Negative Effects Of Television On Presidential Elections

Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, television quickly emerged into a popular and greatly desired entertainment system in America. Although expensive, the television was still found in over fifty million American homes. Socially, the television not only embellished what the time period believed to be the “ideal” family, but the new technology also helped pull women closer to a world vacant of sexism and stereotypes, while also drawing African Americans closer to a society without racism, segregation, and prejudice. As well as social benefits, the television substantially impacted the world of politics by airing the platforms of political candidates and broadcasting important news concerning America. Additionally, the fields of advertising and

Technology has forever changed the way we receive our news and has irreversibly changed the landscape of the media. The growth of cable television and the shift from television to the internet have facilitated the growth of both infotainment and narrowcasting. The main question that we’re asking today is how both infotainment and narrowcasting have an impact on politics in America. To better understand this question, we must first know what infotainment and narrowcasting are.

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.

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

Over time, TV lost its viewers and ratings because people turned away from politics. In order for the television stations to gain back viewers and ratings, the stations “dumbed down the issues by forcing the candidates to respond instantaneously” (Source C). This made the debates more interesting, boosting ratings and viewers. This also provided less information about the politicians. Dumbing down the information has turned the debate into game making it less about the politicians content and more about arguing over pointless things and ratings. However this has furthermore decreased the interest in politics. Even the stations that dumb down content “are failing, more often than not, to get good ratings”(Source

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.

Presidential candidates have power over how they’re shown in TV, whereas before TV they didn’t have much choice but to show up and campaign to just be the best leader they can persuade others that they’ll be. Source A explains the immediate contact the media can give, it can penetrate people’s mind and get viewers like never before, but just because that’s available doesn’t mean it’s the best option on how to portray our presidential elections. If anything, maybe television made the viewers feel closer a few decades ago, but now it’s nearly a barrier we can’t get past, so instead the television‘s impact on showing presidential elections has given the elections a negative impact. No one wants to watch short answered arguments where quality of imagine does better than the impact of your real words and actions. All the TV has done is go for someone’s image, quick answers, and the unfocused aspect of what truly matters, if your president is who will make your world a better place or

Druckman, J. N. (2003) The Power of Television Images: The First Kennedy-Nixon Debate Revisited. Journal of Politics, 65, 559

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.

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

People were able to become involved in the presidential process since they were able to watch presidential debates on television “In addition, the presidential election campaign of 1952 suggested that TV might also become the dominant form of political discourse” (Thompson). Around this same time television was improving and in 1954 the first color television set was sold. Television were formally sold as sets that came with an antenna and knobs to change the channels or raise the volume. This time was one of innovation and there was no stopping what was to come “Nevertheless, the ‘age of television’ took off in the 1950s, using by and large the same technology worldwide, although its take-up varied geographically according to the affordability of sets” (Chapman and Kinsey 25). As television was being altered to improve so was the way news was presented to the

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.