In the 1940’s, election processes in America changed drastically due to the introduction of television broadcasts . Television allowed for live debates and interviews of candidates to be streamed to American voters. This seemed to be a positive change to give voters a direct line to Washington and to form their own opinions on who they are voting for( Source A). However, after the introduction of new lines of communication, the television news broadcasts became more positive than negative. Television influence in presidential elections has clouded Americans judgment of candidates of by only focusing on their images rather than polices, which in turn has corrupted the current election processes. When election candidates didn’t have the chance of impressing their audiences through charming tone and an edited version of themselves , they were focused on policies and connection. Viewers of nightline described how editing changed the whole outlook on a failed debate The republican candidates were interviewed by people who used strategies to make them be seen as intelligent candidates. However in reality, nightline had edited the debate so that only the good moments of the candidates were shown (Source F). Television networks have made it impossible for voters to see the real version of who the candidates are. The networks can edit the programs to be in favor of their political parties, which can give voters a skewed view of who their candidates are. Not knowing what the candidates believe and how well they can execute their thoughts is dangerous to voters, as they need to know the person they are electing can correctly go the job. The only way to reach the American people before television was to campaign to their towns and try to convince them that they could help in Washington. Everyone could form their own opinion of the candidate without a news reporter telling them if he was good or not. Now however, television has made knowing the candidates for their abilities only near impossible. A Clinton debate from 1992 proved this to be true. Clinton discusses personal matters, underwear, with the American people (Source B) . He did this with the guidance of MTV, so it was not a matter he would have discussed with voters without a significant push. The MTV generation believe that shock value and public image are more vital for a candidates election than their actual polices. Seeing Clinton discuss these matters with Americans shows how television can push candidates to become too intimate with the American people( Source B). If Americans feel that they know their candidate as if they were a friend, they will seek no guidance from other networks or political parties. The ability of a television program to make a voter form an opinion without any other influences is dangerous. This makes Americans forming their own opinion on the candidates impossible because they are being influenced by the networks beliefs.
I liked your take on the media’s role in all of this. The media seems to play a notorious role in making candidates for presidency look much better than who they really are. I liked how you focused on the dangers of presidents becoming too intimate with Americans. Their job is to protect and help us, not to discuss personal matters. Good job.
I liked your emphasis on the new reality that television has created. Presidential candidates had to change the way they went about campaigning, and in the end, we ended up with a false sense of security and an inability to form our own opinions unbiased.
Television has had a negative impact on Presidential nominations, debates, and image, due to the over-exaggerated news, self-image over cultural issues, and the false reporting of media outlets. Presidents before the time of television had learned how to progress the nation far greater than some of our presidents in the recent past. While some focused on reaching out to the American population with important messages that helped impact a nation, some Presidents decided to share information that was ridiculously uncalled for, like Bill Clinton, who felt the urge to discuss his underwear with the American people in 1992 (Hart and Triece). Although television has helped keep Americans more in tune with political events, it also has created a platform for presidents to become actors, rather than being a President. Television has played a huge role in the later end of the 1900s for presidential debates. The Kennedy-Nixon debate of 1960 reached more than 28 million homes. Many Americans around this time loved the idea of this way of communication, because they could be informed, and really get to know the presidents. This number grew for 20 years, reaching a peak of 80 million people watching the Carter, Reagan, and Anderson debate of 1980. Americans loved this, until the realized much of this information in these debates was nonsense, in which number nearly dropped to where they were in 1960. So by 1996, only 30 million homes really cared about these debates. (Chart) Ted Koppel, a newscaster who is best known for appearing on the news show, “Nightline,” wrote about how these debates were not even debates at all. “Two reporters sat and asked questions... Each man was supposed to answer only the questions he was asked.” He later went on to write about how the debate was just an “act of rhetorical contortion for one man to address himself to what one of his rivals had said.” Sadly, these ninety minute events were usually cut down to three minutes by a news outlet that took bits and pieces from the good parts of the debates, which made them somewhat useful debates. Though television has allowed Americans to see the political world more thoroughly, it has made Americans realize most of this world does not affect them as much as they once thought. (Koppel) The presidential image of any president in today’s world usually seems to appeal to Americans by image, rather than by views. A man named Theodore H. White once argued that John F. Kennedy had an upper hand in his presidential debates due to his image, rather than his content. Surprisingly, he had pointed out that those who listened to the debates on a radio had believed the debates were totally a stalemate, yet, when one watched it on a television, they believed Kennedy was the winning candidate without a doubt in mind. Why? Because Kennedy’s appearance was much more professional; good posture, and “crisp.” Nixon, however, looked quite old, and did not fit the status quo. Of course, both candidates had the right messages, and seemed to both qualify for a good president at the time, appearance seemed to be a deciding role to the American people. One commentator spoke out in a magazine, saying, “An effective president must be every year more concerned with projecting images of himself.”(Menand) It is impossible to say that television has not created a great place for information, where Americans can find true sources of information about someone in power. It is, on the other hand, possible to say that this platform for information has been distorted to fit a norm that appearances seem to outweigh ideals. Citizens seem to feel as one president is more fitting than another because he is younger, or his suit jacket looks sharp. Although appearance can be important to looking professional, positions on tough arguments should be far more important.
Great job, I think your points on people forming their opinions based on the visual aspect of the candidates was compelling. We focus too much on the materialistic side, rather than acknowledging whether or not the person is qualified to rule the country.
