posted by Anonymous on .
I am not quite sure what I think about this.
Television has been influential in United States presidential elections since the 1960's. But just what is this influence, and how has it affected who is elected? Has it made elections fairer and more accessible, or has it moved candidates from pursuing issues to pursuing image?
Would you defend or challenge the claim that television has had a positive impact on presidential elections?
I would challenge it. We seem to have had better presidents before "how you look on TV" and big-budget Big Lie character-smearing TV ad campaigns made the difference in who got elected, as well as the nomination process. The party conventions have become nothing more then chances for the two major parties to get free TV time and numb the populace with boring button-pushing speeches. The nominees are always determined beforehand.
Then there is the whole issue of the effect of biased reporting of Fox Cable News. That basically proves my point, in my opinion.
I agree with Drwls. Probably the fairest media information about candidates and elections came from newspapers and radio before the existence of TV. Nearly everyone who had electricity or a battery-powered radio could hear the candidates. Would Lincoln, with his homely face, or Franklin Roosevelt, in a wheel chair, have been elected if they'd been exposed to TV coverage?
I have this same promt for an essay tommorow!