It’s the last leg of a political election. Candidates are tirelessly campaigning, television ads ring loudly in sets across America, and town halls will soon be busy with the activity of voters, but do we really know our Candidates? Many people say the 2008 election feels like the longest political processes in American history. But even with the extensive coverage it has attracted, I’m not convinced the average American is familiar with the candidate’s policy. Sure, people may know that McCain is old and Obama’s middle name is Hussein but what about their political views? It’s easy to know more about a candidate’s personal life than about how they would govern because these light hearted stories can be found everywhere. Personal information is entertaining, easy to understand, and draws in more viewers than stories about policy. But it’s the news media’s job to educate viewers, and quite frankly I feel they have dropped the ball. Just as an example- When I was interning at a news station over the summer I noticed the producers added a segment called “know your presidential candidate.” It was a 5 minute segment that focused on the difference in policy between McCain and Obama. I thought it was an interesting segment, and a refreshing change of pace for the news media. The point of this story is that I don’t think segments on policy should feel like a “refreshing change of pace”, they should be the norm. Turn to any news organizations political homepage and you will find very few stories about policy. I just clicked on the Fox News political page and learned that “Obama shattered another Record”, “Obama’s camp thinks election is just a formality”, and “Palin keeps mentioning Wardrobe Controversy” but none of these stories tell me anything about how they will lead. (http://elections.foxnews.com/.) Looking back on the past few months, do you think the media focused on stories unrelated to policy and if so, how do you feel this effects the viewing audience?
In Seducing America, Roderick P. Hart says, “Television has given the American people a “sense of knowing” that sustains them during the political blizzard. By making politics personal, television empowers the voter, encouraging him or her to use universal criteria when making political judgments, the same criteria used when choosing a spouse or a golfing partner (52). I agree with Hart. I believe person can feel the “know” a presidential candidate, without knowing a thing about why they are running. Throughout this blog, I have blamed the media for running these “fluff stories” to draw in more viewers, but candidates can take a piece of the blame as well. Presidential Candidates need to control their image very closely. Because of this, they may attack their opponent’s character- shedding negative attention on ‘the other guy’. In The Image is Everything Presidency, the authors Richard W. Waterman, Robert Wright and Gilbert St. Clair write “In [the election process], presidential candidates 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). Although this is true, I feel these “image making stories” have taken over the media leaving people less informed about the issues that really matter. These stories can be very important. They can speak a great deal about a candidate’s character but I believe the media is lacking a balance in the amount of attention these stories receive.
Now that the presidential race is coming to an end, look back on the sort of information you received from the media. Do you think the average American knows more about a candidate’s favorite vacation spot, than about their opinion on healthcare? Also, Do you think image making stories are more popular than stories relating to policy? If so, why?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
I agree with you 100%. Looking back over the last few months I can hardly recall a story that focused on the candidates political agendas. What effects has this had on the American public?
Well, to tell the truth its probably not much of a change from the norm in American reporting. I can’t remember a time when our media focused more on news and less on fluff or vicarious details... I feel like I’ve always had to dig for my news and I figure that’s the way it’s always going to be.
So if you’re asking if people are less informed than they were during the last presidential election I’d say the answer is no. But if you’re asking if I am happy with the way our media handles reporting I’d say HELL no.
At the very most all the news coverage has done during the last few months is tell the public a bunch of junk about the candidate’s families and birthplaces. Nothing that’s really relevant to the election process.
The problem is I do believe people are more prone to reading image making stories than they are at reading stories about the candidate’s political agendas. Why? Image making stories are easy to read, easy to digest, and they make people feel goooood about their political candidates. Who wants to worry about the war in Iraq when they can hear about how much of a family man Obama is or how many grandchildren McCain has?
Not to be over cynical but I think our public and media providers need a wake-up call. STEVE H.
I also agree with you. I am a political science minor and taking 2 poli sci classes this semester. If I wasn't taking these classes I think that I would be just as out of touch with policies as everyone else seems to be. Especially listening to my friends talk politics it is almost like they have no idea what they are talknig about and this isnt their fault. They listen to the media thinking that they are becoming informed but in reality they are just victims.
During this election I have noticed so much media atttention surrounding the candidates it is like all of them are "celebrities". Its ironic that McCain tried to hate on Obama for being a celebrity when his vice president seems to be getting more attention than any of them. We as Americans seemed to be drawn to drama and entertainment and the media has caught on to this. This is why they keep feeding us personal information about the candidate. It also gives us a sense that we actually know the candidate by gaining more and more information about them. Personally I do not feel closer to the candidate just because I know more about their personal life. Yes it is important for voters to be aware of the candidates background but thats where our knowledge should stay. We should be aware. And then we should also KNOW their policies front and back so we know why we are voting for the candidate. November 4th is approaching quickly and we are running out of time.
