Talk show appearances played a big role in this past presidential campaign. From Barack Obama appearing on the Daily Show and Bill O’Reilly, to John McCain making appearances on The View and David Letterman, the candidates tried their best to be seen and heard by the most people. There appearances on these shows would then be replayed the next day on all the 24 hour news networks, and instantly posted on sites such as YouTube for viewers who might have missed the shows. The question is do these talk show appearances actually gain the candidates votes, or are they merely just a way for the candidate to get as much airtime as possible.
The campaign in 1992 showed Bill Clinton, George Bush, and Ross Perot all make use of many talk show appearances in order for them to get through to the American people. In the readings we had for this week, Diamond writes that, “Clinton, Perot, and, belatedly, George Bush, and their running mates, made thirty-nine separate appearances on Larry King Live, CBS This Morning, Good Morning America, Today, and the syndicated talk shows from September 1 to October 19 (2).” These appearances seemed to show a shift from candidates using hard news outlets as a primary resource for them gaining voter’s attention, and as Diamond wrote, “the mainstream press made up of ABC, NBC, CBS, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, Time, Newsweek et al.-became consumers of the "products" created by the soft shows, along with the rest of us. (1)” These outlets who used to be the main providers of news and information now had to use clips and quotes from these talk show appearances in order to provide their audiences with the information that they wanted.
The use of talk shows did not stop for the Clinton administration after they were elected. In 1994, Clinton made an appearance on MTV for a question and answer segment with teens. The administration was hoping that the appearance would be “a chance to build support for the administration's crime bill, then under consideration in the Congress, as well as an opportunity to buff Clinton's image as a leader in touch with America's youth (Diamond, 62).”
Vice President Al Gore also made talk show appearances, including one on the David Letterman show, where, “some 19 million viewers watched as Gore and Letterman donned safety goggles and the vice president smashed an ashtray with a hammer as a demonstration of the craziness of federal regulations (Diamond, 61)” These appearances by the President and Vice President were made in an effort to raise the President’s approval ratings, in anticipation of the 1996 election.
This year’s campaign saw both candidates trying to reach out to all audiences and demographics. This appearance by John McCain on The View gathered much attention in McCain’s hopes to reach out to the show’s core demographic of women: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyQpmN-nH64
Barack Obama’s appearance on conservative talk show host Bill O’reilly’s show also gathered much attention, as Obama hoped to sway O’reilly’s core demographic to his side: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5rfc54il6Q
The question though is whether these talk show appearances really play a big role in the candidates winning elections. Certainly the case can be made that Clinton used these appearances to his benefit, as he was able to display his charisma and charm to woo television audiences. Do you feel that Obama and McCain were helped or hurt by any talk show appearances they made during this past campaign? Do you think these talk shows make more people want to go out and vote, or just make them sick of the overexposure of the candidates? Do you feel that it is now a necessity in today’s politics that candidates make these talk show appearances?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
America’s youth is growing up in an age of media. Today, all topics are at risk for becoming overexposed and continuously repeated. This past election proved to follow this media blueprint and become just another constantly covered and dissected topic. Personally, I feel as though this past campaign season went on for years. It feels as though I have been hearing about McCain and Obama since I was a toddler.
While I believe that the appearances on talk shows by McCain and Obama did add to the feeling of overexposure, I do not believe it harmed the candidates (maybe except for McCain’s poorly planned visit to Saturday Night Live three days before the election). It was not as if the candidates were visiting talk shows everyday and making the rounds promoting themselves constantly. In his article titled Larry King Liberated Me, Diamond states, “the smart politician still wants exposure on CBS and in newspapers and magazines. But alongside the now-traditional structure, a new somewhat crazy house of mirrors has developed-the pop/interactive media” (4). The overexposure of the candidates from this past election stemmed from the constant media attention they garnered. The news became only one of many shows to discuss the candidates. Even celebrity gossip shows such as Entertainment Tonight were featuring segments on McCain and Obama almost daily. While the McCain camp was quick to accuse Obama of gaining celebrity status, in a way, they were both victims of the media.
