2086 Shares

What influenece did Television have on U.S presidential elections since the 1960s?

What influenece did Television have on U.S presidential elections since the 1960s? Topic: How to write a current issue papers
June 20, 2019 / By Cher
Question: What influenece did Television have on U.S presidential elections since the 1960s? Televison has been influential in U.S presidential elections since the 1960's. But just what is this influence, and how has it affected who is elected? Has it made elections fairer and more accessible, or has it moved candidates from pursing issues to pursuing image? Please give me examples taken from past presidential elections and current presidential elections. Help me write a paper on this by giveing me some examples
Best Answer

Best Answers: What influenece did Television have on U.S presidential elections since the 1960s?

Asceline Asceline | 6 days ago
In the 1960s, the Presidential election was between Kennedy and Goldwater. Kennedy, being much younger, was considered more attractive. So now you have looks being brought into the equation. Where as, instead of policy being thrown around like true candidates. Also, it has provided candidates with a chance to slam their opponent, instead of doing what is right, and giving their views. Mud slinging. Reason why Bush got the nomination over McCain. By far, the election has become more unfair because the media can pick and choose a candidate. This time, they like Obama.
👍 100 | 👎 6
Did you like the answer? What influenece did Television have on U.S presidential elections since the 1960s? Share with your friends

We found more questions related to the topic: How to write a current issue papers


Asceline Originally Answered: Who are you going to vote for in the 2010 california elections?
Governor: Brown US Senator: Boxer US Rep: Mike Honda As the election gets closer I'll look at the other statewide races to see who appeals to me for each post.

Zeke Zeke
The classic example to use here is the TV debates between Kennedy and Nixon. Those who heard the debate on the radio (and did not see the candidates) said Nixon won, while those who watched TV said Kennedy one because he looked better than Nixon. Thus, one could argue that the issues are overlooked on TV as long as the candidate looks good. Another place you could look for an influence are sound bites. TV has shortened the attention span of people, so news organizations want 30 seconds or less of each news story. Consequently, a politician with a concise, sharp retort of a candidate gets press time while the lengthy speaker gets little. (Think "wheres the beef" commericals in the 1980s or "you're no kennedy") There are also laws governing air time to candidates to "make things fairer," but there are plenty of loopholes that keep things from being fair.
👍 30 | 👎 0

Skidbladnir Skidbladnir
The best example out there of this is the election of 1960(?) between Richard Nixon and JFK. JFK won because he was a very handsome man and he looked great on tv, the women loved him and the men thought he was a manly man. Nixon lost because he looked like a nervous grouchy gray mess, his image is mostly what won JFK that election.
👍 25 | 👎 -6

Ophir Ophir
http://livingroomcandidate.movingimage.u... has an archive of many presidential election commercials that might help you. We have debates and debate analysis now. We can see the candidate in footage daily, and aren't just going by facts reported in the newspaper. Now we have round-the-clock coverage from both republican and democratic standpoints.
👍 20 | 👎 -12

Ophir Originally Answered: Shouldn't would amend the constitution to allow corporations to vote in elections?
Hits the nail on the head, Hemp. Former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was up in arms today (1/26) about last week's Supreme Court "debacle" as she called it. What gets me (and you, and O'Connor) is that the simple fact that corporations are now recognized as "individuals". The points others make about rich people like Buffet, Obama's contributors and so on are entirely beside the point. The Founding Fathers must be rolling in their graves. Of course boosters will say that this is just sour grapes on O'Connor's part as she was instrumental in supporting the law was overturned. More Liberal whining now that things are as they should be. Never mind that 100 years of legislation at both State and Federal levels was razed like Sherman marching toward Georgia. In fact, when you think of it that way, painful as it may be for some what has happened is downright patriotic! Big Brother takes on a whole new meaning. As does the expression "marrying money". But hey. Like one 'Top Contributor' explained elsewhere, The Constitution says "Congress shall pass no law abridging freedom of speech"; and went on to point out there is no mention of "Individuals". Stupid me, jumping to conclusions. Obviously the authors would have put that in the text if that's what they meant, no? Come to think of it, it does say "In God We Trust" on our currency, too. All this time I thought that was a motto. Turns out it's actually a label. My mistake again.

If you have your own answer to the question how to write a current issue papers, then you can write your own version, using the form below for an extended answer.