Future of Media and Politics

This is my last blog post for my Mass Media and Politics class. Thus being said, I will focus on what I believe the future will look like in regards to politics and the media. I have spent a good amount of my posts talking about how I believe the focus and concentration of the media is way off balance. What I mean by this is that the American people know more about a politician’s personal life than they know about his/her policy views. We have seen this focus grow at a fast rate starting with the Nixon Watergate scandal. Once the media focused their attention on this, Congress had no other choice but to launch an extensive investigation. Soon after came the Clinton sex scandal. During this scandal there was so much going on both domestically and internationally. Did the media purposely focus on this story to distract the American people from something else? Then when George W. Bush was running for office, the media felt the need to bring up a DUI situation that happened more than twenty years ago. Here is an article written in 2000 to show that they brought the incident to light: https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2000/11/bush-n04.html . My point to all of this is that the media focuses so much attention on the politicians’ personal lives, and they should rather be focusing on their policy issues. I believe that FDR would not win the presidential election is he was running in today’s political world. The media would grab a hold of the fact that he was in a wheelchair and would somehow make him look weak. It is a shame that we live in a political world like this, and I believe that this focus is only going to continue to increase in the future.

Another issue I have discussed in depth is how big of an impact social media has had on the mass media and politics. The three big sites I think of when I see social media are: Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube. Facebook has 1.19 billion active users; Twitter has 500 million users; YouTube has 1 billion users. http://expandedramblings.com/index.php/resource-how-many-people-use-the-top-social-media/4/ . I bring this stat up because it shows how many people are involved in technology and communicating with other people on the internet. In one of my previous posts I brought up a stat regarding twitter and the presidential debates. Twitter and other social media sites have integrated themselves in these debates to get the people more involved and more interested in the political process. While this is certainly a good thing, I believe it can also be bad because of the fact that Americans now expect to know every little thing that is going on in Washington D.C. I have called for less transparency in certain situations, such as when congress is debating a bill. I call for this because I believe that there will be more compromise when the two main parties can speak freely with each other without having to worry about whether they are upsetting the voters of their party. Thus being said, I believe the future of social media will continue to grow at an exponential rate, and when the masses speak out the politicians and media will listen. Less transparency will be nearly impossible to happen. It will be in the near future that all new young politicians will have to worry about every little thing in their past. I do not believe this is a good path for American politics.

To conclude, I believe that America will continue to become more polarized in the coming years. The big media sites are continuing to become more opinionated and more partisan. This in turn creates a more polarized society that makes it hard for any compromise to ever happen. I believe we will continue to see the mass media focus on unimportant issues about the personal lives of politicians as well as what each celebrity is doing in their free time. While there are media sites that are nonpartisan and unbiased, they are relatively small and cannot compete with the big conglomerate news companies that have tens of millions of viewers on a weekly basis. I hope that the American people will soon call for a new news station that presents the facts as they are, and does not favor one political party over the other. America has the ability to become even more prosperous, but this begins with things like the mass media focusing on important issues, and politicians not having to worry about pleasing a certain political party. Once the big parties can put pride to the side and start focusing on what really needs to get done, this is when American will become stronger and more prosperous. 

Less Transparency

It is widely known how Americans trust in Congress has been on the decline over the years. It seems that our country is getting more and more polarized in terms of political views, and I believe a large part of this has to do with how much transparency there is. While I do think that we should be holding our politicians accountable for their actions, I also believe that there should be less transparency. I am mainly referring the C-Span coverage when congress is in session. Before conducting a vote in congress, the representatives first debate the issue in the Capitol. I believe that all media should be off limits when these debates are occurring.

We live in a technological world where a single message can reach millions of people in a matter of seconds. Thus being said, politicians now have to watch what they say more than ever. When these debates are occurring in congress, I believe that the representatives aren’t saying exactly what they want to on account of the fact that they are too worried to upset constituents. Maybe this is why the two parties can’t seem to reach agreements on issues. I believe that shutting off the media in these meetings would result in the politicians speaking more freely, and I also believe this would result in better results and less polarization. I do, however, believe that every vote should continue to be published and every bill readily available to any citizen that would like to read it.

This article illustrates my point that the media causes even more polarization http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/james-carville/328731-polarization-in-media-worsens-partisanship . Both the republicans and democrats are creating such a strong divide in this country that we are almost at the point of no return. Party views are so strong that our country will continue to have a harder time reaching agreements on any issue. Although my proposal calls for less transparency during the debates in the Capitol, every constituent will still be able to see exactly how their representative voted, and will also be able to see what exactly is written in each bill.

As I already mentioned, the politicians today have to watch their every move because of the speed in which news gets reported. While raising taxes may be a good move (hypothetical situation), a congressman may not offer that proposal because he/she is worried that their constituents will see them make this suggestion. By getting the media out of these discussions, the politicians will be able to speak more openly, which could potentially lead to more agreements and compromises from the two big parties. 

