TBD
11-17-2007, 02:18 PM
At least in the United States. I posted this randomly in some other thread but no one read it cause it wasn't really on topic. I took a class last year that basically tried to prove how the United States electorate and population really doesn't know anything about electoral politics, and how some of the most important people in shaping public opinion in US history aren't even remembered, and didn't even know themselves how they shaped public opinion in history. The teacher basically told us that voting doesn't matter, and that nothing we do in electoral politics really means anything. It really was interesting to see a teacher so apathetic to politics.
The 2004 presidential election was one of the most heavily covered media events of the 21st century, and with that, came sharp divisions within the country regarding the election. The issues dividing the country, were well themed and created by political elites, media elites, and separate interest groups in order to create a larger difference between the candidates than existed in the first place. The polarizing effect of this campaign was created with the use of false advertising, buzz words, and ended up capitalizing upon the ignorance of voters within the United States. Political and media elites create images of candidates that utilize voter ignorance, in expectation that voters will rely upon these images to choose their candidates.
The media created images of candidates that helped determine the outcome of the primaries before the main election. Democratic presidential hopeful Howard Dean, once an insurmountable frontrunner early in the campaign, lost much of his momentum due to negative media portrayal. While gaining popularity early on as the left of center, maverick democrat, his campaign soon lost momentum after the media repeatedly played a video of him yelling at a rally. At this rally with his followers, Howard Dean began a screaming tirade regarding the future of his campaign that soon ended his chances of becoming president. While no voters would claim image is the most important thing regarding a candidate, the media’s incessant playing of this video soon spelled the death of his campaign. It was purported the media played the video of his screams 663 times in the four days after the event. (Trent) The control the media had to create what is considered important, and the power they possessed in destroying a frontrunner presidential candidate exemplifies the power they held over the election. One commentator wrote, “But the press corps' decision that the scream was serious is a bit more disturbing. (Meyer)” The disturbing effect of the emphasis of the video is well noted, but not nearly as disturbing as the effect that the media could have on the minds of American voters. Negative media coverage along with this video created a negative image of him, that reduced his popularity despite the fact he gained it from being against an unpopular war. Voters, who would claim to have not been swayed by image, flocked to more conservative democratic candidates with better media portrayal. Even democrats began abandoning him, “Many democrats, including key figures in congress and the DNC, began attacking Dean because they believed him to be too….unelectable. (Denton 21)” This was the same candidate who had received important endorsements from key politicians such as former Vice President Al Gore, and Iowa governor Tom Vilsack weeks before. Once the media ruined his campaign, elected politicians began switching their endorsements to other candidates, in order to appear not to look bad. Despite flocking to a candidate for being anti-war a few months earlier, the public support he had was completely abandoned due to negative media portrayal. The Howard Dean episode is proof that image created by media elites outweighed the actual issues that voters proclaimed to be important in the campaign.
The effect of the media played a large role in the primary, and it also played a large role in creating an image of John Kerry that had a lasting effect on voters in the main campaign. One of the biggest impacts the media created for Kerry’s image of a non issue related campaign idea was the presence of the ads for Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which surfaced as the biggest “non-reported influence in modern political history. (Sabato 183)” On the new media channels and on shows such as Bill O’Reilly, this news story appeared daily for weeks, tarnishing Kerry’s image as a war veteran. The campaign used Vietnam Veterans to contend John Kerry lied about his actions that led to medals in Vietnam. (Abramson 39) This action had little to nothing to do with John Kerry’s policy making regarding issues voters claim to be important, however many say that it potentially cost him the campaign, “In nearly every post-election recap, the Swift Boaters come up as one of the deciding factors of the election,” this is despite the fact, “Many, if not most, continue to cast doubt about the authenticity of their claims. (Sabato 184)” The impact of these allegations could have been one of the main factors in the reelection of President Bush. Voters do not care about the truth of the allegation once they have been made, the opinions were made after the veterans made the claim, and did not return to normal once people asserted the falsity of the claims, “Most analyses of the charges eventually concluded that they were not supported by the facts, but the damage was done. (Abramson 39)” In a democracy where voters are supposed to make educated choices, the idea that an allegation with no backing in fact can have such an impact on public opinion is a scary thought. As a presidential candidate in this day and age, “You are at the mercy of current events and news as framed by the media. (Kenski 304)” Even if no apparent media biase is present, the way events and quotes are presented can have a huge impact on a populace with no real issue knowledge. Even factual inaccuracies, once corrected, can have a larger impact on an election than even the interest groups thought or hoped.
