In recent history, Presidential campaigns have transformed from policy driven to media spectacles, which do not necessarily discuss the major issues in depth. The general public nowadays has access to an abundance of information concerning each candidate, from their views on abortion to what cereal they eat in the morning, and which pant leg they put on first in the morning. These minute details only contribute to the idea that “news” of the campaigns is not necessarily hard-hitting or investigative. Kaid’s chapter 9 of the “Handbook of Political Communication Research” discusses how elections currently resemble horse races and other large media events (238). Campaign journalism has become saturated with stories of various blunders and errors the candidates have made. Kaid states on page 240 that “researchers have shown that the most common themes of campaign stories are those that are simply about what is happening in the campaign itself (Hess 2000).” Candidates have become celebrities in their own right, taking over the pages of not only newspapers, but gossip magazines as well, as campaigns have become personality driven matters. We, as the general public, now feel as though we personally know each candidate. As Hart discusses in chapter 3, people are now using the same judgment to pick a President as they use to pick a spouse or a golf partner (52). He also argues that instead of using traditional political knowledge to pick a President, “personality politics” has become the most common way to judge the candidates, and thus chose a President.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/09/mccain_manager_this_election_i.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1eg0zFmAOM
9 comments:
Personally I feel that the elections have become some what of an adult popularity contest among the candidates. Rather then focusing on their agenda or goals for the country we are spoon fed all this information about their personal lives and what they have done. In politics today by the time the conventions roll around we are sure as to who is going to be running for president what is the need for all the show boating and over the top sets? Or why is there so much emphasis placed on their background sets or their attire anyway? When it comes down to it would you rather have a president who can keep us safe or a president who wonders if his suit is going to clash against the back drop while making a speech? While I feel that being personable or instilling a feeling of comfort in citizens I don't think it's the right way to vote in a president. Perhaps in this day in age we rather know the personal info about the candidates then their actual policies because in this media driven would frankly that information is juicier. I think the example of the Kennedy Nixon debates shows the affects of media in it's earlier stages and just shows how we have evoloved and used T.V in some way to influence or decision on who to vote for based on appearance rather then actual policies.
In the world today looks and personality seem to get you ahead of everyone else. Isn’t that the stereotypical way to measure success? Sadly it has become pure reality and in the epitome of the 2008 presidential elections. From “Barbie doll” Cindy McCain to Michelle Obama a clone of Jackie Kennedy to Barack’s suit and John McCain’s tie, are looks overshadowing the issues? Along with looks comes personality. You can tell a lot about a person by the way they dress, and their mannerisms but can you tell where they stand on issues? The answer is most likely no. If a person wears a red suit and comes up to you and gives you a handshake and a hug are you automatically going to say they are prochoice? they want to cut taxes? Or they support the war in Iraq? Probably not. The sad part is that most people don’t care as long as they get that hug. Getting to know the candidates has becomes a “E! true Hollywood story” of their lives instead of their platform for what they stand for and what issues they are concerned about. I blame the media for a lot of what is happening. The medias desire to invade the candidates lives and get all the juicy gossip has turned the presidential campaign into a high school prom queen popularity contest. Personality over policy is the new ideology for this year’s campaign and frankly what is that going to do for our country? Just because a candidate has a great smile, dresses well and can take a decent picture that should make him President of the United States? No way! The issues need to be more focused on. The terrible state our country is in needs to be fixed. The only way that is going to happen is If the focus shifts and policies and issues are the main focus. Leave the designer clothes and fancy hairstyles at home and bring the issues to the white house this November!
