Every two to four years, a group of highly-esteemed individuals attempt to showcase their talents and resumes to the American people. They seek to rise above the rest through the glorified portrayal of themselves. Whether it is for small mayor elections or for the emotionally fuelled presidential campaigns, candidates regularly use the media to urge the voters to make careful decisions. Basically, candidates want voters to vote for them, and only for them.
But, does it work?
Fig. 1 Lyndon Johnson 1963 Campaign Video.
"Lyndon Johnson - Daisy." Online Posting. YouTube, 5 Nov, 2011. Web.
The above video depicts a televised presidential ad advocating Lyndon Johnson for president. It seems to have been a success since he became president that year in 1963. That was about forty years ago. Are televised campaign ads still effective in our society today?
In a recent paper written by Jonathan S. Krasno from Binghamton University and Donald P. Green from Yale University titled “Do Televised Presidential Ads Increase Voter Turnout? Evidence from a Natural Experiment”, they claim that “campaign ads have a greater impact in less informed respondents than on well informed ones…the effect of campaign ads on turnout does not vary with political information” (Krasno and Green 247). The result: television ads had minimal effect on voter turnout in the 2000 general elections. How then does media play a role in campaigns and elections?
As part of the rising generation, televisions seem almost old-fashioned. Facebook, YouTube, MySpace, Twitter, Tumblr, and other social media are beginning to replace the seemingly old-dated technology. In an article on Science Daily written by Dr. Paul Haridakis, he states that social media “will play a significant role in persuading the electorate” (Kent State University, “Social Media And Presidential Election”). Social media played a significant role in the 2008 election. Haridakis adds in the article that “information gleaned from…social networks may be the information [people] find most credible and persuasive” because the people “listen to their buddy on his MySpace page, not necessarily the traditional messengers that candidates employ” (Kent State University, “Social Media And Presidential Election”). Candidates have to get a grasp of this technology if they want to reach out to the American people more effectively.
Social media is seems to be extremely effective in helping campaigns. Whether or not the candidatesuse it to its potential is another story.
Works Cited
Kent State University. “Social Media And Presidential Election: Impact of YouTube,
MySpace.” Science Daily, 31 Oct. 2008. Web. 4 Nov. 2011.
Krasno, Jonathan and Donald Green. “Do Televised Presidential Ads Increase Voter Turnout?
Evidence from a Natural Experiment.” The Journal of Politics. 70.1 (2008): 245-261.
I agree with the your point of view on the effects of that media. I agree with the evidence from Yale University that campaign commercials effects those who are less informed more than those who are informed. Is there evidence to support the last statement that it does help their campaign. In my personal experience commercials used to promote candidates are usually seen as sappy and not taken seriously, so they do not influence me to vote for that particular individual.
ReplyDeleteThanks Shelliece! I really appreciate your comments. The last statement can indeed by supported. I have used the term social media, which is a term that describes Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, etc. So, yes, you are correct about the use of commercials, but they are not related much to the term social media.
ReplyDeleteAs one who has become more politically involved as I have grown older, I am more critical towards media messages promoted by candidates. However, speaking with my younger siblings, who are less educated on political issues, I have discovered that the commercials and ads they see on television are influential upon them; they change their minds easily depending upon the biased message they are hearing or reading. I agree that social media is very important for candidates to access and take advantage of, because many of their voters take part in the social media. I loved your post; I had not thought of the influence of media in politics. Politics is a game, and so is the media. Unfortunately, our countries leaders are chosen based on who plays the game better, not better leaders.
ReplyDeleteYou brought up a good point when you said, "people 'listen to their buddy on his MySpace page, not necessarily the traditional messengers that candidates employ'". Its amazing how much influence people who you actually know can have over you, as opposed to a general message sent to all. I mean, how many of our political standings have been heavily influenced by what our family and friends think? The more personal contact through Facebook, twitter, etc. is much more persuasive and I believe will have a much greater influence than advertisements on television or in the newspaper.
ReplyDeleteEmma:
ReplyDeleteThanks so much for your wonderful comments! I'm glad I was able to help you understand more about this. It is no wonder why candidates concentrate so much on trying to get young adults like us to vote. We have the ability to turn the tide of an election, yet we're either lazy or we have no clue what is going on. I hope that we do our part and use our vote to send the correct message to the government.
Marissa:
I appreciate your comments. Although people have heavily influenced by others, it is usually because they have no opinion, or do not care to think for themselves. In order to refrain from such an attitude, we should put in a little effort to understand the politics that surround this country. We can do so much with just a vote and an opinion.