The Media Machine

Desmond Pennamon

November 27, 2008

Final Project

The Media Machine

Now that all the votes are counted and the 2008 presidential election is finally determined, there are many aspects of the election that can be viewed in retrospect to the current outcome. One of the fascinating areas is the media’s role. The media played an unprecedented role in the 2008 election. TV shows and the news were able to showcase the candidates to a large majority of the America voting population in unprecedented facets. Since much of the registered voters were able to follow and participate in this election, the voter turnout increased to 1.5 percentage points over the 60.1% turnout rate of 2004 (McDonald, par. 1). This increased voter turnout is attributed to the fact that the media served as a medium to accrue millions of voters. T.V. shows and news networks catered to millions of voters by engaging the young and/or uninformed voters, showcasing the character of candidates, and presenting their own political biases to the impressionable American public.

The youth’s vote became a very crucial lynchpin in determining the victor in the 2008 election. As a result, candidates re-evaluated how they presented themselves in order to acquire as many voters as possible. More and more young voters took an interest in the political system due to the prospect of a fresh, new, young America. This new image was propagated through T.V. shows like The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. These shows offer their own satirical spin to news coverage. They take a commanding presence amongst voters between the ages of 18-29. Many of these young voters are not politically apt nor do they want to associate themselves with politics as usual. For these reasons, The Daily Show and The Colbert Report give young voters news in an appealing and unconventional manner. Some may argue that these shows lack factual news material and as a result cannot be considered a true news source. Though the overall goal of these shows is comedy, they broadcast a considerable amount of substantive news to young and/or uninformed viewers. A recent study from Indian University concluded that the real news coverage on shows like The Daily Show “is just as substantive as traditional news programs like World News Tonight and the CBS Evening News” (Bangeman, par. 1). Professor Fox, the Professor of Telecommunications at Indiana University, was noted as saying "It is clearly a humor show, first and foremost, but there is some substance on there, and in some cases, like John Edwards announcing his candidacy, the news is made on the show. You have real newsmakers coming on, and yes, sometimes the banter and questions get a little silly, but there is also substantive dialogue going on … It's a legitimate source of news” (Indian University, par. 6). Professor Fox continued her research by actually analyzing the quantitative amount of substance within a Daily Show broadcast as opposed to other main stream news sources. Her findings were intriguing in that “the proportion of stories per half hour program devoted to the election campaign was greater in The Daily Show" (Indian University, par. 11). Even more remarkable was the fact that regular viewers of The Daily Show were actually more politically informed than those viewers of only conventional news sources. Viewers of The Daily Show tended to be more knowledgeable about news than audiences of other news sources. Approximately 54% of The Daily Show viewers scored high in a political knowledge test, followed by Jim Lehrer's program at 53% and Bill O'Reilly's program at 51% (Pew Research). These figures show how the viewers of The Daily Show and The Colbert Report are getting sound informative news as other news sources while marinating humor in every broadcast. With this balance of humor and news, such shows produce millions of eager and informed voters

The media has allotted music and entertainment to become a large medium to further political awareness. Organizations such as P-Diddy’s “Vote or Die” Campaign and the Los Angeles based “Rock the Vote” successfully engaged the youth in the political process by incorporating the entertainment community and youth culture into its activities (Vargas, par.5). This is yet another facet of the media which is attracting mass numbers of potential voters. The infusion of entertainment with actual political foundations generates a wider basis from which political agendas can be advocated. Saturday Night Live was able to effectively use such an infusion in this year’s election as well. Every major candidate in this year’s presidential race made special guest appearances of the highly popular Saturday night broadcast. The only exception seemed to be Joe Biden who never made a public appearance on the primetime show. Saturday Night Live is a show with millions of impressionable viewers; the brief political sketches can have profound effects on how the candidates are perceived by the millions of American viewers.

Though important, youthful and/or uninformed voters do not make up the entire American voting populace. This year’s election called for a more emotional approach which focused on the character of the candidates. The co-founder and Executive Editor of RealClearPolitics.com, Tom Bevan, noted that this election will be less about the issues than ever before (Bevan, par. 1). This year, much of the American public cast their votes based on how they viewed candidates and not necessarily how the candidates proposed confronting/solving issues. The media showcased the character of these candidates in a way that pushed them into the forefront up the public’s conscience. Diane Sawyer’s documentary, A “Portrait of a President”, looks into the lives of presidential candidates Barrack Obama and John McCain. The documentary delves into the early years of both candidates lives and allows the viewers to discover “who” the candidates are. The viewer sees how these two candidates, born 25 years apart and coming from extremely different backgrounds could share such similar careers marked by ambition and impatience, yet both seem to wield their own unique biographies to “claim a connection with the heart of vast America” (Portrait of Presidents). This lengthy documentary was watched by millions of American, and gave them an in-depth into the candidates backgrounds. Americans made judgments as to who they would vote for using such documentaries.