This is a great analysis. I used some of the sources you used, but the way you organized your points worked very well. You also did a good job recognizing and countering the benefits of television in politics.
Wow Mark! This is really great. It is a very well organized piece of writing, but it’s also packed full of creativity. You used your sources to their extent. To agree with Vivian, you countered the benefits effectively. All of these things made for a wonderful read, well done!
Mark, great analysis! You had a great thesis statement, which I think really set this piece up for success. I liked your point about what does and doesn’t matter regarding who our president is. Well done!
Reality is skewed. The American people consume unfathomable amounts of “fake news” every single day. This concept is far from new, today it is not unusual to see entertainment touted as “reality” yet it’s actually a moderately scripted program designed to grab watchers attention with drama filled happenings of elitist class lives. However, the Kardashians are not the only people being portrayed as something they very well may not be, as televised events such as presidential debates, commercials, and appearances have been around since the 1940s (source A). Presidents, the rulers of the United States of America, can be so easily shown as people they are not. The election process was ever changed after the rise of television. Looking at JFKs victory over his opposing candidate, Richard Nixon, author Louis Menand points out that Kennedy was portrayed far more polished and dapper than Nixon was. In fact, the coverage of Nixon was so often dull and of lesser quality than Kennedy’s. For this somewhat trivial reason, Menand concurs that television appearances had an incredibly large impact of voters in this election, allowing for Kennedy to dominate over Nixon (source C). Presidents have been put on a platform similar to that of celebrities. Take the Clinton presidency as an example. In an interview in April of 1992, Clinton assured America of his undergarment of choice (source B). This is a puzzling display of honesty that would be normalized for that of a movie star to tell the world in a cheeky interview, but for the president, it is simply not presidential behavior. One may argue it allows for a sense of relatability to the president, although, the presidents job is not to be “relatable.” It is to run the country responsibly and in a direction that benefits all or most citizens. Television has destroyed this mentality almost entirely. It is harmful in its own right to put on a facade for hundreds of thousands of people, but it is outright dangerous for presidential candidates to be put on such a visual platform that allows for audiences to see the candidates as the television network portrays them. There are very few non biased news sources in this day and age. (Unfinished)
I liked your opening paragraph, definitely some great modern day points. Your point about the Clinton presidency and doing their job instead of being “relatable” was great, good work!
The increasing popularity of televisions in the mid to late 20th Century allowed for a new level of insight relating to politics, the American people were now able to get a more in-depth look at the candidates and what they were going to do. Televisions restored the feeling of lost contact when it came to understanding who was being elected and everything that was going on (Source A). Televisions also had the great ability to inform and stimulate the political interests of the American electorate (Source A). Candidates used, and still use, televised media as leverage for propelling their ideas, beliefs, possible policies, and much more to the American people. Debates among presidential candidates became increasingly popular and indisputably necessary in aiding the election process. In a debate scenario, candidates were able to challenge each other, in a sense, with regards to how well they could come across to their American audiences. Debates being televised was essentially the only way to send the message to all Americans, or at least those with television sets. In fact, today, not televising a debate would seem undemocratic (Source C). It would actually be quite pointless to leave debates un-televised, as the only people who would see the entire process would be the people who attended it. Lyndon B. Johnson, while running for re-election was a strong advocate for reporting on politics, he favored a man named Walter Conkite. Conkite was a CBS newscaster that reported on, and gave, political opinions to millions watching at home. Americans were able to hear accurate information and it greatly influenced their political opinions, a strategy appreciated by Lyndon Johnson (Source E). Some argue that candidates, in the early days of debating, candidates, such as JFK believe his victory was largely a triumph of image over content (Source C). Although meaning, with regards to candidates wanting a specific portrayal shown to the public, it cannot be applied to the campaign process as a whole. In reality, the Kennedy debates sparked the popularity for debating from then on. Between the years 1960 and 1980, the numbers of people watching televised presidential debates grew existentially. Between those 20 years nearly 18 million more homes began tuning into the televised debates. Also, using the numbers from other data in the graph, the amount of people watching went from probably around 10-12 million in 1960 to 80.6 million in 1980 (Source C). 80.6 million people in 1980 was 36% of the entire population of the United States in 1980. This data shows the immense amount of engagement Americans had with these televised debates. Numbers between these years most likely grew as well because television were slowly becoming more advanced and more American families were purchasing them. Although there was a staggering drop in these numbers by 1984, the remaining numbers are still very significant. Taking into account the many more forms of media that were developing at this time can explain why more people were becoming less intrigued by televised debates.
(Conintued) Televised political affairs were, and continue to be, an essential part of America, it is a person’s job to decipher what they should believe. Common sense is a strategy so often left behind in politics. Not only do debates help candidates to put their message out there, but it also aids in Americans’ decisions, basing their vote off of how certain candidates present themselves. Without debates or others mass media programs including presidential candidates, Americans voters’ opinions would be completely clouded. Media, through television, gives the everyday American access to gain insight on how their political candidate of choice presents him or herself, and their desires for helping the country. Media also allows for the portrayal of some candidates’ shortcomings, not necessarily with malicious intent, but to provide accurate information on what to expect from the candidate. After all, some of the most hard-hitting presidential scandals were so publicized because of televised media, to show Americans the corruption that is detrimental to their society. Television in politics is an absolute essential piece of the puzzle that puts both the presidential candidate, and the voter, in an advantageous spot in the election.
I liked how you argued for the positive effect of televised debates, as that was not a popular opinion in the other blogs. Source A definitely showed the positives that can come from television, so I think you ddI a great job in highlighting its points.