Too Much Control

I have mentioned many times how the mass media is directly correlated with politics. One recent post I did was about President Obama speaking about Trayvon Martin, and I believe he did this because the media gave the story so much attention. I believe this same concept applies to every situation our country has ever faced. The government, over the past century, has been getting more and more involved in the daily lives of American citizens. They feel it is their “responsibility” to tell people what they can and cannot do. While I do believe that the government should be involved in certain aspects, I think that they are way too involved currently. Why does the government even discuss certain issues such as equality, gay marriage, or legalization of marijuana? It is because the mass media hypes up these situations to the point where people start large movements in favor of a certain position.

As I mentioned, I do not believe the government is all bad, just as I do not believe the media is all bad. The government, in my opinion, is involved in too many aspects of our lives; however, I believe that it is good that they got involved in certain aspects. One aspect in particular was the Civil Rights Movement. The media during this time had been covering the movement on a daily basis, and this kept the people up to date and involved on the situations. Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) was a Supreme Court case that made all people “separate but equal.” This essentially meant that it was legal to have separate facilities for whites and blacks, but all men were seen as equals. The 1950s sparked a movement towards civil rights, which led to the Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision, which essentially overturned the Plessy decision. Had it not been for the coverage from the media, as well as the movement from the people, who knows if the government would have addressed the issue of segregation. Thus being said, does the media control what is going to be discussed in politics? I believe they do to a certain extent. Here is a good article that talks about the media coverage of the March On Washington http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/28/march-on-washington-media-coverage_n_3814627.html .

Since I mentioned what I consider to be a “good” thing the government got involved in, now I will go to what I consider to be crossing the line. I am a firm believer in the constitution and people’s rights. It irritates me how the government wants to control everyone’s lives and say what they think is “right” or “wrong.” The biggest social issue our country faces today is gay marriage and whether or not it should be legal. I absolutely do not understand why the American people are letting the government even discuss this issue. A marriage is not between a person and the government; it is between a person and another person. Why does the government feel it is their responsibility to say what will make people happy? Even if the government creates a constitutional amendment that states a man cannot marry a man, and a woman cannot marry a woman, this will not stop these people from living together and being happy. With all the troubles America is involved in throughout the world and here at home, I do not understand why these social issues are at the top of the list. I would much rather hear our representatives discuss a plan to control spending and bring down the debt, or a plan to bring our troops home. These are real issues. I believe that we will look back fifty years from now and laugh that our government was so concerned about the issue of gay marriage. After all, it is not like people are wanting to marry an animal, they simply want to legally be able to marry the person that makes them happy. This article does a great job of describing government’s role on this issue: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/03/27/when-it-comes-to-marriage-government-should-divorce-itself/ .

In conclusion, mass media does a great job of bringing attention to big issues, which ultimately results in politician’s discussing that issue and making a decision on it. As shown, this is not always a bad thing. The Civil Rights movement may not have been as big if it were not for the mass media, and the politicians may not have even addressed the issue of racial equality. These kinds of issues are ones that the media should pressure the government to take control over. Social issues such as gay marriage are not something that the government should be involved in. 

Is Three A Crowd?

Anyone that follows politics knows that the candidates running are not only Republican or Democrat; there are other candidates known as "third-party candidates." These candidates do not get even a small percentage of the attention that the bigger named candidates get that are affiliated with either the Republican or Democratic party. One problem with this two-party system that we are in is that the American people see issues as only having two options; they do not get to hear the other options unless they do their own research.

One of the more well known third parties today is the Libertarian Party. The candidate for this party in the 2012 presidential election was Gary Johnson. If you walk down the street and ask someone who the candidate for this party was, I would bet that less than half of the people would know this answer. Why? Because the media does not give these candidates any attention on the nightly news, and they also do not invite them to the presidential debates. Despite being shut out by the media, Johnson still received over one million votes in the election. http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/11/08/Libertarian-Party-buoyant-Greens-hopeful/UPI-46151352363400/ .

Many Republicans in the 2012 election did not like Ron Paul because they did not see him as being a true Republican. These people are correct. Paul is considered to be a Libertarian, but he had to join the Republican ticket if he wanted to get any kind of media exposure to get his message and beliefs to the American people.

Third party candidates have not always been excluded from participating in the debates. Ross Perot was  included in the debates during the 1996 election. Although Perot did not win the election, he still received over 8% of the votes. http://presidentelect.org/e1996.html . Is it fair for the American people that the media chooses to only show two parties beliefs? I do not think it is fair. In our political society today, many people rely on their information by watching an hour of television a few times each week. During the election season, these mass media sites only focus on the two major parties, which essentially leaves the average voter with two candidates to choose from. While I do not believe that every third party candidate should be on stage for the presidential debates, I do believe that putting one more candidate in the debates is a good start for now. Our country is very black and white when it comes to politics today, meaning that there are only two ways of doing things. It is time to bring some real change to politics and give the American people more options.

