Trump V. Hilary Case Study

The New York Times columnist David Brooks calls it “the greatest political shock of our lifetime.” At the end of August, it seemed as though Donald Trump was destined to fail in his bid to become the 45th President of the United States. After months of new revelations of sexual harassments and use of vulgar language, spectators of the political sport were almost certain that Secretary Clinton would win, and then that fateful day came. Everyone, including some of Donald Trump’s most ardent supporters were shocked at the outcome of the election, leaving many to ask how such a thing could happen. While still shocking, ideas and concepts learned in the Election the President seminar have helped to explain the process, the results, and even the candidates themselves.

Now, it seems that media coverage is the opposite. News stories today are ones that involve scandals, polls, and the personal lives of the candidates rather than policies and issues. It is concerned more with profit than it is with educating the American people well, so they can make an informed decision. Today’s media has deteriorated in value to the public who wish to choose the best president for America, but has increased in value to the news networks, who make a large amount of money off the presidential election. The media has become a calculating business firm, who chooses what stories to run based on the money the stories will bring in rather than which story is more important. And, the stories that are making the most money, are those that entertain the American people. Therefore, the media has become biased toward stories that entertain rather than send an important message. Thus, the coverage of the presidential election has little value in

In this essay, I will compare and contrast the recent top two candidates Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton as it relates to the presidential election, along with my opinion and views regarding what recently took place as of November 8th, 2016. It’s no secret that this election has been the craziest thus far. Not only for the first time has a female candidate made it this far in an election, but we also got to witness the shenanigans that took place leading up to the election, majority of which came from our very own, Donald Trump.

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.

On the third, Trump tweeted “The rigged Dem Primary, one of the biggest political stories in years, got ZERO coverage on Fake News Network TV last night. Disgraceful!”. Trump attempts to show the extent of bias in the media exposing that they didn’t report a major event. This tweet has bias towards Trump’s personal agenda against the media. Additionally, Trump exposes the strength of the media’s gatekeepers and how greatly they can impact which issues are talked about.

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.

The 2016 United States Presidential election brought out the worst in people, hope turned into fear and the American citizens were divided on who would ease their fear. The Republican candidate, Donald Trump, an outsider to politics, his outspoken nature only helped his campaign. Just when the people thought he could not say or do anything worse, he would defy the odds and top his previous offensive comment with something even more offensive. The Democrat candidate, Hillary Clinton, has been active in politics for the past few decades, her roles in government include Senator and Speaker of the House. While many times previous experience would help a candidate, this only hurt her and eventually led to her demise. This election will go down in

In the article “Hype Versus Substance in Network Television Coverage of Presidential Election Campaigns”, authors Julia R. Fox, James R. Angelini, and Christopher Goble analyze political coverage on broadcast news during the final weeks of presidential elections. In the end they found that in the final weeks of campaigns many voters are still undecided. “Voters making up their minds at the end of the campaign tend to be less partisan and more likely to use-and to be influenced by-media messages in making their decision ” (Fox, J., Angelini, J., & Goble, C). This tends to be enough to cause a last minute “swing” in an election. With this being said the authors also found that these broadcast news stations very rarely address the critical

Jim Wright and Newt Gingrich were both House Speakers. Jim Wright was the Speaker beginning in 1987, however he was forced to resign in 1989. Barry explores how Gingrich, who Barry recalls was “ruthless in the coldest way,” exploited and manipulated the media to unfairly and unjustly bring down Wright through a scandal. While it was Gingrich who orchestrated the attacks on Wright, Barry focuses mainly on the media as being “a player” in the game. Gingrich understood the influential power of the media. While most politicians dislike the media as most of what is written exists as lies or exaggerations, powerful politicians are able to manipulate the media to further their own needs. Inside “the game,” the politician with the better tactics, for example the one who knows what to say, when to say it, and with what tone should it be said, will have a more positive relationship with the media and a greater chance to abuse the influence the media has. Outside “the game,” similarly to athletes, money has power and can be crucial in establishing relationships. Therefore the man who has greater money has a greater potential to create positive ties with the media. Again, while this book, due to the time period, relates this power of influence struggle between Wright and Gingrich, a more up to date comparison would be between potential Presidential Candidates Hillary Clinton, who owns the media through inside “the game” tactics and Donald Trump, who holds influence outside “the game” by using his own non-lobbyist

