While I agree that the mainstream news outlets do spend too much air time covering politician’s personal lives and political scandals, I also believe the media’s covering of these soft news stories has a lot to do with the timing of when they go on the air. This morning, for example, President Obama and NATO leaders concluded conference in Wales. Among the topics discussed at the NATO summit, according the CBS Morning News, was the crisis in the Ukraine and the ever evolving threat the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) pose to the Western countries. The journalist went on to report on the United Kingdom’s Prime Minister, David Cameron and President Obama’s joint article in The Times on confronting ISIS. Obama and Cameron called for an international coalition of the leaders of Germany, Italy, France and other NATO countries to challenge the rising terrorist threat from the Sunnni militant group. The timing of the NATO summit in Wales took precedence over any personal or political scandal-related story, and rightfully so. This evidence is contrary to Joseph Graf and Jeremy Mayer’s claim which stated, “Television contributed directly to the decline of issues and the rise of personality and individual character” (141). CBS got this one right, concentrating on news that is important to the people of this country. For an example of the media focusing too much on politician’s personal matters, I was watching an Inside Politics segment on CNN and the journalists were discussing Chris Christie’s recent visit to Mexico. Christie was in Mexico on a three day trade mission to promote economic partnerships between New Jersey and Mexico. The governor has been rumored to be a Republican candidate in the 2016 presidential elections in which immigration reform will be a hot topic debated. Christie was asked by a reporter to outline his stance on federal immigration policy. The New Jersey governor responded with, “I won’t have anything to say on immigration unless and until I become a candidate for president of the United States.” I applaud this answer, Christie does a good job at not committing himself to a presidential campaign in 2016 but he doesn’t rule out running for president either. Well, the journalists at CNN tore him apart, saying Christie, “took the easy way out” and that he, “should have an opinion on immigration reform regardless”. In my opinion, CNN was creating something out of nothing with this story. Running for president of the United States is a personal matter, a 2016 presidential campaign would have tremendous impact on Christie’s personal life. This should be a decision solely made by Christie, his family, and his most trusted advisors, not by CNN. Christie was in Mexico to encourage economic relations between New Jersey and Mexico (and perhaps to brush up on his foreign policy), and CNN should be asking questions about that. Instead, CNN decided to hammer potential presidential campaign questions at Christie, who has not even formally declared he is running for president in 2016.
Works Cited:
Semiatin, Richard J. "Campaign Press Coverage." Campaigns on the Cutting Edge. Washington, D.C.: CQ, 2008. N. pag. Print.
As modern society has evolved, the media has progressively focused more and more on politicians’ personal lives and political scandals. Politicians’ personal lives and political scandals are one of the most important topics to newsgatherers. Readers have an interest in political figures’ personal lives and want to see what goes on in their lives besides the political aspect. While it is fascinating to see what goes on in politicians’ personal lives, the main focus should really be on the politicians’ political views and how they are going to work to improve the government as well as what they can contribute to society. I believe that people who work for the media are just sitting on the edge of their seats waiting for these political figures to mess up and potentially create a scandal.
For example, President Obama has successfully been able to focus more on his opposing party’s political viewpoints rather than what goes on in their personal lives and what mistakes they have made. In an interview Obama had with Barbara Walters back in 2011, the president declined to answer a question Walters had about former House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s three marriages and said, “the focus should be on the differences in their political positions-not marital problems or personal foibles” (Tau 1).
When it comes to covering politicians’ personal issues or possibly a political scandal that is occurring, one aspect of media that started putting more focus on political figures’ personal issues was television. “Television reduced the importance of issues and raised the profile of personalities and private scandals from the rise of John Kennedy to the Bill Clinton-Monica Lewinsky scandal”(Semiatin 139). Regarding scandal, we question why political scandal is more dominant today. “Since the early 1960s, scandals have become an increasingly prevalent feature of political life in many Western societies, including Britain and the United States” (Thompson 106.) The bottom line is that scandals make news and grab readers’ attentions.
I think that the media is also focused on providing readers with “soft news”. Sometimes, we get tired of hearing about all of the “boring” governmental issues and want to read or hear about something newsworthy going on in politicians’ lives. While it can be fascinating to read about these topics, it is important to remember, “Except where private conduct strongly connects to public office, a politician’s personal life is not news. Nor is gossip about such” (Cohen 1).
Sometimes, the president just wants to enjoy vacation time with his family. If the media is so focused on how he is spending his vacation, it can be difficult for him to focus on his family first. However, despite the media’s influence, Obama has been able to concentrate on his limited vacation time and ignore the media. The media and newsgatherers like to focus on the little personal details of politicians’ lives and sometimes this is too much.
While it is OK to cover politicians’ personal lives and to broadcast issues such as scandal, often times the media bombards us with this information resulting in politicians being frustrated and overwhelmed and not being able to focus on the task at hand which is working to keep our government intact.
Works Cited:
Cohen, Jeff. "Covering The Private Lives of Politicians." FAIR. N.p., 1 Nov. 1999. Web. 07 Sept. 2014
Semiatin, Richard J. "Campaign Press Coverage." Campaigns on the Cutting Edge. Washington, D.C.: CQ, 2008. N. pag. Print.
Tau, Byron. "Obama: Media Should Focus on Issues, Not Personal Lives." POLITICO. N.p., 23 Dec. 2011. Web. 07 Sept. 2014
Thompson, John B. Political Scandal: Power and Visibility in the Media Age. Cambridge: Polity, 2000. Print.
In 2014, the media focus on everything and anything they can get their hands on. As a journalism major, I think I should include myself in the aforementioned statement, because I am always searching for the latest scoop.
As a political junkie, I follow a realm of political news coverage, ranging from the good, the bad, and the down right ugly. While I always don’t agree with how some political reporters tackle their beat, I have to appreciate and respect the lengths some journalists will go to expose the truths that lye beneath our highly guarded political system.
That being said, a quote on page 107 of Thompson’s Political Scandal sets up the topic of this blog post nicely. “It seems likely that the growing prevalence of political scandal has less to do with a general decline in the moral standards of political leaders than with the changing ways in which, and the extent to which, the activities of leaders are disclosed and scrutinized to the public domain.”
The media is now a 24-hour operation in our society. We have newspapers, television shows, webcasts, YouTube channels, blogs, Twitter, Facebook and more, and each outlet offers a chance for political details to be exposed. In my opinion, political reporters and the media are taking advantage of the usually ignorant decisions holders and candidates for political office sometimes make. But do I think the media sometimes crosses a line? In certain situations, yes, I do.
Thompson continues to write on page 112 of his book that, “Part of the reason why political scandal has become so important today is that is has become a kind of credibility test for the politics of trust.”
We are a very accusatory society. Specifically in America, where nearly anything insults everyone, and where the media never sleeps, political scandal has become both a fasciation, and a justification of who someone truly is.
Just like someone may look at a family member, close friend, or coworker differently if they found out that person was involved in some type of scandal, the American people look upon political figures with the same mindset if a scandalous event involving that figure is exposed. “The increasing visibility of political leaders creates conditions which increase the likelihood of political scandal. The more the lives of political leaders are made visible to others…the more likely it is that the previously hidden activities which conflict with the images that leaders wish to project will emerge in the public domain (Thompson, 108).”
The fact of the matter is this: It’s tough to broadcast a nearly perfect image in today’s world, due to constant coverage the media supplies.
My issue with the filtration and selection system of political scandals in the eye of the media is what most reporters and viewers consider to be a scandal.
Is the president sleeping with an intern a proper scandal to report on? I sincerely think so, because it exposes that even while holding the highest political office in the land, our president was unable to stay committed to his family, and caused a lot of focus to be on what was in his pants, as opposed to what his views on policy were.
Is Hillary Clinton’s latest hairstyle worth news coverage similar to a political scandal? No.
Scandalous behavior certainly defines an individual’s character and moral self-being, but personal decisions like clothing style, eating habits, vacationing choices, or choice of White House pet is not scandal worthy.
The biggest reason I think the media is focusing too much on “scandalous incidents that are not actually scandalous” is because the reader, the viewer, the consumer of all forms of media has more of a say than ever before in which content they will absorb. And with this power now in the form of a click of a view, comes a news agency’s reliance on keeping advertisers happy because that is where funding comes from. From Semiatin’s Campaigns on the Cutting Edge, “If we all get to select how much campaign news we will receive, and the depth of that coverage, it may be that too many Americans will choose shallow, based sources of news on the Internet (153).”
The reality is that our politically uniformed society cares more about what Hillary Clinton is wearing as opposed to what policy change is being tossed around in Congress. Sad, but true. As Semitain continues to write on page 153, “The mainstream media are not disappearing, but the Internet is having a profound effect on the superficiality of campaign news coverage, promoting a greater emphasis on personality, rumor, and infotainment.”
Works Cited: Semiatin, Richard. Campaigns on the Cutting Edge. USA: CQ Press, 2013. Print. Thompson, John. Political Scandal. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers Inc., 2000. Web.
For public figures, like politicians, all scandals become mediated, and “[b]y virtue of their mediated publicness, the actions or events which lie at the heart of mediated scandals are made visible to others who were not present at the time and place of their occurrence, and who may be situated in spatially distant locales,” (Thompson, 62). The media plays a huge role in this, as they continue to delve further and further into politicians’ personal lives and farther away from the things that matter.
The media acts as the “dramatis personae,” as Thompson writes, meaning they report on and further publicize the scandal. He further explains just how large of a role media organizations play in scandals, as they are responsible for publicizing the event, creating a mediated scandal. So, the question becomes, do politicians today have less morals or do the media just report on political scandals more? Thompson entertains both theories in depth, but comes to the conclusion that there is little evidence to support the prior. He suggests that the increase in scandals may be due to “a change in the moral codes and conventions that are used to assess the behavior of politicians and to the growing salience of these codes in the conduct of political life,” (Thompson, 107). Basically, the media today focuses more on the personal lives of a politician than the professional one, and as a result, the public becomes more interested and more involved to the point where it has just become too much.
One aspect of politician’s personal lives that usually becomes the focus of many debates and conversations, as opposed to the actual politics, is clothing and what they choose to wear. This is largely because of the ways in which politics is made public, as Joseph Graf and Jeremy D. Mayer explain “Television has forced politicians at all levels of American campaigns to pay more attention to their looks than ever before,” (qtd. in Semiatin, 141). Recently, for example, President Barack Obama wore a tan suit on a televised press conference from the White House, as opposed to the typical dark-colors that he always wears.
The media focused so heavily on the issue that the public became outraged, claiming that the President’s choice in suit color was disrespectful and inappropriate. The situation became so out of hand that Time Magazine published an article titled “In Defense of Barack Obama’s Tan Suit” on Aug. 29, 2014 to attempt to end the “scandal” and refocus the public’s attention on the important issues. In the article, author Eric Dodds mentions that this is the first time in the President’s six years in office that he hasn’t worn a dark colored suit in some shade of black, charcoal, or navy, a decision which he explained in an interview with Vanity Fair in 2012, when he was quoted as saying, “I’m trying to pare down decisions. I don’t want to make decisions about what I’m eating or wearing. Because I have too many other decisions to make,” (qtd. in Dodds).
So, after six years, President Obama changes things up and wears something a little different, only to be scrutinized in the public and by the media for his choice. “The irony,” Dodds writes, “is that the President is often criticized for being bland, even in his fashion choices. To be frank, after yesterday’s outcry, who can blame him? Next time you or anyone asks the Commander-in-Chief for a little personality or originality, don’t be surprised if this is cited as a reason for declining that request,” (Dodds). In this case, the media focused way more on the color of the suit, with hundreds of articles dedicated to the “controversy,” as opposed to the important issues that were discussed, like the economy, ISIS and Ukraine.
Hillary Clinton is another example of a politician whose personal life is always the focus of the media’s attention instead of her politics. Her hair, for example, has often been the subject of debates and comments from the public and media. It was even brought up by Barbara Walters in an interview with Clinton in 2012 when she was named one of the most fascinating people of the year. The interview, which covered a variety of topics, from running for president in 2016 to her experience as Secretary of State, was supposed to be about what made the famous political figure so fascinating. Instead, the conversation turned to her new hairstyle, to which Clinton jokingly responded, “I know that it’s one of the great fascinations of our time – much to my amazement,” (qtd. in Duerson). She also noted her busy schedule as a reason for her low-maintenance hairstyle, a seemingly appropriate response for a woman who holds such an important position of political power.
America as a whole is often considered a very uneducated, ill-informed society when it comes to topics that matter, like politics. The media plays a huge role in that. To their defense, these journalists are just doing their job by reporting on what the public is most interested in. However, they also have a responsibility to help keep society informed about important issues, and devoting article after article, page after page, to the president’s suit color is just not beneficial. Works Cited:
Dodds, Eric. “In Defense of Barack Obama’s Tan Suit.” Time Magazine, 29 Aug. 2014. Web. 3 Sept. 2014.
Duerson, Meena Hart. “Hillary Clinton: My Hair Is ‘One of the Great Fascinations of Our Time.” Today, 13 Dec. 2012. Web. 4 Sept. 2014.
Graf, Joseph and Jeremy D. Mayer. “Campaign Press Coverage – Instantaneous.” Campaigns on the Cutting Edge. Ed. Richard J. Semiatin. Washington, D.C.: CQ, 2008. Print.
Thompson, John B. Political Scandal: Power and Visibility in the Media Age. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2000. Print.
The media does focus too much on politician’s personal lives, but I believe it is often invited to do so because of the campaign strategies of many politicians. Politicians who try to appear family-oriented and literally bring their families on stage with them when they campaign might have a hard time being upset when the media gets crazy about a story portraying that politician in the opposite light. Conversely, sometimes the media can go overboard and focus on trivial personal issues when the focus should be on policy or current events.
One politician who is an example of what I consider unfair media involvement, or too much of a focus on a politician’s personal life is Chris Christie. News sources from NBC to Politico to Buzzfeed have focused on the politician’s weight and his ‘journey’ to weight loss. For a while, the majority of what I read about New Jersey Governor Chris Christie focused solely on his weight. When the Bridge Scandal occurred, it actually increased the amount of negative talk about his weight, according to an article from NBCNews.com. Even when the presidential race is less than two years away and Christie is a possible contender, the majority of media focus is on his weight. As Graf and Mayer point out in Campaigns on the Cutting Edge, appearance of a candidate really was not an issue until television. Graf and Mayer mention that William Howard Taft was morbidly obese, and he was president. Now, the media’s reporting on what a politician wears or how many pounds they have dropped as become a hot topic to report on. (Graf 141)
As we discussed last week, image is a crucial component to any successful campaign and would-be candidate. However, the images crafted by PR groups and advisors can be shattered by the contrast of the social life or appearance of a candidate. Thompson discusses in Chapter 4 how the technology that the media uses can have this adverse affect for politicians:
“The more lives of political leaders are made visible to others, the more likely it is that previously hidden activities which conflict with the images that leaders wish to project will emerge in the public domain, triggering off a series of events which may spin out of control.” (Thomson 108)
The real-life example of this can be seen in what ABC News headlined, “One of America’s Most Sensational Scandals” (Dorian, ABCnews.go.com), a story about John Edwards and his affair. This was not the case of the media prying too closely into John Edwards’ life because his entire campaign strategy was to push the image of him as a family man, devoted to his wife who had cancer. Marc Dorian writes that, ahead of the 2008 campaign, “Edwards’ greatest political asset was his wife” as she battled with breast cancer. Edwards promoted the image of a family man, who had his life together, and supported his wife as she bravely fought breast cancer.