What it comes down to is that people want someone in presidancy that they can relate and feel connected to. It is not that policy issues have been put on the back burner it is just now more than ever people are searching for a connection with the candidates and the ones they relate to the most are most likely going to get their vote. In this weeks readings we learned all about the media and how it impacts viewers and what I found throughtout every reading was that without media intervention politics would be cut and dry with minimal interest to the average person. People need candidates with real life issues and problems. Yes candidates in this 2008 election are wearing designer dresses and expensive suits but if they werent the public would ridicule them just the same. The public is going to have something to say no matter what. This is not to say however that image is everything because it is not. But image is what is going to get that party member elected into office. Waterman says, "Presidents must control what the media writes about them. If they do not, they may lose control of their image and the way the public perceives them (128). Image counts for a lot these days and every candidate is trying to live up to the viewers standards.
Media attacks have occurred since the birth of American politics, but fast forward to present day and these attacks have changed drastically. This is manly because the medium for reporting has changed. I believe it is a huge problem that U.S citizens are basing their votes on personality instead of policy. The new President should be the man (or woman) best fit for the job, not the person who makes you feel warm and fuzzy. Fox News aired a segment this summer on the weekends about “getting to know your Presidential Candidate.” It was a great segment. It would inform viewers of the differences between McCain and Obama on issues like healthcare, economy and the war. I made note of the segment because it was really the only air time Fox gave to comparing the two presidential hopefuls on the issues. News organizations spent a lot of time bashing Obama when he couldn’t give a smooth unscripted answer and attention is still being put on the fact that McCain is old, but what about policy? I feel like I really know the Presidential candidates, but how come I still have questions on what they stand for? The media can’t be fully blamed. Just like the title of our text book says, image is everything for a President. The media is so visual, it is only natural that a large part of politics is based on how public figures “perform” in front of the camera. It is a shame, however, that Hart is right when he says “Americans not only know less about politics, we care less as well”(55). I believe this is because of other forms of entertainment like the internet, movies and television shows that distract people from caring about serious issues. It is a shame more attention is put on how a candidate handles a political debate than what the debaters say…and sadly, I don’t see this changing any time soon.
As everyone else has already stated, it is clear that Americans do get very distracted during the election process by the personality and “celebrity” of the candidates. The gossip and scandals that surround them do make many people judge their character and therefore they begin to question if whether or not one’s personal life or character will affect their role in the white house. I can completely understand why people have become more and more concerned with the presidential candidates personalities. As the Handbook of Political Communications Research states, “radio and television broadcasting brought citizens into intimate, if synthetic, contact with the candidates and the campaign” (Kaid 241). I think that this intimacy has caused individuals to feel as if they are building a relationship with these candidates through the media. Although I also agree with the above blogger when he/or she says that the media cannot be fully blamed. Each person has individual responsibility to know that a speech is much different when written, than when said in front of a camera at an over-the-top-party convention. As the Washington post article mentioned, Sarah Palin’s speech may have been considered somewhat generic to some, but her presentation, both physically and verbally are what really interested the public. After her recent controversy with her teenage daughter, many people may have been judging her every move based upon that personal information, where in reality it would probably not change whether or not she qualifies to the next vice president. It is easy to get distracted by so many anecdotes and meaningless gossip, but in the end citizens should focus on the candidate’s ideas and qualifications.
interesting question you pose. i for one think that it may be a good thing that we want to have dinner with some of these candidates. as i said in class i would like to have dinner with Winston Churchill because not only do i consider him a great leader, but generally a really cool person and a politician i could actually have a drink with. but then again Churchill was a one of a kind leader.
on the flip side, to kind of bring into retrospective the power of TV in harts eyes, the media can make any candidate seem like someone you would want to have lunch with. with coverage being around the clock and with us feeling as though we know everything about this person we may feel more informed. with this new perspective the campaign becomes less about the candidates stances on the important issues and more so about how you "feel" about the candidates and if they would fit into your family.
so is this trend a problem or a welcome change of pace? well i believe that if we balance both sides the outcome could be a better decision on a candidate. for example i respect someone who is a family man and i believe someone who is a good father is already able to multi-task and has a good set of morals. now if i combine this with someone who has a good stance on my view on the issues I've not only found a candidate, but I've also found someone who i can trust as president and will stick to their word. someones personal life definitely has an effect on their job and you can tell a lot about how a person will run something by the way they operate in their personal life. the key here is balancing the issues and the persons personal life. electing someone based solely on their personal life can be dangerous.