One of the questions that has to be answered in regard to the 2004 presidential election in the United States is about why citizens voted the way they did. One author states, “American elections have always been image oriented or issue involved. (Kenski 303)” However, it is obvious that voters do not fully understand the issues that the candidates presented, making a campaign based entirely on image and an image created about the issue. The ideas that voters vote based on images created of the candidates and of political parties must be assumed when one recalls the 1994 election, Shea writes, “Despite massive coverage in every newspaper in the country, and on every news program, the vast majority had never heard of the Contract with America. (Shea)” Therefore, it is hard to believe that issues were the basis for citizen voting in the 1994 midterm elections, considering the importance and advertising of those issues in the mainstream media prior to voting day. It must be assumed that voters vote based on either previous partisan records, or the images of the politicians they voted for, which are carefully crafted and manipulated by multiple sources. Shea goes on to say that “Awareness of just how uninformed voters are should lead us to take polls with a grain of salt…at this early point, the opinions on which these are based are close to meaningless. (Shea)” He further states that these polls can affect the way people vote. Polls, that are not standardized and have values of differentiation between them, can sometimes affect how people vote, when in theory it should be the other way around. Polls reported by the media, can cause an uninformed voter to go with trends and vote for a popular candidate because of poll data.
Lippman states, “public opinions must be organized for the press if they are to be sound, not by the press as is the case today. (Lippman 32)” The power the media has in creating an image of the voter that can effect the way voter’s choose is not representative of what electoral politics in its truest form is supposed to represent. Even without intention by these media elites, the message the media sends out can create a false sense of knowledge and political satisfaction with citizens. To the average person watching the media, the information they receive will be, “in the individual person the limited messages from outside, formed into a pattern of stereotypes, are identified with his own interests as he feels and conceives them. (Lippman 30)” The media creates and presupposes these stereotypes of candidates and issues, that get reinforced into the voter populace, who use little analytical thought in deciding who to vote for. Even when people actively try to investigate issues and be conscious when deciding their votes, the stereotypes and images that the media reinforces overrides any original thought they might have with their own volition.
The 2004 presidential election was one of the most heavily covered media events of the 21st century, and with that, came sharp divisions within the country regarding the election. The issues dividing the country, were well themed and created by political elites, media elites, and separate interest groups in order to create a larger difference between the candidates than existed in the first place. The polarizing effect of this campaign was created with the use of false advertising, buzz words, and ended up capitalizing upon the ignorance of voters within the United States. Political and media elites create images of candidates that utilize voter ignorance, in expectation that voters will rely upon these images to choose their candidates.
The media created images of candidates that helped determine the outcome of the primaries before the main election. Democratic presidential hopeful Howard Dean, once an insurmountable frontrunner early in the campaign, lost much of his momentum due to negative media portrayal. While gaining popularity early on as the left of center, maverick democrat, his campaign soon lost momentum after the media repeatedly played a video of him yelling at a rally. At this rally with his followers, Howard Dean began a screaming tirade regarding the future of his campaign that soon ended his chances of becoming president. While no voters would claim image is the most important thing regarding a candidate, the media’s incessant playing of this video soon spelled the death of his campaign. It was purported the media played the video of his screams 663 times in the four days after the event. (Trent) The control the media had to create what is considered important, and the power they possessed in destroying a frontrunner presidential candidate exemplifies the power they held over the election. One commentator wrote, “But the press corps' decision that the scream was serious is a bit more disturbing. (Meyer)” The disturbing effect of the emphasis of the video is well noted, but not nearly as disturbing as the effect that the media could have on the minds of American voters. Negative media coverage along with this video created a negative image of him, that reduced his popularity despite the fact he gained it from being against an unpopular war. Voters, who would claim to have not been swayed by image, flocked to more conservative democratic candidates with better media portrayal. Even democrats began abandoning him, “Many democrats, including key figures in congress and the DNC, began attacking Dean because they believed him to be too….unelectable. (Denton 21)” This was the same candidate who had received important endorsements from key politicians such as former Vice President Al Gore, and Iowa governor Tom Vilsack weeks before. Once the media ruined his campaign, elected politicians began switching their endorsements to other candidates, in order to appear not to look bad. Despite flocking to a candidate for being anti-war a few months earlier, the public support he had was completely abandoned due to negative media portrayal. The Howard Dean episode is proof that image created by media elites outweighed the actual issues that voters proclaimed to be important in the campaign.