What was actually happening behind the campaign front was that Edwards was having an affair with Rielle Hunter, who he hired to work on his campaign as a cover up. His wife, Elizabeth, found out about the affair and later that Hunter was pregnant with Edwards’ child. The National Enquirer got wind of the scandal when a friend of Hunters called Enquirer. Would the story have been run if Edwards’ campaign image were not that of a family man? Probably. However, one could argue that the intensity of the public backlash from this scandal was because Edwards invited the media into his personal life as part of a campaign strategy that backfired. And with television, what gets the highest ratings is what gets reported on the most: The people want the secrets and the scandals and the skeletons in the closet. Maybe the media is just giving the people what they want.
Works Cited Dorian, Marc, and Lauren Effron. "John Edwards and the Mistress: A Breakdown of One of America's Most Sensational Scandals." ABC News. ABC News Network, 12 Nov. 2013. Web. 08 Sept. 2014. Graf, Joseph, and Jeremy D. Mayer. "Campaign Press Coverage - Instantaneous." Campaigns on the Cutting Edge. Washington, D.C.: CQ, 2008. N. pag. Print. "Still Not Skinny, Christie Cheered as a Weight-Loss Surgery Success - NBC News." NBC News. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Sept. 2014 Thompson, John B.. Political Scandal : Power and Visability in the Media Age. Hoboken: Wiley, 2013. Ebook Library. Web. 09 Sep. 2014.
After monitoring media coverage this past week it seems apparent to me that media organizations often focus too much on politician’s personal lives and scandals in general. On Monday at 3 pm I took an hour to simultaneously watch news coverage for CNN and MSNBC. I selected these two particular stations because they usually have 24 hour news coverage that is primarily focused on political and international issues. However, I was surprised that how over the course of single one hour news cycle how much of the coverage was devoted to issues which were not purely political news. Rather both outlets spent a tremendous amount of time analyzing personal scandals and decisions and personal lives of politicians.
The top of the hour started with both CNN and MSNBC covering the, then breaking, Ray Rice abuse scandal. While not a politician, the athlete’s domestic violence case and his subsequent release form his team dominated the news that hour; CNN discussed the issue for the first 10 minutes while MSNBC took 20 minutes before turning to focus on the ISIS crisis. Later on in the hour, CNN turned to discuss if it was appropriate for Obama to go golfing following James Foley’s execution while MSNBC dedicated more time the Rice incident. Towards the end of the hour both networks covered Kate Middleton and Prince Williams announcement of having a second child. Overall, I would estimate that both stations had about 25 minutes of coverage for scandal and personal issue stories. If this is a typical news day then it is indicative that media may focus on politicians’ personal lives and political scandals too much.
As we discussed in class last week image is so important for politicians and political candidates since it can make or break that individual’s career. Since politician’s image is so closely scrutinized amongst the public it is likely why the media focuses on political scandals and personal lives. As such media outlets may believe that covering a politician’s personal actions and decisions is almost as important as their policies and politics. In the Political Campaign Communication text Trent mentions regarding image in campaigns: “People have some preconceived ideas regarding what a candidates personal characteristics and behavior should be, and these ideas are continually measured against reality of what an actual candidate says and does during the campaign. (73) I believe that this can also be used in the context of any politician. People are constantly looking to see if the politicians they elected are living up to the promises they made while campaigning. In some cases their personal decisions can give insight into if they are fulfilling their position properly. Therefore I believe media often tries to focus and discuss politician’s personal lives for this reason.
Furthermore, as I watched today’s coverage of the news I couldn’t help but feel that another reason for the focus on scandal and politician’s personal lives was to act as filler content. In the 24/7 news cycle it seems that news outlets sometimes have to create stories and draw them out in order to have an adequate amount of content. In Chapter 9 of Richard Semiatin’s text it opens detailing how a trivial documents release was a major news story for no apparent reason other than it simply being “news”. As he puts it “Whatever was inside those boxes was almost beside the point. The news was the release” (138) I believe that this is a typical example of how nonissue events may be over hyped in order to create a story or at least news content.
Works Cited
•Trent, Judith S.; Friedenberg, Robert V.; Denton, Robert E., Jr.. Political Campaign Communication : Principles and Practices. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2011. Ebook Library. Web. 08 Sep. 2014.
•Semiatin, Richard J. Campaigns on the Cutting Edge. Second ed. Print.
Brianna Millor Hammond Blog #2 The media does focus a lot on the personal life and political scandals, but that shouldn’t be an issue. There is a thin line on what the public should care and know about; when it comes to the president and other public figures. We hold these people to a higher standard because they have power; the more power you have the higher the pedicel. Although this is true, where do we draw the line, because politicians are people too? Media goes in to personal the lives of politicians in order for us to know them on a more personal level, very little shouldn’t be open to the public when it comes to the personal life of politicians, especially the president, I believe invasion of personal privacy and intrusion of your life, comes with the job. For example, the presidential campaign of 1840, was the first presidential campaign that recognized image as a voting component. This is the campaigns where the Whigs created a candidate, Harrison, from the ground up to defeat Martin Van Buren. They understood that image was important to the voters. The personal life was important to the people. During his campaign people often questioned his competency due to his older age. “When democrats suggested that the aging Harrison might be content spending his declining days in a log cabin ‘studying moral philosophy’, provided he has a barrel of hard cider at his side…” (Trent 84). Media as well as the public paid close attention to an issue like this because age and competency level is important to if he can fulfill his job as president. The Whigs were smart enough to use this coverage to their advantage because they knew media cared a lot about personal lives of their candidate. “…the Whigs cleverly turned the attack into a reinforcement of Harrison’s contrived image as a common man. From then on, every Whig rally sported cider barrels and miniature log cabins…”(Trent 84) The media pays a lot of attention to details about the personal life of the candidate. The voter knows the smallest factors can make a difference and who they want to vote for because on the surface candidates can all appear the same their personal life might set them apart from each other, which can either hurt them or help them. In Harrison’s case it helped him. Increasingly we now see the media covering sex scandals; the most prominent being the scandal involving Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky. The reason the media covers these stories so closely is not only because he was sexually involved with a woman, but, it was also because he broke his commitment with his wife. How can you be committed to the country if you can’t even commit to your wife, is probably what many Americans were thinking? Overtime, morality in the political system has changed which fostered an environment to increase the importance of scandals. “It could be argued that the growing prevalence of political scandal is due, not so much to a decline in the moral standard of politicians, but rather to a change in the moral codes and conventions that are used to assess the behavior of politicians and to the growing salience of these codes in the conduct of political life…It may be that politicians are more prone to scandal because behavior that would be condones in the past is more likely censored today” (Thompson 107). Overtime, politicians are held at a higher standard now due to their power and what they have power over. The moral code over time has amended, sexual scandals may not have been important back then but now they are increasingly important due to the political importance and the atmosphere of the country as a whole. Over all I think that the media does not focus too much on the personal lives of politicians, due to the fact that they have power and with power comes responsibility. Work Cited Thompson, John B. Political Scandal: Power and Visibility in the Media Age. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 2000. Trent, Judith S., Robert V. Friedenberg, and Robert E. Denton, Jr. Political Campaign Communication, 7th ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2011.
I believe that the media does tend too focus too much time on the personal lives and scandals of politicians in America. However, I feel that they make the decision to air these stories based on the fact that the American people are generally more interested in these stories than of actual political and governmental news. It is more intriguing to the American population as a whole to hear about a recent scandal, such as drugs or sex, involving politician because it is something that is out of the ordinary and calls into question a persons character. As stated before my previous blog post a scandal happens when norms or common morals are broken.
According to Thompson, “Individuals who wish to project a certain image through the media may find that, despite their best efforts, it is extremely difficulty to contain certain forms of behavior in the back regions where they originally occurred,” (Thompson 1473). This means that it can be extremely challenging to make sure that everything that occurs in their personal lives, or the “back region,” is completely private and unknown by the public and media, whether it is scandalous or not. When President Obama goes on vacation with his family the media latches on to this as a way to try and put the president down. They often try and make him look like he would much rather be golfing on Martha’s Vineyard or surfing in Hawaii than responding to the crisis’s that are constantly facing the country. The media also latched on to the fact that the president was a smoker. Smoking is obviously unhealthy but it is questionable whether or not this character flaw would make him a bad president in the overall scheme of things. The media loves to pick apart every part of any president’s personal lives and try to find fault in it. This can be distracting and take way from the news coverage of major issues facing the country.
Graf and Mayer discuss how the Internet has impacted the political system, specifically campaigns, in America today. With the internet being a way to spread news in seconds politicians have far more to worry about in terms of their behavior in their personal lives, “Political attacks, which used to take weeks or at least days to hit the airwaves and make an impact on the voters, now reach citizens at the click of a button,” (Graf and Mayer 138). The Internet and social media can be used in good ways in order to get positive news and ideas out to the public from politicians but also has many negatives sides as well. This gives the media constant contact with the public and allows them to bring the public news constantly regarding what a politician is doing at any time of the day.
The Internet also relays information to the public about the fashion styles that, mainly, the first ladies wear at political appearances. This is not a scandal but an obsession with their personal lives. Michelle Obama is constantly judged and looked at for what she wears when she is at events. She has often been praised for her choice in clothes, showing an example of the fact that not all interest in a politician’s lives has to be negative. However, once again this takes away from the media covering what is truly important, the cause or reason that the political event is taking place for.
Overall, I feel that the media spends too much time covering politician’s personal lives and scandals because at the end of the day those things shouldn’t matter in terms of politics. It hinders the American public from being educated on what is happening in the country, as well as abroad, and the ideas and actions that are being proposed to fix the problems.
Works Cited
Graf, Joseph, and Jeremy D. Mayer. "Campaign Press Coverage - Instantaneous." Campaigns on the Cutting Edge. Ed. Richard J. Semiatin. Thousands Oak: CQ, 2012. 138-56. Kindle file.
Thompson, John B. Political Scandal: Power and Visibility in the Media Age. Malden: Blackwell, 2000. Kindle file.
Politicians are considered leaders in America so their lives are often vey public and every aspect is often criticized. “… ‘leadership style’ – a combination of habitual modes off thought and actions which individuals perceive or judge a candidate.” (Trent, 71). Trent states that they are often judged or what I would call being picked a part by the media. I do in fact agree that the media focuses too much on politician’s personal life and scandal but at the same time people seem to want to know about this information. Just recently a lot of media outlets focused a lot on Obama taking a vacation to Martha’s Vineyard. People want to know what the president is doing at all times even when it’s a distraction from more important news. I think that news outlets could focus on more important things such as the journalists being beheaded by ISIS, people are not enough aware of what’s going on. I think that news is skewed because reporters only share what the viewers want to know about which often isn’t important. Politician’s personal lives also make great stories when reporters have no other information to share. I also think the news focuses a lot on scandal. I think sometimes scandals are important information. Watergate was important and scandals like bridge gate are important because it often affects the people of America or maybe their vote if Chris Christie decides to run in the 2016 election. Some scandal information is irrelevant, sure people want to know about sex scandals but I think they should be brought up less. I recently saw an article about a Swedish politician and nude selfies in an a Jewish Newspaper in LA. That is completely irrelevant, this man is not even in our country and the news is concerned about him. Honestly they shouldn’t even be in the news to begin with but some of these scandals will also affect Americans view on politicians but what a politician does on their own time should not be Americas business at all. Scandals have been a popular topic for quite some time. “With the rise of mediated scandals in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, allegations of corruption amount public officials became a common theme of scandals in the political field.” (Thompson, 163). Scandal has been around since the beginning of time and I think its time for media to step back and say “is this information really important?” because most of the time I think everyone can agree its not as important as other information so instead of sharing this information on the headlines, put it a few stories behind and focus on the important news first.
Work Cited:
Liphshiz, Cnaan. "Nude Selfie Scandal a Problem for Swiss Politician - and His Jewish Foes | World." Jewish Journal News. N.p., 08 Sept. 2014. Web. 09 Sept. 2014. .
Superville, Darlene. "Obama Taking Less Vacation, but Too Much for Some." Obama Taking Less Vacation, but Too Much for Some. N.p., 22 Aug. 2014. Web. 09 Sept. 2014. .
Thompson, John B. Political Scandal: Power and Visibility in the Media Age. Cambridge: Polity, 2000. Print.
Trent, Judith S., and Robert V. Friedenberg. Political Campaign Communication. New York: Praeger, 1991. Print.
In many ways, the personal lives of a politician are vital to their success in office. People prefer to rely on a person that they can relate to rather than a person completely foreign to the public. Some politicians are able to perfectly assimilate their personal lives into their campaign platforms, also leaving the media with very little to harp on in regards to their reputation. Others become almost puppets to the media, constantly giving them material to gossip about and exploit their personal matters. “The rise of the internet combined with the miniaturization of video technology has changed what is considered “Fair Game” for campaign coverage” (Semiatin 149). The internet has not only changed the ways campaigns happen, but even more so it has made information into a persons personal life incredibly accessible. Because this information is so readily accessible, it certainly gives the media a plethora of opportunities to harp on person’s personal flaws.
A prime example of a politician’s personal life that was picked apart on an extremely frequent basis was the former governor of Alaska Sarah Palin. When Senator John McCain selected governor Palin to be his running mate in the 2008 Presidential election, the media immediately went into a frenzy with the potential for the first woman in the white house, other than the first lady of course. McCain was using a rather interesting strategy, using Palin to boost his image within the “soccer mom” population. “Imagery plays an important role in the consideration of style. All candidates, whether they campaign using the strategies of incumbency or those of the challenger, must do and say whatever it is that will enhance voter perception of them.” (Trent 71). While this may have seemed like a smart move at the time, as more and more information about Palin’s personal life was released, McCain’s stock slowly decreased. There was constant talk of her children and the antics in which they were up to in the Alaskan wilderness. There was even a rumor for some time that her husband was lost in the Alaskan tundra on a snowmobile! The amount of hoopla that was being placed into Sara Palin and her personal life became overbearing, it ultimately made people lose focus on the election and what their platform was promoting.