I definitely see where you are coming from... I feel like there are a minimal amount of people I can go to to talk about this election. Sure everyone has their Obama bumper sticker and what not but truthfully they probably have no clue as to what he actually stands for. To address your first question, do we really know our candidates; some yes and some definitely not. People do not know what Sarah Palin stands for, whether it be her views on the economy or foreign policy people are oblivious because honestly there is no way she would have the support she has (or did have ) if people truly knew what she stands for. It is all about image. People want to see drama and that is exactly what Palin brought to this race, and a whole lot of it. Do not get me wrong... I love watching Tina Fey impersonate her on SNL but trust me that is not who I want next in line for President. And why must she always refer to herself as an average woman or average mom. Sorry I do not want any average woman being the vice president of our country! Waterman et al says, "The common man image was popular during the nineteenth century and reflected the image of the president as an ordinary American. As the public came to expect its presidents to be more than ordinary individuals, the usefulness of the common man image declined" (23).
To get into your next question, I am not sure if the average American knows more about a candidate’s favorite vacation spot opposed to their view on healthcare but I think it is fair to say a good amount of the American population is either misinformed or uninformed. Too many people do not know what is going on and I am sorry but it is the peoples fault. The information is out there, it is everywhere. There is no reason someone should not know who the presidential candidates and their running mates are. (And believe me some people do not know!)
I totally agree with most of your statements. I think that it is important for America to feel comfortable with their upcoming president, this is true. So for most people, the way to gain a level of comfort is to know a person's personal lives. Perhaps knowing a little more about one candidate's favorite food and the other's number of pets can bring a sense of comfort to some people. However, I do think many Americans have become almost lazy.
Many Americans depend on the media for their information, but many only focus on the "celebrity" parts of the media and become bored when it's time to talk policy. I believe that in order for people to be at a COMPLETE comfort level, they need to know COMPLETELY about a candidate, which heavily includes the policies of that candidate.
In my opinion, for the past few months, the media has been taking delight in a circus. Talk of Palin's family drama, Joe the Plumber, and even evil plots have eaten up the screen. The media needs to focus more on policy and so do the American people.
Carley, I totally agree that even though this is only the second election I have been paying attention to, it does feel like the longest political process in history. The extensiveness and repetitiveness of this campaign got a little too ridiculous for me. As we have examined the media and news’ coverage of this election in depth, we never really discussed the idea of us feeling as if we really know our candidate. In fact, your right. Little has been said about the issues, and more has been said about their families, spending, appearances, and controversies. While I’m not saying that the news shouldn’t have covered this as well, where were the true, cold hard facts that are necessary in making educated decisions, such as voting in the next President of the United States?
As we have referred to Hart throughout the semester, in his book it states, that, “television brings intimacy between a viewer and a candidate.”(23) But is that true in this election? In all honesty, I don’t think so.
I can’t say I feel particularly close to either candidate. While I am passionate about my candidate, it has been through self education, not any information from the news.
While it has been fun to see Palin exhibit herself as an utter moron, and go on spending sprees, or keeping an eye out for the next nasty attack the candidates inflicted on one another – the news has not helped me to make a decision based on fact. Rather, the news media has done about the same for me as comedy shows. It has all pretty much been fluff, and hardly news at all.
The end is near is what I have been hearing from people and on local news stations. Really, the end? These individuals are referring to the end of the 2008 presidential campaign however is it okay to associate this campaign with such a negative connotation? Yes this campaign has been a long one, drawn out at times and probably lacking certain criteria however I tend to be bothered with hearing this expression. Most people say this like they are tired of hearing about the campaign as if they were so knowledgeable about everything and that is why they are happy it is almost over. Unfortunately that is not the case, just from my observations now more than ever more and more people seem to be more uneducated about our nation’s two candidates. I find myself conversing with individuals on how much Sarah Palin is spending on her wardrobe, or how McCain is older than their “great grandfather” or even how Barack has a funny name. Honestly, not once do I ever hear I completely agree with McCain’s position on Iraq or I think Obama’s economic plan could do wonders for the economy. It doesn’t surprise me that many young people think this way because that is also what they hear in the media. Image making stories have been in full gear this election period thanks to the media. However I do not think all the blame should be put on the media, people have the right in our country to educate themselves on the candidates and issues it is not just the media’s sole responsibility. The media doesn’t say watch television and you will be fully educated on the candidates yes television is a useful medium especially for the lazy individuals of America however it is not completely credible, especially when it comes to the idea of issue making. Hart states his opinion on television as a media source “The medium is here to stay and given its technological limitations it may already be doing the best it can with politics. But that does not mean that WE are doing the best we can and that is why this book was written,” (23).People still need to think for themselves and cant base their opinions on what the television says. They can take some of what they hear to formulate their ideas and feelings however with the way media has been this election. Everyone is so quick to blame the media about image making instead of quality candidate making however, what does it say about us as American, shallow? We can’t think for ourselves, we think image is everything? We need to step up and be the thinkers or someday soon our individualistic views will melt away.
