The American Media's influence over elections

[DBoons Ghost]

I am curious how much influence you think the media has over America's upcoming election.

Do you think the media has the power to ruin a candidate's chances of election by providing coverage to favorites like Barack and Hillary and are forgetting people like John Edwards?

The media is going to cover the candidate and story they feel will keep you watching so they get higher ratings, not because they are endorsing the candidate but because the race and gender issue in this election is overshadowing anyone's real take on the issues. How do you feel this will effect the election?

Does the media have too much power over the information we recieve about potential candidates or do you feel we have enough outlets (internet, NPR etc..) to find this information for ourselves..

Another key question could be do you feel the outlets we have are known by the majority of voters in America?

Everyone from everywhere feel free to join the discussion. I am also curious if the media has the same power in Canada and the UK.

[ringworm]

Do you think the media has the power to ruin a candidate's chances of election by providing coverage to favorites like Barack and Hillary and are forgetting people like John Edwards?
yes, because if Ron Paul would get more facetime and the ability to covey his feelings without the other losers whining and calling HIM the nutjob, these pre-election circle jerks wouldnt even be needed, he'd be the next Pres :p

but more seriously, yes I do feel the media can control a candidates success

[monkeysonmars.]

if the media has any control over elections it's only because politicians and the public let it, in the UK anyway. The media pretty much killed Michael Howard's Conservative manifesto back in 2005, but that was only because it was so obviously poor.

you can be really cynical about the media (with good reason) but in the UK i think it's a really good counter to the power of political parties. whenever you turn on to an interview with a politician on the TV or the radio you can expect a good grilling (especially my fav. the Daily Politics Show). I mean the last programme that gave easy interviews was Breakfast with Frost and by the end everyone else was just making fun of it.

other than that it is a worry when people vote only based on the things they read in some **** 'newspaper' but tbh if people are stupid enough to do that we deserve to get ****ed over.

[McP3000]

I want the media to control the election's outcome.

They know what is best for us. CNN is truth. CNN is power.

[Against Miik!]

It's a combination of things. The least important factor is the actual vote. Well, I mean, its the most important obviously, but people rarely vote for who they really want to vote for. The front runners don't really express the views of the majority, I think. Like, we want out of Iraq, and now we have a new Republican front runner, McCain, who will keep us there for a hundred years, and Barack or Hilary won't get us out. It doesn't make sense.

People just want to be on winning team. Thats where the media is huge. They can portray anyone they want as the winning team, whether or not it is the complete truth. After that, well, there is already suspicion of major election fraud in New Hampshire. It's pretty clear that a few people out there are heavily influencing the elections, and the deck is really stacked against the American people. I mean, don't get me wrong, it could be worse. It's not like you get your hand chopped off if you don't vote for Bush again or something. It's just not quite as democratic as we want to think.

[ringworm]

the debates are really annoying me

people that choose a candidate because how they performed on any one of these debates are wetahded

[DBoons Ghost]

I'm just concerned that the media is not giving all the candidates their fair share of airtime.

Debates aside.

[Reaganista]

i think the influence of the media is overstated

[DBoons Ghost]

i think the influence of the media is overstated

Really? So the media's overwhelming coverage of the Obama vs Clinton hasn't had any bearing on swaying candidates in their party?

Why has it seemed that Edwards has been left in the dust by the coverage? Is that just media covering front runners as they should or is Edwards simply abiding a failing campaign?

[Reaganista]

edwards never got any coverage at all the fact that he's still sort of relevent indicates that the media doesn't have that much influence

[Mr. Ron]

The media can blow things out of proportion. Like recently when Clinton got a little emotional when talking, the media made it out to sound like she had a extreme mental break-down or something.

[YDtoad]

edwards never got any coverage at all the fact that he's still sort of relevent indicates that the media doesn't have that much influence

he's not relevant. he got coverage until iowa, when he failed to win, and since then, he's the third dog in a 2 dog race.

honestly the media's impact is overrated. Mike Huckabee got little coverage until he was already climbing dramatically in the polls. Many other things factor into the process.


The media can blow things out of proportion. Like recently when Clinton got a little emotional when talking, the media made it out to sound like she had a extreme mental break-down or something.


At least that's gone away now that she's gone the route of undermining Martin Luther King's accomplishments. "It took a white person!"

[Reaganista]

he's relevant in that obama is doing a lot worse than he would otherwise

relevant in that 'third dog' candidates actually win state primaries all the time

[Hababi]

he's relevant in that obama is doing a lot worse than he would otherwise

relevant in that 'third dog' candidates actually win state primaries all the time

except that he's not going to.

[Independent_CA]

I think its hard to determine whether the media reflects more of public stupidity or corporate interests. I tend to lean toward the latter, but it's probably a mix of both.

The media has a detrimental effect on elections because it narrows the number of candidates people hear about and what they hear about them. It basically narrows people's choices for them and they might not know what they're missing out on. It might not be that bad in the grand scheme but for a country like the US, I think it's disappointing.

[Against Miik!]