The effect of the media played a large role in the primary, and it also played a large role in creating an image of John Kerry that had a lasting effect on voters in the main campaign. One of the biggest impacts the media created for Kerry’s image of a non issue related campaign idea was the presence of the ads for Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which surfaced as the biggest “non-reported influence in modern political history. (Sabato 183)” On the new media channels and on shows such as Bill O’Reilly, this news story appeared daily for weeks, tarnishing Kerry’s image as a war veteran. The campaign used Vietnam Veterans to contend John Kerry lied about his actions that led to medals in Vietnam. (Abramson 39) This action had little to nothing to do with John Kerry’s policy making regarding issues voters claim to be important, however many say that it potentially cost him the campaign, “In nearly every post-election recap, the Swift Boaters come up as one of the deciding factors of the election,” this is despite the fact, “Many, if not most, continue to cast doubt about the authenticity of their claims. (Sabato 184)” The impact of these allegations could have been one of the main factors in the reelection of President Bush. Voters do not care about the truth of the allegation once they have been made, the opinions were made after the veterans made the claim, and did not return to normal once people asserted the falsity of the claims, “Most analyses of the charges eventually concluded that they were not supported by the facts, but the damage was done. (Abramson 39)” In a democracy where voters are supposed to make educated choices, the idea that an allegation with no backing in fact can have such an impact on public opinion is a scary thought. As a presidential candidate in this day and age, “You are at the mercy of current events and news as framed by the media. (Kenski 304)” Even if no apparent media biase is present, the way events and quotes are presented can have a huge impact on a populace with no real issue knowledge. Even factual inaccuracies, once corrected, can have a larger impact on an election than even the interest groups thought or hoped.
One of the questions that has to be answered in regard to the 2004 presidential election in the United States is about why citizens voted the way they did. One author states, “American elections have always been image oriented or issue involved. (Kenski 303)” However, it is obvious that voters do not fully understand the issues that the candidates presented, making a campaign based entirely on image and an image created about the issue. The ideas that voters vote based on images created of the candidates and of political parties must be assumed when one recalls the 1994 election, Shea writes, “Despite massive coverage in every newspaper in the country, and on every news program, the vast majority had never heard of the Contract with America. (Shea)” Therefore, it is hard to believe that issues were the basis for citizen voting in the 1994 midterm elections, considering the importance and advertising of those issues in the mainstream media prior to voting day. It must be assumed that voters vote based on either previous partisan records, or the images of the politicians they voted for, which are carefully crafted and manipulated by multiple sources. Shea goes on to say that “Awareness of just how uninformed voters are should lead us to take polls with a grain of salt…at this early point, the opinions on which these are based are close to meaningless. (Shea)” He further states that these polls can affect the way people vote. Polls, that are not standardized and have values of differentiation between them, can sometimes affect how people vote, when in theory it should be the other way around. Polls reported by the media, can cause an uninformed voter to go with trends and vote for a popular candidate because of poll data.
Lippman states, “public opinions must be organized for the press if they are to be sound, not by the press as is the case today. (Lippman 32)” The power the media has in creating an image of the voter that can effect the way voter’s choose is not representative of what electoral politics in its truest form is supposed to represent. Even without intention by these media elites, the message the media sends out can create a false sense of knowledge and political satisfaction with citizens. To the average person watching the media, the information they receive will be, “in the individual person the limited messages from outside, formed into a pattern of stereotypes, are identified with his own interests as he feels and conceives them. (Lippman 30)” The media creates and presupposes these stereotypes of candidates and issues, that get reinforced into the voter populace, who use little analytical thought in deciding who to vote for. Even when people actively try to investigate issues and be conscious when deciding their votes, the stereotypes and images that the media reinforces overrides any original thought they might have with their own volition.