I personally thought arguing the positives of televised debates in American politics was more difficult than arguing the negatives, so I appreciate you tackling the subject so well. It was clever how you pointed out how several scandals surfaced because of television, even though this point wasn’t included in the samples we were given. You closed the essay really well, and it was an overall pleasure to read.
It is clear that mass media, specifically television, has drastically changed the dynamic of modern society. Evidence of this can be effectively observed based on presidential elections throughout history. Based on the deterioration of boundaries, unnecessary drama, and morphed incentives of presidential candidates, the evidence suggests that television has brought negative effects upon the entire election process. The leader of our nation should be a respectable, put together individual that millions of people can look up to. This mean that not every detail of their lives should be shared with the public. Personal lives are called personal lives for a reason, and exposing certain parts of these things can be not only humiliating, but totally detrimental to their demeanor as a leader. For example, Bill Clinton was once interviewed about his underwear. The information he shared was simply too much, and it wouldn’t have been broadcasted at all without persistent pressure by the media (Hart and Triece). The positions that they are put in can very easily warp the way they are viewed by the problem. Respect is vitally important in a healthy relationship between a people and their president, and the way of the modern world is making this more and more difficult to achieve. Secondly, a candidate for president clearly has a lot going on for them in the months leading up to the election. In today’s world, it as absolutely necessary for someone running to have a significant presence on television if they want a chance in office. This means designing and shooting campaign ads, as well as reacting to any messages opposing their campaign effectively. They have to not only develop their ideals and policies as always, but decide very quickly how they want to look and sound as they are doing so. One commentator described the situation with these words, “An effective President must be every year more concerned with projecting images of himself.” It becomes a means of distraction, and creates opportunities for messages to be manipulated by the media (Menand). A candidate has very little control over these things, yet they could be the difference between winning or losing. Finally, the attention that television gives to those pursuing the presidency can make people put the wrong goal in mind. They perceive a spot in the election as a pathway to fame, and are not really thinking about being an effective leader. These people probably won’t win an election, and all they’re really doing is making the whole process more complicated. They act as an annoyance to the people who actually want to do a good job. The whole event is presented in a way that the public only sees the highlights, so sometimes people with showy personalities can seem more qualified than people with genuinely good values (Koppel). Mindset is everything, and it is clear that the media does not have a positive effect on this aspect of a person. Television and the presidential election go hand in hand in the world, but should they? After looking more closely at the way boundaries have changed, the increase in petty drama, and motivations behind running, the answer could very easily be no. It is hard to imagine what the world would be like if it went back to the way things were, to a simpler time.
You're opening paragraph was incredibly strong. I liked how you dealt with the deterioration of boundaries. I think society has lost control of right and wrong. I used the same sources in my essay, so I have to agree with your take on this situation. You had a well constructed essay, and you organized your sources well.
Television is heavily involved in politics. This has become more apparent over time, especially in presidential elections. The effects of thorough media coverage are intense, and cannot be considered positive. The involvement of television in presidential elections over time has created negative effects due to the pursuit of an image rather than ideals and the fact that what is portrayed on television is easily manipulated. When televisions became commonplace in American homes, people believed that a better understanding of government would occur because of the effortless access to information. However, this did not exactly prove to be true. Americans were and are able to easily access information about political leaders. Unfortunately, most of this information became watered down, scandalous, confusing, or only serving to develop one’s image. There is a specific instance during Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign in which he shared details about his underwear to the American people at large (Source B). He shared this information as an answer to a question. This instance shows that people began to use the platform of television as a way to know things about the president, not what the president is doing or plans to do for the country. This personal assessment of a presidential candidate shows that people involved in the television age hold their president at the same level as an actor or a rockstar. People have become more interested in an MTV-style interview than one that sheds light on the future of the country. This shift in attitude moves importance away from a president’s ideals and onto his or her image. The importance of image over ideals is further demonstrated in the 1960 debates between Kennedy and Nixon. It was a common belief at this time that the debate is what decided the election. Theodore White, writer of “The Making of the President 1960”, supported this belief. He also believed that the television setup of the debate “dumbed down” the important material. Because the debate was being broadcast, candidates had to answer their questions on the spot and were asked different questions, not necessarily responding to each other. By setting up the content in a way for the American people to easily understand, the actual value of the information was wiped away. White also supplied a statistic that people who listened to the debates on the radio felt that they were a draw, whereas those who watched on television felt that Kennedy crushed Nixon. White believed that this change of opinion in television viewers is because Kennedy’s image was crisp and sharp, while Nixon was not as fashionably prepared (Source C). This is a clear demonstration of image winning out over ideals, all coming from the effects of television. The effects of television are once again made clear in a reflection by Ted Koppel, a member of “Nightline.” Koppel explains his position by saying that he has two options in the television world: put out mindless content and appeal to the masses, or share the truth and risk losing support. He chooses the latter when he explains the contortion carried out in the broadcasting of a recent presidential debate. He says that the so called “debate” was a joke, and yet “Nightline” was able to gather certain amounts of coverage that allowed it to look like a good debate (Source F). This manipulation of coverage is just another illusion that television spins onto politics. As television becomes further involved in politics and presidential elections, the leaders of America become even more skewed. They must learn to care more about how people view them personally, rather than the work they are doing for those same people. Television has allowed presidents to become stars rather than leaders. People can no longer receive unbiased political opinion.
