Media Craze

Since 1960, new, if not then different, forms of media have greatly influence the Presidential elections. Before 1960, television was new, and radio was the sole medium in which the public could listen to the presidential debates. The alternative was paying to see the presidential candidate at a dinner, or a convention, etc. However, even paying for these visits were expensive, therefore, a voter would probably base their opinion on propaganda distributed throughout the streets or radio.  However, in the presidential campaign I for the 1960 elections, the democratic candidate, Kennedy, and the republican candidate, Nixon, were the first to have their presidential debate broadcasted on television. The appeal of having the ability to see the debate in a more accessible and slightly affordable way, garnered more public attention. As a result, the elections were highly influenced by this new form of media. However, there were some misleading aspects as to how the American citizens voted. Not only did the voters base their final decision on their platform, but also the presence of the candidates. Kennedy had a more young, youthful, and well-dressed appearance on television in comparison to Nixon, who looked older, tired and less energetic. Television had the capacity to catch the public eye, but maybe not so much engage with the public mind like the radio had. It is a more superficial medium of media. So, there is definitely a lot of bias that contributed to the introduction of television as new media.

Fast forwarding into the 21^st century, not only is there television available to the public, but now there is the internet and mobile phones, in which people can access information from about the campaigns. The internet is very effective and efficient in giving the information to almost anybody. The public can base their judgments on more than just the newspaper or propaganda posted of posters in the streets. There is more information available to judge the candidates on. However, because anybody can have access to the internet and there are people who blog about the campaign or like to give their own opinion rather than base their writing and information on fact, campaign can be negatively impacted.  It is more about public appearance, and from that, perception—do I want this person to be the FACE of our country? Reputation has also been something highly considered. Take for instance the Watergate scandal. The effect of the political scandal ruined his pubic appeal AND reputation, which forced President Richard Nixon to resign. The same can happen to the new generation of American presidents. If they say one thing to the public, a blogger, journalist, witness, even a random citizen can easily look online and see if their statement is even slightly false and report it publicly. There were pictures online that showed Obama looking at a woman with a lustful eye from the neck down. But a few days later, it was revealed that it was cropped, and he was actually focusing his attention on the people down the stairs behind the woman that was in the picture. I am not bashing on the internet and how it fails people in giving the right information, but there are definitely many faults to the new media that just has to be looked at carefully.