While the media can absolutely focus too much on politician’s personal lives, sometimes they can focus too much on a scandal, completely ruining careers. The most recent example of this that comes to mind is governor of New Jersey Chris Christie and the infamous “Bridge gate” scandal. The scandal focused around obscene traffic on New Jersey bridges that halted cars for hours at a time. Christie was aware of the traffic jams and did nothing to fix them for personal reasons. While I do think this was foolish and irresponsible, the scandal is now the only thing people associate with his name. This is because of the media. People neglect to mention how helpful he was in restoring coastlines and towns when various hurricanes plagued the New York/New Jersey area, or the job opportunities that he has created while in office. For a very long time he was considered a prime candidate to accept the republican nomination for the 2016 presidential election. Now due to the mass coverage of a scandal that quite frankly wasn’t all too major, the nomination may be all but gone.
Works Cited
Trent, Judith S., Robert V. Friedenberg, and Robert E. Denton. Political Campaign Communication: Principles and Practices. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2011. Print.
Semiatin, Richard J. Campaigns on the Cutting Edge. Washington, D.C.: CQ, 2008. Print.
The media is everywhere. We are constantly being bombarded with images and stories that are of no value to us. But, every now and then we come across a juicy political scandal that is all over the media.
The Media is too focused on politicians’ personal lives and political scandal. Thompson shows us that there are several important changes that underlie the growing prevalence of political scandal. Some of them being, (1) The increases visibility of political leaders, (2) The changing technologies of communication and surveillance, and (3) The changing culture of journalism. (Thompson 108).
The increasing visibility of political leaders creates conditioned which increase the likelihood of political scandal (Thompson 108). When these politicians’ lives become more public, the more likely it will be that a scandal will surface about them; the more visible the more vulnerable they are. Some political leaders may try to manage the ways they appear through the media but it becomes increasingly difficult for them to prevent any information or images from being leaked.
It is hard to control what is said about a candidate in the media, because media has become a completely different field then it was 60 years ago. There is a lot more too worry about now. There is new sophisticated technology that can put an end to privacy. Politicians need to be wary of what they provide, that is supposed to be for private eyes.
Journalist have advanced in their field so much that investigative journalism has become the new norm. “Investigative reporting would easily shade into a kind of prurient reporting in which hidden aspects of the lives of the powerful. The journalistic codes and conventions, which had previously discouraged journalists from reporting on the private lives and affair of political leaders.” (Thompson 111). But although it is unethical that does not stop a reporter from getting the story that they need; potentially running someone’s career for a story.
The media had become obsessed with the private lives of politicians. It is all about instant gratification. People want to know everything, and they want to know it now. It has become coded in our brains that, when a politician gains exposure, we wonder what negative thing will come out about them.
These scandals could really ruin a candidate’s reputation. Take for example Senator Gary Hart, During the surfacing period of the 1988 presidential campaign, he allegedly had a relationship with a Miami model. His challenge to prove the relationship, the public accusation by reporters from the Miami Herald, and the subsequent intensity of national media attention completely overwhelmed anything else Hart said or did (Trent 73). The media would not let this rest, they were constantly bashing Hart as a person and it ruined his career. When stories like this come out they media beats them to a pulp. They make sure they get every single detail out before they move onto the next scandal, because that is their job, to report every detail so their audience is aware of what is going on.
Something that has been present in politics in the last few years is social media. Candidates are trying to reach people on every level, but if it is not used right it can be death to a candidates career. Take for example Anthony Weiner. In 2011 Weiner took sexual photos of him and sent them to a women who was following him on Twitter. The media was all over this because they love a scandal. You never hear stories of non-famous peoples naked pictures being leaked, on only hear the stories of people who you know. Social media has played a big part in politicians lives, but they need to be careful because everything that they post is out their whether they think its private or not.
It is hard to say whether or not privacy exists when it come to campaigning today. With the press always ready to grab a story and milk it dry, and social media being a double edge sword; it is easy for a politicians to get swept up in their own scandal. There is no such thing as private anymore because the media is always around.
Cited Work
Thompson, John B. (2013). Political Scandal : Power and Visability in the Media Age. Retrieved from http://www.eblib.com
Trent, Judith S.; Friedenberg, Robert V.; Denton, Robert E., Jr. (2011). Political Campaign Communication : Principles and Practices. Retrieved from http://www.eblib.com
Jack Holiver Blog 2 The question of the week regards the media’s focus on politicians’ personal lives and political scandals. To answer this bluntly so the reader will know where I stand, the answer is yes, the media focuses too much on the personal lives of politicians. On the other hand, the media has the right and obligation to report of any political scandal that may affect the public he or she belongs to. Thomson explains mediate scandals and how they affect the lives of individuals involved in the scandal and lives of the spectators. “…these are events which unfold, at least in part, through mediated forms of communication, and which thus acquire a publicness that is independent of their capacity to be seen or heard directly by a plurality of co-present others” (Thomson, pg. 68-69). After reading this over several times, I feel confident in giving my own simplified explanation. Mediate scandals are often on a larger scale and become relayed to the people through a media source. These sources can include newspapers, television programs, magazines, political websites, etc. During this relaying process, facts can become skewed due to misinformation or political biases. Therefore, the only people who know the scandal in its purest form are the individuals involved and the ones who were spectators. If Thomson is correct in his explanation of the mediate scandals, then the media is drastically overstepping into detrimental territory. Years ago the media was dramatically different. During the Kennedy administration, it was obvious there was a relationship between him and Marilyn Monroe. However, I cannot find any media source of the time that mentioned this planetary size scandal. It appears that the media protected him from any defamation that would taint his presidency or public image. If a media source were to suspect something similar was occurring in the current administration, they would run with the story until everyone knew. Is it bad for the media to do this? I believe it is. The U.S. is among the most inefficient nations in the world. In order for legislation to be passed, it must go through both the House of Representatives and the Senate, which can take years with the current Congress. However, all the blame cannot be placed on the media for the increasing focus on a politician’s personal life. Many times the candidate will fuel the fire through air time on T.V. In Political Campaign Communication, the change in media coverage is addressed. “In 1992, to a far greater extent than ever before, candidates bypassed the traditional news media and spoke directly to the public, primarily through television talk shows…” (Trent, pg. 237). In my opinion, the conversation on these talk shows will be much more casual than major news station interviews. This may mean the candidate talks more about their personal life, which can lead to others drawing their own conclusion based on something that is entirely separate from their political agenda. While the media does have an obligation to report the news as they see fit, there has become an increasing demand for political candidates’ personal lives. These reports can stray away from the fundamental foundations a politician builds while campaigning. In the case of Bill Clinton with Monica-gate, we found that the president had a very brief relationship with an intern. Though people seem to forget that he left office with eight years of peace and the first surplus in presidential history. Bibliography: 1.) Trent, Judith S., Robert V. Friedenberg, and Robert E. Dention, Jr. Political Campaign Communication: Principles and Practices. New York: Praeger, 1991. Print. 2.) Thompson, John B. Political Scandal: Power and Visibility in the Media Age. Cambridge: Polity, 2000. Print.
Entertainment news should focus on politicians lives and political scandal because it is a highly effective way of them accomplishing their goals.
Trent uses the campaign of Harrison to show that image is powerful enough to win an election-“The Whig campaign ignored all issues, except those relating to the personality of their candidate, and gave image creation and “hype” a permanent place in presidential politics,”(Trent, 72). A campaign is not run on what should be done, or what is best for out democracy. It is run on what will win. Considering that entertainment news is one of the most important tools in image building. And that it is also beneficial for Entertainment News when their side wins an election, they will do what they can to support the image that the campaign manager has put together if it means victory for their side. Another reason Entertainment News supports the image propped up by the campaign people is because it is easy. With press releases written in certain ways, and pseudo-events the campaign workers lure the news producer into promoting the image.
“Judith Trent and colleagues found that most characteristics voters believe important for presidential candidates to possess (honesty, faithfulness to spouse, and moral integrity) remain constant,” (Trent, 87). It would be hard for these characteristics to be portrayed to the public while talking about political actions. It is more exciting and plain easier to portray these qualities while talking about their personal lives or political scandal.
On page 61 Thompson talks about the mediated scandal. Since disclosed by media outlets the story becomes a separate event, with two sides the left and the right entertainment news narratives of the event. When tied with the fact that the news outlets like it when their party wins we can assume that media outlets like scandal because it is a easy entertaining way to mold the image of a politician pertaining to the characteristics laid out by Trent above. This is why they should be covered by the news media. It is an effective tool in a lot of news media goals, (Thompson, 61).
I watched O’Reilly for the first time in a while this week to checkout some stuff for this class. Something that caught my ear on the topic of scandal was that Benghazi is referred to as a scandal. It blew up because it happened right before the last election and it was a last desperate attempt to dethrone Obama. Now after the election it is still being pushed because they want to smear Clinton. The characteristic that stands out in my mind that FOX is trying to call into question is honestly. Another interesting point is that they were promoting a new book on the topic called “13 Hours” I wonder who owns that publishing company.
Just a parallel example on the left - A political scandal of power that is also being called into question to try and mold a potential candidates image and make the public question his honestly is Bridgegate.
Work Cited
Thompson, John B.. Political Scandal : Power and Visability in the Media Age. Hoboken: Wiley, 2013. Ebook Library. Web. 09 Sep. 2014.
Trent, Judith S., Robert V. Friedenberg, and Robert E. Dention, Jr. Political Campaign Communication: Principles and Practices. New York: Praeger, 1991. Print.
Any good HR representative will say when looking to hire someone for a job you only judge whether the candidate has the necessary skills and experience in order to perform the job. In theory, any discrimination on the way someone looks or the way they behave could lead to a lawsuit. Of course, we know that these days everything matters, your personality, the way you look, or the way you behave outside of work could all be reasons for unemployment. These factors can also dictate who we vote for.
A great example of this is the recent presidential elections between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. One of the main reasons Romney lost that race was because he lacked charisma. Joeeph Graf argues that the 24 hour news cycle lead to new emphasis on personality over politics. “Constant surveillance of candidates will increase the emphasis on personality appearance and character and further lessen the importance of party’s platforms and issues” In a perfect word a candidates stance on issues and plans on how to fix them would be the only things influencing our votes.
Another problem in the Romney campaign was his flip flopping on political issues. One of my favorite political cartoons form the 2012 election showed a bowl of oatmeal, a jar of mayonnaise, a cup of pudding, a lump of dough and Mitt Romney. The caption read “While all off these things are band and amorphous the oatmeal mayonnaise pudding and dough don’t change their core beliefs based on the latest poling data”. Romney’s frequent flip-floping on issues led many voters to believe he was untrustworthy. Thompson argues that the politicians perceived trustworthiness can make or break a campaign. “People become more concerned with the character of the individuals who are or might become their leaders and more concerned about their trustworthiness because increasingly this becomes the principal means of guaranteeing that political promises will be kept and that difficult decisions in the faces of complexity and uncertainty will be made on the bias of sound judgment.”
Dean Simonton, a psychology professor at the University of California, argues that the way that someone behaves could be a way to preview their political career. For example how flexible a president is could influence how much they use the veto power. Simonton says that the current emphasis on charismatic presidents is essentially useless. How charismatic a president is has no correlation with be a successful problem solver.
The current focus on politician’s personality and private lives might be a bit excessive but it is naive to think that those factors will not influence voters. Politicians know this and have no problem calling attention to their opponent’s character flaws. As Thompson explains “As parties compete for a growing pool of uncommitted voters the character failings of their opponents…become increasingly potent weapons in the struggle for political advantage.”
Works Cited
Thompson, John B. Political Scandal: Power and Visibility in the Media Age. Cambridge: Polity, 2000. Print.
Graf, Joseph, and Jeremy D. Mayer. "Campaign Press Coverage - Instantaneous." Campaigns on the Cutting Edge. Ed. Richard J. Semiatin. Thousand Oaks, CA: CQ, 2013. 138-53. Print.
Spiegel, Alix. "Charming, Cold: Does Presidential Personality Matter?" NPR. NPR, 23 Oct. 2012. Web. 09 Sept. 2014.
Part #1 While I do believe that the media spends too much time on politicians’ personal lives and political scandals, I do feel that there are also associated benefits to this excessive amount of coverage. The benefits certainly aren’t as numerous when covering a politician’s personal life, except perhaps to clarify that he or she is a genuine and kind-hearted person, or the lack thereof based on actions while seemingly not in the media spotlight. However, on the opposite side of the spectrum is the benefit that comes with the emergence of information immediately following political scandal. For example, immediately following Watergate initially broke the news media was flooded with information. What ended up being so damning however, was the appearance of the tapes. As Thompson so clearly pointed out, “A contested claim… may, in the end, boil down to one person’s word against another’s, but a message fixed in some medium – an intimate letter, a recorded conversation, a revealing photo, etc. – may provide an incriminating form of evidence” (69). I think while it certainly is important to give politicians’ their privacy, after all they’re just people as well, the rise of mediated scandal in particular has beneficial to the greater good of society. It is because of the excessive habit of media intrusion that scandals such as Watergate, as well as more recent events such as Anthony Weiner, that ideals held by elected officials have really been called into play and individuals are being held accountable for their actions. I don’t disagree that I think the media could be spending a considerably less amount of time on personal lives, after all it really doesn’t affect the overall public in most instances, but I do feel that the amount of time covering scandal is ultimately beneficial. The coverage spent on scandal allows the constituency to become better informed of politicians’ actions, which is something that arguably much of the United States population in particular lacks a sufficient degree of understanding about.
Part #2 Additionally, I think the argument can be made that the way in which today’s society is structured allows for the media to focus large quantities of time on topics such as political scandals. In the Trent book, there was a whole section on what the purpose of the news conference has come to epitomize in modern day. One comment that was made read, “There are three reasons why properly used news conferences can increase coverage” (Trent 240). The emphasis I wanted to make about this sentence is the phrase can increase coverage. Today’s society has evolved in such a manner that campaigns, day to day actions in the office, long term projects, all of it centers on coverage, and high coverage at that. So it is no surprise when the media has become obsessed with covering personal lives and scandals as they’ve been set up to cover everything else. The boundary really hasn’t been clearly established, so who’s to say they’re really the ones to blame? One final point is that the way in which current media is structured allows for the continuation of the excessive coverage. Further in the Trent book, there was a section outlining apologia and its presence is modern day news. Scandal is always in the news, it’s something that is constantly discussed by the reporters, day after day, which creates the environment that creates the notion of excessive coverage. There was a brief passage in the text that I think did an excellent job of summarizing the true problem facing the country in regard to media today. Trent wrote, “Day after day, the candidate is seen denying the charge. The proliferation of media has compounded this problem… the “feeding frenzy” of the press is greater today than ever before” (249). Like I mentioned earlier it certainly has its benefits at times, but more and more the excessive coverage is creating more problems than good. The question now at hand is what to do to resolve this issue.