I believe that the appearances on talk shows this past election season by the candidates helped them, if it did anything for them. Many times, people look for validation in the media they choose to watch/listen/look at. If a person’s candidate of choice did well on a talk show, he or she could chalk it up to being prepared and being the best candidate for the presidency. If the same candidate did poorly, a supporter could reason that it was the interviewer’s fault or that a person is allowed one bad interview. After all, the candidates are human too. Appearances on talk shows may have also helped candidates as well. I know that I despised Mitt Romney from the beginning he announced he was entering the race for the Presidency, but after seeing him interact with Jay Leno, I hated him a little less. Many of the talk shows allow the candidates to loosen up for a couple of minutes and joke around. The talk shows provide the opportunity for jokes to be cracked, and a more relatable side to be shown to the public.
In today’s world, the candidates need to make appearances on these shows, and I fully believe that an election cannot be won without visiting various media outlets. We are an extremely visual society, especially since the internet has become such an important source of information and media. Diamond states on page 61 of his article, Pixilated: Governing by Teledemocracy, “the pop formats needed more showy business and more visuals.” These pop formats have become the norm. Appearances on these shows give the public a little glimpse into the actual person behind the campaign.
I think that Obama and McCain weren’t necessarily hurt by any of the talk show appearances that they made. However, Sarah Palin obviously was hurt by her interviews with Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric. Her lack of answers and knowledge definitely made her look as though she wasn’t ready for the job of vice president. This helped to lead to the rapid downfall in opinion about Palin, who initially excited many voters both Republican and Democrat. In fact, many of those who gave Obama his victory credited part of McCain’s downfall with his choice of vice president. In this situation, I think that Palin’s talk show appearances did have a big role to play in losing McCain and Palin the election. These shows may make some people sick of the overexposure of the candidates, but they could just choose not to watch these programs. On the other hand, talk shows featuring political candidates had very high ratings compared to their normal ratings. Many people tuned into ABC World News Tonight and CBS Evening News to especially watch the Palin interview. This is the case with many of the other talk show appearances made during election season. I think that the candidates’ constant appearance on these shows kept the voters excited in this election and reminded the viewers of the importance of the election and the fact that they should go out to vote.
I definitely think that it is a necessity for candidates to make appearances on these shows. As was shown in a previous election, “In 1992, the primaries and general election took place mainly on soft media formats, such as the call-in shows, the morning interview programs and the candidates’ joint prime time appearances” (Whitehouse 1). If the candidates didn’t show, then the voters would question why they aren’t making the usual rounds on TV. The author of this week’s readings also included an important point: “As Lyndon Johnson advised, you have to go hunting where the ducks are” (Whitehouse 7). These shows are important to reaching the American people and letting them know what the candidate stands for. Also, this is an opportunity for the candidate to continue building their own image and to tarnish that of their opponent.
I don’t think talk shows hurt the candidates at all. I really enjoyed it when I heard that one of the candidates would be on a talk show, and I actually made it a point to try to catch both of their appearances whenever I knew they were going to be on a talk show. The reality of it is is that our country is so media-driven (very much so towards television) that it is basically necessary for the candidates to do talk shows. Otherwise, people might think it was weird that they didn’t go on, like are they hiding something? Can they not do talk shows because they are not personable? People might think it is actually weirder if they declined talk show appearances. For me, I like to see the candidates in a more relaxed environment. They are human and are just like you and I. So I really enjoyed it when I saw McCain and Obama doing talk shows and just being real for a little bit. “The new pop-media forms and the interactive techniques were intended to allow politicians’ unfiltered messages to enter the hearts and minds of American voters” (Whitehouse 4-5). Bill Clinton once half-joked at the Radio and Television Correspondents Association dinner in 1993 when he said to them, “You know why I can stiff you on the press conferences? Because Larry King has liberated me from you by giving me to the American people directly” (Whitehouse 5).