New Style of Debates

The role of the mass media regarding politics, in my opinion, is to provide the American people with factual and unbiased information. For the most part they do a decent job of this, but I believe there is still a lot of room to improve. One area in particular that I would like to see improved is how much news anchors press politicians for a straight clean-cut answer. We see too often how a politician will get asked a specific question but will then answer in a way that jumps around a true answer. The anchors or journalists simply just let it go. One area I wish to see this improved is in presidential debates.

One problem I see with current presidential debates, is that the moderators allow the candidates to dodge certain questions. This allows the candidate to not take responsibility for something they have done or something they believe in. They dodge certain questions because they know they could lose potential votes if their true colors came out about a certain issue. It is the media's responsibility to accurately show the American people what policies a candidate believes in, and this can't be properly done if the politician's are constantly dodging questions. This article describes the art of "dodging" and how many people do not notice that it is happening: http://articles.latimes.com/2012/sep/22/opinion/la-oe-rogers-debates-20120923 .

I believe a hindrance on the matter of presidential debates is that the news station relies on profits from commercials. What I would like to see is a non-profit news station take over the debates and clear a five hour window with no commercial breaks. The debate may not take five hours, but I think it should be available if needed. There should then be a moderator that knows what each candidate believes in, and should have a set list of questions to get the ball rolling. It irritates me when I watch a debate to hear the moderator say that Candidate A only has 30 seconds to respond. What? How can you put a time limit on the potential future leader of the most powerful country in the world? Each candidate should be given as much time as they would like to answer and respond to the other candidate. The moderator should only be there to ensure that each candidate fully answers the questions asked. One more note on the moderator: If he/she asks a question such as "What kind of pizza do you prefer?" then that person should be banned from any future debates.

A few people have said that a Lincoln-Douglas style of debating should be implemented. This style of debating involves Candidate A speaking for 1 hour, Candidate B speaking and rebutting for 1 1/2 hours, and Candidate A closing the debate by speaking for 30 minutes. This style of debate involves no questions from anyone and no moderator. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/3/obama-and-romney-should-debate-lincoln-douglas-sty/ . While I think this style would be interesting to see, I would prefer to see each candidate discuss every aspect of their policies and have the candidates battle it out with one another. Maybe instead of having a moderator, have a panel of 3-4 people who's only purpose is to be a fact checker. This would be my Utopia of presidential debates.

Too Much Coverage?

It is undoubtedly true that the media has some sort of influence in the way in which politicians act on a certain issue. One recent example I want to discuss is gun control. One of the more controversial court cases in my lifetime (in terms of gun violence) is the Trayvon Martin shooting case. There is no question that George Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin. What was unclear to everyone was whether or not this shooting was in fact justifiable and within the limitations of the law. The case went to court and the jury decided that George Zimmerman acted in self-defense and the shooting was in fact justifiable. What amazed me about this case is the amount of media attention it received and also how many politicians responded to the matter to give their input. 

The one politician that I want to discuss is President Obama. There are thousands of deaths each year due to gun violence, so why did Obama choose this case to speak about? The answer is quite simple: the media couldn’t stop talking about the case. I certainly understand why this story got the nation’s attention; what I do not understand is why we live in a society in which we are glued to the television to see the court discussions of people like OJ Simpson, Casey Anthony, and George Zimmerman. I can understand OJ since he was a professional athlete, but the other two? Why does the media feel the need to make these people celebrities? In my opinion it ruins these peoples’ lives. Although Anthony and Zimmerman were acquitted, there are still thousands of people that want these two people dead because they believe they were wrongly convicted.

Back to Obama. Why did he feel the need to discuss this case? It is because he was in the midst of discussion on gun reform and he found a perfect story to promote his message. Watch the video here to see what he said: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHBdZWbncXI  If you look at 0:35 of the video, Obama says that he wanted to speak on this issue because it has gained a lot of media attention over the past few weeks. This statement affirms my point that the media has a strong influence on what politicians discuss in their speeches. This is obviously a very controversial issue, and one, in my opinion, that Obama should have stayed away from. It is an issue that involves the Judicial Branch, not the Executive. This speech irritates me to watch because Obama, like the media, is making this case based on race. He said that Trayvon Martin could have been him 35 years ago. This is completely unnecessary to say, because this comment only makes people angrier about the situation. Take a look at this page to see what I am talking about: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/06/27/if-zimmerman-get-off-ima-go-kill-a-white-boy-trayvon-martin-supporters-make-shocking-threats-ahead-of-verdict/ . These people use social media sites to give their opinion about the case. 