Sources: Thompson, John B. Political Scandal: Power and Visibility in the Media Age. Cambridge: Polity ;, 2000. Print. Trent, Judith S., and Robert V. Friedenberg. Political Campaign Communication: Principles and Practices. 7th ed. New York: Praeger, 2011. Print.
Today, people around the world have focused in on the “relatable.” They do not want things that do not make sense or do not relate to their life. Books, movies, TV shows, all need to relate to viewers to catch their interest. But those areas are not the only places where being relatable plays a big role. The media helps to focus in on this idea of being relatable for people around the world. This can be a great asset or a great drawback for people running for office. The media to make candidates more relatable focus more on their personal life than their political stances because that is how voters get in touch and relate. The media, today, focuses too much on the personal life of candidates to make them more relatable to viewers. Richard Semiatin highlights this idea: “ The more access we have to the personalities and personal conduct of our leaders, the greater likelihood we might vote on such eohemera as appearance and personality” (Semiatin 150). Viewers today do not seem to care as much about the issues as they do about how a candidate looks and acts. Saturday Night Live, for example, often highlights or portrays a presidential candidate or their running mates personalities in certain ways. One of the biggest SNL skits is based off of certain personality traits of Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton. In the skit, Tina Fey and Amy Poehler play Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton. Both women highlight aspects of the campaign that involve certain personality traits that the show is making light of both of the women’s looks and their education of the issues (http://www.hulu.com/watch/34465). SNL continues to highlight certain aspects of various politicians’ personal lives.
Hillary Clinton’s personal life has continued to be in the forefront of whether she is going to run for president again in 2016. The press is constantly on Hillary’s back about her age, recently highlighting the fact that she is going to be a grandmother. Modern thinkers ask the question: Why does it matter? For years, men have been president while also being grandfathers. Candidates today must constantly worry about their image because of the media’s focus on their personal lives: “Imagery plays an important role in the consideration of style. All candidates, whether they campaign using strategies of incumbency or those of the challenger, must do and say whatever it is that will enhance voter perception of them. They are concerned, in other words, about their image” (Trent 71). Candidates are constantly pressured by the media to pull out all the stops. Especially since presidents, as well as other in politics, are held to higher standards. So when the media finds out certain things in their personal lives, they are scrutinized. This can be said about Bill Clinton when it was revealed that he had an affair while in office. While for many men, having an affair is not as big of deal, when the president of the United States does it; it is a bigger issue. The country relies on the president and when it is revealed that not only did he do something morally wrong, he also lied about it: “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky" (Nelson). While many people, can relate to affairs, they could not relate to the president having one. The media is constantly in candidates’ personal lives and the reason for this is to not only have the scoop first, but to make the candidates more relatable to voters. Candidates realize that that is what voters want. They want someone who they can say “I can totally have a conversation with him,” they want the average Joe. Revealing aspects of their personal life is beneficial in relating to the voters but it does not help them in the important aspects of their campaign: their platform.
Works Cited: Nelson, Setven. "Bill Clinton 15 Years Ago: 'I Did Not Have Sexual Relations With That Woman'" U.S. News & World Report. U.S. News & World Report LP, 25 Jan. 2013. Web. 9 Sept. 2014. . "Political Parties- Beyond Revitalization." Campaigns on the Cutting Edge. Ed. Richard J. Semiatin. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: CQ, 2013. 103-19. Print. Trent, Judith S. "Communicative Styles and Strategies of Political Campaigns." Political Campaign Communication: Principles & Practices. 7th ed. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2011. 69-115. Print.
A hundred years ago, it wasn’t as easy to stay informed. You could tune in on your radio or pick up the local newspaper, but other than word of mouth that was just about it. So in that sense, those media outlets were vital for political candidates to secure voters and inform them on their policies, etc. Then came the television, a monumental media platform that changed the way we saw ( literally) presidential debates. Take the first ever debate that was televised, Kennedy vs Nixon, where Nixon appeared to be a frail old man while Kennedy looked young, professional, and on top of his game. This debate helped sway many voters to Kennedy’s side. Fast forward to now, media is everywhere. Cellphones, cameras, the internet, you can’t escape it. Now, political figures constantly have the media’s eyes on them. You no longer only see them on debates or going on tour, but you know what they wear everyday, which they hang out with. Now voters get to see a whole different side of the candidates to help them make their decision, but has it gotten a little ridiculous? “The focus should be on the differences in their political positions-not marital problems or personal foibles” (Tau 1). As put by Tau, the media coverage has its positives, but the issues they care about begin to stray off of the important topics. Its more important to hear about Hilary Clinton’s opinion on Illegal Immigration, not what color suit pants she is wearing. In my opinion, although their political policies are what’s more important, the media’s coverage of scandals is important. A Scandal, as defined by Thompson, are “ actions or events involving certain kinds of transgressions which become know to other and other and are sufficiently serious to elicit a public response.”(Thompson 403) Scandals, such as the Monica/Clinton sex scandal or the Rob Ford doing crack scandal are important because the public does need to know about these events which greatly reflect the character of the candidate. Would you vote for a drug addict just because you have the same gun control policies? Even if you did, would you trust him to follow through, or handle the taxpayers money? There’s a lot of grey space when it comes to the ethics of reporting scandals, but at the end of the day, its important and has helped us weed out a lot of bad character politicians in the past, and I’m sure will continue to do so in the future. In the end, its very important for the media to get the important information across first, but there’s no way to stop them from getting into the personal lives of politicians. It almost comes with the job, so politicians need to keep that in mind and act professional 100% of the time, or we’ll be hearing about an up coming scandal sometime soon.
Tau, Byron. "Obama: Media Should Focus on Issues, Not Personal Lives." POLITICO. N.p., 23 Dec. 2011. Thu. 08 Sept. 2014
Thompson, John B.. Political Scandal : Power and Visability in the Media Age. Hoboken: Wiley, 2013. Ebook Library. Thu. 08 Sep. 2014.
I do believe that most media do focus too much on the personal lives and scandals of politicians. My first example comes from 2011, during the debt ceiling crisis. The country was facing a massive economic issue as the deadline approached where our governments debt would hit its ceiling. A debate was on going in Congress as to whether the country should raise the debt ceiling or not. Some argued that raising the debt ceiling was the best course of action, as it would not necessarily allow the country to borrow more money but allow it to pay back its previous debt. The country would go into default if it reached the debt ceiling. Others argued against raising it because they felt the country was irresponsibly spending and needing to get it under control. However, the country didn’t hear much about this on the news because, while this fight was going on, a little known United States congressman from New York’s 9th district named Anthony Weiner sent an image of his private parts to a woman on Twitter. The scandal took over the airwaves and the nightly news became about Weiner Gate rather than about an extremely important economic issue. Another big topic covered by the news was the Casey Anthony trial. These two stories together were enough to push important topics like the debt ceiling to minimal coverage. The reason for this was because people do not watch news shows that focus on the real issues. People choose to watch these scandalous topics. So any network that chooses to cover the debt ceiling would fall in the ratings and would lose money in advertising. According to John Thompson, “News-producing organizations report, to some extent, what other news-producing organizations are reporting; they take their cues, at least to some extent, from what their competitors are doing.” (84) No network would want to be different because they would lose viewers to their competitors so everybody has to do the same thing, which allowed the scandalous stories to become covered more. Another example that comes to mind is Mitt Romney’s tax returns during the 2012 election. Due to pressure from his opponents, Romney released an incomplete copy of his 2010 tax returns. Romney’s wealth was such a major issue for him during the campaign and for an unnecessary reason. His wealth is his own business as is how much he pays in taxes. Many called for him to release additional information on his tax returns, which he refused to do. This became a highly talked about issue in the media and grew from what was on his tax returns to why he left information off and what that means and what is that information that he did not disclose. It became a huge distraction from the issues that are most important to the election such as policies. Romney’s wealth was a huge negative impact on his image. Joseph Graf and Jeremy D. Mayer say in Campaigns on the Cutting Edge, “[Television] focused attention on image and sound, and less on logic and thought. Television contributed directly to the decline of issues and the rise of personality and individual character as a divisive factor in American elections.” (141) Television news does not focus on the most important stories because that’s not what viewers want. Scandalous stories get people’s attention. At the end of it all, television is a business. News organizations rely on advertising to make money and, so, they do what they need to do to get as many viewers as they can rather than report the news that should be reported.
Works Cited:
Semiatin, Richard J. "Political Parties -- Beyond Revitalization." Campaigns on the Cutting Edge. Washington, D.C.: CQ, 2008. Print.
Thompson, John B. Political Scandal: Power and Visibility in the Media Age. Cambridge: Polity ;, 2000. Print.
In today’s society it seems that our focus is more on the personal lives and scandals of our country’s politicians rather than the actual politics at hand. This only makes me wonder… is it the media causing this or the politicians themselves? In “Political Scandal” the author proposes two possible reasons for the up rise in political scandals, “it might be argued that the growing prevalence of political scandal is due to a decline in the moral standards of political leaders, both with regard to their personal behavior and with regard to their general probity in the conduct of office” (Thompson 106). The second reason being that “the corruption scandals which flourished in the United States in the 1970s and 1980s were symptomatic of declining levels of probity among politicians” (Thompson 106). Did John F. Kennedy begin the string of sex scandals in the United States by setting the precedent that it was somehow okay? Or was he just the first one to catch the media’s attention while the power of the television was quickly emerging? “Television contributed directly to the decline of issues and the rise of personality and individual character as a decisive factor in American elections,” (Semiatin 141).
The media focuses on the scandals and personal lives of our politicians because it is what we listen to and it’s what we see. I can’t name one person that went through the new healthcare bill but during the Anthony Wiener scandal people couldn’t wait to read the articles. Although, the media does contribute news about actual important events going on I would argue that it concentrates just as much if not more on the scandalous. For one example that all of us know about, the Lewinsky Scandal. Even though President Clinton was accomplishing all of these other important policies for our country all the media was focused on was the scandal. A more recent scandal of President Obama taking a two week vacation on Martha’s Vineyard creating headlines like “Obama’s brief break from vacation on Martha’s Vineyard baffles some” in the Washington times article that says quote, “Whatever the real reason for Mr. Obama’s 40-hour visit to Washington in the midst of his summer vacation, the president returned to Martha’s Vineyard on Tuesday afternoon, leaving behind unresolved emergencies and observers scratching their heads about his jaunt,” (Washington Times). And “Obama’s summer vacation by the numbers” in The Washington Post quoting, “President’s Obama time on Martha’s Vineyard is almost over -- he heads back to Washington on Sunday. And what a time it's been. His summer vacation has been a mix of golf, world crises, golf, domestic crisis, golf, time on the beach, and -- well, you know,” (The Washington Post). To make things even more scandalous an instagram photo was posted of him having a good time at a bar there.
Thompson, John B. Political Scandal: Power and Visibility in the Media Age. Cambridge: Polity, 2000. Print.
Graf, Joseph, and Jeremy D. Mayer. "Campaign Press Coverage - Instantaneous." Campaigns on the Cutting Edge. Ed. Richard J. Semiatin. Thousand Oaks, CA: CQ, 2013. 138-53. Print.
Boyer, Dave. "Obama’s Brief Break from Martha’s Vineyard Vacation Baffles Some." Washington Times. The Washington Times, 18 Aug. 2014. Web. 09 Sept. 2014.
Payne, Sebastian. "Obama's Summer Vacation, by the Numbers." Washington Post. The Washington Post, 23 Aug. 2014. Web. 08 Sept. 2014.
Within a democratic system, the media is knowingly charged with enforcing accountability on those in power. Whether they are a local politician or the President of the United States, it is the right of the voting citizens to have a look into the lives of their leaders. However, this right to know must come in moderation, not necessarily in terms of scope, but in quantity of coverage. Many political scandals covered in America tend to linger in the media for days, weeks and even months, simply to bolster the ratings of the major news networks. If media were to be just and balanced it could weigh whether or not Monica Lewinsky’s stained dress was more important than a crisis overseas. Unfortunately, American media driven by financial gain can become entrenched in the lives and scandals of our political leaders, and lose focus of what is most important for the public.
Naturally, the more publicized scandals are those rooted in sexual misconduct of married male politicians, simply because “sex sells.” Anthony Weiner sending nude photos, John Edwards cheating on his wife, and Bill Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky are all prime examples. Even in other countries the exposure of such acts has proven to have a crippling effect on the public’s view of the leader. At the time, Bill Clinton was ridiculed in every form of media, with the hearings covered live on television. What this brings into question is whether or not the socially inappropriate behavior impacts the job. The media does not discuss that. Instead, the same instance is covered endlessly. It is the repetitive bashing of a politician’s character in the media that forces the viewers to lose respect and appreciation. It is “the media’s endless appetite for scandal and negative information and images...” that has manifested this problem. More so, “the internet has made the surveillance of candidates even more constant and damaging” (Semiatin 149).
The life of a politician does not have to always be scandalous in order to drive media attention. Simply, "the more visible you are, the more vulnerable may be, because visibility will generate more interest from the media” (Thompson 108). For example, President George H. W. Bush went skydiving once again to fulfill his promise for his 90th birthday. The former president’s skydiving adventure had little to no impact on the lives of the American people, yet all of the major news networks around the country went to Maine to cover the story. Some argue that it was just a publicized event for the Bush family as they are often intentional with media visibility. The former president and first lady allowed the media to dive into their lives as they age. Further, they made sure America knew Bush Sr. kept his promise. This story also lingered in the media for a while, because an old man skydiving sells, especially when he was once the president.
Whether it is sensationalized sex acts or a heartwarming family-friendly story, focusing on lives of politicians will always be something the media cannot get enough of. It will continue to detract from the daily hard news stories, and even push them below the fold. While there can be a negative impact, it is still necessary that these stories be recognized in a true democracy. Without the accountability of the media on politicians there is nothing else. It is their role to accurately depict the leaders of our nation as humans, for better or for worse. In doing so, the citizens are aware of the leader’s character, and determine if they remain in their position. Delving into the lives of political leaders establishes a true sense of democracy and ensures that patriotism is maintained nationwide.
Works Cited: Semiatin, Richard J. Campaigns on the Cutting Edge. SAGE Publications, 2013. Kindle Edition. Thompson, John. Political Scandal. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers Inc., 2000. Web.
While I agree that the mainstream news outlets do spend too much air time covering politician’s personal lives and political scandals, I also believe the media’s covering of these soft news stories has a lot to do with the timing of when they go on the air.
ReplyDeleteThis morning, for example, President Obama and NATO leaders concluded conference in Wales. Among the topics discussed at the NATO summit, according the CBS Morning News, was the crisis in the Ukraine and the ever evolving threat the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) pose to the Western countries. The journalist went on to report on the United Kingdom’s Prime Minister, David Cameron and President Obama’s joint article in The Times on confronting ISIS. Obama and Cameron called for an international coalition of the leaders of Germany, Italy, France and other NATO countries to challenge the rising terrorist threat from the Sunnni militant group.