For me personally I have followed this campaign much more probably because I can actually vote for this one. But for the most part I do not think people actually know the candidates. I think a lot of people's main reasons for voting one way as opposed to the other is because of the reason, "McCain has the same policies as Bush." That is enough for people to vote for Obama as opposed to McCain. With the War being such a big problem and the economy in such shambles people are looking for a savior to get them out of all the troubles and because McCain has all the same policies as Bush, he is not going to be the one making big enough changes to save this country. Looking back on the final presidential debate I thought it was great when McCain said, "I am not Bush." Everyone is giving him such a bad wrap because of all the policies. People are not going to give him a shot, so they just look at him like he is an idiot and he doesn't know what he is talking about.
The news media should educate the viewers, but I feel like the main reason that this election is getting so much coverage is because the media is doing such a great job. More importantly that the media trying to educate the viewers, media's main objective is to get the viewers and I feel like they have done a good job getting realing in the viewers. I feel that if people were actually very interested in either candidate it is their responsibility to find out the policies of that specific person.
As Hart states, "television brings intimacy between a viewer and a candidate.” (Hart 23)I don't completely agree with this sort of comment.Intimacy can be defined as close, familiar...etc. We all know that there are certain biases and just by watching a person on television does not mean that you know the person. The only way I believe a person could gain any sort of intimacy would be in person.
I agree that yes, the general public definitely know more about their personal lifes than they do their policies. Frankly, I think it all comes back to a popularity contest. The general public do not want to hear about foreign policies, they want to be interested and amused. I feel like more people now have there own thoughts about the election solely based on shows such as SNL, and the Daily Show, Late Night, etc. And are now going to go out and vote solely based on jokes and mock outs as opposed to voting for the right reasons.
"As the public came to expect its presidents to be more than ordinary individuals, the usefulness of the common man image declined" (23) Hart is referring to the president being a normal American. People do not want the president to be a normal american and that is why it has declined. For this particular election, I don't believe that either of the candidates are normal men and I do not think that either of them are going to be able to get the country out of the crisis that it is in now, atleast not in there four year terms.
IAN O.
I completely agree with your opinion and your views. There is nothing that bothers me more about watching the news then seeing what the producers feel the public needs to know about their candidates. Whether it is how many vacation homes McCain owns, what Barack Obama's origin is or just what their wives and children are doing. None of that seems necessary when they are not speaking about their actual policies and issues which the candidates wish to improve.
I believe that it is one of the main reasons that some people will not be voting in this election, they are unaware of the issues which the candidates are willing to face during their time in office.
In the Seducing America book, Hart writes, "Over the years, some authors have complained that the media's effects on campaign scheduling and financing have given them an unseemly amount of influence over political affairs. Others argue that television's modes of visual presentation produce cognitive laziness among voters and thus guarantee information loss in a campaign. Yet other scholars worry that television's avoidance of the issues threatens to undermine the political process" (53).
Television is beginning to ruin people's ideas of the candidates, they are beginning to see other sides of the people who are going to be running their country and they begin to question their trust in them. It is a terrible thing that the news media is getting involved and not just reporting the facts, when things begin to get personal, people lose hope and trust.
It is something which began to steer me away from this election, it was no longer about the politics of politics, but the politics of personal life.
I definitely agree with the notion that we know the candidates on a more personal level but do not know them as well on a political level. When this election first started, what feels like ten years ago, it was nice to know little tidbits about each candidate’s life, but after a while all the reporting about the candidates seemed to contain all filler and little substance. As I stated in my blog in the beginning of September, I’m sure that more people could tell you that McCain puts his right pant leg on first and Obama puts his left on first, but could not tell you either candidate’s economic policy. Something else that is extremely bothersome is the fact that many people feel as though they know the candidates on a personal level, and are therefore informed, but still believe that Obama is a Muslim. Talk about misinformation or ignorance.
