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.