The timing of the NATO summit in Wales took precedence over any personal or political scandal-related story, and rightfully so. This evidence is contrary to Joseph Graf and Jeremy Mayer’s claim which stated, “Television contributed directly to the decline of issues and the rise of personality and individual character” (141). CBS got this one right, concentrating on news that is important to the people of this country.
For an example of the media focusing too much on politician’s personal matters, I was watching an Inside Politics segment on CNN and the journalists were discussing Chris Christie’s recent visit to Mexico. Christie was in Mexico on a three day trade mission to promote economic partnerships between New Jersey and Mexico. The governor has been rumored to be a Republican candidate in the 2016 presidential elections in which immigration reform will be a hot topic debated. Christie was asked by a reporter to outline his stance on federal immigration policy. The New Jersey governor responded with, “I won’t have anything to say on immigration unless and until I become a candidate for president of the United States.” I applaud this answer, Christie does a good job at not committing himself to a presidential campaign in 2016 but he doesn’t rule out running for president either. Well, the journalists at CNN tore him apart, saying Christie, “took the easy way out” and that he, “should have an opinion on immigration reform regardless”. In my opinion, CNN was creating something out of nothing with this story. Running for president of the United States is a personal matter, a 2016 presidential campaign would have tremendous impact on Christie’s personal life. This should be a decision solely made by Christie, his family, and his most trusted advisors, not by CNN. Christie was in Mexico to encourage economic relations between New Jersey and Mexico (and perhaps to brush up on his foreign policy), and CNN should be asking questions about that. Instead, CNN decided to hammer potential presidential campaign questions at Christie, who has not even formally declared he is running for president in 2016.
Works Cited:
Semiatin, Richard J. "Campaign Press Coverage." Campaigns on the Cutting Edge. Washington, D.C.: CQ, 2008. N. pag. Print.
As modern society has evolved, the media has progressively focused more and more on politicians’ personal lives and political scandals. Politicians’ personal lives and political scandals are one of the most important topics to newsgatherers. Readers have an interest in political figures’ personal lives and want to see what goes on in their lives besides the political aspect. While it is fascinating to see what goes on in politicians’ personal lives, the main focus should really be on the politicians’ political views and how they are going to work to improve the government as well as what they can contribute to society. I believe that people who work for the media are just sitting on the edge of their seats waiting for these political figures to mess up and potentially create a scandal.
ReplyDeleteFor example, President Obama has successfully been able to focus more on his opposing party’s political viewpoints rather than what goes on in their personal lives and what mistakes they have made. In an interview Obama had with Barbara Walters back in 2011, the president declined to answer a question Walters had about former House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s three marriages and said, “the focus should be on the differences in their political positions-not marital problems or personal foibles” (Tau 1).
When it comes to covering politicians’ personal issues or possibly a political scandal that is occurring, one aspect of media that started putting more focus on political figures’ personal issues was television. “Television reduced the importance of issues and raised the profile of personalities and private scandals from the rise of John Kennedy to the Bill Clinton-Monica Lewinsky scandal”(Semiatin 139). Regarding scandal, we question why political scandal is more dominant today. “Since the early 1960s, scandals have become an increasingly prevalent feature of political life in many Western societies, including Britain and the United States” (Thompson 106.) The bottom line is that scandals make news and grab readers’ attentions.
I think that the media is also focused on providing readers with “soft news”. Sometimes, we get tired of hearing about all of the “boring” governmental issues and want to read or hear about something newsworthy going on in politicians’ lives. While it can be fascinating to read about these topics, it is important to remember, “Except where private conduct strongly connects to public office, a politician’s personal life is not news. Nor is gossip about such” (Cohen 1).
Sometimes, the president just wants to enjoy vacation time with his family. If the media is so focused on how he is spending his vacation, it can be difficult for him to focus on his family first. However, despite the media’s influence, Obama has been able to concentrate on his limited vacation time and ignore the media. The media and newsgatherers like to focus on the little personal details of politicians’ lives and sometimes this is too much.
While it is OK to cover politicians’ personal lives and to broadcast issues such as scandal, often times the media bombards us with this information resulting in politicians being frustrated and overwhelmed and not being able to focus on the task at hand which is working to keep our government intact.
Works Cited:
Cohen, Jeff. "Covering The Private Lives of Politicians." FAIR. N.p., 1 Nov. 1999. Web. 07 Sept. 2014
Semiatin, Richard J. "Campaign Press Coverage." Campaigns on the Cutting Edge.
Washington, D.C.: CQ, 2008. N. pag. Print.
Tau, Byron. "Obama: Media Should Focus on Issues, Not Personal Lives." POLITICO. N.p., 23 Dec. 2011. Web. 07 Sept. 2014
Thompson, John B. Political Scandal: Power and Visibility in the Media Age. Cambridge: Polity, 2000. Print.
From Taylor Popielarz:
ReplyDeleteIn 2014, the media focus on everything and anything they can get their hands on. As a journalism major, I think I should include myself in the aforementioned statement, because I am always searching for the latest scoop.
As a political junkie, I follow a realm of political news coverage, ranging from the good, the bad, and the down right ugly. While I always don’t agree with how some political reporters tackle their beat, I have to appreciate and respect the lengths some journalists will go to expose the truths that lye beneath our highly guarded political system.
That being said, a quote on page 107 of Thompson’s Political Scandal sets up the topic of this blog post nicely. “It seems likely that the growing prevalence of political scandal has less to do with a general decline in the moral standards of political leaders than with the changing ways in which, and the extent to which, the activities of leaders are disclosed and scrutinized to the public domain.”
The media is now a 24-hour operation in our society. We have newspapers, television shows, webcasts, YouTube channels, blogs, Twitter, Facebook and more, and each outlet offers a chance for political details to be exposed. In my opinion, political reporters and the media are taking advantage of the usually ignorant decisions holders and candidates for political office sometimes make. But do I think the media sometimes crosses a line? In certain situations, yes, I do.
Thompson continues to write on page 112 of his book that, “Part of the reason why political scandal has become so important today is that is has become a kind of credibility test for the politics of trust.”
We are a very accusatory society. Specifically in America, where nearly anything insults everyone, and where the media never sleeps, political scandal has become both a fasciation, and a justification of who someone truly is.
Just like someone may look at a family member, close friend, or coworker differently if they found out that person was involved in some type of scandal, the American people look upon political figures with the same mindset if a scandalous event involving that figure is exposed. “The increasing visibility of political leaders creates conditions which increase the likelihood of political scandal. The more the lives of political leaders are made visible to others…the more likely it is that the previously hidden activities which conflict with the images that leaders wish to project will emerge in the public domain (Thompson, 108).”
The fact of the matter is this: It’s tough to broadcast a nearly perfect image in today’s world, due to constant coverage the media supplies.
From Taylor Popielarz (Cont'd):
ReplyDeleteMy issue with the filtration and selection system of political scandals in the eye of the media is what most reporters and viewers consider to be a scandal.
Is the president sleeping with an intern a proper scandal to report on? I sincerely think so, because it exposes that even while holding the highest political office in the land, our president was unable to stay committed to his family, and caused a lot of focus to be on what was in his pants, as opposed to what his views on policy were.
Is Hillary Clinton’s latest hairstyle worth news coverage similar to a political scandal? No.
Scandalous behavior certainly defines an individual’s character and moral self-being, but personal decisions like clothing style, eating habits, vacationing choices, or choice of White House pet is not scandal worthy.
The biggest reason I think the media is focusing too much on “scandalous incidents that are not actually scandalous” is because the reader, the viewer, the consumer of all forms of media has more of a say than ever before in which content they will absorb. And with this power now in the form of a click of a view, comes a news agency’s reliance on keeping advertisers happy because that is where funding comes from. From Semiatin’s Campaigns on the Cutting Edge, “If we all get to select how much campaign news we will receive, and the depth of that coverage, it may be that too many Americans will choose shallow, based sources of news on the Internet (153).”
The reality is that our politically uniformed society cares more about what Hillary Clinton is wearing as opposed to what policy change is being tossed around in Congress. Sad, but true. As Semitain continues to write on page 153, “The mainstream media are not disappearing, but the Internet is having a profound effect on the superficiality of campaign news coverage, promoting a greater emphasis on personality, rumor, and infotainment.”
Works Cited:
Semiatin, Richard. Campaigns on the Cutting Edge. USA: CQ Press, 2013. Print.
Thompson, John. Political Scandal. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers Inc., 2000. Web.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLindsay Goldstein
ReplyDeleteFor public figures, like politicians, all scandals become mediated, and “[b]y virtue of their mediated publicness, the actions or events which lie at the heart of mediated scandals are made visible to others who were not present at the time and place of their occurrence, and who may be situated in spatially distant locales,” (Thompson, 62). The media plays a huge role in this, as they continue to delve further and further into politicians’ personal lives and farther away from the things that matter.
The media acts as the “dramatis personae,” as Thompson writes, meaning they report on and further publicize the scandal. He further explains just how large of a role media organizations play in scandals, as they are responsible for publicizing the event, creating a mediated scandal. So, the question becomes, do politicians today have less morals or do the media just report on political scandals more? Thompson entertains both theories in depth, but comes to the conclusion that there is little evidence to support the prior. He suggests that the increase in scandals may be due to “a change in the moral codes and conventions that are used to assess the behavior of politicians and to the growing salience of these codes in the conduct of political life,” (Thompson, 107). Basically, the media today focuses more on the personal lives of a politician than the professional one, and as a result, the public becomes more interested and more involved to the point where it has just become too much.
One aspect of politician’s personal lives that usually becomes the focus of many debates and conversations, as opposed to the actual politics, is clothing and what they choose to wear. This is largely because of the ways in which politics is made public, as Joseph Graf and Jeremy D. Mayer explain “Television has forced politicians at all levels of American campaigns to pay more attention to their looks than ever before,” (qtd. in Semiatin, 141). Recently, for example, President Barack Obama wore a tan suit on a televised press conference from the White House, as opposed to the typical dark-colors that he always wears.
The media focused so heavily on the issue that the public became outraged, claiming that the President’s choice in suit color was disrespectful and inappropriate. The situation became so out of hand that Time Magazine published an article titled “In Defense of Barack Obama’s Tan Suit” on Aug. 29, 2014 to attempt to end the “scandal” and refocus the public’s attention on the important issues. In the article, author Eric Dodds mentions that this is the first time in the President’s six years in office that he hasn’t worn a dark colored suit in some shade of black, charcoal, or navy, a decision which he explained in an interview with Vanity Fair in 2012, when he was quoted as saying, “I’m trying to pare down decisions. I don’t want to make decisions about what I’m eating or wearing. Because I have too many other decisions to make,” (qtd. in Dodds).
So, after six years, President Obama changes things up and wears something a little different, only to be scrutinized in the public and by the media for his choice. “The irony,” Dodds writes, “is that the President is often criticized for being bland, even in his fashion choices. To be frank, after yesterday’s outcry, who can blame him? Next time you or anyone asks the Commander-in-Chief for a little personality or originality, don’t be surprised if this is cited as a reason for declining that request,” (Dodds). In this case, the media focused way more on the color of the suit, with hundreds of articles dedicated to the “controversy,” as opposed to the important issues that were discussed, like the economy, ISIS and Ukraine.
Lindsay Goldstein (continued)
ReplyDeleteHillary Clinton is another example of a politician whose personal life is always the focus of the media’s attention instead of her politics. Her hair, for example, has often been the subject of debates and comments from the public and media. It was even brought up by Barbara Walters in an interview with Clinton in 2012 when she was named one of the most fascinating people of the year. The interview, which covered a variety of topics, from running for president in 2016 to her experience as Secretary of State, was supposed to be about what made the famous political figure so fascinating. Instead, the conversation turned to her new hairstyle, to which Clinton jokingly responded, “I know that it’s one of the great fascinations of our time – much to my amazement,” (qtd. in Duerson). She also noted her busy schedule as a reason for her low-maintenance hairstyle, a seemingly appropriate response for a woman who holds such an important position of political power.
America as a whole is often considered a very uneducated, ill-informed society when it comes to topics that matter, like politics. The media plays a huge role in that. To their defense, these journalists are just doing their job by reporting on what the public is most interested in. However, they also have a responsibility to help keep society informed about important issues, and devoting article after article, page after page, to the president’s suit color is just not beneficial.
Works Cited:
Dodds, Eric. “In Defense of Barack Obama’s Tan Suit.” Time Magazine, 29 Aug. 2014.
Web. 3 Sept. 2014.
Duerson, Meena Hart. “Hillary Clinton: My Hair Is ‘One of the Great Fascinations of
Our Time.” Today, 13 Dec. 2012. Web. 4 Sept. 2014.
Graf, Joseph and Jeremy D. Mayer. “Campaign Press Coverage – Instantaneous.”
Campaigns on the Cutting Edge. Ed. Richard J. Semiatin. Washington, D.C.: CQ,
2008. Print.
Thompson, John B. Political Scandal: Power and Visibility in the Media Age.
Cambridge: Polity Press, 2000. Print.
Sarah Faidell
ReplyDeleteThe media does focus too much on politician’s personal lives, but I believe it is often invited to do so because of the campaign strategies of many politicians. Politicians who try to appear family-oriented and literally bring their families on stage with them when they campaign might have a hard time being upset when the media gets crazy about a story portraying that politician in the opposite light. Conversely, sometimes the media can go overboard and focus on trivial personal issues when the focus should be on policy or current events.
One politician who is an example of what I consider unfair media involvement, or too much of a focus on a politician’s personal life is Chris Christie. News sources from NBC to Politico to Buzzfeed have focused on the politician’s weight and his ‘journey’ to weight loss. For a while, the majority of what I read about New Jersey Governor Chris Christie focused solely on his weight. When the Bridge Scandal occurred, it actually increased the amount of negative talk about his weight, according to an article from NBCNews.com. Even when the presidential race is less than two years away and Christie is a possible contender, the majority of media focus is on his weight. As Graf and Mayer point out in Campaigns on the Cutting Edge, appearance of a candidate really was not an issue until television. Graf and Mayer mention that William Howard Taft was morbidly obese, and he was president. Now, the media’s reporting on what a politician wears or how many pounds they have dropped as become a hot topic to report on. (Graf 141)
As we discussed last week, image is a crucial component to any successful campaign and would-be candidate. However, the images crafted by PR groups and advisors can be shattered by the contrast of the social life or appearance of a candidate. Thompson discusses in Chapter 4 how the technology that the media uses can have this adverse affect for politicians:
“The more lives of political leaders are made visible to others, the more likely it is that previously hidden activities which conflict with the images that leaders wish to project will emerge in the public domain, triggering off a series of events which may spin out of control.” (Thomson 108)
The real-life example of this can be seen in what ABC News headlined, “One of America’s Most Sensational Scandals” (Dorian, ABCnews.go.com), a story about John Edwards and his affair. This was not the case of the media prying too closely into John Edwards’ life because his entire campaign strategy was to push the image of him as a family man, devoted to his wife who had cancer. Marc Dorian writes that, ahead of the 2008 campaign, “Edwards’ greatest political asset was his wife” as she battled with breast cancer. Edwards promoted the image of a family man, who had his life together, and supported his wife as she bravely fought breast cancer.