For some people who might not be so inclined to watch CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, etc., at least they can get to know the candidates a little bit better, which may prompt these people to find out more about the candidate and make them want to vote. On the other hand, other people out there may have been turned off and think that the candidates shouldn’t go on talk shows and do those types of interviews. But we have to be real and recognize that talk shows are popular and a lot of people do watch them (as there are so many that appeal to different demographics—The View, Jay Leno, Larry King, Bill O’Reilly, David Letterman, Ellen, The Daily Show, etc.). There are so many different types of talk shows out there that there has to be at least one that appeals to a person. So yes, I do think it is necessary for candidates to make appearances on talk shows. I don’t think they have to do one every day or every single week. But I think just letting the public see them as real people, as other Americans just like us, isn’t really harmful. I think that this trend will continue for many elections to come. It was just cool for me to see McCain and Obama making jokes or just looking relaxed. It didn’t make me be like “oh, I’m definitely voting for him because of this interview,” but it did make me look at them and realize that they are humans too and go through the same things that we do. Continue the talk shows politicians, I’ll be watching :)
To put it rather simply, yes, I feel that to a certain extent that these talk show appearances play a role in candidates winning elections, and a far greater role overall in the political campaign of the 21st century. While we can never be sure of the extent to which these appearances garner votes, the readings made it quite evident that the Clintonites made them an integral part of the modern campaign. I think it's only natural for one to posit that in future campaigns the number and frequency of these appearances will increase (much like we've seen with campaign spending). Surely, the talk show format is not for all, but there is reason to believe that large segments of the particular voting blocks spend much of their time getting to know the candidates in this type of arena. For example, candidates may find these appearances advantageous to their campaigns when seeking out youth votes, or the votes of stay-at-home mothers who have more access to day time television. Additionally, as you had mentioned, the appearances that occur during the day are often replayed to death on the cable and network news later on in the evening.
Given the rise of personality politics and an overemphasis on the image-is- everything presidency, the fact remains for a large majority of the electorate who are less concerned about substantive issues, stump speeches, and prime-time debates, the talk show formats provide a great forum for free, unfiltered contact with the American people. However helpful, candidates must also be weary of overexposure and campaign overkill; "But talk continues to expand, like a vast, bloated hot-air balloon: radio talk, TV talk, lawyers' talk, therapists' talk; a gross national product of words, endless, obsessive, and often empty of thought [...] The political process sputters, which in turn increases the level of the audience's frustration" (The Hum of the Republic 146). Thus considered, it goes without saying that these appearances can lead to large instances of backlash. Even Slick Willy himself struggled to maintain his new media prowess and ward off the rise of heavy-weight talk show and talk show radio hosts; "Having lived by the sword of talk, Clinton now pictured himself grievously wounded by the same sword" (146). Given this, perhaps future candidates should acknowledge that when they enter the unfiltered world of talk, there in a sense talking at their own risk.
Given the actual outcome of the 2008 election, I think its fair to assume that while Obama may have benefitted from his appearances, McCain may have been hurt (cough Palin cough). However, I think it becomes more of the case that Obama was able to truly warm up to the American electorate as the long campaign persisted, while McCain was simply unable to connect to the same degree as his opponent. While the formats were most certainly available to both the candidates, its clear that a charismatic and well-spoken candidate such as Obama utilized his on-air time much more effectively. Much like what we saw with Clinton, the "talk" side of Obama showed a man that was not only one of the best public orators we had ever witnessed in the political realm, but an easy going and fun man who was exceptionally dedicated to his little girls. As mentioned, for a large majority of the voting block, this type of stuff sells. For those unsure of Obama's experience, leadership, or his ability to be as presidential as our country deemed necessary, continued work on the talk show circuit may have helped to alleviate some of these concerns in the long run.
Whether or not the more personal appeal found within these new media formats actually stimulates voter activity remains to be seen. In fact, does anyone truly understand what gets people out to vote - surely if we did the campaigns would get out the vote for more easily. I think the important thing here is exposure (when done right, this of course includes not getting in a small feud with a late night talk show host!) and presenting a side of the candidate that is not readily available in the nightly news reports. To this degree, yes, I think its especially necessary in today's political process that candidates continue to involve themselves in these formats. In doing so however, they must always remember: talk at your risk.
