Politics and the Media

Perhaps the greatest impact the media has is that on politics. The media shape America's interest in politics; the type of candidates that will run for office, and even tells us what to think about candidates and issues. The media affects American interest towards politics by only showing us what they want us to see. If there are many issues in a certain campaign, the media will focus on the ones they believe to be the most important, they may leave others out completely (Barnett 26). We become interested in certain areas of politics because we hear about them very often, and we lose interest very fast because we are always being bombarded with new bigger things.

It is not clear to everyone that the advertising mentality has changed the way in which the entire political process is run. Television ads are merely the tip of the iceberg in the political process. Everything in a campaign from the candidate himself on down to policies and party platforms are all dependent on the "selling-it" mentality (Jones 9). Politicians and their campaign managers know that they must appeal to the general public as a product to a consumer, and so today candidates who speak eloquently, dress well, interact well with the public, and adapt well to public life and attention are elected to office, sometimes over rivals who would have been more morally upright, more well-rounded, and better suited to the post.

A huge number of Americans experience their most tangible encounter with politics not at a campaign rally, debate or meet up, or even on the evening news, but by being subjected to a televised political advertisement. Being on the receiving end of all this can feel more like punishment than politics: not only do these ads arrive at an unrelenting pace, but they are nearly indistinguishable from one another. Most people would agree that televised political ads, almost without exception, are remorselessly bad. This is remarkable for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that commercials for consumer products actually tend to be quite good, and the TV-viewing public is exceptionally savvy about advertising. Consumer ads regularly warrant their own prime-time TV specials, and have become such a staple of our popular culture that Super Bowl hype now derives as much from the debuts of high-profile ad campaigns as from the game itself (Edwards 14). So it's strange that the commercials that seek to influence the most important "brand choice" any of us can make--for the leader of the free world--so consistently lag in quality and imagination behind those intended to influence our choice of light beer.

Ad makers have developed a kind of visual shorthand to communicate with viewers at a level of minimal consciousness. To link him with education, multiracial kindergartners are the norm (teenagers might look surly); for Middle American wholesomeness rolling fields of wheat are reliable; and especially since 9/11, the universal signifier for strength and patriotism has been "flags, flags, flags." In 2002 one political-consulting firm, Politically-e, dispensed with any illusion of originality and offered pre-taped political commercials that campaigns could buy and tailor to the candidate, like off-the-rack suits (White 16).

This type of negativity is one of the most frequent complaints about political advertising--criticism campaign professionals privately dismiss. There is ample scientific evidence that, despite widespread public distaste for them, negative ads are the most effective kind, because people are more apt to remember negative information than positive information (Welch 8). Television ads are a particularly cherished vehicle for disseminating such information. People tend to expose themselves only to information they agree with, but because political ads fill the airwaves, it's almost impossible to shut them out completely. They are often persuaded even without cognitively or openly choosing to be. There's another reason campaigns are so quick to employ, and often abuse, negative ads. Unlike Bud Light, which seeks to maximize its public appeal, political campaigns can afford to alienate the more sensitive members of the electorate and are perfectly happy to drive down turnout--as long as they win votes from a plurality of those who do show up. In fact, one reason campaigns bother running positive ads when a race turns nasty is to ensure that their negative ads remain effective. This is known in the trade as "running a positive and a negative track (Welch 9)."

One might say that these politicians are popular and therefore that is why they get so much publicity, but in reality some pay for every penny of it. Contrary to that, some candidates get free media exposure because of their current popular status. For example, many TV news stations will ask to interview a candidate if they were to make a comment that was offensive to some Americans and later became controversial. During the presidential election, every news station was covering every step that the candidates were doing, but really who decides what part of the campaign is covered? TV producers select what is to be aired and how it should be edited. One might ask, "Why do they decide what I want to watch?" The answer is simple; they are paid to select what should be aired. Everything from the political commercials, guest speakers, and interviews are decided on who gave the most money (Denton 48). For instance, political commercials are paid by a politician who pays for the show currently airing. The guest speakers are paid by the interviewer who decided to have them in order to promote that candidate, while they themselves are also paid by the candidate's campaign.

Everyday millions of Americans are bombarded with news reports of what is happening around the world by corporate-owned news stations. And for a majority of these Americans, this is their only source of national and local news. Moreover, most of us don't receive much international news unless we have a subscription to some international news stations. "What is wrong with this," you may be asking yourself. If NBC, ABC, CBS, Fox, and CNN are all covering the same story it must be important, right? Most of the news covered by these stations, if analyzed carefully, can be seen to serve some interest of the corporation which owns the station. NBC, for example, is owned by General Electric. NBC often covers stories promoting the use of the military. Their reports usually cover the war and the progress of the military in Iraq. General Electric produces many products for the military and generates about 10% of their profits by doing so (White 13). It is the media that decide what is conveyed in the form of news to the people. This gives them great power over our lives and the decisions we