Tv Dbq

Before we television existed people had to depend on Radio stations to receive there little bit of entertainment and news. But in 1878, the invention of TV began. The first TV made didn’t look anything like the way TV’s look today, it was a mechanical camera with a large spinning disc attached to it (Kids Work). But as over the years, of course inventions of different TV’s progressed and by the 20th century about 90 percent of our population had a TV in their household(). Television today is mainly used for people take a break from their life by relaxing and enjoying some entertainment.

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.

In the United States, television has been influential in presidential elections since the 1960’s. Television has a way of “turning away from policy sphere,” it judges candidates based on their appearances, not their message. Television has shifted the key point of presidential debates: from pursuing issue to pursuing image. Therefore, television is misleading, having a negative impact on presidential elections.

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.

The broadcast of television and its contents have influenced society as a whole. Whether it being commercials or news incidents, the television covers it all. With the vast amount of information being introduced to a wide span of audience, the television has altered the way a person takes in the given info. Despite all the advantages of the television, it generates bias amongst its viewers and converts their attentions on a certain issue, such as politics, for better or for worse. Although the invention of the television ventures to address political issues to the world, the television manipulates information so that a negative outlook would be pronounced on a particular candidate for a presidential election.

Last but not least, the media does not take political elections as seriously as politicians might like. People on social media, horse-race the politicians to see who will win the election. They debate on who will win, rather than the politicians views on topics. Horse-races are where citizens vote on who will win the election and they see the race happen and they determine whether their vote was correct or not. They ‘run’ the politicians, just like how people run horses. “Lost in the media spectacle is any careful coverage of issues and policy proposals, or serious discussion of candidate background.” (bigthink). When the media horse-races politicians, they horse-race them by their party or their major decisions that they have made. Citizens can also race them by protests that they were involved in, in their young adult lives, for example Bernie Sanders and his early protests were covered all over the media.

The coverage allows voters “ immediate contact with political events”(Source A). Having this contact provides the voters knowledge of the characteristics of the candidates. Knowing how the candidate reacts in different situations is important because we want to ensure they won’t cause extreme problems. For example, a president that is quick to anger wouldn’t be the best for the country because if he or she was discussing policies with world leaders. If he or she didn’t agree, they could become angry and embarrass the country, or even launch an attack. That may be a major exaggeration, but we need to be aware of the characteristics to ensure the candidate will be a great president. However, we don’t actually know the candidate. It may feel as if we do, but we don’t actually know them, TV promotes a false connection. especially biased TV stations. Over time, television broadcasting stations have formed biases and praised the candidates with similar opinions while shedding a negative light on the candidates that with contrasting views. In other words, we can’t trust how the candidates appear on TV because it provides a false image of how the candidates truly

Television promotes the 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 “no longer feel the need for party guidance”(Source B). In other words, the audience no longer feels the need of the politician's policies due to basing their judgments on the superficial characteristics. In a recent political debate, candidates Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton argued that their images weren’t very presidential. It started off with Trump saying Clinton didn’t have the looks and the stigma of a president and she quickly fired back that Trump didn’t have the temperament. Instead of discussing how they were going to run the country they just bickered about appearance. The

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

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

This is a huge issue as presidential election debates being broadcasted through television can be manipulated to “[make the debates] look pretty good”(F). Television channels do this by “[pulling] the best three or four minutes of the ninety minute event”(F), allowing for the broadcasters themselves create a bias in what segments they choose to keep and give the public, which stated before, heavily based their opinion on television. This rating system, partnered with public appeal and systematic focus on the image which can be derived from the representatives being questioned shows the devastating impact in which television has shifted presidential election into. While some may argue that television “provides a … direct … link between Washington and the people”(A), the fact that television has had a negative impact on presidential elections can not be averted due to television turning these debates into reality shows. The dependency which ratings television is revolved around, accompanied with representatives being forced to shift their beliefs due to the public trusting a news source more than their own government entices the fact that indeed, television has had a negative impact on presidential elections due to it being too

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

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.

Between 1960 and today, there have been many milestones in mass media and the way it has been presented to us. In the 1960’s television sets were becoming very popular in many households across America. The first televised presidential debate took place on September 26, 1960. “1963: Polls show more Americans report that they rely on television rather than newspapers as their primary source for news.” (“1963: Polls show…” PBS, n.d.) With the television becoming the new medium for people to gain information, this was a major milestone in how information was gathered and perceived. Also in the 1960’s the first stages of development of the internet began. Early computers were also being produced. This had set the stage for upcoming years in technology that would affect the experience of presidential elections by all.