I believe that these talk shows are meant to bring out the candidates real personality. The candidates I feel have just been like robots for the past ten months with simply just giving thoughts on their policies and trying to convince their voters that they can make change. These TV shows give them a chance for viewers to get to know their true personalities and I think that candidates look at them as an outlet to try and maybe sway other voters to vote for them. And the only for people to actually get to know a candidates personality would be on a talk show. Millions upon millions of people are watching these talk shows, I think in the new age of media and younger people having a say, and taking interest in this election, I think the TV shows are where the most swayed views came from. “As Lyndon Johnson advised, you have to go hunting where the ducks are” (Whitehouse 7).
"The president likes to talk to people, not through people." (Whitehouse 50) I feel like this sort of attack on the public is somewhat related to the angle that Obama and McCain took in the previous election. They flew all around the country to do shows and get air time, like Bill Clinton was famous for doing. In this new era of modern technology and being able to “TiVo,” shows, I feel like every normal American family didn’t miss a single interview these guys gave. It is all about the public opinion and the more air time and the more positive thoughts, wins the election and I think Obama did a great job in that aspect.
I think that some interviews were not planned out thoroughly, and I think they hurt the campaign. I think the first bad mistake they made was letting Sarah Palin go and talk to Katie Courick. She just made herself out to look like an idiot and she looked like someone that would never be able to run a country god forbid anything happened. That was one downfall. Second I think that McCain going on SNL the Saturday before Election Day. Although it was taped a week earlier, the American public were asking themselves, why is our candidate for presidency on Saturday Night Live a few days before Election Day?? I just think that was also poorly planned.
Talk show appearances have the potential to either better or worsen the public’s perception on a candidate. Talk shows allow its viewers to see the presidential candidates in a new light so to speak. America is used to the thirty-second commercial clips and stump speeches—talk shows add something different to the mix. Personally, I believe that talk shows do play a decent role in campaigns ever since Clinton in 1992, but I would not go as far to say that they play a big role in the candidates winning elections. I really do not think the American public would commit what they learn from a talk show appearance to a vote. As I said before however, talk shows do play a limited role in that they can either strengthen or weaken a campaign.
“The advent of pop campaigning, talk shows, and interactive media formats contributed to changing presidential politics in the 1990s, for better and worse. (Whitehouse, 8)”
In the 2008 Presidential campaign, Barack Obama and John McCain definitely had their fair share of time from talk shows but I am not convinced enough to say that talk shows won this election for Obama or lost it for McCain. But, as with Clinton in 1992, talk shows definitely gave Obama a leg up this election. Whether it was Barack on Bill O’Reilly or Michelle on Ellen with their two daughters, theses talk shows were able to capture real people not politicians. What I mean is that people do get tired with the everyday routine of a campaign- especially one that has started S00 early! In the past couple months we hope that Americans do know the issues and where the candidates stand by now. Now we want to see the candidates in a different way, it is almost like a breath of fresh air.
To address one more thing- I am not sure if talk shows make more people want to go out and vote but I do think that overexposure of a candidate can possibly make people grow weary and annoyed. However, I did not see that during this campaign with regard to Barack Obama. He started his campaign very early on and still managed to keep interest all across America (and in foreign countries)! As for John McCain I definitely think that the over exposure of Sarah Palin did hurt his campaign. And it was not even the over exposure it was the negativity associated with her exposure. Fact is, people grew tired of seeing Palin in negative light and it eventually grew to annoy them.
I think that presidential candidates need to be overexposed. He/she is running for the highest office in the country. That alone requires the American public to be fully knowledgeable of who they are, what they stand for and what their qualifications are. More often than not, appearing on a talk show will help a candidate in my opinion. Watching Obama dance on Ellen’s show gave me a good chuckle and made him look a little less stiff in my eyes. However, it can hurt the public opinion of the candidate if they look unprepared, like in Palin’s case when being interviewed by Katie Couric. The way to mastering a talk show is all about a mixture of being prepared and being yourself. "The president likes to talk to people, not through people" (Whitehouse 50). Since the ability to “relate” to the public is becoming increasingly more important in a candidates election, it is imperative that a successful person in politics reaches out to the people in a less formal, but still informative way, like appearing on a talk show rather than giving a speech.
