We've watched a number of clips related to American politics, different styles and modes of content. This is the place to add your own comments, thoughts and additional clips of material that might be relevant or pertinent to the discussion.
It is true that a significant number of Americans subconsciously are effected in their decision making of who they are going to vote for based on appearance, charisma and a variety of other factors for who they are going to vote for not having to do with substance. Kennedy looked more presentable on television than Nixon but Nixon sounded better on radio.
One thing that I would also like to mention is that it is possible that presidents may have been able to circumvent scandals based on their TV image and charisma as well. Nixon was disgraced an forced to resign out of office due to the Watergate scandal, but Ronald Reagan had a a record breaking amount of illegal covert operations, including the Iran-Contra affair, which many would say is much more serious than wiring a hotel. Reagan's reputation has not been harmed as bad as Nixon's and he is still considered one of the most popular presidents in modern history. Many people think that it was his Irish wit, charisma, and is ability to put on an innocent face in a Mister Rogers like way that made many people not remember that scandal in his presidency. Other people would argue that changes in the media structure, involving conformity, and underlying corporate reasons, have made it so that the public does not remember the scandal, or did not do a good of enough job exposing it, but it could be a matter of both.
The media really is a powerful tool. The Howard Dean video for example, is a hilarious but effective representation of how the media can mold the public's opinion of a political figure. While I'm sure Dean's ideas and so forth could've made him a good Democractic presidential nominee, his unfortunate audio-related technical difficulty however led him to being the subject of mockery and seriously hurt his chances of running in subsequent races. A more positive use of media was the Kennedy and Nixon presidential debate, where Kennedy's charisma and confidence led voters to be more in favor of him than Nixon (who was more or less Kennedy's polar opposite that night in terms of appearance and poise). Before the debate, the two candidates were known to the general public from what they heard on the radio, which had Nixon in the lead, since Kennedy’s strong Boston accent sound less presidential. But as superficial as it may be, their appearances on television (and it was the first televised debate) led to Kennedy taking over the lead, which shows the way different forms of media can influence the public’s view of things (namely politicians in this case).
As technology has evolved, politicians have adapted to the technology in order to better their competitors. The Kennedy and Nixon debates were a perfect example of this, as Kennedy knew how to work the camera to come across as a better candidate than Nixon who was an amateur to television. I also believe that while constant media in politics is a good way to keep tabs on the individual and a way to feel more connected with them, it also leads to seeing things that shouldn't be shown on national television, such as Kennedy's assassination. With the amount of coverage that we have today, the officials have also taken measures to make sure that those events don't happen again, which is a vast improvement.
Whether we are aware or not the media definitely has a significant influence over the people who watch it. Politicians are well aware of this and therefore use it to there advantage. Although the media can, in a way, be used to manipulate individuals in terms of distorting your view of the opposing candidate, or molding your views in a certain way, I find that it is a great way to keep up to date with current politics, including public speeches given as well as presidential debates. The fact that so much of what is going on with our government can be seen on TV is a huge advantage for some people in our society. Even though tragic things may be caught on film, such as assassinations, including the one of Kennedy, I think it’s important that Americans see this. Maybe not in the raw graphic footage that it might be shown in, but it is still important to see certain events take place opposed to just hearing about them through the grapevine. This make these events that much more real and I believe it makes you understand them a little more than you would have if you just heard about it. Television is an important, useful tool, especially in terms of politics, as long as it is being used in the right way.
Mass media influences people's opinions by the way in which they display the information they are relaying to the public. This carriers over into politics and how our politicians are viewed. Clean cut, intelligent, articulate and charming are values people search for in their government representatives. Ever since the invention of the TV, sight has grown as our dominant sense for gathering information. People tend to ascend celebrities and politicians to a higher level. Politics and the government are run by people and should be seen on a similar level to others in society. But media fogs the view and distracts people and illuminates superficial attributes.
After watching these clips, it's clear to see how television and media has changed drastically since the assassinations of both Kennedy and his shooter. After watching the assassination of Kennedy, it is interesting to see how much protection has been added to the president's life, and how much the president's appearances have been changed. The president would be crazy to drive openly in the street in a convertible nowadays, without the protection of a bullet proof limo. In the world of today's television, an assassination never would have made it to air time because of the gab in timing we now use for live TV. I think it would be very scary and detrimental for one to see their president being assassinated, so this gap in live TV is beneficial for more reason than one. But, like Kristin said, I think it is necessary for American's to view this footage, so they can understand history, but not necessarily the high definition footage where you can see all of the gory details. Some details are unnecessary for the message to get across.