Social media, mass media, and politics all go hand in hand with one another. I do, however, believe that the American people and mass media have the upper hand in determining what politicians talk about. These media sites report a story, like the Trayvon Martin case, and people immediately give their opinion on the matter without knowing all of the facts on the matter. The media then discusses this issue nearly every night on air to give people an “update” on the matter. This keeps people involved in these stories, and sometimes makes them so furious when their predicted outcome did not happen. It is as if there is a jury of 50 million people, not just 12 anymore. Once politicians hear that there is a controversial issue, they then decide to speak out on the matter. 

This immediately makes me think of the recent tragedy that happened to a KSU student. http://www.ksusentinel.com/2013/10/15/ksu-student-killed-in-road-rage-shooting/  Kimberly Kilgore was shot in the head by Sparkles Lindsey. Kilgore was white, Lindsey is black. I certainly do not immediately think this was an issue because of race, but what would the media have to say if this story got national attention? Would Obama come out and defend Kilgore while at the same time not even acknowledging Sparkles? 

I believe that the media should give more attention to our fallen troops overseas so that Obama would acknowledge their sacrifice. After all, Obama, being president, is the reason our troops are in danger overseas defending our freedom. I am not saying that Obama does not acknowledge our fallen troops or that the media doesn’t give them attention, I am saying that these men and women do not get nearly the amount of attention that people like Zimmerman and Anthony get. The media has allowed everyone in America to become a lawyer and give their legal advice and opinion about a certain issue. While social media is a great thing to have to express one’s opinion, I do not think it should be used to make violent threats to others. To conclude, I believe that the president has a lot of big responsibilities in keeping our country strong and safe; I do not believe one of his responsibilities should be discussing the legality of a case and further infuriating people by showing that he believes something was done because of race. These are the kinds of things that divide a nation.

Presidential Debates

It fascinates me how the advancement of technology has gotten more people involved in politics. I truly believe that the creation of social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter are greatly responsible for this. When looking at how social media can impact how people are actively involved in politics, we can look at the Presidential Debates and see how the number of viewers have changed over the past decade.

The 2000 election was between Al Gore and George W. Bush, and it was one of the closest elections of all time. Before I begin with the numbers, I must note that Facebook was not created until 2004 and Twitter until 2006. The presidential debates consists on three different debates spread out by about one week from each other. The first debate, October 3, 2000, had a viewership of 46.6 million people. This number was fairly consistent with the previous election debates. The second debate in the 2000 election brought in 37.5 million people, and the third debate had 37.7 million people. These numbers represent less than 10% of the US population.

Although Facebook was created in 2004, it did not impact the viewership of the debates in a significant manner. However, the first debate had a viewership of 62.4 million people. This spike in numbers could have been due to the fact that we were in the midst of a war, but nevertheless, this number is quite significant. The second debate was significantly lower with 43.5 million viewers, and the third debate had 46.7 million viewers. While these numbers are higher than the 2000 election, it is still hard to see how social media impacts these debates and the election.

The 2008 election was one of the more significant elections in our nation's history because of the fact that the first African-American president was elected. The first debate brought a viewership of 52.4 million people, which is a respectable number. The second debate brought in a whopping 69.9 million people. The third had 63.2 million people. These numbers were rare to have, but it was good for America as more and more people were getting involved. Twitter was up and running for the 2008 debates, but it was still fairly new to a lot of people. For all four debates (including VP debate) the number of tweets sent out totaled 500,000. This is significant in terms of political involvement. http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/04/presidential-debate-most-tweeted-political-event-in-us-history/

The 2012 debates saw similar numbers in terms of viewership. The first brought in 67.2 million; the second had 51.4 million; and the third had 65.6 million. These numbers are significant in the fact that there is still a wide range of people that are getting and staying involved in the political process. What is significant about the 2012 debates is how big of an impact social media had. For the first time, people could tweet their questions to the news station hosting the debate, and some of these questions would be read out loud to the candidates to answer. The number of tweets in the FIRST debate totaled more than 10.3 million...http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/technology/2012/10/presidential-debates-more-than-10-million-tweets-in-less-than-2-hours/ This is significant for america because it shows that people are expressing their opinion more and more, and they aren't afraid of getting involved in the process. The total number of tweets for all three presidential debates was more than 23 million. Try to wrap your head around that for a minute. http://www.newsmax.com/US/Twitter-debate-foreign-policy/2012/10/23/id/461088 . This once again goes to show how big of an impact social media can have on politics. These numbers are certainly optimistic in terms of more people getting involved in the political process.

The numbers I used for number of viewers can be found here: http://www.debates.org/index.php?page=debate-history