How the media influences political elections
How the Media Influences Political Elections It is sadly no mystery that most American’s learn their information concerning upcoming political elections from the media. Most of these people have never talked with a politician, done independent research on one, or even taken a class about politics to further their understanding of the issues at hand. The media hand feeds the people what they want them to know, thus leading to a biased election. It was hugely prevalent when looking at the first televised debate in 1960 that the media had stumbled on a great injustice to the American people, and to the candidates themselves. American politics are now viewed by foreign countries as “made for television” with campaigns that slide neatly into 3-second television advertisements. The people are taking politics much less seriously due to the fact that their informant, the American media, is more interested in making a spectacle and electing their particular candidate than in the issues or what really matters, who is most capable for the job. September 26, 1960 was the day that changed American politics forever. On this day 70 million people watched then Senator John F. Kennedy and then Vice President Richard Nixon debate live on te . . .
Media influences the people with their election votes. It is impressive that shows such as Jay Leno, Oprah Winfrey, Larry King and even Howard Stern were considered to be “news” shows. They do this by using two major things, one being political advertising and the other is using the news shows as campaigning. Howard stern must do a minute of news in between the banana sucking contests and dates with porn stars which would definitely classify his show as news. The media had a field day this past election with there being 135 candidates running for California governor. Preceding a major election the average television viewer will see more slanderous ad’s than they will positive ones. They command ideals and theories that the American people adopt as their own. Had this been a pervious option other great leaders wouldn’t have been elected based on appearance. With this act one would assume that the FCC would be following it diligently to ensure that no candidate got an unfair advantage. When the candidate market so to speak becomes so incredibly saturated as it did this past governor election in California, the media should be responsible for weeding out the true candidates from the people who just want their 15-minutes of fame. The FCC not only looked the other way when they knew that he was getting more coverage, but also bent their own rule to allow it. In the end the race was close, yet Kennedy prevailed. The question though is will they do it, or continue these disturbing trends? . It is true that television is a democratic medium, however, with the FCC breaching the 1934 Communications Act it is hard to tell just how democratic it will remain. They are concerned that their politics will come to be “made for television,” with political campaigns slickly packaged to fit into 30-second advertisements and sound bites of the candidates’ most quotable quotes for the evening news.
Common topics in this essay:
Howard Stern, Franklin Roosevelt, Political Elections, Richard Nixon, Stephen Ansolabehere, Slanderous TV, Act Equal, Arnold Swarzenegger, Communications Act, american people, american politics, changed american politics, changed american, unfair advantage, media spectacle, porn stars, communications act, political advertising, television democratic, democratic medium, 1934 communications act, |
Acceptance Essays
