Galifianakis Between Two Ferns w/ Obama

You're an idiot.

Media and its portrayal of candidates and politicians has only changed recently.Compare the media's coverage of Watergate to that of the Clinton Scandal. During Watergate, the media portrayed Nixon as a politician, a figure who sat in the Whitehouse and was synonymous with it. During the Clinton Scandal, they portrayed him as an average person, a husband, someone who made a mistake. Do you really think that difference in portrayal had no affect on how the public perceived both situations?

If that is not enough, can you imagine how the US would have reacted if they had known FDR was in a wheelchair? There is a very good chance he would not have been elected. Imagine, a small, wheelchair bound man who was supposed to lead the United States out of a depression and through a world war.

The Media portrayal of candidates has such an impact on US politics it helped obliterate Sarah Palin. You have heard people talk about her infamous Alaska-Russia comment correct? Let me guess, you heard THIS version "I can see Russia from my house." That version is the incorrect one, what she actually said is"...you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska." The more common version of that statement is actually Tina Fey from an SNL skit.

Whether or not you agree with Palin (despite being more right I still do not), it goes to show the power the media now has on a campaign. It is unfortunate, as the media turned US politics into a horse-race show, reporting on sound bites rather than investigating them.

 
Nope, Media has always been a linkage institution with their own goals and biases and you just help me proved that. Scandals are usually not indicative of any sort of policy yet the media plays them up make one candidate more popular. Along with that, their is no doubt that some people in the media knew about FDR's condition but chose to keep it secret and out of the public eye such that he was more popular and relatable. I mean you seem to be stuck on medias influence being a new phenomenon but if you open a history book thats simply not true.
 
I never said it was not a linkage institution or is it a new phenomenon, but rather its role as a linkage institution in politics has changed.

When was the last time you watched the news and were given the entire story without any sort of spin? Or watched an investigative discussion with a candidate about the pro's and cons of a policy? You go watch the news for a week, and then comeback and talk.

Go read From Cronkite to Colbert. You will learn about the shift of the paradigms of the media from one that was based on a public service requirement to one that is based off entirely of profit. This shift caused the decline of informative media content to one that is driven by "what is deemed popular" by the news stations. With this shift came the move away from policy investigation to political sound bites and talk shows. These talk shows now consist of either shaming or praising a certain action, not investigating its intricacies.

My point is that media has shifted its role from promoting informative discourse to a horse-race of information about politics. It has always played a role as a linkage institution, but to say it has been a horse-race style system since 1789 is 100% wrong.
 
I still don't agree, you're talking about media you never experienced and trying to say how different it is from today. I would think you're familiar with randolph and hearst as well as the term "yellow journalism", definitely not a new phenomenon. I think media has always been a profit driven industry and continues to define and bring popularity to certain candidates.

The thing that has changed in recent times is the way this information is distributed, with the internet and even T.V. the constant bombardment of content has increased and has a greater effect on the public. But nevertheless, I think its rather naive to think that the media shifted its role from providing good information to superfluous pop culture shit. The media has always had its own agendas and promoted things that they know will sell and further their interests.
 
Forgive me for writing a 10 page paper on it. I can give you 5-6 books to read up on if you think I still am wrong. But you truly are wrong.

You think today's news is of an acceptable standard? That FOX, MSNBC, CNN are giving out information that creates an informed population? There has been research that indicates the US is one of the most politically uninformed countries in the world.

The Media has not always been a profit-driven media. Do some research. Google High-Modern Journalism or Post-Modern Journalism. You will then understand what I mean. It all changed in 1980 under the Reagan administrations deregulation.
 
Haha nope I still disagree, on the basis of you can easily substitute profit for any personal incentive of a member of the media. Before Reagan the media still focused on promoting certain candidates or issues but because of regulation did it in a much more beneficial way. The media always focused on making money to a large extent but because of regulation as well as public opinion choose to display actual issues instead of the stupid shit we get now. It seems fair to say that public opinion on what matters and should be in the news has changed drastically since the 1800's.

If you're still up for it, I wouldn't mind hearing which books you suggest, I really only have time to read one so pick the best one.
 
ehh not really, I think its a pretty interesting subject and if a book is able to prove what I said was stupid then I'm all up for it.
 
90 percent of voters are probably not that well informed. that being said Ronald Regan was elected the first time around probably because of the fact he was a former movie star and he turned out to be one of the best republican presidents of all time.... so sometimes Americas short sightedness does some good I suppose
 
When it comes down to it, he would have been a hell of a better president. Forgetting all the bs issues like gay marriage, etc, Romney is a straight businessman. He would have taken this country way farther out of the recession and brought a healthier economy no doubt. People hate the guy because hes rich, but I think we should look up to people who make millions, because when it comes down to it, thats the american dream.
 
Peoples rights are definitley bs. I get the economy is extremely important but so are people's rights. Has Obama really even done much regaurding gay marriage?
 
I would recommend From Cronkite to Colbert because I found the most entertaining and easy to read.

Its quick and easy. The most important aspects to my argument come early on. You will see that the media shifted away from a public service requirement (informative news on politics, international affairs, etc) towards the profit driven model where "pundits", "experts" and talk show hosts scream at each other, cut each other off, or generally ignore the other persons points all together. This turned media from a linkage institution attempting to inform the population to one that is turning politics into a pure popularity contest based off looks, age, and personality, not platform.
 
To the guy that said Reagan was the best president, don't let the fox news Reagan nostalgia machine take you. People look at the past with blinders obscuring the negative side of things, Reagan did some good things but his presidency was also marred with some very questionable dealings in the middle east and that whole influx of crack cocaine into poverty stricken areas.

And to you, Gay Marriage wouldn't be a fucking bullshit issue if you were gay. Your inability to empathize with the millions of people being denied basic human rights does not negate the importance of the issue to them. Also, being a millionaire is your interpretation of the American dream. Their are plenty of people whose aspirations and goals don't end with them just being a millionare. The American dream is whatever you as an individual choose to make it.
 
It's not as black and white as people make it out to be. An ideal candidate should have the ability to connect with their constituents, but ALSO be competent and innovative. Government programs and policies are necessarily complex. Unfortunately, I think that they are continually being presented to us in a hyper-simplistic duality; 'I'm good, he's bad'

All I really want is for someone to say, somehow 'hey, this is what I want to do. It's going to cost this much money. Yes, really it's that expensive. This is why. Do you like it ? No ? What would you do instead, why and how?' I know how this works at a municipal level and I know countries are too vast for this to work federally .... But imagine.... If somehow..... That was the conversation .... Oh, what a dream.
 
That would have helped the 1%, friends and huge Corporation make more money and not pay taxes. Also there was a lot of his economic plan he never released, I assume it was great, but he probably just lost the piece on paper he wrote it down on.
 
Politics aside, I feel like I missed the boat. The only part that was funny was Obama's comment about hangover 3. Galifianakis is so dreadfully unfunny. He's the least funny comedian currently in existence.
 
That's because Obama is, or his publicists are smart, I think he's a great president, but many of the things he does people don't like, so why not make everyone like him with media and being funny? Maybe other politicians should do the same, as long as the American population is "simple-minded"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top