By analyzing the candidates, voters were able to gain confidence for the particular candidate who appealed to them. Debates are a way that voters can gain confidence in the various candidates. This confidence played a large role in the record breaking voter turnout. The media uses presidential debates as crucial forums for voters to grasp the character of the candidates. Undecided Americans used these debates to decide who would be the best at leading this county. Although reporters often focus on policy differences, many Americans are more interested in the character of the person who will occupy the Oval Office rather than his or her position on particular issues. The Culture and Media Institute reported that “debates are a window into the candidates’ character and values” (The Culture and Media Institute). In a volatile world where crises can arise at any moment, Americans wanted to trust that their president is guided by something stronger than public opinion (The Culture and Media Institute). The presidential debates gave an impactful glimpse into such concerns. Nearly every major news network cancelled their regularly scheduled programs and broadcasted the presidential debates. The various media outlets knew that the American public would be captivated by the debates in massive numbers. To prevent one station from having a monopoly on the viewers, many other networks decided to air these debates.

Voters assume that they are logical and that their chosen candidate is best suited for the job. Voters develop their political opinions from the sources they obtain their information from. Unfortunately, viewers are not always receiving objective news. Fox News pledges to bring “Fair and balanced News" and "We report, you decide"(Fox). Fox argues that it is one of the few fully unbiased news networks on T.V. This is an inaccurate representation of Fox’s actual broadcast. Fox is an extremely conservative news source. “Since its 1996 launch, Fox has become a central hub of the conservative movement's well-oiled media machine. Together with the GOP organization and its satellite think tanks and advocacy groups, this network of fiercely partisan outlets--such as the Washington Times, the Wall Street Journal editorial page and conservative talk-radio shows like Rush Limbaugh's--forms a highly effective right-wing echo chamber where GOP-friendly news stories can be promoted, repeated and amplified” (Ackerman, par. 3). Overtly liberal stations such as ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­The NY Times and The BBC offer this same biased news casting. They are able to present their own political opinions onto the voting masses. Fox News and the Daily Show do not openly claim their biases, but upon watching any of their broadcasts, their heavy political leanings become very apparent. Though the news is one sided, viewers can easily tune into sources which offer other political perspectives in order to gain a balanced coverage of political opinions. Unfortunately, a majority of Americans do not maintain this type of balanced outlook. To the uninformed voter, broadcasts implemented by Fox News and The Daily Show can be highly impressionable. These types of one sided, biased media sources create close minded voters who make decisions based on the solitary media source they view. Some people swear by Fox new as the final and unbiased authority in media coverage. More numerous are the numbers of young people who cling to The Daily Show or the Colbert Report as their only news source. Though these news outlets are reliable, the prospect of an America which bases their decisions off the opinions of one or two biased broadcasting presents a highly uninformed America society. The problem with these overly biased shows is that they are inevitably pulling in a large mass of faithful followers. In reference to the election, Daily Show viewers saw Obama in a way that leaves little room for scrutiny. “Obama is depicted as the presidential candidate that can bring both change and hope to the White House” (Modkins, par.1). This is all they saw. They never saw the negative aspects of Obama’s policies and campaigns. With biased coverage, voter’s ability to independently form opinions is severely infringed upon. In a highly impressionistic society which often lacks individualistic ideas, the media can form massive political opinions. Bill O’Reilly noted this exact problem when he told John Stewart “you actually have influence on this presidential election. That is scary. You have influence. John Kerry bypassed me and went right over to you!!” (O’Reilly Factor). O’ Reilly saw how John Stewart’s highly liberal broadcast had a strong influence on the shows audience. These viewers are not being urged to diversify the news they receive and as a result, are virtually being brain washed into following a single ideology.

The 2008 presidential election has put an end to many of the old practices in political campaigning. Barrack Obama and John McCain relied on more that party affiliations to secure their bid for the presidency. The media was vital in the mass distribution and often distortion of political information. Due to the fact that nearly every eligible American had some sort of news source they could draw upon for political updates and understanding, this 2008 election marked the highest turnout rate since 1908 (Borenstein, par. 3). Such vast gains can be partly attributed to the media’s intense participation in the election.