Opal

At the approach of presidential election promotions of candidates filter into our lives. At home we turn on our television sets compelled to watch recent news coverage and we are updated on current election events. We may be interested in watching a debate between candidates. Checking our myspace page we might receive forwards from friends in attempts to support a particular candidate or glimpse campaign advertisements. In an active manner we may research candidates online. A simple walk down a familiar street may include campaign posters on walls or decorating the shirt of a passerby. Irritated behind a slow driver we might notice the bumper sticker “Vote so-and so.” The media employed in presidential campaigns have evolved to fare best in competition. As voters in an election we are essentially part of a target market and consumers of a product. The purpose of my delving into the current media involved in a presidential campaign is to become more aware of the methods of influence so that I may be able to submit a more educated and informed vote. I have focused primarily on television and the internet.
 * Mass Media and the Presidential Campaign **


 * __Television: Presidential Debates__**

John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon were the first candidates who had a debate televised. The debate was televised because both the television networks and the candidates’ campaigns expected to benefit. Here is a clip of the debate between Nixon and Kennedy dated September 26, 1960. media type="youtube" key="QazmVHAO0os" height="344" width="425" There is infamous speculation regarding who won the debate. Kennedy who appeared more at ease on television was considered the winner by those who watched the debate, but Nixon who appeared sweaty and less healthy fared better over the radio without his image being projected. The question if image overpowered content in this debate is interesting because that would imply that the public can be influenced by appearances and disregard important issues. Personally I venture to say that Kennedy used broad responses to questions while Nixon was more specific to the issues at hand. Please feel free to form your own opinion. If you would like to explore the source of my information on this subject or simply learn more visit http://www.kennesaw.edu/pols/3380/pres/1960.html.

My inspiration for the critical thinking in response to the power of images comes from Pat’s comment to my blog post concerning a Barack Obama campaign poster. You can access my blog post at the following link- []

[|Pat K] said... The image and strength of a picture and ideal is powerful, and especially a political picture depicting the strength of one man to change the world, society, and struggles we face today? If the creators of this image has your mind focused off the issues at hand and have you idolizing Obama, they have done their job. Would you concur? Pat Kaehler.

**__Television: Cable Television Talk Shows__**

In my Stephen Colbert blog post I shared about the humor involved in a presidential election: [|**http://jrn131opal.blogspot.com/2009/11/stephen-colbert.html**]. There are several television commentators who specialize on party specific issues during presidential elections or aim to specialize in avoiding party specific issues. Here are some sites for cable television shows that provide comment on presidential elections among other news related incidents. The O’Reilly Factor- [|**http://www.foxnews.com/oreilly/**] Real Time with Bill Maher- [|**http://www.hbo.com/billmaher/**] State of the Union- [|**http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/11/01/state-of-the-union-john-kings-crib-sheet-for-november-1/**] I feel that one should take care when watching a talk show concerning political opinion especially for the sake of determining bias. However, a person may have already established opinions and watch political commentary on elections for reinforcement. Nonetheless bias can distort facts and an election is an optimum time to do so because there is a product being sold (a president).

The internet a more recently developed medium has changed the dynamic of presidential campaigns. For a more overview on the internet and presidential campaign please see my blog post on the subject at [|**http://jrn131opal.blogspot.com/2009/11/internet-has-transformed-political.html**]. More specifically I would like to add that social networking sites have become a significant force for presidential campaigns in our last election in 2008. Not only can a candidate’s campaign utilize a social networking site for notoriety or promoting their stances but revenue can be generated. A candidate’s page may house advertisements of their supporters. The following online news article goes into a greater depth of the business of social networks and presidential campaigns: [|**http://money.cnn.com/2007/09/12/technology/candidates_socialnets/index.htm**]
 * __The Internet: Social Networking Sites__**

**__In Conclusion:__**

When weighing issues before voting for President of the United States we are under the influence of the mass media especially television and internet media. I have taken into consideration that candidates are promoted like a product. I have discovered that a candidate’s aesthetic appeal can overshadow important issues. A television show can deliver biased information affecting my opinion in favor of their preferred candidate. Revenue is a considerable factor involved in presidential campaigns and can influence the issues a candidate will support. In order to vote responsibly I feel that evaluating the content of a candidates stances rather than focusing on their appearance is important. Another important practice when evaluating the content of a candidate’s stance is asking “Why does the candidate support this issue and do they support the issue because they are receiving considerable revenue from the issue’s source?” When being updated on campaign news research the possible biases of the source delivering the news as to avoid slanted news coverage that can influence opinions.