Introduction
Television has been influential in United States presidential elections since the 1960s. But just what is this influence, and how has it affected who is elected? Has it made elections fairer and more accessible, or has it moved candidates from pursuing issues to pursuing image?
Assignment
Read the following sources (including any introductory information) carefully. Then, in an essay that synthesizes at least three of the sources for support, take a position that defends, challenges, or qualifies the claim that television has had a positive impact on presidential elections.
Refer to the sources as Source A, Source B, etc.; titles are included for your convenience. Highlight each source in a different color for identification.
Source A (Campbell)
Source B (Hart and Triece)
Source C (Menand)
Source D (Chart)
Source E (Ranney)
Source F (Koppel)
And Television Won the Election
“Not even the sky’s the limit.” According to Frank Stanton, president of the Columbia Broadcasting System, since the rise of television in the 1940’s, television has had the limitless power to inform and entertain (Campbell). Television’s growing outreach has laid its hand upon Washington herself, making its way into influencing presidential elections. Although television allows the public more access to information regarding the elections, the race for Commander in Chief has become heavily image based rather than issue based, using its celebrity system and concerning the public with subjects other than debates.
Despite the inherent benefits from television broadcasting the daily updates from the presidential election, from the time televisions hit the shelves they’ve created a celebrity system. Suitably Frank Stanton, according to Angus Campbell, went on to describe that “television with its penetration, [and] wide geographic distribution…provides a new, direct, and sensitive link between Washington and the people.” He claims that the connection from the people to the government, prior to television, was weak and that now the people feel closer to what’s happening. However true this statement, the link that is restored by television is one of awe-struck idolization.
The tube created a “celebrity system”, a bandwagon effect of concerns with who is the most popular (Hart). In 1952, Dwight D. Eisenhower broadcasted the first televised political campaign song. His slogan of “I like Ike!” sung in a catchy jingle caught and held the attention of many, but also had nothing to do with his party’s platform. Unlike Stanton’s view that television permitted access to information about the elections, television in this case allowed the public to access campaigning based on image. Roderick Hart and Mary Triece, from museum.tv, claim, “…because of television’s sense of intimacy, the American people feel they know their Presidents as persons…[and] those who watch politics on television are increasingly turning away from the policy sphere…” People idolized Ike and voted for him based on his appeal to the people’s sense of the “common man,” rather than the issues he fought for.
Furthermore, television has actually turned many away from being tuned into debates between the candidates. According to Nielsen Media Research, between 1960 and 1996 the ratings for presidential debates dropped from 59.5% approval to a mere 31.6% approval, and moreover, dropped of 62.4 million people viewing to 46.1 million people viewing between the ’92 and ’96 elections alone. The debates weren’t entertaining enough, just purely informational. The public stopped caring about the issues at hand, and instead turned their attention towards subjects like Howard Dean’s scream, in which a simple voice crack made him drop his spot in the race for presidency.
All in all, the negative effects of television’s race for image-based popularity over what issues a citizen is actually voting for, outweigh the benefit of television’s ability to allow access to information. “Not even the sky’s the limit,” but how far can non-issue based campaigning go?