The way you stressed how it now appears as though image is more critical than ideals was really effective and made your blog an enjoyable read. It was interesting that you stated presidents seem to be more like stars rather than leaders because I wouldn’t have thought of that particular wording. Your blog was really intelligently written, convincing me that you really thought about what you were writing.
Kara VanEerden I liked the way you focused on image throughout this essay, in the end that’s what everything comes back to and you did a beautiful job putting that together. This is well organized and thought out, good work!
Before the invention of television, presidential candidates only had the task of focusing on their job and working as hard as they could. When the new era started, television completely changed the way people thought about the presidential elections. The candidates started to focus more on the image that would be shown to the world and the men started to be judged on how they looked and acted instead of their ideas(C). After the creation of the television, many negative effects followed surrounding the presidential elections. The media has become increasingly full of false or one sided reporting. It is difficult to accurately receive information about the presidential candidates without it having been edited or changed to seem more appealing to Americans. The presidential debates are an extremely important event that helps people learn more about their future president. The men are asked important questions that they must promptly answer and it continues until the debate ends. Any news station that filmed the event could easily edit and changed how the men looked to influence people a certain way(F). Then after watching the edited version people may start to think the way the station intended. This is not good because people are not given all of the information to form their own opinions about the candidates. The media has the ability to influence the way citizens think and the president himself. President Johnson in 1968 still had the idea that the American troops could win the Vietnam war. He had been increasing the army’s presence there slowly for five years and never stopped having faith in a victory(E). After five years of unwavering faith, one newsman had the ability to change the way the president felt about the war. Walter Cronkite was a CBS newsman that had earned the respect of the president. After hearing what President Johnson had to say about the war, Walter went to Vietnam to see if they were close to a victory. When he came back to America, he reported that it was a horrible mess with no chance of a victory. He explained that there was no way for America to win and they need to negotiate for an end(E). The president saw the news cast and knew that Walter’s influence on the American citizens would turn them against them. So shortly after Johnson started the process of ending the war and did not run for another election. Even though the media does not always have a good effect, it has become a social norm for society. If the process of re elections started, people would expect to see daily updates on the television(C). People all over the world are able to have a direct connection to everything that is happening in Washington(A). It has become more difficult to truly know the presidential candidates due to the changing society. However, through the media, the people of America have become more united and more capable of deciding the presidential candidate.
I liked how much you focused on source C, as it really shows how much others opinions can change our views on candidates. The way you relied on the sources proved that people focus too much of image and others opinions rather than the presidential candidates ideas.
Good job Soph! I agree with Megan, your focus on one source specifically was really great! You brought connections with that source all throughout your essay. I also enjoyed your point regarding social norms of today. Overall, really great insight, good job!
Television can serve as a window into the world of heavy politics. It provides on opportunity for viewers to see candidates and future Presidents in a way they wouldn’t have been able to without the presence of screen. It has been described as an entity that sees all, and therefore is capable of providing what it captures to the American public. This is a power that certainly holds potential for good, but also has the ability to distort the image of those who appear on its screen. It can be argued that television can be used to turn a professional and stoic persona into one that is immature and flippant (Source B). For the former president Bill Clinton, he experienced a time during his campaign years when he was asked a trivial question regarding his undergarments on television. Afterwards, it was revealed that the question exposed how presidents are losing their professional appearances in favor of one that is more inappropriate for their profession (Source B). There are other occasions for which similar occurrences have taken place. Debuting on September 26 of the year 1960, a televised broadcast depicting a series of Kennedy-Nixon debates was aired on various networks to the American public. According to the author Theodore H. White, it appeared that Kennedy’s success was largely based off the image he portrayed whilst on television. It could be argued that if someone more sophisticated in looks and social mannerisms than Richard Nixon was up against Kennedy, then Kennedy might have not won the votes in the 1960 election. On the radio, Kennedy and Nixon seemed equally matched, but since the debate was able to be televised, many people were in favor of the better dressed Kennedy (Source C). Relatability to the president could be lost as well as the feeling of being tightly involved with the affairs of the country should television be removed as a means to listen to the Commander in Chief, as one may argue. However, the voice of the president, his viewpoints, the strategies he plans to utilize, and the power within his message are all citizens truly need from a debate or public appearance. Relatability is not what is really important in a political campaign, but rather, the responsibility a candidate has when tackling the issues he discusses (Source A). An effective president cannot be totally concerned with image and the desire to achieve “good” ratings. They must be someone who is willing to get their hands dirty by tackling the problems within society that not many would be willing to handle. Ted Kopple produced an article that voices his worries about this topic. He made a point to note how most candidates these days and in recent years have been more focused on pleasing the majority of audiences with beating around the bush on a topic, rather than getting straight to the point on issues that actually matter (Source F). The television ratings for presidential debates between the years of 1960 through 1996 have actually shown a steady decrease in the amount of views they gather for each broadcast. The ratings were at their peak during the first televised broadcast in 1960, which displayed Nixon and Kennedy, with a 59.5 rating. Those numbers have been going down by several million every election. The rating was most likely so high the first time around because of America’s initial fascination with the visuals provided by television (Source D).
In the 1940’s, election processes in America changed drastically due to the introduction of television broadcasts . Television allowed for live debates and interviews of candidates to be streamed to American voters. This seemed to be a positive change to give voters a direct line to Washington and to form their own opinions on who they are voting for( Source A). However, after the introduction of new lines of communication, the television news broadcasts became more positive than negative. Television influence in presidential elections has clouded Americans judgment of candidates of by only focusing on their images rather than polices, which in turn has corrupted the current election processes.