What was actually happening behind the campaign front was that Edwards was having an affair with Rielle Hunter, who he hired to work on his campaign as a cover up. His wife, Elizabeth, found out about the affair and later that Hunter was pregnant with Edwards’ child. The National Enquirer got wind of the scandal when a friend of Hunters called Enquirer. Would the story have been run if Edwards’ campaign image were not that of a family man? Probably. However, one could argue that the intensity of the public backlash from this scandal was because Edwards invited the media into his personal life as part of a campaign strategy that backfired. And with television, what gets the highest ratings is what gets reported on the most: The people want the secrets and the scandals and the skeletons in the closet. Maybe the media is just giving the people what they want.
Sarah Faidell
ReplyDeleteWorks Cited
Dorian, Marc, and Lauren Effron. "John Edwards and the Mistress: A Breakdown of One of America's Most Sensational Scandals." ABC News. ABC News Network, 12 Nov. 2013. Web. 08 Sept. 2014.
Graf, Joseph, and Jeremy D. Mayer. "Campaign Press Coverage - Instantaneous." Campaigns on the Cutting Edge. Washington, D.C.: CQ, 2008. N. pag. Print.
"Still Not Skinny, Christie Cheered as a Weight-Loss Surgery Success - NBC News." NBC News. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Sept. 2014
Thompson, John B.. Political Scandal : Power and Visability in the Media Age. Hoboken: Wiley, 2013. Ebook Library. Web. 09 Sep. 2014.
After monitoring media coverage this past week it seems apparent to me that media organizations often focus too much on politician’s personal lives and scandals in general. On Monday at 3 pm I took an hour to simultaneously watch news coverage for CNN and MSNBC. I selected these two particular stations because they usually have 24 hour news coverage that is primarily focused on political and international issues. However, I was surprised that how over the course of single one hour news cycle how much of the coverage was devoted to issues which were not purely political news. Rather both outlets spent a tremendous amount of time analyzing personal scandals and decisions and personal lives of politicians.
ReplyDeleteThe top of the hour started with both CNN and MSNBC covering the, then breaking, Ray Rice abuse scandal. While not a politician, the athlete’s domestic violence case and his subsequent release form his team dominated the news that hour; CNN discussed the issue for the first 10 minutes while MSNBC took 20 minutes before turning to focus on the ISIS crisis. Later on in the hour, CNN turned to discuss if it was appropriate for Obama to go golfing following James Foley’s execution while MSNBC dedicated more time the Rice incident. Towards the end of the hour both networks covered Kate Middleton and Prince Williams announcement of having a second child. Overall, I would estimate that both stations had about 25 minutes of coverage for scandal and personal issue stories. If this is a typical news day then it is indicative that media may focus on politicians’ personal lives and political scandals too much.
As we discussed in class last week image is so important for politicians and political candidates since it can make or break that individual’s career. Since politician’s image is so closely scrutinized amongst the public it is likely why the media focuses on political scandals and personal lives. As such media outlets may believe that covering a politician’s personal actions and decisions is almost as important as their policies and politics. In the Political Campaign Communication text Trent mentions regarding image in campaigns: “People have some preconceived ideas regarding what a candidates personal characteristics and behavior should be, and these ideas are continually measured against reality of what an actual candidate says and does during the campaign. (73) I believe that this can also be used in the context of any politician. People are constantly looking to see if the politicians they elected are living up to the promises they made while campaigning. In some cases their personal decisions can give insight into if they are fulfilling their position properly. Therefore I believe media often tries to focus and discuss politician’s personal lives for this reason.
Furthermore, as I watched today’s coverage of the news I couldn’t help but feel that another reason for the focus on scandal and politician’s personal lives was to act as filler content. In the 24/7 news cycle it seems that news outlets sometimes have to create stories and draw them out in order to have an adequate amount of content. In Chapter 9 of Richard Semiatin’s text it opens detailing how a trivial documents release was a major news story for no apparent reason other than it simply being “news”. As he puts it “Whatever was inside those boxes was almost beside the point. The news was the release” (138) I believe that this is a typical example of how nonissue events may be over hyped in order to create a story or at least news content.
Works Cited
•Trent, Judith S.; Friedenberg, Robert V.; Denton, Robert E., Jr.. Political Campaign Communication : Principles and Practices. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2011. Ebook Library. Web. 08 Sep. 2014.
•Semiatin, Richard J. Campaigns on the Cutting Edge. Second ed. Print.
Brianna Millor Hammond
ReplyDeleteBlog #2
The media does focus a lot on the personal life and political scandals, but that shouldn’t be an issue. There is a thin line on what the public should care and know about; when it comes to the president and other public figures. We hold these people to a higher standard because they have power; the more power you have the higher the pedicel. Although this is true, where do we draw the line, because politicians are people too? Media goes in to personal the lives of politicians in order for us to know them on a more personal level, very little shouldn’t be open to the public when it comes to the personal life of politicians, especially the president, I believe invasion of personal privacy and intrusion of your life, comes with the job.
For example, the presidential campaign of 1840, was the first presidential campaign that recognized image as a voting component. This is the campaigns where the Whigs created a candidate, Harrison, from the ground up to defeat Martin Van Buren. They understood that image was important to the voters. The personal life was important to the people. During his campaign people often questioned his competency due to his older age. “When democrats suggested that the aging Harrison might be content spending his declining days in a log cabin ‘studying moral philosophy’, provided he has a barrel of hard cider at his side…” (Trent 84). Media as well as the public paid close attention to an issue like this because age and competency level is important to if he can fulfill his job as president. The Whigs were smart enough to use this coverage to their advantage because they knew media cared a lot about personal lives of their candidate. “…the Whigs cleverly turned the attack into a reinforcement of Harrison’s contrived image as a common man. From then on, every Whig rally sported cider barrels and miniature log cabins…”(Trent 84) The media pays a lot of attention to details about the personal life of the candidate. The voter knows the smallest factors can make a difference and who they want to vote for because on the surface candidates can all appear the same their personal life might set them apart from each other, which can either hurt them or help them. In Harrison’s case it helped him.
Increasingly we now see the media covering sex scandals; the most prominent being the scandal involving Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky. The reason the media covers these stories so closely is not only because he was sexually involved with a woman, but, it was also because he broke his commitment with his wife. How can you be committed to the country if you can’t even commit to your wife, is probably what many Americans were thinking? Overtime, morality in the political system has changed which fostered an environment to increase the importance of scandals. “It could be argued that the growing prevalence of political scandal is due, not so much to a decline in the moral standard of politicians, but rather to a change in the moral codes and conventions that are used to assess the behavior of politicians and to the growing salience of these codes in the conduct of political life…It may be that politicians are more prone to scandal because behavior that would be condones in the past is more likely censored today” (Thompson 107). Overtime, politicians are held at a higher standard now due to their power and what they have power over. The moral code over time has amended, sexual scandals may not have been important back then but now they are increasingly important due to the political importance and the atmosphere of the country as a whole.
Over all I think that the media does not focus too much on the personal lives of politicians, due to the fact that they have power and with power comes responsibility.
Work Cited
Thompson, John B. Political Scandal: Power and Visibility in the Media Age. Malden, MA:
Blackwell Publishers, 2000.
Trent, Judith S., Robert V. Friedenberg, and Robert E. Denton, Jr. Political Campaign
Communication, 7th ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2011.
Shauna Dempsey
ReplyDeleteBlog # 2
I believe that the media does tend too focus too much time on the personal lives and scandals of politicians in America. However, I feel that they make the decision to air these stories based on the fact that the American people are generally more interested in these stories than of actual political and governmental news. It is more intriguing to the American population as a whole to hear about a recent scandal, such as drugs or sex, involving politician because it is something that is out of the ordinary and calls into question a persons character. As stated before my previous blog post a scandal happens when norms or common morals are broken.
According to Thompson, “Individuals who wish to project a certain image through the media may find that, despite their best efforts, it is extremely difficulty to contain certain forms of behavior in the back regions where they originally occurred,” (Thompson 1473). This means that it can be extremely challenging to make sure that everything that occurs in their personal lives, or the “back region,” is completely private and unknown by the public and media, whether it is scandalous or not. When President Obama goes on vacation with his family the media latches on to this as a way to try and put the president down. They often try and make him look like he would much rather be golfing on Martha’s Vineyard or surfing in Hawaii than responding to the crisis’s that are constantly facing the country. The media also latched on to the fact that the president was a smoker. Smoking is obviously unhealthy but it is questionable whether or not this character flaw would make him a bad president in the overall scheme of things. The media loves to pick apart every part of any president’s personal lives and try to find fault in it. This can be distracting and take way from the news coverage of major issues facing the country.
Graf and Mayer discuss how the Internet has impacted the political system, specifically campaigns, in America today. With the internet being a way to spread news in seconds politicians have far more to worry about in terms of their behavior in their personal lives, “Political attacks, which used to take weeks or at least days to hit the airwaves and make an impact on the voters, now reach citizens at the click of a button,” (Graf and Mayer 138). The Internet and social media can be used in good ways in order to get positive news and ideas out to the public from politicians but also has many negatives sides as well. This gives the media constant contact with the public and allows them to bring the public news constantly regarding what a politician is doing at any time of the day.
The Internet also relays information to the public about the fashion styles that, mainly, the first ladies wear at political appearances. This is not a scandal but an obsession with their personal lives. Michelle Obama is constantly judged and looked at for what she wears when she is at events. She has often been praised for her choice in clothes, showing an example of the fact that not all interest in a politician’s lives has to be negative. However, once again this takes away from the media covering what is truly important, the cause or reason that the political event is taking place for.
Overall, I feel that the media spends too much time covering politician’s personal lives and scandals because at the end of the day those things shouldn’t matter in terms of politics. It hinders the American public from being educated on what is happening in the country, as well as abroad, and the ideas and actions that are being proposed to fix the problems.
Works Cited
Graf, Joseph, and Jeremy D. Mayer. "Campaign Press Coverage - Instantaneous."
Campaigns on the Cutting Edge. Ed. Richard J. Semiatin. Thousands Oak:
CQ, 2012. 138-56. Kindle file.
Thompson, John B. Political Scandal: Power and Visibility in the Media Age.
Malden: Blackwell, 2000. Kindle file.
Politicians are considered leaders in America so their lives are often vey public and every aspect is often criticized. “… ‘leadership style’ – a combination of habitual modes off thought and actions which individuals perceive or judge a candidate.” (Trent, 71). Trent states that they are often judged or what I would call being picked a part by the media. I do in fact agree that the media focuses too much on politician’s personal life and scandal but at the same time people seem to want to know about this information.
ReplyDeleteJust recently a lot of media outlets focused a lot on Obama taking a vacation to Martha’s Vineyard. People want to know what the president is doing at all times even when it’s a distraction from more important news. I think that news outlets could focus on more important things such as the journalists being beheaded by ISIS, people are not enough aware of what’s going on. I think that news is skewed because reporters only share what the viewers want to know about which often isn’t important. Politician’s personal lives also make great stories when reporters have no other information to share.
I also think the news focuses a lot on scandal. I think sometimes scandals are important information. Watergate was important and scandals like bridge gate are important because it often affects the people of America or maybe their vote if Chris Christie decides to run in the 2016 election. Some scandal information is irrelevant, sure people want to know about sex scandals but I think they should be brought up less. I recently saw an article about a Swedish politician and nude selfies in an a Jewish Newspaper in LA. That is completely irrelevant, this man is not even in our country and the news is concerned about him. Honestly they shouldn’t even be in the news to begin with but some of these scandals will also affect Americans view on politicians but what a politician does on their own time should not be Americas business at all. Scandals have been a popular topic for quite some time. “With the rise of mediated scandals in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, allegations of corruption amount public officials became a common theme of scandals in the political field.” (Thompson, 163). Scandal has been around since the beginning of time and I think its time for media to step back and say “is this information really important?” because most of the time I think everyone can agree its not as important as other information so instead of sharing this information on the headlines, put it a few stories behind and focus on the important news first.
Work Cited:
Liphshiz, Cnaan. "Nude Selfie Scandal a Problem for Swiss Politician - and His Jewish Foes | World." Jewish Journal News. N.p., 08 Sept. 2014. Web. 09 Sept. 2014. .
Superville, Darlene. "Obama Taking Less Vacation, but Too Much for Some." Obama Taking Less Vacation, but Too Much for Some. N.p., 22 Aug. 2014. Web. 09 Sept. 2014. .
Thompson, John B. Political Scandal: Power and Visibility in the Media Age. Cambridge: Polity, 2000. Print.
Trent, Judith S., and Robert V. Friedenberg. Political Campaign Communication. New York: Praeger, 1991. Print.
In many ways, the personal lives of a politician are vital to their success in office. People prefer to rely on a person that they can relate to rather than a person completely foreign to the public. Some politicians are able to perfectly assimilate their personal lives into their campaign platforms, also leaving the media with very little to harp on in regards to their reputation. Others become almost puppets to the media, constantly giving them material to gossip about and exploit their personal matters. “The rise of the internet combined with the miniaturization of video technology has changed what is considered “Fair Game” for campaign coverage” (Semiatin 149). The internet has not only changed the ways campaigns happen, but even more so it has made information into a persons personal life incredibly accessible. Because this information is so readily accessible, it certainly gives the media a plethora of opportunities to harp on person’s personal flaws.
ReplyDeleteA prime example of a politician’s personal life that was picked apart on an extremely frequent basis was the former governor of Alaska Sarah Palin. When Senator John McCain selected governor Palin to be his running mate in the 2008 Presidential election, the media immediately went into a frenzy with the potential for the first woman in the white house, other than the first lady of course. McCain was using a rather interesting strategy, using Palin to boost his image within the “soccer mom” population. “Imagery plays an important role in the consideration of style. All candidates, whether they campaign using the strategies of incumbency or those of the challenger, must do and say whatever it is that will enhance voter perception of them.” (Trent 71). While this may have seemed like a smart move at the time, as more and more information about Palin’s personal life was released, McCain’s stock slowly decreased. There was constant talk of her children and the antics in which they were up to in the Alaskan wilderness. There was even a rumor for some time that her husband was lost in the Alaskan tundra on a snowmobile! The amount of hoopla that was being placed into Sara Palin and her personal life became overbearing, it ultimately made people lose focus on the election and what their platform was promoting.