to answer the second question, i believe that personality has become a bigger issue because the voters are finally feeling a connection to the candidates they choose, and they have to be loving it. before all candidates were just that, candidates. can you relate to a senator who is rich, powerful, and helps make decisions for the whole country. or can you relate to someone who loves lost, appreciates Starbucks coffee, and thinks the dark knight was a great movie. i don't know if any senator actually has those feelings but the point is that by making it more about personality people can actually connect to their candidates and the effects could be colossal on a campaign. the effects could be more loyal "fans" and more people becoming interested due to the fact that they feel that connection.
a great example of this can be found on page 52 of Seducing America. on this page Hart talks about Ross Perot's campaign and how TV got him closer to the viewers. Hart says "despite its leaders millions, the Perot Campaigns of 1992 and 1996 were largely grassroots affairs" (Hart 52)he attributes this to the power of TV and Perot's mastery over it. again people want to relate to a candidate and feel comfortable with the candidate, which is why we have switched from facts to personalities.
This is the first presidential election that I have been able to vote in so I’m trying to pay as much attention to what’s going on as possible, but it’s getting hard to really figure out what each candidate stands for. Almost every time I hear something about the candidates it seems that there’s something about their personality. I mean of course I want a president who has good speaking skills and is able to hold a conversation, but I would also like to know where each candidate stands on important issues. I feel like almost every time I turn on the news and they’re talking about the conventions the first thing they talk about is which celebrities were there or other things that really don’t have anything to do with what was said. “It is important to note that the media play an integral role in establishing the president’s image” (Waterman 128). The media devotes a lot of time to “establishing the president’s image,” time that could be used to educate voters about what’s going on. so they can make an informed decision.. I also think that some people do find it important to feel like they know the president on a personal level, which is why I think that personality and other not so important things have been the focus of the media.
In today's world "personality" is more important than the where the politician actually stands. It is my opinion that the public knows more about Sarah Palin's background and family than her actual views as a politician. Everyone knows and discusses her family, her looks, and that overall fact that she is a woman. I have never heard anyone discuss her stance on any policies, or even anything about the discrepancies she had while being senator of Alaska, it all seemed to be over-shadowed by the "juicier" story. Today's society thinks more about how cool something is rather than how it may effect them in the long run. Celebrity, Kirsten Dunst was spotted at the DNC, not listening to speeches or cheering on any of the politicians, but guzzling down booze by the bar. People look at these celebrities, which is the "fad" of our generation, and tend to have their opinions swayed. I believe, that people should be more informed on the actual speeches and views of the politicians rather than the other people voting, or what the politician looks like, or how many children their children are having.
I feel that the "personality problem" is here to stay and there is not a lot we can to do change it. Years ago, before YouTube and text messages ruled the world, people had no choice but to focus on the issues that Presidental candidates presented because certain aspects of information had not yet been made available to them. Now, as we have discussed in class, image is everywhere and everything.
Yes, I do think it is important for a president to have somewhat of a personality. We want our country to be represented in a nice way, so it would help to have a leader who can really draw in a crowd. We need a leader who can talk to other countries and arrange for peace, so a friendly face and a good attitude would definitely not be a bad thing. However, we also really do need to look at the policies.
In our current world, people complain every day about everything. I can't go anywhere without hearing somebody complaining about the cost of a cup of coffee or how their wallets are empty after filling up their tanks of gas. I hear the sadness in people's voices when they talk about our troops overseas. And I am guilty of all these things as well. However, what people need to realize is, it is because of our Presidental policies that the world has become like this.
I am not blaming one President over another, I am just saying that most of the things that people complain about are things that our government has some part in deciding. So if people want to fix these problems, they should not just focus on a friendly face, but a good policy as well.
Post a Comment