Review

1.Candidates are adapting to the media landscape, being much more strategic in how they are allowed to be perceived by the public. The Huffington Post’s list mentions Cain has banned cameras from his meet-up with the New Hampshire Union Leader’s editorial board.

2.The media is always watching. We can be sure that all of the points present and future candidates bring up in debates or speeches will be dissected and evaluated by countless bloggers, political pundits, insiders, etc.

3.Most media organizations express some bias toward a political party (however slight, this seems to be a truth for the majority). A perfect example is Fox News and its blatant Republican agenda.

4.The U.S. population is getting their information regarding political parties and candidates from more than just the television news sector. Political blogs, web shows, podcasts, etc. exist. The use of new technologies is super effective in keeping up with the population and in influencing it. The numerous sites we have visited over the semester is proof of that.

5.Cable news is on its way out.

6.“You can’t believe everything you read in newspapers or see on TV.” This is true of life and politics. Media bias can paint an inaccurate picture of a person to fit a network/political party’s agenda.

7.Viewers have every opportunity to be informed. If they don’t watch cable news, they can pick up a magazine, and if they don’t do that, they can surf the web for information. There is no reason or excuse to be uninformed.

8.YouTube’s existence is exponentially appreciate when we can re-view classic election videos like the Christine O’Donnell  “I’m not a witch” ad.

9.Social networking will play quite possibly the biggest role in this election. Providing candidates the platform with which to reach their audience directly in an instantaneous method will be incredibly useful in getting ideologies and policy-stances across to the general population.

10.The media and its reach influence everyone and everybody. It’s important to be aware of that. 

MODULE 13 - State of the News Media

1.

When it comes to media bias, I feel it has a lot to do with the media organization in question and its stance on certain political issues. FOX is decidedly a right wing, conservative network that panders to the Republican Party more than it would like to admit.

In the case of Jon Stewart, he is viewed as a left wing liberal. His image and ideology are in direct conflict with the type of information FOX News puts out. In the Daily News article, Jon Stewart claims he was unfairly edited, and it does not surprise me. In any event of a type of ideological debate, I sincerely doubt Fox News would provide an accurate account (specially when you involve someone who more often than not has the upper hand in arguments regarding politics and social issues).

In regards to the issue about Jon Stewart and his influence over politics, I believe he does have an impact. The majority of the population gets its news from either television or the news. Stewart, although he considers himself a simple comedian, has set up a show that presents him as an educated informant to the public. While the Daily Show with Jon Stewart did provide laughs, it also extensively covered political topics while also reaching a demographic of people that would normally not watch news shows. He opened and attracted a lot of eyes and, while trying to play fair, also had a decidedly liberal approach to his ideology.

2.

Political debates can make or break a candidate. During debates, candidates are not only professing their ideology to the public, they are also showing how they react in high-stress situations. If a political candidate cannot take control of a debate, how can we expect them to take control of a country?

In regards to moderators, while they're supposed to be unbiased, I do see how their reactions and questions towards some of the candidates can influence public opinion. Nevertheless, I think it would work in the opposite way that Bachmann claims in the article linked. If a moderator is obviously biased, that reflects poorly on the network and could bring a sort of empathetic interest from viewers who feel the candidate was not given due opportunity.

In any event, debates are more about the candidates reactions than those of the moderator. So the public perception of a candidate is their own deal.

3.

I think Perry's mistake was very telling. One grades candidates in many categories: experience, charisma, political stances, etc. One of the ways we also judge candidates is how they act under pressure. As mentioned above, if a candidate cannot take control of a debate, how can they be expected to do so of a country. Politics is a very dog eat dog world, and it's pretty damning when you can't even bark. I believe that Perry's brain freeze might have cost him any sliver of chance he had of winning any of the elections. It's been shown that the public likes candidates that they can relate to, but we also want candidates we feel have authority, and Perry did not show that.

2012 Election Coverage

Herman Cain's election ad is an interesting subject. On one end, it's hilariously random and amateurish, and on the other, it's also effective. I mean that the add is effective in the fact that it's getting his name out there and making people think about his campaign and what the add means (the Huffington Post has aggregated analysis of the video by other sources). I can see the arguments regarding the issue of undermining public health, but I don't think the ad was an effective creative effort to address it. Nevertheless, if that was the concept or message behind the video, then Cain's team did a good job in opening up a discussion and gaining interest in his campaign.

In regards to polling numbers and newspaper endorsements: I don't think they're decisive or indicative of election results. Newspaper endorsements do create exposure for the candidates, but the deciding factor in voters' decisions are the candidates' stances on the issues. To try to correlate and attribute endorsement pages to results personally sounds disrespectful to the voting populace. Also, the New York Times piece explains the following:

"Newspaper endorsements, however, do not guarantee endorsements from electoral college voters. The winner of the most editorial approvals has lost the election three times since 1972 — in 1976, 1996 and 2004. The endorsement leader has matched the election winner in the seven other elections, but that may be because before 1992 it always favored the G.O.P., and those years happened to see a string of Republican presidents."


Furthermore, I don't believe early polling numbers matter. If we look back at the past election, it seems to only assert the notion that election results aren't dependent on beginning numbers. Hillary Clinton would have seemed the obvious choice if we looked at initial results, but clearly that turned to be untrue.  I think the public needs to first become acclimated to the campaigns before they make their final voting decision, and in the beginning it's a process of learning about the issues and the candidates' positions so voters opinions are definitely subject to change.