While the media can absolutely focus too much on politician’s personal lives, sometimes they can focus too much on a scandal, completely ruining careers. The most recent example of this that comes to mind is governor of New Jersey Chris Christie and the infamous “Bridge gate” scandal. The scandal focused around obscene traffic on New Jersey bridges that halted cars for hours at a time. Christie was aware of the traffic jams and did nothing to fix them for personal reasons. While I do think this was foolish and irresponsible, the scandal is now the only thing people associate with his name. This is because of the media. People neglect to mention how helpful he was in restoring coastlines and towns when various hurricanes plagued the New York/New Jersey area, or the job opportunities that he has created while in office. For a very long time he was considered a prime candidate to accept the republican nomination for the 2016 presidential election. Now due to the mass coverage of a scandal that quite frankly wasn’t all too major, the nomination may be all but gone.
Works Cited
Trent, Judith S., Robert V. Friedenberg, and Robert E. Denton. Political Campaign Communication: Principles and Practices. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2011. Print.
Semiatin, Richard J. Campaigns on the Cutting Edge. Washington, D.C.: CQ, 2008. Print.
Emily Fagan
ReplyDeleteThe media is everywhere. We are constantly being bombarded with images and stories that are of no value to us. But, every now and then we come across a juicy political scandal that is all over the media.
The Media is too focused on politicians’ personal lives and political scandal. Thompson shows us that there are several important changes that underlie the growing prevalence of political scandal. Some of them being, (1) The increases visibility of political leaders, (2) The changing technologies of communication and surveillance, and (3) The changing culture of journalism. (Thompson 108).
The increasing visibility of political leaders creates conditioned which increase the likelihood of political scandal (Thompson 108). When these politicians’ lives become more public, the more likely it will be that a scandal will surface about them; the more visible the more vulnerable they are. Some political leaders may try to manage the ways they appear through the media but it becomes increasingly difficult for them to prevent any information or images from being leaked.
It is hard to control what is said about a candidate in the media, because media has become a completely different field then it was 60 years ago. There is a lot more too worry about now. There is new sophisticated technology that can put an end to privacy. Politicians need to be wary of what they provide, that is supposed to be for private eyes.
Journalist have advanced in their field so much that investigative journalism has become the new norm. “Investigative reporting would easily shade into a kind of prurient reporting in which hidden aspects of the lives of the powerful. The journalistic codes and conventions, which had previously discouraged journalists from reporting on the private lives and affair of political leaders.” (Thompson 111). But although it is unethical that does not stop a reporter from getting the story that they need; potentially running someone’s career for a story.
The media had become obsessed with the private lives of politicians. It is all about instant gratification. People want to know everything, and they want to know it now. It has become coded in our brains that, when a politician gains exposure, we wonder what negative thing will come out about them.
Emily Fagan cont...
ReplyDeleteThese scandals could really ruin a candidate’s reputation. Take for example Senator Gary Hart, During the surfacing period of the 1988 presidential campaign, he allegedly had a relationship with a Miami model. His challenge to prove the relationship, the public accusation by reporters from the Miami Herald, and the subsequent intensity of national media attention completely overwhelmed anything else Hart said or did (Trent 73). The media would not let this rest, they were constantly bashing Hart as a person and it ruined his career. When stories like this come out they media beats them to a pulp. They make sure they get every single detail out before they move onto the next scandal, because that is their job, to report every detail so their audience is aware of what is going on.
Something that has been present in politics in the last few years is social media. Candidates are trying to reach people on every level, but if it is not used right it can be death to a candidates career. Take for example Anthony Weiner. In 2011 Weiner took sexual photos of him and sent them to a women who was following him on Twitter. The media was all over this because they love a scandal. You never hear stories of non-famous peoples naked pictures being leaked, on only hear the stories of people who you know. Social media has played a big part in politicians lives, but they need to be careful because everything that they post is out their whether they think its private or not.
It is hard to say whether or not privacy exists when it come to campaigning today. With the press always ready to grab a story and milk it dry, and social media being a double edge sword; it is easy for a politicians to get swept up in their own scandal. There is no such thing as private anymore because the media is always around.
Cited Work
Thompson, John B. (2013). Political Scandal : Power and Visability in the
Media Age. Retrieved from http://www.eblib.com
Trent, Judith S.; Friedenberg, Robert V.; Denton, Robert E., Jr. (2011). Political
Campaign Communication : Principles and Practices. Retrieved from
http://www.eblib.com
Jack Holiver
ReplyDeleteBlog 2
The question of the week regards the media’s focus on politicians’ personal lives and political scandals. To answer this bluntly so the reader will know where I stand, the answer is yes, the media focuses too much on the personal lives of politicians. On the other hand, the media has the right and obligation to report of any political scandal that may affect the public he or she belongs to.
Thomson explains mediate scandals and how they affect the lives of individuals involved in the scandal and lives of the spectators.
“…these are events which unfold, at least in part, through mediated forms of communication, and which thus acquire a publicness that is independent of their capacity to be seen or heard directly by a plurality of co-present others” (Thomson, pg. 68-69).
After reading this over several times, I feel confident in giving my own simplified explanation. Mediate scandals are often on a larger scale and become relayed to the people through a media source. These sources can include newspapers, television programs, magazines, political websites, etc. During this relaying process, facts can become skewed due to misinformation or political biases. Therefore, the only people who know the scandal in its purest form are the individuals involved and the ones who were spectators.
If Thomson is correct in his explanation of the mediate scandals, then the media is drastically overstepping into detrimental territory. Years ago the media was dramatically different. During the Kennedy administration, it was obvious there was a relationship between him and Marilyn Monroe. However, I cannot find any media source of the time that mentioned this planetary size scandal. It appears that the media protected him from any defamation that would taint his presidency or public image. If a media source were to suspect something similar was occurring in the current administration, they would run with the story until everyone knew. Is it bad for the media to do this? I believe it is.
The U.S. is among the most inefficient nations in the world. In order for legislation to be passed, it must go through both the House of Representatives and the Senate, which can take years with the current Congress. However, all the blame cannot be placed on the media for the increasing focus on a politician’s personal life. Many times the candidate will fuel the fire through air time on T.V. In Political Campaign Communication, the change in media coverage is addressed. “In 1992, to a far greater extent than ever before, candidates bypassed the traditional news media and spoke directly to the public, primarily through television talk shows…” (Trent, pg. 237). In my opinion, the conversation on these talk shows will be much more casual than major news station interviews. This may mean the candidate talks more about their personal life, which can lead to others drawing their own conclusion based on something that is entirely separate from their political agenda.
While the media does have an obligation to report the news as they see fit, there has become an increasing demand for political candidates’ personal lives. These reports can stray away from the fundamental foundations a politician builds while campaigning. In the case of Bill Clinton with Monica-gate, we found that the president had a very brief relationship with an intern. Though people seem to forget that he left office with eight years of peace and the first surplus in presidential history.
Bibliography:
1.) Trent, Judith S., Robert V. Friedenberg, and Robert E. Dention, Jr. Political Campaign Communication: Principles and Practices. New York: Praeger, 1991. Print.
2.) Thompson, John B. Political Scandal: Power and Visibility in the Media Age. Cambridge: Polity, 2000. Print.
Thomas Chamoun
ReplyDeleteEntertainment news should focus on politicians lives and political scandal because it is a highly effective way of them accomplishing their goals.
Trent uses the campaign of Harrison to show that image is powerful enough to win an election-“The Whig campaign ignored all issues, except those relating to the personality of their candidate, and gave image creation and “hype” a permanent place in presidential politics,”(Trent, 72). A campaign is not run on what should be done, or what is best for out democracy. It is run on what will win. Considering that entertainment news is one of the most important tools in image building. And that it is also beneficial for Entertainment News when their side wins an election, they will do what they can to support the image that the campaign manager has put together if it means victory for their side. Another reason Entertainment News supports the image propped up by the campaign people is because it is easy. With press releases written in certain ways, and pseudo-events the campaign workers lure the news producer into promoting the image.
“Judith Trent and colleagues found that most characteristics voters believe important for presidential candidates to possess (honesty, faithfulness to spouse, and moral integrity) remain constant,” (Trent, 87). It would be hard for these characteristics to be portrayed to the public while talking about political actions. It is more exciting and plain easier to portray these qualities while talking about their personal lives or political scandal.
On page 61 Thompson talks about the mediated scandal. Since disclosed by media outlets the story becomes a separate event, with two sides the left and the right entertainment news narratives of the event. When tied with the fact that the news outlets like it when their party wins we can assume that media outlets like scandal because it is a easy entertaining way to mold the image of a politician pertaining to the characteristics laid out by Trent above. This is why they should be covered by the news media. It is an effective tool in a lot of news media goals, (Thompson, 61).
I watched O’Reilly for the first time in a while this week to checkout some stuff for this class. Something that caught my ear on the topic of scandal was that Benghazi is referred to as a scandal. It blew up because it happened right before the last election and it was a last desperate attempt to dethrone Obama. Now after the election it is still being pushed because they want to smear Clinton. The characteristic that stands out in my mind that FOX is trying to call into question is honestly. Another interesting point is that they were promoting a new book on the topic called “13 Hours” I wonder who owns that publishing company.
Just a parallel example on the left - A political scandal of power that is also being called into question to try and mold a potential candidates image and make the public question his honestly is Bridgegate.
Work Cited
Thompson, John B.. Political Scandal : Power and Visability in the Media Age. Hoboken: Wiley, 2013. Ebook Library. Web. 09 Sep. 2014.
Trent, Judith S., Robert V. Friedenberg, and Robert E. Dention, Jr. Political Campaign Communication: Principles and Practices. New York: Praeger, 1991. Print.
Any good HR representative will say when looking to hire someone for a job you only judge whether the candidate has the necessary skills and experience in order to perform the job. In theory, any discrimination on the way someone looks or the way they behave could lead to a lawsuit. Of course, we know that these days everything matters, your personality, the way you look, or the way you behave outside of work could all be reasons for unemployment. These factors can also dictate who we vote for.
ReplyDeleteA great example of this is the recent presidential elections between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. One of the main reasons Romney lost that race was because he lacked charisma. Joeeph Graf argues that the 24 hour news cycle lead to new emphasis on personality over politics. “Constant surveillance of candidates will increase the emphasis on personality appearance and character and further lessen the importance of party’s platforms and issues” In a perfect word a candidates stance on issues and plans on how to fix them would be the only things influencing our votes.
Another problem in the Romney campaign was his flip flopping on political issues. One of my favorite political cartoons form the 2012 election showed a bowl of oatmeal, a jar of mayonnaise, a cup of pudding, a lump of dough and Mitt Romney. The caption read “While all off these things are band and amorphous the oatmeal mayonnaise pudding and dough don’t change their core beliefs based on the latest poling data”. Romney’s frequent flip-floping on issues led many voters to believe he was untrustworthy. Thompson argues that the politicians perceived trustworthiness can make or break a campaign. “People become more concerned with the character of the individuals who are or might become their leaders and more concerned about their trustworthiness because increasingly this becomes the principal means of guaranteeing that political promises will be kept and that difficult decisions in the faces of complexity and uncertainty will be made on the bias of sound judgment.”
Dean Simonton, a psychology professor at the University of California, argues that the way that someone behaves could be a way to preview their political career. For example how flexible a president is could influence how much they use the veto power. Simonton says that the current emphasis on charismatic presidents is essentially useless. How charismatic a president is has no correlation with be a successful problem solver.
The current focus on politician’s personality and private lives might be a bit excessive but it is naive to think that those factors will not influence voters. Politicians know this and have no problem calling attention to their opponent’s character flaws. As Thompson explains “As parties compete for a growing pool of uncommitted voters the character failings of their opponents…become increasingly potent weapons in the struggle for political advantage.”
Works Cited
Thompson, John B. Political Scandal: Power and Visibility in the Media Age. Cambridge: Polity, 2000. Print.
Graf, Joseph, and Jeremy D. Mayer. "Campaign Press Coverage - Instantaneous." Campaigns on the Cutting Edge. Ed. Richard J. Semiatin. Thousand Oaks, CA: CQ, 2013. 138-53. Print.
Spiegel, Alix. "Charming, Cold: Does Presidential Personality Matter?" NPR. NPR, 23 Oct. 2012. Web. 09 Sept. 2014.
Part #1
ReplyDeleteWhile I do believe that the media spends too much time on politicians’ personal lives and political scandals, I do feel that there are also associated benefits to this excessive amount of coverage. The benefits certainly aren’t as numerous when covering a politician’s personal life, except perhaps to clarify that he or she is a genuine and kind-hearted person, or the lack thereof based on actions while seemingly not in the media spotlight. However, on the opposite side of the spectrum is the benefit that comes with the emergence of information immediately following political scandal. For example, immediately following Watergate initially broke the news media was flooded with information. What ended up being so damning however, was the appearance of the tapes. As Thompson so clearly pointed out, “A contested claim… may, in the end, boil down to one person’s word against another’s, but a message fixed in some medium – an intimate letter, a recorded conversation, a revealing photo, etc. – may provide an incriminating form of evidence” (69). I think while it certainly is important to give politicians’ their privacy, after all they’re just people as well, the rise of mediated scandal in particular has beneficial to the greater good of society.
It is because of the excessive habit of media intrusion that scandals such as Watergate, as well as more recent events such as Anthony Weiner, that ideals held by elected officials have really been called into play and individuals are being held accountable for their actions. I don’t disagree that I think the media could be spending a considerably less amount of time on personal lives, after all it really doesn’t affect the overall public in most instances, but I do feel that the amount of time covering scandal is ultimately beneficial. The coverage spent on scandal allows the constituency to become better informed of politicians’ actions, which is something that arguably much of the United States population in particular lacks a sufficient degree of understanding about.
Part #2
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, I think the argument can be made that the way in which today’s society is structured allows for the media to focus large quantities of time on topics such as political scandals. In the Trent book, there was a whole section on what the purpose of the news conference has come to epitomize in modern day. One comment that was made read, “There are three reasons why properly used news conferences can increase coverage” (Trent 240). The emphasis I wanted to make about this sentence is the phrase can increase coverage. Today’s society has evolved in such a manner that campaigns, day to day actions in the office, long term projects, all of it centers on coverage, and high coverage at that. So it is no surprise when the media has become obsessed with covering personal lives and scandals as they’ve been set up to cover everything else. The boundary really hasn’t been clearly established, so who’s to say they’re really the ones to blame?