ReplyDeleteWhen election candidates didn’t have the chance of impressing their audiences through charming tone and an edited version of themselves , they were focused on policies and connection. Viewers of nightline described how editing changed the whole outlook on a failed debate The republican candidates were interviewed by people who used strategies to make them be seen as intelligent candidates. However in reality, nightline had edited the debate so that only the good moments of the candidates were shown (Source F). Television networks have made it impossible for voters to see the real version of who the candidates are. The networks can edit the programs to be in favor of their political parties, which can give voters a skewed view of who their candidates are. Not knowing what the candidates believe and how well they can execute their thoughts is dangerous to voters, as they need to know the person they are electing can correctly go the job.
The only way to reach the American people before television was to campaign to their towns and try to convince them that they could help in Washington. Everyone could form their own opinion of the candidate without a news reporter telling them if he was good or not. Now however, television has made knowing the candidates for their abilities only near impossible. A Clinton debate from 1992 proved this to be true. Clinton discusses personal matters, underwear, with the American people (Source B) . He did this with the guidance of MTV, so it was not a matter he would have discussed with voters without a significant push. The MTV generation believe that shock value and public image are more vital for a candidates election than their actual polices. Seeing Clinton discuss these matters with Americans shows how television can push candidates to become too intimate with the American people( Source B). If Americans feel that they know their candidate as if they were a friend, they will seek no guidance from other networks or political parties. The ability of a television program to make a voter form an opinion without any other influences is dangerous. This makes Americans forming their own opinion on the candidates impossible because they are being influenced by the networks beliefs.
I liked your take on the media’s role in all of this. The media seems to play a notorious role in making candidates for presidency look much better than who they really are. I liked how you focused on the dangers of presidents becoming too intimate with Americans. Their job is to protect and help us, not to discuss personal matters. Good job.
DeleteI liked your emphasis on the new reality that television has created. Presidential candidates had to change the way they went about campaigning, and in the end, we ended up with a false sense of security and an inability to form our own opinions unbiased.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTelevision has had a negative impact on Presidential nominations, debates, and image, due to the over-exaggerated news, self-image over cultural issues, and the false reporting of media outlets. Presidents before the time of television had learned how to progress the nation far greater than some of our presidents in the recent past. While some focused on reaching out to the American population with important messages that helped impact a nation, some Presidents decided to share information that was ridiculously uncalled for, like Bill Clinton, who felt the urge to discuss his underwear with the American people in 1992 (Hart and Triece). Although television has helped keep Americans more in tune with political events, it also has created a platform for presidents to become actors, rather than being a President.
ReplyDeleteTelevision has played a huge role in the later end of the 1900s for presidential debates. The Kennedy-Nixon debate of 1960 reached more than 28 million homes. Many Americans around this time loved the idea of this way of communication, because they could be informed, and really get to know the presidents. This number grew for 20 years, reaching a peak of 80 million people watching the Carter, Reagan, and Anderson debate of 1980. Americans loved this, until the realized much of this information in these debates was nonsense, in which number nearly dropped to where they were in 1960. So by 1996, only 30 million homes really cared about these debates. (Chart) Ted Koppel, a newscaster who is best known for appearing on the news show, “Nightline,” wrote about how these debates were not even debates at all. “Two reporters sat and asked questions... Each man was supposed to answer only the questions he was asked.” He later went on to write about how the debate was just an “act of rhetorical contortion for one man to address himself to what one of his rivals had said.” Sadly, these ninety minute events were usually cut down to three minutes by a news outlet that took bits and pieces from the good parts of the debates, which made them somewhat useful debates. Though television has allowed Americans to see the political world more thoroughly, it has made Americans realize most of this world does not affect them as much as they once thought. (Koppel)
The presidential image of any president in today’s world usually seems to appeal to Americans by image, rather than by views. A man named Theodore H. White once argued that John F. Kennedy had an upper hand in his presidential debates due to his image, rather than his content. Surprisingly, he had pointed out that those who listened to the debates on a radio had believed the debates were totally a stalemate, yet, when one watched it on a television, they believed Kennedy was the winning candidate without a doubt in mind. Why? Because Kennedy’s appearance was much more professional; good posture, and “crisp.” Nixon, however, looked quite old, and did not fit the status quo. Of course, both candidates had the right messages, and seemed to both qualify for a good president at the time, appearance seemed to be a deciding role to the American people. One commentator spoke out in a magazine, saying, “An effective president must be every year more concerned with projecting images of himself.”(Menand)
It is impossible to say that television has not created a great place for information, where Americans can find true sources of information about someone in power. It is, on the other hand, possible to say that this platform for information has been distorted to fit a norm that appearances seem to outweigh ideals. Citizens seem to feel as one president is more fitting than another because he is younger, or his suit jacket looks sharp. Although appearance can be important to looking professional, positions on tough arguments should be far more important.
Great job, I think your points on people forming their opinions based on the visual aspect of the candidates was compelling. We focus too much on the materialistic side, rather than acknowledging whether or not the person is qualified to rule the country.
DeleteThis is a great analysis. I used some of the sources you used, but the way you organized your points worked very well. You also did a good job recognizing and countering the benefits of television in politics.
DeleteWow Mark! This is really great. It is a very well organized piece of writing, but it’s also packed full of creativity. You used your sources to their extent. To agree with Vivian, you countered the benefits effectively. All of these things made for a wonderful read, well done!