The media doesn't just reflect public stupidity, it perpetuates it. Do you think, in terms of elections, that anybody actually goes out and does heavy research on all the candidates? No, probably not. They get sound bites and one liners. It is in this way that the media holds ultimate power. Those pundits on Fox and CNN and MSNBC can really say whatever they want about any candidate.

[VomitStainedCretin]

I want the media to control the election's outcome.

They know what is best for us. CNN is truth. CNN is power.Blasphemy! Fox is the only true source of all knowledge and purity... :rolleyes:

[Smokey D]

Media appears not to have influence over how people think (ie, it doesn't change opinions), but on what they think about (ie it frames the 'key issues' which often form the change how elections go).

[BigBadBooDooDady]

I think it has too much influence over everything, not just the election.

[Against Miik!]

The American Media is a bitch

edit: just like Hitler. Hitler was a bitch

[:amaze:]

Really? So the media's overwhelming coverage of the Obama vs Clinton hasn't had any bearing on swaying candidates in their party?


nope, the more i see/hear about a candidate that i don't like, the more annoyed i get by them.




:amaze:

[Reaganista]

except that he's not going to.
he's taking votes from obama regardless and ya he probably will but other than that thanks for your input

[Hababi]

he's taking votes from obama regardless and ya he probably will but other than that thanks for your input

no, he's not going to win a single primary. Bet your account on it.

[Cain]

At least that's gone away now that she's gone the route of undermining Martin Luther King's accomplishments. "It took a white person!"

um that's not what she said either, and frankly the media's been spinning the **** out of that too

[Hababi]

um that's not what she said either, and frankly the media's been spinning the **** out of that too

yeah she did. She credited LBJ. Guess what? LBJ was a racist white southerner who hopped on board due to Martin Luther King and the other civil rights leaders.

[Smokey D]

To be honest, she's probably right in that Martin Luther King needed to be accepted by the white establishment before he could actually change things.

Not that that in anyway takes away from what King did.

Also, I suspect it's a simplification of what she said which anti-Hillaryites are jumping on just because it confirms her identity as a wasp.

[Cain]

yeah she did. She credited LBJ. Guess what? LBJ was a racist white southerner who hopped on board due to Martin Luther King and the other civil rights leaders.

she didn't say "it was up to a white person."

really, that whole fracas is a bunch of oversensitivity to the language chosen by the candidates, which is produced by the media being hyper-attentive to mundane and pretty unimportant details.

and hillary gets it worse than all of them, which is pretty unfair. i don't like her but jeez it's pretty retarded for everyone to keep referring to the "emotional breakdown" when all she did was choke up a bit.

[Hababi]

she didn't say "it was up to a white person."

No, she didn't come right out and say it, but that was her message. "Yeah it's nice that you blacks are idealistic and all that but you need a white person to get the job done."



and hillary gets it worse than all of them, which is pretty unfair. i don't like her but jeez it's pretty retarded for everyone to keep referring to the "emotional breakdown" when all she did was choke up a bit.

Calculated theater.


To be honest, she's probably right in that Martin Luther King needed to be accepted by the white establishment before he could actually change things.

Not that that in anyway takes away from what King did.


Without Martin Luther King, civil rights would've been delayed. LBJ did nothing special, only what was politically most savvy for himself.

[Cain]

No, she didn't come right out and say it, but that was her message. "Yeah it's nice that you blacks are idealistic and all that but you need a white person to get the job done."

I'm sorry but you're utterly retarded if that's actually what you think she meant by that.

Calculated theater.

Even if it is why should anybody give a flying ****? That's the whole point I'm making, the media spun it way out of proportion to what it actually was and suddenly she wins New Hampshire because misogynistic idiots post all over the internet about how she's gonna cry all over Kim Jong Il while negotiating for nuclear proliferation or something and piss all the women off, none of whom have actually seen the video of her supposed "breakdown."

[Hababi]

I'm sorry but you're utterly retarded if that's actually what you think she meant by that.

This says it better than I did:
It may or may not be Hillary's intent to deprecate in stereotype fashion the role of black rhetoric in galvanizing change by pointing out that LBJ, not Martin Luther King Jr., is to be given the greater credit for enacting civil-rights legislation. But it is a losing argument for her against Obama, and she makes things much worse every time she or Bill dredge it up for at least several reasons.

First LBJ, the legal reformer, would have never have become the born-again civil-rights advocate (cf. his earlier career as a supporter of the Texas status quo), without the pressure from the movement inspired by King. King's job was to move public opinion, LBJ's to reflect —and capitalize on — those new realities.

Two, it is always a bad idea to praise LBJ at the expense of MLK. Rightly or wrongly, most Americans look back in horror at the former, and fondly at the latter. She's riding the wrong horse, and doesn't seem to grasp that fact.

Third, Hillary's paradigm confirms the complaints of racial stereotyping — white pros like herself and LBJ do the "real" work of intricate legislative craftsmanship, while black "inspirational" leaders, such as Obama and MLK, with no aptitude for detail or complex law, give fiery speeches and protest about unfairness.

Fourth, it flies in the face of facts that Obama, the Harvard law graduate and senator from Illinois, can only inspire and not understand or promote law.