One final point is that the way in which current media is structured allows for the continuation of the excessive coverage. Further in the Trent book, there was a section outlining apologia and its presence is modern day news. Scandal is always in the news, it’s something that is constantly discussed by the reporters, day after day, which creates the environment that creates the notion of excessive coverage. There was a brief passage in the text that I think did an excellent job of summarizing the true problem facing the country in regard to media today. Trent wrote, “Day after day, the candidate is seen denying the charge. The proliferation of media has compounded this problem… the “feeding frenzy” of the press is greater today than ever before” (249). Like I mentioned earlier it certainly has its benefits at times, but more and more the excessive coverage is creating more problems than good. The question now at hand is what to do to resolve this issue.
Sources:
Thompson, John B. Political Scandal: Power and Visibility in the Media Age. Cambridge: Polity ;, 2000. Print.
Trent, Judith S., and Robert V. Friedenberg. Political Campaign Communication: Principles and Practices. 7th ed. New York: Praeger, 2011. Print.
Today, people around the world have focused in on the “relatable.” They do not want things that do not make sense or do not relate to their life. Books, movies, TV shows, all need to relate to viewers to catch their interest. But those areas are not the only places where being relatable plays a big role. The media helps to focus in on this idea of being relatable for people around the world. This can be a great asset or a great drawback for people running for office. The media to make candidates more relatable focus more on their personal life than their political stances because that is how voters get in touch and relate.
ReplyDeleteThe media, today, focuses too much on the personal life of candidates to make them more relatable to viewers. Richard Semiatin highlights this idea: “ The more access we have to the personalities and personal conduct of our leaders, the greater likelihood we might vote on such eohemera as appearance and personality” (Semiatin 150). Viewers today do not seem to care as much about the issues as they do about how a candidate looks and acts. Saturday Night Live, for example, often highlights or portrays a presidential candidate or their running mates personalities in certain ways. One of the biggest SNL skits is based off of certain personality traits of Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton. In the skit, Tina Fey and Amy Poehler play Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton. Both women highlight aspects of the campaign that involve certain personality traits that the show is making light of both of the women’s looks and their education of the issues (http://www.hulu.com/watch/34465). SNL continues to highlight certain aspects of various politicians’ personal lives.
Damianos (cont.)
ReplyDeleteHillary Clinton’s personal life has continued to be in the forefront of whether she is going to run for president again in 2016. The press is constantly on Hillary’s back about her age, recently highlighting the fact that she is going to be a grandmother. Modern thinkers ask the question: Why does it matter? For years, men have been president while also being grandfathers. Candidates today must constantly worry about their image because of the media’s focus on their personal lives: “Imagery plays an important role in the consideration of style. All candidates, whether they campaign using strategies of incumbency or those of the challenger, must do and say whatever it is that will enhance voter perception of them. They are concerned, in other words, about their image” (Trent 71). Candidates are constantly pressured by the media to pull out all the stops. Especially since presidents, as well as other in politics, are held to higher standards. So when the media finds out certain things in their personal lives, they are scrutinized. This can be said about Bill Clinton when it was revealed that he had an affair while in office. While for many men, having an affair is not as big of deal, when the president of the United States does it; it is a bigger issue. The country relies on the president and when it is revealed that not only did he do something morally wrong, he also lied about it: “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky" (Nelson). While many people, can relate to affairs, they could not relate to the president having one.
The media is constantly in candidates’ personal lives and the reason for this is to not only have the scoop first, but to make the candidates more relatable to voters. Candidates realize that that is what voters want. They want someone who they can say “I can totally have a conversation with him,” they want the average Joe. Revealing aspects of their personal life is beneficial in relating to the voters but it does not help them in the important aspects of their campaign: their platform.
Works Cited:
Nelson, Setven. "Bill Clinton 15 Years Ago: 'I Did Not Have Sexual Relations With That Woman'" U.S. News & World Report. U.S. News & World Report LP, 25 Jan. 2013. Web. 9 Sept. 2014. .
"Political Parties- Beyond Revitalization." Campaigns on the Cutting Edge. Ed. Richard J. Semiatin. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: CQ, 2013. 103-19. Print.
Trent, Judith S. "Communicative Styles and Strategies of Political Campaigns." Political Campaign Communication: Principles & Practices. 7th ed. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2011. 69-115. Print.
A hundred years ago, it wasn’t as easy to stay informed. You could tune in on your radio or pick up the local newspaper, but other than word of mouth that was just about it. So in that sense, those media outlets were vital for political candidates to secure voters and inform them on their policies, etc. Then came the television, a monumental media platform that changed the way we saw ( literally) presidential debates. Take the first ever debate that was televised, Kennedy vs Nixon, where Nixon appeared to be a frail old man while Kennedy looked young, professional, and on top of his game. This debate helped sway many voters to Kennedy’s side.
ReplyDeleteFast forward to now, media is everywhere. Cellphones, cameras, the internet, you can’t escape it. Now, political figures constantly have the media’s eyes on them. You no longer only see them on debates or going on tour, but you know what they wear everyday, which they hang out with. Now voters get to see a whole different side of the candidates to help them make their decision, but has it gotten a little ridiculous? “The focus should be on the differences in their political positions-not marital problems or personal foibles” (Tau 1). As put by Tau, the media coverage has its positives, but the issues they care about begin to stray off of the important topics. Its more important to hear about Hilary Clinton’s opinion on Illegal Immigration, not what color suit pants she is wearing.
In my opinion, although their political policies are what’s more important, the media’s coverage of scandals is important. A Scandal, as defined by Thompson, are “ actions or events involving certain kinds of transgressions which become know to other and other and are sufficiently serious to elicit a public response.”(Thompson 403) Scandals, such as the Monica/Clinton sex scandal or the Rob Ford doing crack scandal are important because the public does need to know about these events which greatly reflect the character of the candidate. Would you vote for a drug addict just because you have the same gun control policies? Even if you did, would you trust him to follow through, or handle the taxpayers money? There’s a lot of grey space when it comes to the ethics of reporting scandals, but at the end of the day, its important and has helped us weed out a lot of bad character politicians in the past, and I’m sure will continue to do so in the future.
In the end, its very important for the media to get the important information across first, but there’s no way to stop them from getting into the personal lives of politicians. It almost comes with the job, so politicians need to keep that in mind and act professional 100% of the time, or we’ll be hearing about an up coming scandal sometime soon.
Tau, Byron. "Obama: Media Should Focus on Issues, Not Personal Lives." POLITICO. N.p., 23 Dec. 2011. Thu. 08 Sept. 2014
Thompson, John B.. Political Scandal : Power and Visability in the Media Age. Hoboken: Wiley, 2013. Ebook Library. Thu. 08 Sep. 2014.
I do believe that most media do focus too much on the personal lives and scandals of politicians. My first example comes from 2011, during the debt ceiling crisis. The country was facing a massive economic issue as the deadline approached where our governments debt would hit its ceiling. A debate was on going in Congress as to whether the country should raise the debt ceiling or not. Some argued that raising the debt ceiling was the best course of action, as it would not necessarily allow the country to borrow more money but allow it to pay back its previous debt. The country would go into default if it reached the debt ceiling. Others argued against raising it because they felt the country was irresponsibly spending and needing to get it under control. However, the country didn’t hear much about this on the news because, while this fight was going on, a little known United States congressman from New York’s 9th district named Anthony Weiner sent an image of his private parts to a woman on Twitter. The scandal took over the airwaves and the nightly news became about Weiner Gate rather than about an extremely important economic issue. Another big topic covered by the news was the Casey Anthony trial. These two stories together were enough to push important topics like the debt ceiling to minimal coverage. The reason for this was because people do not watch news shows that focus on the real issues. People choose to watch these scandalous topics. So any network that chooses to cover the debt ceiling would fall in the ratings and would lose money in advertising. According to John Thompson, “News-producing organizations report, to some extent, what other news-producing organizations are reporting; they take their cues, at least to some extent, from what their competitors are doing.” (84) No network would want to be different because they would lose viewers to their competitors so everybody has to do the same thing, which allowed the scandalous stories to become covered more.
ReplyDeleteAnother example that comes to mind is Mitt Romney’s tax returns during the 2012 election. Due to pressure from his opponents, Romney released an incomplete copy of his 2010 tax returns. Romney’s wealth was such a major issue for him during the campaign and for an unnecessary reason. His wealth is his own business as is how much he pays in taxes. Many called for him to release additional information on his tax returns, which he refused to do. This became a highly talked about issue in the media and grew from what was on his tax returns to why he left information off and what that means and what is that information that he did not disclose. It became a huge distraction from the issues that are most important to the election such as policies. Romney’s wealth was a huge negative impact on his image. Joseph Graf and Jeremy D. Mayer say in Campaigns on the Cutting Edge, “[Television] focused attention on image and sound, and less on logic and thought. Television contributed directly to the decline of issues and the rise of personality and individual character as a divisive factor in American elections.” (141)
Television news does not focus on the most important stories because that’s not what viewers want. Scandalous stories get people’s attention. At the end of it all, television is a business. News organizations rely on advertising to make money and, so, they do what they need to do to get as many viewers as they can rather than report the news that should be reported.
Works Cited:
Semiatin, Richard J. "Political Parties -- Beyond Revitalization." Campaigns on the Cutting Edge. Washington, D.C.: CQ, 2008. Print.
Thompson, John B. Political Scandal: Power and Visibility in the Media Age. Cambridge: Polity ;, 2000. Print.
In today’s society it seems that our focus is more on the personal lives and scandals of our country’s politicians rather than the actual politics at hand. This only makes me wonder… is it the media causing this or the politicians themselves? In “Political Scandal” the author proposes two possible reasons for the up rise in political scandals, “it might be argued that the growing prevalence of political scandal is due to a decline in the moral standards of political leaders, both with regard to their personal behavior and with regard to their general probity in the conduct of office” (Thompson 106). The second reason being that “the corruption scandals which flourished in the United States in the 1970s and 1980s were symptomatic of declining levels of probity among politicians” (Thompson 106). Did John F. Kennedy begin the string of sex scandals in the United States by setting the precedent that it was somehow okay? Or was he just the first one to catch the media’s attention while the power of the television was quickly emerging? “Television contributed directly to the decline of issues and the rise of personality and individual character as a decisive factor in American elections,” (Semiatin 141).
ReplyDeleteThe media focuses on the scandals and personal lives of our politicians because it is what we listen to and it’s what we see. I can’t name one person that went through the new healthcare bill but during the Anthony Wiener scandal people couldn’t wait to read the articles. Although, the media does contribute news about actual important events going on I would argue that it concentrates just as much if not more on the scandalous. For one example that all of us know about, the Lewinsky Scandal. Even though President Clinton was accomplishing all of these other important policies for our country all the media was focused on was the scandal. A more recent scandal of President Obama taking a two week vacation on Martha’s Vineyard creating headlines like “Obama’s brief break from vacation on Martha’s Vineyard baffles some” in the Washington times article that says quote, “Whatever the real reason for Mr. Obama’s 40-hour visit to Washington in the midst of his summer vacation, the president returned to Martha’s Vineyard on Tuesday afternoon, leaving behind unresolved emergencies and observers scratching their heads about his jaunt,” (Washington Times). And “Obama’s summer vacation by the numbers” in The Washington Post quoting, “President’s Obama time on Martha’s Vineyard is almost over -- he heads back to Washington on Sunday. And what a time it's been. His summer vacation has been a mix of golf, world crises, golf, domestic crisis, golf, time on the beach, and -- well, you know,” (The Washington Post). To make things even more scandalous an instagram photo was posted of him having a good time at a bar there.
Thompson, John B. Political Scandal: Power and Visibility in the Media Age. Cambridge: Polity, 2000. Print.
Graf, Joseph, and Jeremy D. Mayer. "Campaign Press Coverage - Instantaneous." Campaigns on the Cutting Edge. Ed. Richard J. Semiatin. Thousand Oaks, CA: CQ, 2013. 138-53. Print.
Boyer, Dave. "Obama’s Brief Break from Martha’s Vineyard Vacation Baffles Some." Washington Times. The Washington Times, 18 Aug. 2014. Web. 09 Sept. 2014.
Payne, Sebastian. "Obama's Summer Vacation, by the Numbers." Washington Post. The Washington Post, 23 Aug. 2014. Web. 08 Sept. 2014.
Within a democratic system, the media is knowingly charged with enforcing accountability on those in power. Whether they are a local politician or the President of the United States, it is the right of the voting citizens to have a look into the lives of their leaders. However, this right to know must come in moderation, not necessarily in terms of scope, but in quantity of coverage. Many political scandals covered in America tend to linger in the media for days, weeks and even months, simply to bolster the ratings of the major news networks. If media were to be just and balanced it could weigh whether or not Monica Lewinsky’s stained dress was more important than a crisis overseas. Unfortunately, American media driven by financial gain can become entrenched in the lives and scandals of our political leaders, and lose focus of what is most important for the public.
ReplyDeleteNaturally, the more publicized scandals are those rooted in sexual misconduct of married male politicians, simply because “sex sells.” Anthony Weiner sending nude photos, John Edwards cheating on his wife, and Bill Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky are all prime examples. Even in other countries the exposure of such acts has proven to have a crippling effect on the public’s view of the leader. At the time, Bill Clinton was ridiculed in every form of media, with the hearings covered live on television. What this brings into question is whether or not the socially inappropriate behavior impacts the job. The media does not discuss that. Instead, the same instance is covered endlessly. It is the repetitive bashing of a politician’s character in the media that forces the viewers to lose respect and appreciation. It is “the media’s endless appetite for scandal and negative information and images...” that has manifested this problem. More so, “the internet has made the surveillance of candidates even more constant and damaging” (Semiatin 149).
The life of a politician does not have to always be scandalous in order to drive media attention. Simply, "the more visible you are, the more vulnerable may be, because visibility will generate more interest from the media” (Thompson 108). For example, President George H. W. Bush went skydiving once again to fulfill his promise for his 90th birthday. The former president’s skydiving adventure had little to no impact on the lives of the American people, yet all of the major news networks around the country went to Maine to cover the story. Some argue that it was just a publicized event for the Bush family as they are often intentional with media visibility. The former president and first lady allowed the media to dive into their lives as they age. Further, they made sure America knew Bush Sr. kept his promise. This story also lingered in the media for a while, because an old man skydiving sells, especially when he was once the president.
Whether it is sensationalized sex acts or a heartwarming family-friendly story, focusing on lives of politicians will always be something the media cannot get enough of. It will continue to detract from the daily hard news stories, and even push them below the fold. While there can be a negative impact, it is still necessary that these stories be recognized in a true democracy. Without the accountability of the media on politicians there is nothing else. It is their role to accurately depict the leaders of our nation as humans, for better or for worse. In doing so, the citizens are aware of the leader’s character, and determine if they remain in their position. Delving into the lives of political leaders establishes a true sense of democracy and ensures that patriotism is maintained nationwide.
Works Cited:
Semiatin, Richard J. Campaigns on the Cutting Edge. SAGE Publications, 2013. Kindle Edition.
Thompson, John. Political Scandal. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers Inc., 2000. Web.