DeleteMark, great analysis! You had a great thesis statement, which I think really set this piece up for success. I liked your point about what does and doesn’t matter regarding who our president is. Well done!
DeleteUnknown is Kara VanEerden but my blog is broken
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteReality is skewed. The American people consume unfathomable amounts of “fake news” every single day. This concept is far from new, today it is not unusual to see entertainment touted as “reality” yet it’s actually a moderately scripted program designed to grab watchers attention with drama filled happenings of elitist class lives. However, the Kardashians are not the only people being portrayed as something they very well may not be, as televised events such as presidential debates, commercials, and appearances have been around since the 1940s (source A). Presidents, the rulers of the United States of America, can be so easily shown as people they are not.
ReplyDeleteThe election process was ever changed after the rise of television. Looking at JFKs victory over his opposing candidate, Richard Nixon, author Louis Menand points out that Kennedy was portrayed far more polished and dapper than Nixon was. In fact, the coverage of Nixon was so often dull and of lesser quality than Kennedy’s. For this somewhat trivial reason, Menand concurs that television appearances had an incredibly large impact of voters in this election, allowing for Kennedy to dominate over Nixon (source C).
Presidents have been put on a platform similar to that of celebrities. Take the Clinton presidency as an example. In an interview in April of 1992, Clinton assured America of his undergarment of choice (source B). This is a puzzling display of honesty that would be normalized for that of a movie star to tell the world in a cheeky interview, but for the president, it is simply not presidential behavior. One may argue it allows for a sense of relatability to the president, although, the presidents job is not to be “relatable.” It is to run the country responsibly and in a direction that benefits all or most citizens. Television has destroyed this mentality almost entirely.
It is harmful in its own right to put on a facade for hundreds of thousands of people, but it is outright dangerous for presidential candidates to be put on such a visual platform that allows for audiences to see the candidates as the television network portrays them. There are very few non biased news sources in this day and age. (Unfinished)
I liked your opening paragraph, definitely some great modern day points. Your point about the Clinton presidency and doing their job instead of being “relatable” was great, good work!
DeleteI really liked your opening paragraph and how you used an example for todays society. Your facts were very organized and well written.
DeleteThe increasing popularity of televisions in the mid to late 20th Century allowed for a new level of insight relating to politics, the American people were now able to get a more in-depth look at the candidates and what they were going to do. Televisions restored the feeling of lost contact when it came to understanding who was being elected and everything that was going on (Source A). Televisions also had the great ability to inform and stimulate the political interests of the American electorate (Source A). Candidates used, and still use, televised media as leverage for propelling their ideas, beliefs, possible policies, and much more to the American people.
ReplyDeleteDebates among presidential candidates became increasingly popular and indisputably necessary in aiding the election process. In a debate scenario, candidates were able to challenge each other, in a sense, with regards to how well they could come across to their American audiences. Debates being televised was essentially the only way to send the message to all Americans, or at least those with television sets. In fact, today, not televising a debate would seem undemocratic (Source C). It would actually be quite pointless to leave debates un-televised, as the only people who would see the entire process would be the people who attended it. Lyndon B. Johnson, while running for re-election was a strong advocate for reporting on politics, he favored a man named Walter Conkite. Conkite was a CBS newscaster that reported on, and gave, political opinions to millions watching at home. Americans were able to hear accurate information and it greatly influenced their political opinions, a strategy appreciated by Lyndon Johnson (Source E). Some argue that candidates, in the early days of debating, candidates, such as JFK believe his victory was largely a triumph of image over content (Source C). Although meaning, with regards to candidates wanting a specific portrayal shown to the public, it cannot be applied to the campaign process as a whole. In reality, the Kennedy debates sparked the popularity for debating from then on. Between the years 1960 and 1980, the numbers of people watching televised presidential debates grew existentially. Between those 20 years nearly 18 million more homes began tuning into the televised debates. Also, using the numbers from other data in the graph, the amount of people watching went from probably around 10-12 million in 1960 to 80.6 million in 1980 (Source C). 80.6 million people in 1980 was 36% of the entire population of the United States in 1980. This data shows the immense amount of engagement Americans had with these televised debates. Numbers between these years most likely grew as well because television were slowly becoming more advanced and more American families were purchasing them. Although there was a staggering drop in these numbers by 1984, the remaining numbers are still very significant. Taking into account the many more forms of media that were developing at this time can explain why more people were becoming less intrigued by televised debates.
(Conintued)
ReplyDeleteTelevised political affairs were, and continue to be, an essential part of America, it is a person’s job to decipher what they should believe. Common sense is a strategy so often left behind in politics. Not only do debates help candidates to put their message out there, but it also aids in Americans’ decisions, basing their vote off of how certain candidates present themselves. Without debates or others mass media programs including presidential candidates, Americans voters’ opinions would be completely clouded. Media, through television, gives the everyday American access to gain insight on how their political candidate of choice presents him or herself, and their desires for helping the country. Media also allows for the portrayal of some candidates’ shortcomings, not necessarily with malicious intent, but to provide accurate information on what to expect from the candidate. After all, some of the most hard-hitting presidential scandals were so publicized because of televised media, to show Americans the corruption that is detrimental to their society. Television in politics is an absolute essential piece of the puzzle that puts both the presidential candidate, and the voter, in an advantageous spot in the election.
