Personally, I think that television has had a negative effect on politics. I find the TV stuff annoying and fake. I don't care that Mitt Romney had been with his wife since high school. That doesn't make him a good presidential candidate. Television has been bad for presidential elections because it limits the number of candidates due to the amount of money it costs to advertise, debates are no longer debates, they're just press conferences, and it is all about the image, not the issues.
Do you know how much it costs to advertise for 30 seconds on the television? A lot! Depending on the network and who the company is, it could be up to $1,000,000. If you ask me, that is a hugely limiting factor in the presidential race. Not everyone is made of money, and though most candidates get sponsored, they usually come from some sort of money to support their campaign. So basically, television is making the presidential race less accessible to those who want to run for president due to the high prices of advertising.
Has anyone noticed how these days the televised presidential debates aren't debates at all? They are press conferences where the candidates are asked impromptu questions that they have to answer. Are we really basing our vote on an impromptu answer? Do we want a president who makes snap decisions like that? I would like my president to be able to think his decisions through. In Source F, Ted Koppel wrote, "It is a joke to call an event like the one that transpired tonight a debate. Two reporters sat and asked questions of one of the candidates after another. Each man was supposed to answer only to question he was asked, and was given a minute and thirty seconds in which to do so." That sure sounds like a press conference to me. But it isn't like it just became this way over night. The first debates televised were actual debates in which Nixon and Kennedy we featured, but peoples opinions were swayed by image. Eventually it evolved into the audience asking questions. This is where we find Bill Clinton in Source B, talking about his undies because, "he had been asked to do so by a member of the MTV generation." Great. The type of underwear the president wears really makes a difference.
Lastly, lets discuss the image factor. There is no question that image has become a huge factor in these elections. This year I have had to hear all about how Mitt Romney has been married to his wife forever. I don't give a shit about how long you've been married to your wife. I want to know what you are going to do about this shitty economy! Rick Perry, you're stupid. I can pray in school all I want and they can't say shit. I don't care what you say, that is not an important issue. I don't care that you are catholic. What about the economy huh? Praying kids isn't going to change that as much as you wish it would. This is what I am gathering from watching the stupid commercials that interrupt my TV watching.
The Nixon vs. Kennedy debate even came down to image. Because Kennedy looked better, folks said he won. Source C will back me up on this one. It says, "Kennedy benefited because his image on television was 'crisp', Nixon's--light-colored suit, wrong makeup, bad posture--was 'fuzzed" But, the people who listened to the radio, "scored it a draw." And all of this just from a little makeup. "In 1960 television had won the nation away from sound to images."
To prove my point further, Johnson decided to quit the war because he looked bad. Why did he look this way? Because Walter Cronkite said the war wasn't going anywhere, making him look so. Source E says, "Cronkite had more authority with the American people than anyone else." He was a news anchor. That is why.
Television is bad for politics, "that's the way it is."
No comments:
Post a Comment