The Pros And Cons Of Polarised Presidential Debates

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 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.

Campaigns in politics are important in determining outcomes and inform the voters who remain undecided. Also, campaigns matter because although the candidates or media officials may know what the outcome will be, the voters themselves do not (107). Aside from campaigns, conventions are also important, if not more important. Party nominating conventions affect the apathetic, uninterested electorates who think conventions are interesting and exciting, often known as the Olympic games of politics (121). This experience for voters can carry influence, and is a time of “intense political learning” (129). Therefore, aggregately, conventions make public opinion meaningful because the citizens who watch make an informed decision about a candidate, and have facts about why they will vote for that candidate. The chief reason why individual public opinion is meaningless during presidential elections is the “nonattitudes.” Nonattitudes are survey responses made up on the spot during an interview by a respondent who has no attitude on politics (113). Therefore, these individuals diminish the value of public opinion because we hate inconsistency and this creates an abundance of views on issues. However, during election night, exit polls support why aggregate opinion is also important. Exit polls are meaningful because one hundred percent of those leaving the polls have voted (102). Therefore, we can get real results from the electorates and this makes collective public opinion

In the 2012 Presidential election, the majority of outside spending was a result of the Citizens United decision1. The unique increase of money translated into an increase in television ads, radio ads, and direct mailings. Unfortunately, the large increase in political rhetoric caused a move to political extremes rivaling those at the end of the Civil War2. It explains that micro-targeting of advertising allowed corporations and Super PACS to create echo chambers, where only points of view in agreement with the audience were expressed. Polarization was an issue before the Citizens United ruling, but the unique increase in rhetoric caused the “worst polarization in 120 years.

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

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

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.

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

"Democracy requires citizens to see things from one another 's point of view, but instead we’re more and more enclosed in our own bubbles. Democracy requires a reliance on shared facts; instead we’re being offered parallel but separate universes."- Eli Pariser. Polarization is part of life, from P.C and Mac, Pepsi vs. Coke to Xbox and PS4, humans tend to give an allegiance to the things they care about. In the past decade, the United States has seen a rise of political polarization in many aspects of life, from social networks to the election. Since the 2016 election polarization has been discussed more and more, there has been a spotlight on this current issue. This phenomena

Congressional polarization can easily be tracked unlike the polarization trends in the public which causes the moderates to become ignored. According to scholars, many moderates in the public ‘lean’ toward either the Democratic or Republican camp which complicates the polarization trends (a); they often outnumber partisans of the party towards which they ‘lean’ (Smith). While the public remains consistently moderate, Congress consistently loses its moderates as they retire, and more radical congressmen and women secure their places (Fiorina 5). Fiorina hardly considers independents or moderates in this essay; this mistake overlooks their ‘swing vote’ in many major elections for both Congress and the executive branch (Enns and Schmidt). But,

These two phenomena are interconnected because not only is there a growing polarization between liberals and conservatives, but also within the Republican Party itself. It’s facing a historic divide over the party’s basic principles and identity. The issues raised by grass-roots voters (resistance to immigration, concern about wages, etc.) are deviating from and clashing with the Republican establishment’s interests (openness to immigration, free trade, etc.) (Healy and Martin – article from class).

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

What topics are labeled important enough to be talked about during presidential debates? Topics such as terrorism and national security; the economy; jobs and employment; and the Affordable Care Act and Healthcare all managed to be the center of attention during all debates. What topics were almost entirely ignored? Topics such as gun policy; social issues like LGBT rights and abortion; and the environment and climate change were put to the side to instead talk about Hillary Clinton’s email scandal or the sexual assault charges brought up against Donald Trump. While terrorism and national security; the economy; jobs and employment; and the Affordable Care Act and Healthcare are all very important topics, but one topic that was ignored and should have been at the forefront of the debate was climate change.

At a basic level, since the 1970s, Republican and Democrat voters have taken a progressively adverse view of the other party’s members. To further measure polarization, the author defines three types of polarization: partisan polarization, opinion radicalization, and issue alignment. Partisan polarization is the sorting of people into the two major parties in the US, which now has all liberals and all conservatives in separate parties. This is unlike the southern Democrats and liberal Republicans in the past. Opinion radicalization is the process in which people gravitate away from the political center to more extreme positions. The author states that this effect

It is not a coincidence that the increased availability of news sources has been accompanied by increasing political polarization. Over time, polarization appears to have spread to the level of mass public opinion (Abramowitz & Saunders, 2006; Jacobson, 2006; Abrams, & Pope, 2005). For instance, in U.S. politics, Democrats’ and Republicans’ negative evaluations of a president of the other party have steadily intensified (Abramowitz & Saunders, 2006; Jacobson, 2006). The presidential approval data reveal a widening chasm between Republicans and Democrats; the percentage of partisans who respond at the extremes (‘‘strong approval’’ or ‘‘strong disapproval’’) has increased significantly over time. In fact, polarized assessments of U.S. presidential performance are higher today than at any other time in recent history, including the months preceding the resignation of President Nixon.