I liked how you argued for the positive effect of televised debates, as that was not a popular opinion in the other blogs. Source A definitely showed the positives that can come from television, so I think you ddI a great job in highlighting its points.
DeleteI personally thought arguing the positives of televised debates in American politics was more difficult than arguing the negatives, so I appreciate you tackling the subject so well. It was clever how you pointed out how several scandals surfaced because of television, even though this point wasn’t included in the samples we were given. You closed the essay really well, and it was an overall pleasure to read.
DeleteIt is clear that mass media, specifically television, has drastically changed the dynamic of modern society. Evidence of this can be effectively observed based on presidential elections throughout history. Based on the deterioration of boundaries, unnecessary drama, and morphed incentives of presidential candidates, the evidence suggests that television has brought negative effects upon the entire election process.
ReplyDeleteThe leader of our nation should be a respectable, put together individual that millions of people can look up to. This mean that not every detail of their lives should be shared with the public. Personal lives are called personal lives for a reason, and exposing certain parts of these things can be not only humiliating, but totally detrimental to their demeanor as a leader. For example, Bill Clinton was once interviewed about his underwear. The information he shared was simply too much, and it wouldn’t have been broadcasted at all without persistent pressure by the media (Hart and Triece). The positions that they are put in can very easily warp the way they are viewed by the problem. Respect is vitally important in a healthy relationship between a people and their president, and the way of the modern world is making this more and more difficult to achieve.
Secondly, a candidate for president clearly has a lot going on for them in the months leading up to the election. In today’s world, it as absolutely necessary for someone running to have a significant presence on television if they want a chance in office. This means designing and shooting campaign ads, as well as reacting to any messages opposing their campaign effectively. They have to not only develop their ideals and policies as always, but decide very quickly how they want to look and sound as they are doing so. One commentator described the situation with these words, “An effective President must be every year more concerned with projecting images of himself.” It becomes a means of distraction, and creates opportunities for messages to be manipulated by the media (Menand). A candidate has very little control over these things, yet they could be the difference between winning or losing.
Finally, the attention that television gives to those pursuing the presidency can make people put the wrong goal in mind. They perceive a spot in the election as a pathway to fame, and are not really thinking about being an effective leader. These people probably won’t win an election, and all they’re really doing is making the whole process more complicated. They act as an annoyance to the people who actually want to do a good job. The whole event is presented in a way that the public only sees the highlights, so sometimes people with showy personalities can seem more qualified than people with genuinely good values (Koppel). Mindset is everything, and it is clear that the media does not have a positive effect on this aspect of a person.
Television and the presidential election go hand in hand in the world, but should they? After looking more closely at the way boundaries have changed, the increase in petty drama, and motivations behind running, the answer could very easily be no. It is hard to imagine what the world would be like if it went back to the way things were, to a simpler time.
You're opening paragraph was incredibly strong. I liked how you dealt with the deterioration of boundaries. I think society has lost control of right and wrong. I used the same sources in my essay, so I have to agree with your take on this situation. You had a well constructed essay, and you organized your sources well.
DeleteTelevision is heavily involved in politics. This has become more apparent over time, especially in presidential elections. The effects of thorough media coverage are intense, and cannot be considered positive. The involvement of television in presidential elections over time has created negative effects due to the pursuit of an image rather than ideals and the fact that what is portrayed on television is easily manipulated.
ReplyDeleteWhen televisions became commonplace in American homes, people believed that a better understanding of government would occur because of the effortless access to information. However, this did not exactly prove to be true. Americans were and are able to easily access information about political leaders. Unfortunately, most of this information became watered down, scandalous, confusing, or only serving to develop one’s image. There is a specific instance during Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign in which he shared details about his underwear to the American people at large (Source B). He shared this information as an answer to a question. This instance shows that people began to use the platform of television as a way to know things about the president, not what the president is doing or plans to do for the country. This personal assessment of a presidential candidate shows that people involved in the television age hold their president at the same level as an actor or a rockstar. People have become more interested in an MTV-style interview than one that sheds light on the future of the country. This shift in attitude moves importance away from a president’s ideals and onto his or her image.
The importance of image over ideals is further demonstrated in the 1960 debates between Kennedy and Nixon. It was a common belief at this time that the debate is what decided the election. Theodore White, writer of “The Making of the President 1960”, supported this belief. He also believed that the television setup of the debate “dumbed down” the important material. Because the debate was being broadcast, candidates had to answer their questions on the spot and were asked different questions, not necessarily responding to each other. By setting up the content in a way for the American people to easily understand, the actual value of the information was wiped away. White also supplied a statistic that people who listened to the debates on the radio felt that they were a draw, whereas those who watched on television felt that Kennedy crushed Nixon. White believed that this change of opinion in television viewers is because Kennedy’s image was crisp and sharp, while Nixon was not as fashionably prepared (Source C). This is a clear demonstration of image winning out over ideals, all coming from the effects of television.
The effects of television are once again made clear in a reflection by Ted Koppel, a member of “Nightline.” Koppel explains his position by saying that he has two options in the television world: put out mindless content and appeal to the masses, or share the truth and risk losing support. He chooses the latter when he explains the contortion carried out in the broadcasting of a recent presidential debate. He says that the so called “debate” was a joke, and yet “Nightline” was able to gather certain amounts of coverage that allowed it to look like a good debate (Source F). This manipulation of coverage is just another illusion that television spins onto politics.
As television becomes further involved in politics and presidential elections, the leaders of America become even more skewed. They must learn to care more about how people view them personally, rather than the work they are doing for those same people. Television has allowed presidents to become stars rather than leaders. People can no longer receive unbiased political opinion.
