|
The Press |
The Presidential Elections
generate enormous amounts of coverage. This coverage plays a major role in
determining who will be elected for the next four years. The role of the
media affects the outcome of the election. Indirect actions, such as the
ability to set the agenda and altering the standards that voters use to evaluate
political candidates, can have far reaching effects.
One approach of the media that has the ability to
greatly affect voters is attack journalism. Attack journalism is not
serving the ideals of democracy. It erodes public support needed by
candidates and future Presidents. News items from attack journalism
reaches all voters regardless of political interest and media access.
Kenneth L. Khachingian, a former special assistant to President Nixon and a
senior staff member of the Reagan-Bush campaign, stated, “We, in politics, are
competing with a real issue in journalism; the fact that coverage, especially in
the electronic media, has been on sensational.” One theory is that
voters will abandon support for candidates who become objects of attacks.
The nature of the information and the individual's exposure to and resistance to
persuasive messages determines how much influence it will have.
Individuals most exposed to dominant media messages are most likely to be
influenced by these messages. The more knowledge a voter has about
politics, the more likely they are able to resist the dominant messages.
Party identification is also a contingent factor. Democrats and
independents are more responsive to dominant media messages that attack
Republicans, whereas Republicans appear to be immune.
In an ideal situation, candidates and voters would
come together through the media and find common ground. As Patterson says,
“The present system does none of these things. [The electoral
system’s] weaknesses are substantial and painfully apparent:
self-selected candidates, overloaded voters, a miscast press.” As the
media has become more conscious of their own contribution to the increasing
negativity in presidential campaigns, they have tried to keep focused on the
issues. Responses from the public, as well as organizations such as media
watchdogs, have tried to help keep the media in check.
Media coverage has changed over time. In 1932,
Roosevelt utilized radio to overshadow the press’s print coverage.
Truman followed Roosevelt’s successful use of radio and print. During
Truman’s presidency, television became a major instrument of the
administration. In the 1952 election, television, especially the use of
commercial format, was highly successful, allowing candidates to gain instant
access to the voting public. The presidential debates of Kennedy and Nixon
transformed how campaigns were conducted. Those listening on the radio
felt Nixon was the clear-cut winner. Voters watching the debate declared
Kennedy the winner, thus forever transforming from audio and print to a visual
market for campaigns. This style of campaigning has taken on many
different forms, such as pack journalism and game schema. What many feel
is the final frontier, the Internet, is fast becoming one of the most accessible
ways of being politically active.
Since the election of JFK, television has been the
major vehicle for campaigns. With the discovery of the Internet, this too
may become outdated. In the 1996 campaigns, the Internet became a tool for
politicians and activist. Anyone can develop and maintain a web site,
which can be accessed by all. While only a portion of the public is
currently comfortable with this medium, future generations will come to see it
as part of everyday life, like electricity or telephones. The Internet
will be the next major market for political campaigns because of its ease of use
and its cost efficiency. There is already a cry for Presidential Elections
to be conducted via the Internet.