Poltics and the Media
... boy in the sense that constantly news of how he made it through life not because of his own accomplishments but because of his father. For instance the press was all over his service record and his education. Character is definitely a factor involved with any one in the public eye. Whether certain aspects of character are relevant to the position in the public should really be addressed. When character concerning the president of the United States is concerned it should be investigated in so far that we do not want a “pathological liar” or a “complete idiot” in the highest position of our country subtext should be filtered for what is relevant to the job that needs to be done. As far as Bush and Kerry, I think, Bush being an idiot and that a average C student is running our country should be of some concern because that could obviously affect decisions that are to be made. On the other hand to scrutinize Kerry for not spending time on the ranch in flannels, hunting, and playing sports would not affect how he runs the country. The press is so powerful and because of the decrease in the audience and the reliance on the media’s interpretations these subtext where widely accepted and funneled through the press’s eyes and straight through to the public. “ The vetting process through which reporters describe candidates is an extension of their watchdog role-by exposing what is wrong with candidates, as they do with government, they seek to prevent demagogues and dolts from assuming the highest office in the land. But, by focusing on a single character flaw, reporters place a lens over their eyes that can distort the public’s view.” (Jamieson and Waldman, pg 40) The press’s role as watchdog is to investigate the candidates but ultimately they should filter their findings to those that are relevant to the office of the persons they are investigating. In so far that the press’s interpretations are highly permeable to the public. Group A: Question 1 The press has undergone major reconstruction but not for the better. The press has moved from lapdog to watchdog and finally where we are currently in junkyard journalism. Lapdog journalism is in sync with politics in the sense that it reinforces its views and strictly reports political issues. Watch dog journalism is concerned with investigation of political matters and statements made by politicians. Lastly, junkyard journal is engulfed in personal matter and is often the bases for feeding frenzies. Lapdog journalism is directly related to the era of Roosevelt in which the Rooseveltian rule of thumb was in effect and lasted through JFK he took most advantage of the press’s state.” The Rooseveltian rule of thumb for press coverage was simple, and it endured for forty years: The private life of a public figure should stay private and undisclosed unless it seriously impinged on his or her public performance.” ( Sabato, pg 22) Coming out of the great depression and the support of Roosevelt influenced the type of media coverage that was in place which was very supportive. When JFK entered office he took complete advantage of the type of press that Roosevelt left behind. A very hear no evil see no evil type. Kennedy was notorious for his extramarital affairs but it was not news worthy because according to the rule it was his private life and did not apparently affect his public performance. Then came Nixon, Watergate and the Vietnam War in which followed watchdog journalism. Because of the scandal behind Watergate and the lying of the participation in the war the press took the role of investigators. They know began to question politicians and where no longer in sync with their views until they were thoroughly checked. Even though the press took on the role of investigators their investigations where strictly of politics and they did not venture into the private lives of the politicians. Nixon was the last president not to be challenged on a private matter. By the 1970’s that all changed. Edward Kennedy introduced the era of junkyard journalism with Chappaquiddick. After this incident the press realized that the private lives of politicians and their characters where of importance. “With Chappaquiddick, many journalists began to believe that private life and individual character traits had such a profound effect on politics and public policy that politicians’ personal lives could no longer be ignored.” (Sabato, pg 29) Chappaquiddick was the awakening for the press that private life does matter but also the introduction of television is a factor as well. With the introduction of television newspaper sales went down and then there was a surge outlets for news on television. Besides your local networks you also could chose between national news like CNN. Because of the high supply of news or variety to choose from it affected the stations down the line from market shares to cutbacks in the office. The lowest level of effects which went down to the office could have proven most detrimental as far as quality of news. The staff who are cut in the offices are the ones who did all of the investigative leg work that the actual head man had no time for. “Many senior correspondents bemoan the loss of many desk assistants and junior reporters who did much of the legwork necessary to get less superficial, more in depth pieces on the air.” (Sabato,pg 32) Beginning with Kennedy and then the decline in newspaper to the emergence of competition for television news gave way to our current state of junkyard journalism. Group B: Question 3 Journalists have a tremendous amount of influence when it comes to the public and the tactics they use are very deliberate. When they cover a campaign it is like a novel. It is very structured in the sense that they choose specifically every aspect of the topic they are covering to fit the story they are portraying to the public. They are constructing a narrative when it comes to debates because it had your average beginning, middle, and end which may coincide with the first second and third consequently though it rarely ever ends happily ever after. All news today tells a story but a problem with this style is that the stories are often from the journalist point of view. Considering the power over the public that the media has consider a journalist who is not in favor a particular politician and how their story might begin and end. The narratives that are created by journalist can be harmful to the politicians character in the publics view because many times they take an individual whom like all others is complicated and simplify them down to narrow frames in the larger narrative which also may consist of negative consequences on the candidate. “Each day’s news is a product of choices made by reporters in which certain pieces of information are deemed important and relevant and others ignored.” ( Jameison and Waldman, pg 35) This is the basic structure for constructing the narrative. The journalist are in complete control and they choose what is important or relevant to their story and often ignore information that does not fit into their story or may interfere with the story. Such information might be a piece of information that could damper their efforts to portray a candidate in a certain light. For instance if the narrative is about how Bush is a C student but also in their research they found an IQ test that showed other wise that is a piece of information that would filtered out because it would have no place in their story. Like noted before that test might suggest a happily ever after structure and that type of ending in the new is rare especially at the presidential level where the candidates are like a fresh piece of meat in shark water as Sabato might infer. Journalist are not looking to find positive things about candidates they are investigating and trying to air their dirty laundry to the public. “With the a loss of perspective, they cease making judgments about how much is too much and instead lock into the story line for the duration of the unfolding soap opera” (Sabato)This scenario where the press holds on to one thing and continues throughout the remainder of the story is indicative of presidential campaigns. Bush’s service record was a narrative in the campaign which came up constantly with help of Kerry and the democrats until finally the end when the documents where exposed and word processed. But until then it grew first it was speculated then it was watered and continued growing then the end it was a serious and he did get out but the media story ended tha...