appeal in every aspect: whether it is connecting with voters on a personal level or attempting to discredit the opposition.

Between 1988 and now, at least one media outlet has reported during each political campaign “This is the nastiest campaign we have seen yet.”1988- New York Times, 1992-Los Angeles Times, 1996-CNN, 2000-Baltimore Sun, 2004-Boston Globe, 2008-Washington Times... so on and so on. Political Discourse in the United States have not changed much, Society has. Social Media, and yellow journalism have had an influence over the voters. People who voice their conflicting views may be subjected to ridicule from friends, family and in some cases strangers.

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

In the writing by Briggs (Young People and Political Participation: Teen Players) she notes that “social media are a critical new space for political discourse and engagement, which political institutions cannot afford to neglect” as the younger audiences use social media, and the people they follow as a guide it seemed vital that modern day politics has to infiltrate social media formats. This can be utilised by politicians and their agenda to widen the scope of their message. In the Praeger Handbook of Political Campaigning in the United States, Benoit investigates how successful an organised strategy using new media to win an election can be for political candidates. He states that “the innovative use of new media contributed to President Barack Obama's presidential campaign win in 2008” (Benoit, 2016). Obama's presidential campaign was one of the first to set the standard for political strategy online. The literature talks about the expansion of the internet and how that has provided a suitable platform for political agendas to grow exponentially. With the focus of the research project highlighting the specific use of social media it is important to reflect on the initial stages of online political campaigning, and to understand how Trump has cultivated this style of political

Social media has grown at phenomenal rates over the past decade, with its rise being easily visible in several fields such as publishing, business, and activism, among others. The rise of its use in the field of politics is well known by those who are on and off social media, as a result of increasing number of politicians using this global platform to their maximum advantage.