The current state of news media in regard to politics is that human interest stories make for better news than a discussion of foreign policy does. Kaid states in the Handbook of Political Communication Research that “perhaps most notable is the drive to produce drama and emotionally charged material even where the resulting content may not bear much connection to social reality or public policy problems.”(286). Just yesterday I sat down to lunch with one of my friends who told me that she voted for Obama because she had just been abroad and he is popular overseas, so she thought it would be in the best interest of the country to vote for him. She then went on to tell me that she really had no idea where either candidate stood on the issues, but that she loved the dress Michelle Obama wore on the view and was now going to shop at White House Black Market. This friend then went on to discuss Bristol Palin’s pregnancy and what whacky name she was going to give her child. I then questioned her as to whether or not she researched the candidates, and she told me yes, that is exactly how she found out where she heard where Michelle Obama bought her dress.
Image making stories were extremely prominent in this election, but I do not believe that the blame can entirely fall on the media itself. It is simple supply and demand. If the human interest side of politics is exposed, people want to hear more and more and keep demanding it. Could you imagine the news without coverage of Cindy McCain’s wardrobe or Obama’s children? Probably not. In addition, while I agree with Lindsey’s comment in her response that it is the general public’s place to go out and find more information elsewhere when television is just not cutting it, I also believe that it is still the media’s place to provide the public with the most and the best information possible so that informed decisions can be made. In the Handbook of Political Communication Research, Kaid states “[there is a] dwindling space for serious political news itself. Over the past two decades the content of news in daily papers, television, newscasts, and magazines has shifted from substantial levels of reporting on government activities and policy problems to an increasing proportion of soft news features that resemble entertainment formulas more than t hey represent the kind of hard information that citizens might use in grasping the political events that affect their lives.”(283). While I am not making excuses for any laziness, there are people in our country to still fully expect to get their news from television. Some people may not have time to read a newspaper or cannot afford a computer, or for that matter, cannot use a computer to surf the internet. There still needs to be some valid and substantial content in the news media regarding politics.
I agree with you, as well. I believe, as it has been a focal point for numerous class discussions that this election has focused on the “celebrity” of the candidate and not the policy. It is my belief that it is more likely to find someone who knows when Sarah Palin was on SNL, or when Barack Obama was on David Letterman than their actual policies. In agreement with Erin, this political process has been extremely repetitive, and in all the wrong wise. Like wise I believe you should know about the candidate’s families and where they came from BUT on the other hand the cover of all the magazines dealt with Sarah Palin’s daughters pregnancy and nothing about politics. Also, I think that McCain took too much time opposing Obama and not enough time supporting himself; so it was even harder to follow the policies because they were hardly being discussed. Everything important was drowned out by what everyone has been calling, “fluff.”
I think that our society has become so enthralled with this celebrity idealism, from Britney to Lindsey that they couldn’t seem to look at the election any other way. A person who doesn’t follow politics probably knows how much money she spent during the campaign and might not know her social issues. A person may know (hopefully) that Obama would be the first African American president but know nothing about his economic plans. And these are the people that are voted? I just believe that the image factor played into this election way more than any type of policy for the simple fact that Obama’s favorite flavor of ice cream is most likely to be found or heard before what he is planning to do about health care. I just hope America is different the next time around because no matter who wins is that really how we want it to play out?
As the other bloggers have said, this campaign has focused on the celebrity aspects of the presidential elections as opposed to the politics.
I don’t mean to be cynical but the truth is I wasn’t surprised by the kind of campaigning we saw over the last year. While it’s regrettable, I can’t say it’s been much of a change from the garbage we’re used to receiving from our media outlets.
No matter where we look, our “News” seems to be based on celebrity gossip and vicarious details that don’t have any bearing on the real scheme of things. This has been true throughout the last year’s political campaign and unless a lot of things change by the end of Obama’s term we will see the same kind of political bullying and bickering during next election season.
The thing is, I think some Americans are actually getting tired of the media’s mindless reporting. AS of late I’ve been hearing a lot of young people speaking their minds about their dissatisfaction with the media’s attachment to gossip and soft news. As a matter of fact, I think a big reason Obama won this election was the kind of wording he used during his campaign for the presidency.
While both McCain and Obama did a lot of character bashing I think most would agree that Obama managed more tact. As a result he came off sounding more concerned about actual political issues and less worried about his or McCain’s personal appearances, histories, and/or family relationships.
Whatever the case Bush is finished… at least we’ve got someone new at the head of the table.
steve H
Post a Comment