She and Bill obviously think that they've so cemented the issue of the Clintons as our first Black Presidents that their racial fides is above suspicion. It isn't; and the Obama the soul speaker vs. Hillary the brainy insider is a lose / lose / lose /lose proposition. I'm surprised that her handlers haven't muzzled altogether the Clintoni on this issue.


http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDVjMTA4ZmZmZWM1OTRlNWNjNDNlODZmNjg5ZGQyNTg=

[Cain]

Hillary was trying to communicate that the big difference between her and Obama was that she was a doer and a talker, and seized on comparisons between Obama and other orators like King to throw this into relief: that it's not enough to talk and make speeches but to have someone in office with the requisite determination and skill to turn the dream into reality. She flubbed up her wording so it sounded unflattering of King, and granted, it was gaffe, one which I rather appreciated at the time as I am, I reiterate, supporting Obama and am no fan of Hillary Clinton.

However, let's be serious. I highly doubt that Hillary's inborn racism was a significant factor in this, and the ridiculous hoopla surrounding the whole issue was pretty much a creation of the media, which has been dying for the breaking out of race and gender in the contest ever since Obama and Clinton started running against each other. So let's stay on topic here and quit suggesting that Hillary was somehow intentionally or even subliminally suggesting that black people can't do it on their own. The suggestion is ludicrous. And it's typical, BTW, of the National Review to print something like that, and perfectly supportive of the thread's point that you're citing it as something that has influenced the way you view the issue.

[Hababi]

I don't think that Hillary is an inborn racist, I think she is an opportunist. She wants to peg Barrack Obama as the 'black' candidate and thus marginalize him, and this was designed to draw him into a dialogue that would do precisely that.

[Cain]

I don't think that Hillary is an inborn racist, I think she is an opportunist. She wants to peg Barrack Obama as the 'black' candidate and thus marginalize him, and this was designed to draw him into a dialogue that would do precisely that.

That's stupid though. It's a losing battle for both of them to bicker about who's the more historical one, or who deserves the landmark "first" first, or whatever, and both of them are smart enough to realize that which is why they called a truce about it. The media was spinning the whole thing and getting them to comment on the issue back and forth, and were covering stupid crap that the guy who started BET said, and the only thing I could think was "who cares?" Whatever happened in that, it wasn't anywhere near as important as it was made out to be by some regrettably influential people.

She wanted to marginalize him as someone who can only speak a good speech. But in that one case it backfired.

I still say that your original supposition that her message was one of "well took a white guy to help you blacks out" was ridiculous. You're free to concede that it was exaggerated though, you know, internet and all that.

[Hababi]

She stopped it because it backfired on her, not because she didn't plan it. It's pretty ludicrous how you consistently presume the worst in Republicans but won't recognize a shrewd, calculating manipulator when she's a Democrat.

[Smokey D]

Without Martin Luther King, civil rights would've been delayed. LBJ did nothing special, only what was politically most savvy for himself.

Without someone receptive in the white establishment (especially the White House), even if they did it for political expedience, the civil rights movement would have been delayed too.

[Hababi]

Without someone receptive in the white establishment (especially the White House), even if they did it for political expedience, the civil rights movement would have been delayed too.

MLK was responsible for a popular tide against segregation. Responsiveness from nationally serving politicians was just a given. Nixon would've done the same thing.

[Cain]

recognize a shrewd, calculating manipulator when she's a Democrat.

I do recognize that, which is exactly why I put her at the bottom of my list of Dem nomination preferences. I also recognize that she is that way because of the conditioning she has been given by the media, which has hammered her from every direction for things that are solely gender-oriented. Whether it's her pretending she's not a woman for political gain or her acting too much like a woman for political gain, she gets slammed for things that the other candidates will never have to deal with. Her success depends on her ability to be shrewd and calculate what to say that will navigate her around those obstacles and still gain the momumental support needed for ANYBODY, man or woman, to be elected president. And while the knowledge that that's the case does not influence my vote choice it's still pretty regrettable.

The only reason the issue erupted in a way that it totally did not when Joe Biden made a much more explicit reference to Obama's race (which was universally recognized as a slip-up rather than some "calculating maneuver") was because the media's been itching for the great gender-race clash of the titans that refuses to materialize, so they took the littlest thing that seemed like it would provoke it and ran with it. That's all I'm saying. Your statement is still ridiculous.

EDIT: And BTW the only Republican currently running who I assume the worst in is Giuliani. Every other one owns varying degrees of "less preferable than the Democrats." :)

[Smokey D]

MLK was responsible for a popular tide against segregation. Responsiveness from nationally serving politicians was just a given. Nixon would've done the same thing.

Yeah, but the point is that the white establishment needed to respond in order for anything to happen.

Not that it changes the importance of MLK.

[stupid dream]

"Amusing Ourselves to Death" by Neil Postman might be an interesting read (though it's a bit outdated, 1985)

[McP3000]

"Amusing Ourselves to Death" by Neil Postman might be an interesting read (though it's a bit outdated, 1985)
what

are

you

talking

about

[TheDarkHorse]

this is one of those questions that has a right answer, and the answer is: obviously.

While the media's responsibility is to educate us, its our part to realize its corrupting more than helping and do our own research.