Good job showing your view on the negative effects of the media. You wrote your views in a clear and concise way that made the writing strong.
DeleteThe way you stressed how it now appears as though image is more critical than ideals was really effective and made your blog an enjoyable read. It was interesting that you stated presidents seem to be more like stars rather than leaders because I wouldn’t have thought of that particular wording. Your blog was really intelligently written, convincing me that you really thought about what you were writing.
DeleteKara VanEerden
DeleteI liked the way you focused on image throughout this essay, in the end that’s what everything comes back to and you did a beautiful job putting that together. This is well organized and thought out, good work!
Before the invention of television, presidential candidates only had the task of focusing on their job and working as hard as they could. When the new era started, television completely changed the way people thought about the presidential elections. The candidates started to focus more on the image that would be shown to the world and the men started to be judged on how they looked and acted instead of their ideas(C). After the creation of the television, many negative effects followed surrounding the presidential elections.
ReplyDeleteThe media has become increasingly full of false or one sided reporting. It is difficult to accurately receive information about the presidential candidates without it having been edited or changed to seem more appealing to Americans. The presidential debates are an extremely important event that helps people learn more about their future president. The men are asked important questions that they must promptly answer and it continues until the debate ends. Any news station that filmed the event could easily edit and changed how the men looked to influence people a certain way(F). Then after watching the edited version people may start to think the way the station intended. This is not good because people are not given all of the information to form their own opinions about the candidates.
The media has the ability to influence the way citizens think and the president himself. President Johnson in 1968 still had the idea that the American troops could win the Vietnam war. He had been increasing the army’s presence there slowly for five years and never stopped having faith in a victory(E). After five years of unwavering faith, one newsman had the ability to change the way the president felt about the war. Walter Cronkite was a CBS newsman that had earned the respect of the president. After hearing what President Johnson had to say about the war, Walter went to Vietnam to see if they were close to a victory. When he came back to America, he reported that it was a horrible mess with no chance of a victory. He explained that there was no way for America to win and they need to negotiate for an end(E). The president saw the news cast and knew that Walter’s influence on the American citizens would turn them against them. So shortly after Johnson started the process of ending the war and did not run for another election.
Even though the media does not always have a good effect, it has become a social norm for society. If the process of re elections started, people would expect to see daily updates on the television(C). People all over the world are able to have a direct connection to everything that is happening in Washington(A). It has become more difficult to truly know the presidential candidates due to the changing society. However, through the media, the people of America have become more united and more capable of deciding the presidential candidate.
I liked how much you focused on source C, as it really shows how much others opinions can change our views on candidates. The way you relied on the sources proved that people focus too much of image and others opinions rather than the presidential candidates ideas.
DeleteGood job Soph! I agree with Megan, your focus on one source specifically was really great! You brought connections with that source all throughout your essay. I also enjoyed your point regarding social norms of today. Overall, really great insight, good job!
DeleteTelevision can serve as a window into the world of heavy politics. It provides on opportunity for viewers to see candidates and future Presidents in a way they wouldn’t have been able to without the presence of screen. It has been described as an entity that sees all, and therefore is capable of providing what it captures to the American public. This is a power that certainly holds potential for good, but also has the ability to distort the image of those who appear on its screen. It can be argued that television can be used to turn a professional and stoic persona into one that is immature and flippant (Source B). For the former president Bill Clinton, he experienced a time during his campaign years when he was asked a trivial question regarding his undergarments on television. Afterwards, it was revealed that the question exposed how presidents are losing their professional appearances in favor of one that is more inappropriate for their profession (Source B). There are other occasions for which similar occurrences have taken place. Debuting on September 26 of the year 1960, a televised broadcast depicting a series of Kennedy-Nixon debates was aired on various networks to the American public. According to the author Theodore H. White, it appeared that Kennedy’s success was largely based off the image he portrayed whilst on television. It could be argued that if someone more sophisticated in looks and social mannerisms than Richard Nixon was up against Kennedy, then Kennedy might have not won the votes in the 1960 election. On the radio, Kennedy and Nixon seemed equally matched, but since the debate was able to be televised, many people were in favor of the better dressed Kennedy (Source C).
ReplyDeleteRelatability to the president could be lost as well as the feeling of being tightly involved with the affairs of the country should television be removed as a means to listen to the Commander in Chief, as one may argue. However, the voice of the president, his viewpoints, the strategies he plans to utilize, and the power within his message are all citizens truly need from a debate or public appearance. Relatability is not what is really important in a political campaign, but rather, the responsibility a candidate has when tackling the issues he discusses (Source A). An effective president cannot be totally concerned with image and the desire to achieve “good” ratings. They must be someone who is willing to get their hands dirty by tackling the problems within society that not many would be willing to handle. Ted Kopple produced an article that voices his worries about this topic. He made a point to note how most candidates these days and in recent years have been more focused on pleasing the majority of audiences with beating around the bush on a topic, rather than getting straight to the point on issues that actually matter (Source F).
The television ratings for presidential debates between the years of 1960 through 1996 have actually shown a steady decrease in the amount of views they gather for each broadcast. The ratings were at their peak during the first televised broadcast in 1960, which displayed Nixon and Kennedy, with a 59.5 rating. Those numbers have been going down by several million every election. The rating was most likely so high the first time around because of America’s initial fascination with the visuals provided by television (Source D).