The Power Of Television Images : The First Kennedy Nixon Debate Revised

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

This underscores why politicians have long perceived mass media as a veritable channel of disseminating an ideology so that the society can mirror itself against what the media feeds it and thus be manipulated. This further begs the question of whether the media is a contributor or otherwise to societal problems in the face of political ideological dissemination.

On September 26, 1960, John Fitzgerald Kennedy met Richard Milhous Nixon in the first nationally televised presidential debate in American history. The candidates clashed on a variety of domestic issues, including education, infrastructure, health care, and economic policies. The audience was unprecedented in size. Approximately seventy million Americans watched the debate. By the end, Kennedy was a star. Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike lauded his poise, confidence, and charisma. On the other hand, viewers criticized Nixon’s haggard expression and sweaty countenance. As it turns out, television had the greatest influence on these perceptions. Those who watched the debate overwhelmingly asserted Kennedy’s clear victory, while

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

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 rise of popularity in presidential television debates leads one to the question of it having a positive and or negative impact on candidates campaigns. Television allowed people to see the debate in a new perspective, visually, however it idolizes and highlights candidates to make them seem as if they are celebrities, instead of focusing on their intellect and topics to improve the nation. Therefore one can see the impacts of television as negative, for the media is downplaying the actual value of presidential campaigns and focusing on less important irrelevant entertaining topics.

Contrastingly, the three dramatic mass media presidential campaigns differed in the following ways. Starting with the 1960 campaign, it was the first of its kind and so all that was broadcasted was not advanced as compared to the debates that succeeded. The 1960 Kennedy/Nixon debate was broadcasted live from a television studio unlike other debates that followed (Webley, 2010). Else too; the images were not clear – they lacked quality definition due the fact that the technology used then was not so advanced like that of the years that succeeded ( History, n.d ). Fifteen years later another presidential campaign happened. This was in 1992 when Bush, Clinton and Perot were contesting for presidency. This time the campaigns took a very

In general, the political team will use different forms of mass communication such as; radio, television, and satellite TV are the most logical choice because it can reach millions of people and it can affect how they view their candidate opponents. However, most people don’t trust politicians believing they would say anything to get elected and according to Neher & Sandin (2007), “To many people, political communication ethics sounds like oxymoron” (p. 227). Furthermore, in the public view, politician’s ranks near the bottom of professionals when it comes to ethics and trustworthiness in which this led to many campaigns advisor to be

Mass media can be a powerful tool, but it can also be a hindrance to the public if the facts are not checked. From the invention of the printing press, radio, television, and the internet mass media has revolutionized the way the public gathers information each and every day. Many of the sources we use for gaining knowledge and facts on current events today are controlled by a very small group. This small group controls many of the ideologies that drive our political system in the United States. The major political parties are highly affected by the information that is reported as facts on a daily base. A famous quote by Ronald Reagan comes to mind, “trust, but verify” and this could not be truer today when most of the public depend on mass media for the vast majority of their information.

In the early 1940’s television was introduced and it bridged the gap in communication between the people and the government. Since then, it has played a detrimental role in United States elections since the 1960’s. According to some, television has tainted it’s real purpose. These individuals concur that televised debates are more so about image, instead of the quality of the debate. These speculators would be correct on this topic for the sole purpose that when on television appearance is appealing to the younger generations that can vote.

I agree with Carr's view on the change of media with politics pointing out the Nixon and Kennedy debate, the people who heard debate over radio believed that Nixon had won. In reality it had came down to appearance on television rather than the

All media is influenced by the political economic circumstances, however, the extent in which this model impacts the

The effect that the media has on people’s lives has its pros and cons. For instance, if one wanted to spread a message the media is a good source of advertisement and a quick way to get the word out. But if one wanted to keep something they were doing a secret, the media would negatively affect them because it could imply the wrong messages and then ruin one’s reputation. The media has a very creative way of portraying scandals and catching people while they are in the act. The media rarely focuses on an individual being joyous and successful but more so on one’s failures and mistakes. With the current more somber and "responsible" approach often comes a bowdlerized view of the candidates and the politics surrounding them. The media, in its desire to avoid unsubstantiated political allegations, can easily find itself instead providing unsubstantiated exonerations (prorev.com).

Interestingly, the newspapers have demonstrated the substitute role for public gatherings in certain communities by addressing their shared issues of concern. So they become the first variable (Dylko, 2010). Secondly, another media use variable is exposure to the political news on TV. As a result, this news informs people about various current political situations and activities. However, lastly, the political talk shows having a unique format of discussions on a single issue with politicians and journalists on board, convey the status of that particular issue, its implications and politicians’ viewpoints and attempts to solve the specific matter.

Mass Media provide an arena of debate and a set of channels for making policies, candidates, relevant facts and ideas more widely known as well as providing politicians, interest groups and agents of government with a means of publicity and influence (McQuail, 2005).