For all the turmoil, exhaustion, and shear reality-show melodrama of this years presidential campaign, the actual results appear more likely to deepen long-standing trends in the electorate than to shatter them all-in-all. That’s been one of the paradoxes of this extraordinary election year. With both newly-presidential elect Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton facing unfavorable opinions from a majority of the voters, this has been a demolition derby of a campaign that has left both sides sputtering toward the finish line with dented fenders and cracked windshields. Yet it’s a race that has been unfolding like no other, to still appear on track and to reinforce and intensify the trends that have defined the competition for the White House over

For the first time in American history there has been mass protests across the country due to the Republican nominated president-elect Donald J. Trump. People from many major cities went to the streets to say things like “Not My President” and “Never Trump.” It is safe to say Trump 's campaign has been riddled with controversy and has been criticized by both major political parties. Trump 's campaign is not the only one with problems. Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton has been met with constant problems throughout her campaign she has been accused of numerous corruption scandals. The American public is deeply divided and believes they had to pick between the lesser of two evils. This is all a distortion of the truth. The media is turning into a propaganda machine who reports biased

Donald Trump’s meteoric political rise during the Presidential Election of 2016 put attention on the media and the way they covered the election and will forever change both politics and media going forward. The media was shown to be a bias, ratting chasing, and corrupt extension of the political parties. We will encompass the entire campaign from the June 2015 announcement that he was running, covering the primaries, then to the convention, along the path of the general campaign, and finally in the post-election coverage. We will look at the financials, the main stream medias role, and changes that are necessary going forward.

The 2016 United States presidential election will go down as one of the most memorable in history. Its first debate, which drew 84 million viewers, went down as the second most-watched television event of the year, behind only Super Bowl 50. Furthermore, the debate dwarfed its most popular counterpart from 2012, beating it out by over 15 million viewers. The primary reason for this cycle’s incredible popularity comes from its brash, abrasive, demagogic candidate, Donald Trump. While most polls currently give his opponent, Hillary Clinton, the edge in winning the presidency, Trump remains extremely close to her in support. The Trump campaign’s efficacy comes as a surprise, given his 60% unfavorability ratings, the highest of any presidential

The victory of Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton was one of the greatest upsets in U.S. history. All the experts predicted a win for Clinton. Even on the night of the election most media outlets said that Trump had “no clear path” to victory. Clinton’s unfavourability ratings and her untrustworthy factors played in her defeat. But the “Trump phenomena” swept the country and gave him the ultimate victory. Historians will speculate for years to come on the reasons why she lost. Clinton will also, no doubt evaluate her loss. The common saying that hindsight is 20/20 may haunt her for years to come. This essay will look at some of the factors used by the Clinton campaign, but cannot explain her loss.

This often leads to script bias when media outlets, in appealing to “partisan audiences” for sake of business and viewer ratings, focus on a candidate’s positive achievements and contributions to society, rather than their opposing viewpoints to the majority (Andra Brichacek of U of Oregon School of Journalism). Resulting from such practices is a specific part of the population which religiously follows the news, unaware of other stances on the topics they follow, and their prefered candidate’s thoughts and goals on those topics. For example, during the 2016 presidential election, more liberal news outlets set narratives for President Trump, labeling him as racist, bigot, and unqualified for office, while outlets targeting conservative and “politically reformative” populations who were in favor of “draining the swamp” painted Hillary Clinton as a defensive, untrustworthy politician with too many secrets to hold in the white house. In response to such polarizing stances, the credible media, however biased, creates paths and openings for the distortion of facts and the manipulation of the public’s views and interpretations of the information they are handed.