Television Dbq

Tvs regularly broadcast information and short clips or even live interviews of the candidates, giving people more and more useful information about who their possible new president could be. It gives you their ideas and goals for the future and their view on the current standing of the nation. It also gives you an understanding of who the person really is. Source B provides information of how Bill Clinton spoke openly about his underwear. His objective was not to let everyone know he wears boxers, but to give them a general idea of himself and personality. Although it is important to understand what the candidates have planned for the future, it is also important to understand who the person is. Tvs do that all the time by broadcasting a variety of things said and done by the

This quote explains how candidates should worry more about their image rather than what issues they are trying to mend for the country for its benefit. Although it is convenient to get an insight on the personal image of a presidential candidate, we have to understand that it is not crucial for knowing. The role of presidency is to have a broad understanding on what needs to be restored for the people of the country as well as the issues being prolonged. According to Source B, “because of television’s sense of intimacy, the American people feel they know their Presidents as persons and hence no longer feel the need for party guidance”. This quote supports the claim that television has its negative effects on society and how we view the presidential elections. The American people feel the need to now look back into the candidate’s life and focus on their faults over their high-minded actions and ideas on how to fix the nation and America as a

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

The chart in Source D shows the television ratings for presidential debates. The ratings have had an overall decline as the years go on. This is because the people tend to change, and the technology is not advanced enough yet for them to be satisfied. As in the above argument, where they needed to see the candidates in order to truly have a grip on what they are saying, they now need a newer way to view the candidates in the debates for the people to have a better understanding of

In fact, television makes impossible the determination of who is better than whom…” p.133. Postman continues, arguing that television does not allow us to choose the “best man” who is, “more capable in negotiation, more imaginative in executive skill, more knowledgeable about international affairs…” p.134. He talks about how the candidates try to change their image to the image of the leader we need, even if they are not actually that person. I completely disagree with this argument. One reason why I disagree is because the politicians running for president are constantly fundraising and speaking in front of crowds and even if they are pretending to be someone they are not, how could they do that for years and years without anyone finding out? I truly believe that television does help a lot when it comes to learning about politicians because every single person is so opinionated and when you hear many different opinions about a person it starts making you think more and more about what is true and what is not, causing you to do more research and be more careful. The presidential debates also really help when it comes to choosing our presidents. During the debates the candidates are asked so many questions and asked to respond so quickly that they do not really have much time to think about what they should and should not say. Those are the times

Postman says “Television as I have implied earlier, serves us most usefully when presenting junk-entertainment; … news, politics, science, education, commerce, religion — and turns them into entertainment packages.” (Postman 159) This election year people are making fun of the candidates running for president. Many of these people don’t even seem concerned because television has turned politics into entertainment.

Political impact of television, In 1960 Presidential Debate between Republican Vice President Richard Nixon and Democratic Senator John F. Kennedy was the first to be televised. “Television gave elected officials and candidates for office and unprecedented way to speak directly to millions, face-to-face”. The increasingly negative tone of ads and political commentary has driven many to abandon interest in politics. Television lets the viewers see what is going on in a political race, debate, and the polls as it is happening, and the viewers will make their minds up by what they see and hear. This is more expensive for the candidates, because they have to pay for air-time. The TV networks usually let you see what they want you to see, during a broadcast, especially when they cut to a commercial often.

The political debates amongst Nixon and Kennedy assume a gigantic part in TV history, and the historical backdrop of America. It formed the way that we run our political races today. The politics debate being aired on television enabled individuals to see the character and activities of both candidates. During these televised debates, various viewers saw Kennedy's self assurance and how well put together he was. But then on the other hand, Nixon had a harder time and gave off a frightful vibe to the viewers who were watching the debated. Individuals who watched it on TV felt Kennedy won the debate, while the individuals who tuned in to the radio felt Nixon won. This point is important, essential, and identified with television

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.

Television is an important educational tool in society, however, it does not have a place in presidential elections, due to the inequality and lack of substantive discussion in televised debates, as well as irrelevant physical standards being placed upon presidential candidates. Journalists agree that political debates are an ineffective method for deciding the leader of the country, and they are not worth the use of television resources. Should the decision of who is in charge of a massive country be made based on physical appearances, such as height, hairstyle and other superficial traits? Using these methods of deduction to decide an elected official is extremely unintelligent and ineffective compared to the alternative, an intelligent interview printed in an article or magazine. Citizens of a society are incredibly resistant to change, but examining journalists’ opinions and articles proves that a significant change must be made.

The date was September 26 1960, at exactly 7:30 p.m., somewhat an unfamiliar young and Catholic Senator from Massachusetts was about to change the world. One of the most unusual points on the timeline of history where things changed very drastically all in a single night, was about to change the political domain and of course the world. Senator John F. Kennedy and Vice President Richard Nixon was about to partake on an adventure that was ordinary. On that night, one of the most legendary moments transpired. This moment increased the power of television and benefited electioneering since the political button on a shirt. The Nixon-Kennedy encounter had all interest, with the nation watching the first televised presidential debate.

James Druckman in “The Power of Television Images: the first Kennedy-Nixon debate revised” looks at how television affects political behavior. Druckman’s (2003) hypothesis is that television viewers will be significantly more likely than audio listeners to use personality criteria when evaluating the candidates with all else constant. To test this theory he had a group of college students listen to an audio version of a debate while another group watched a televised version. Through his testing Druckman (2003) found that “television images have an independent effect on individuals’ political judgments: they elevate the importance of perceived personality factors, which can in turn alter overall evaluations.” The students that watched the debate had strong feelings that Kennedy won the debate with his confidence, demeanor, and outward appeal. The students that listened to only

As the United States continues forth as a democratic state, the question remains over how important are televised presidential debates, especially when they no longer foster a productive learning environment for viewers. The positive effects of televised presidential debates as in close running with the negative effects of televised presidential debates. Gathering up all the data from the different sources and interpreting what it could mean is not extremely strenuous. Knowing that voters are affected by the debates in different manners, breaking down voters into groups to analyze the direction each group is going in can help ascertain how televised presidential debates will affect future outcomes. Voters who are politically active are polarized by the presidential debates, especially when the debates are watched on split screen coverage. Because split screen coverage is a relatively new way for networks to broadcast the presidential debates, it is easy to assert that voters will only become more polarized as this trend continues.

These debates stand out in history as the moments that changed the nation’s politics. This is due to two facts. The debates propelled an otherwise unlikely candidate into the spot of the presidency, and it turned television into an easily accessible medium during the electoral process. In the nineteenth-century, the people of the United States of America would commute to presidential candidate’s houses to inquire about problems with America and how he would remedy them. This was no longer necessary, and lead Charles Kuralt of CBS News to declare that Kennedy’s presence on television changed this medium into the nation’s new “front

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