America is a country which is fueled by the media, talk shows and the internet. The youth of today are the ones who are getting the brunt of it and they are soaking it in with all their might.
The fact that the candidates are using the talk show circuit to reach voters who they may not reach by giving statements to newspapers or news channels is very intelligent.
There are a greater number of viewers who watch late night television, or early morning talk shows and that is how they get their information.
At the same time, the candidates have been sending out members of their campaigns and using them to reach a different voter base. The best example of this is Michelle Obama going on the view, as seen in this clip. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59twO1fJwtQ)
Another good example is John McCain's daughter going on Larry King Live. She is reaching out to the people who she knows are going to be swayed to vote for her father.(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKYmDgMB3mU)They are very interested in politics and other issues plaguing our country, while Michelle Obama was reaching out to the women who would be home during the day.
It is good to know that there are candidates who are using the different mediums to get their messages out in the world and by targeting specific types of people while doing so, it does not hurt.
As stated by Diamond, "“the smart politician still wants exposure on CBS and in newspapers and magazines. But alongside the now-traditional structure, a new somewhat crazy house of mirrors has developed-the pop/interactive media” (4). It is something we are going to be seeing more and more of as elections continue to evolve.
Like jonesy said, the presidential candidates needed to be over exposed. It’s not that any of the information we get from talk shows is anything new or special or even related to the elections, it’s that the American public love anything that’s glamorized.
The talk shows were a way for the presidential candidates to become a part of that reality show/ Perez Hilton “drama is everything” mentality. It seems like everyone in the American public wants their leaders to show their softer sides, their family sides, and in general fluffiness. Like jonesy said, he got a chuckle from Obama dancing around on the Ellan show. It made him feel as though Obama was “a little less stiff”. The American people are obsessed with softness and political correctness, that’s why its imperative those involved with politics get out into the world of media and do their best to appear as “human” as possible.
So if you’re asking if the talk shows during this election hurt or benefited the candidates I’d have to say they definitely helped them out. Because the majority of American people are so soft they need something they can identify with, without the talk shows and media coverage of their family lives ect, the most Americans probably wouldn’t have been so interested in this past election. Steve H
I believe that talk shows allow the audience to feel as though they are getting the "real" candidate and not just hearing their stump speeches over and over. As spoken about throughout our class time and seen through out the race for presidency in this election, the "celebrity" of the candidate is more tangible then the candidates positions. The constituents during this campaigning period were looking more for a person they personally liked, based on looks, favorite books, movies, what they liked to do, versus what their stance is on health care or education. Bill Clinton once said at the Radio and Television Correspondents Association dinner in 1993 , “You know why I can stiff you on the press conferences? Because Larry King has liberated me from you by giving me to the American people directly” (White house 5). And this is how it still is today. The average citizen would rather watch The View than Fox 5 News. This election had many young voters and therefore these voters would listen to a Talk Show rather than a News Show. Most Candidates are educated and practiced in the art of making people like them, therefore going on a talk show, which is also usually a more laid back atmosphere, where an audience can connect easier with the candidate. I agree with nicole that in the case of Sarah Palin, where most people were skeptical to begin with, she hurt the McCain Campaign. Bad publicity is not always good publicity. Whether it was the fact that she was scared to get off talking points the McCain campaign had told her to stick to, or she really doesn't know anything about other countries, her being on these talk shows where you are suppose to seem relaxed and know what you are talking about hurt her and the campaign. I believe that people liked seeing this all over, hence the ratings. I think talk shows or not both campaigns would have had that in-your-face strategy. I think that maybe timing is everything and people may have thought McCain's choice to do SNL when he did was at a crucial time where he should have been somewhere else; but they don't think he should not have done it.
Post a Comment