It is true that a significant number of Americans subconsciously are effected in their decision making of who they are going to vote for based on appearance, charisma and a variety of other factors for who they are going to vote for not having to do with substance. Kennedy looked more presentable on television than Nixon but Nixon sounded better on radio.
ReplyDeleteOne thing that I would also like to mention is that it is possible that presidents may have been able to circumvent scandals based on their TV image and charisma as well. Nixon was disgraced an forced to resign out of office due to the Watergate scandal, but Ronald Reagan had a a record breaking amount of illegal covert operations, including the Iran-Contra affair, which many would say is much more serious than wiring a hotel. Reagan's reputation has not been harmed as bad as Nixon's and he is still considered one of the most popular presidents in modern history. Many people think that it was his Irish wit, charisma, and is ability to put on an innocent face in a Mister Rogers like way that made many people not remember that scandal in his presidency. Other people would argue that changes in the media structure, involving conformity, and underlying corporate reasons, have made it so that the public does not remember the scandal, or did not do a good of enough job exposing it, but it could be a matter of both.
http://youtu.be/R67CH-qhXJs
The media really is a powerful tool. The Howard Dean video for example, is a hilarious but effective representation of how the media can mold the public's opinion of a political figure. While I'm sure Dean's ideas and so forth could've made him a good Democractic presidential nominee, his unfortunate audio-related technical difficulty however led him to being the subject of mockery and seriously hurt his chances of running in subsequent races.
ReplyDeleteA more positive use of media was the Kennedy and Nixon presidential debate, where Kennedy's charisma and confidence led voters to be more in favor of him than Nixon (who was more or less Kennedy's polar opposite that night in terms of appearance and poise). Before the debate, the two candidates were known to the general public from what they heard on the radio, which had Nixon in the lead, since Kennedy’s strong Boston accent sound less presidential. But as superficial as it may be, their appearances on television (and it was the first televised debate) led to Kennedy taking over the lead, which shows the way different forms of media can influence the public’s view of things (namely politicians in this case).
As technology has evolved, politicians have adapted to the technology in order to better their competitors. The Kennedy and Nixon debates were a perfect example of this, as Kennedy knew how to work the camera to come across as a better candidate than Nixon who was an amateur to television. I also believe that while constant media in politics is a good way to keep tabs on the individual and a way to feel more connected with them, it also leads to seeing things that shouldn't be shown on national television, such as Kennedy's assassination. With the amount of coverage that we have today, the officials have also taken measures to make sure that those events don't happen again, which is a vast improvement.
ReplyDeleteWhether we are aware or not the media definitely has a significant influence over the people who watch it. Politicians are well aware of this and therefore use it to there advantage. Although the media can, in a way, be used to manipulate individuals in terms of distorting your view of the opposing candidate, or molding your views in a certain way, I find that it is a great way to keep up to date with current politics, including public speeches given as well as presidential debates. The fact that so much of what is going on with our government can be seen on TV is a huge advantage for some people in our society. Even though tragic things may be caught on film, such as assassinations, including the one of Kennedy, I think it’s important that Americans see this. Maybe not in the raw graphic footage that it might be shown in, but it is still important to see certain events take place opposed to just hearing about them through the grapevine. This make these events that much more real and I believe it makes you understand them a little more than you would have if you just heard about it. Television is an important, useful tool, especially in terms of politics, as long as it is being used in the right way.
ReplyDeleteMass media influences people's opinions by the way in which they display the information they are relaying to the public. This carriers over into politics and how our politicians are viewed. Clean cut, intelligent, articulate and charming are values people search for in their government representatives. Ever since the invention of the TV, sight has grown as our dominant sense for gathering information. People tend to ascend celebrities and politicians to a higher level. Politics and the government are run by people and should be seen on a similar level to others in society. But media fogs the view and distracts people and illuminates superficial attributes.
ReplyDeleteAfter watching these clips, it's clear to see how television and media has changed drastically since the assassinations of both Kennedy and his shooter. After watching the assassination of Kennedy, it is interesting to see how much protection has been added to the president's life, and how much the president's appearances have been changed. The president would be crazy to drive openly in the street in a convertible nowadays, without the protection of a bullet proof limo. In the world of today's television, an assassination never would have made it to air time because of the gab in timing we now use for live TV. I think it would be very scary and detrimental for one to see their president being assassinated, so this gap in live TV is beneficial for more reason than one. But, like Kristin said, I think it is necessary for American's to view this footage, so they can understand history, but not necessarily the high definition footage where you can see all of the gory details. Some details are unnecessary for the message to get across.
ReplyDelete