conservativemind.org > Opinion

The Effects of Media in Political Communication Jordan Richardson August 25, 2008

From the start of modern politics, if one were to successfully run a campaign for public office, one of the most important things to do was to make sure everyone was familiar with the candidate’s name. 

It did no good to be the most qualified man to run for office if the voters could not distinguish you from a passing stranger. Massive media campaigns were created to resolve this problem, and to make sure that the candidate was seen in a favorable light.

These efforts were manifested in political newspaper ads, posters, and more recently, radio and television. As technology changed, so did the methods of the campaigns. Americans began seeing more attention to detail in the manner of speech and behavior of those running for office, as the demand for more venues of publicity increased.

However, were these changes beneficial to public discourse, or did it cheapen the message? Indeed, the effects that technology had on politics are significant, and the utilization of technology in the public arena will continue to play a large part in the manner of political communication in years to come.

Man has always been a social creature, we all feel the need to connect, and often love those around us. Our minds are structured to allow persuasion from other persons to affect our perceptions of reality. By this I mean that if presented with strong evidence that we should change our behavior a certain way, or accept someone else’s, we often acquiesce. Such is the case with politics; one person tries to convince a larger body of persons to see thing his way.

They employ different methods to convince us so. In the past, mere written messages by candidates could sway the masses, but as history progressed, there became the need to address the people in new, more convincing ways. As the invention of new technologies increased, more opportunities were made readily available to persuade people in more effective means.

The most important thing to glean from a discussion on why political communication has changed is that our society has consistently demanded and received entertaining representations of reality as technology has progressed. A picture may say a thousand words, but add a few lights and music to that picture, and brother, you have yourself a platform.

 Neil Postman, author of Amusing Ourselves to Death, discussing the effects of technology on culture, asserts that the very way that we communicate today—especially with images—has an altered state of realism. He says, “But what I am claiming here is not that television is entertaining but that it has made entertainment the natural format for the representation of all experience” (87). It becomes harder to properly communicate a message to the voters without also giving them something to look at.

It seemed that with each new form of communication, people would prefer the one that brought about a heightened sense of emotions, rather than a detached, impersonal examination of a candidate’s message. Seeing and hearing the message grew more popular among voters than did the traditional way of understanding issues, through print, such as the Federalist Papers.

This need to connect with the populace in a more personal way brought about the campaign tours throughout the country, complete with marching bands and stump speeches. However, as the country expanded and as technology progressed, it seemed more effective to communicate in other forms which were most readily available to the people; when there was newspapers, newspaper ads were bought, when there was radio, radio time was bought. As communication technology changed throughout history, so did the form of the political message.

Another crucial concept that ought to be addressed is whether the new manner of communication, since the advent of modern technology, is enhancing public discourse on important issues. There is the slight problem that, with all the attention politics and government now has, they are in danger of being trivialized, or at, the worst, marginalized. When something as readily available as political rhetoric is presented in different technological formats, and wide access is easily obtained, it becomes just as easy to ignore the issue as to learn about it.

As we will see in the following examples of technology’s cultural effect on communication, the response of those who are to be convinced, the voters, become more susceptible to subtle persuasion with technology, than without.

One of the first forms of political communication with new technology was the infamous Scopes Trial, where John Scopes was convicted of teaching evolution in a Tennessee school. Clarence Darrow was one of Scopes' attorneys, and William Jennings Bryan assisted the state prosecutor. This was the first advent of a radio broadcast of a courtroom trial, by WGN, and included satirical reporting from famous writer, H.L. Mencken (Trial 316). The effect that the trial had on political communication can be noticed by the increase in broadcasted public events throughout the early twentieth century, as political figures utilized these resources.

In 1924, Calvin Coolidge and John W. Davis had their political speeches broadcasted on the radio, and Franklin D. Roosevelt, in addition to his frequent radio fireside chats, made the first presidential appearance on television in 1939 (“Today”). The progression of technology has influenced several historic events, and can best be appreciated by an examination of its effect on the candidate and the American voter.

One such way to further understand the different methods of cultural communication is to observe the manner of how presidential debates were conducted over the last 150 years and the response from the voters. One of the most notable debates was the series of debates between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas. Their speeches were given in an outdoor setting, where the first candidate spoke for an hour, then the other candidate spoke for an hour and a half, and then the first candidate was allowed a half hour “rejoinder.”

This seems hardly imaginable in our present age of fast-paced debate, where a common response time is two minutes. After the debates were over, newspapers would publish the text of the speeches, often editing them for grammar. Of course, over the years, with advent of radio and television, more attention has been focused on this new venue for presidential debates.

The 1960 presidential debates between John F. Kennedy and Richard M. Nixon were the first televised debates between presidential candidates, now often referred to as “The Great Debates.” The manner of speech was different from the Lincoln-Douglass debates: each candidate was allowed an eight-minute opening speech and then there was a 30-minute question and answer period, followed by a ten-minute closing message (“Today”). We see here the difference in the amount of time given to discuss issues, and one must ask, was the new technology helping or hurting the candidate’s message?

According to Stephen Coleman, author of Televised Election Debates, the emergence of this new medium certainly did not help Nixon; reports of his physical condition describe him as “transparently shifty,” while Kennedy was seen as “telegenic and modern.” Interestingly, those who watched the debates came to the conclusion that Kennedy was the winner, while those who only heard the debate on the radio thought Nixon had won (7). The fact that the very appearance of a candidate on television was enough to convince viewers that he had won signaled there was now a different, more effective way of campaigning.

This makes sense because of the fact that Americans have a predisposition to entertaining reality, and that we are more inclined to accept a message if it is presented well. In correlation, Neil Postman remarked on the state of our move to image based reality, saying, “For countless Americans, seeing, not reading, became the basis for believing” (74). In this case, perhaps it is why Kennedy won the debates.

After television had made its stand as an effective form of political medium, the need was identified to ensure that television appearances were pleasing to the eye, not just the intellect. In history’s examples of older communication, speeches were given at a distance, with no need to focus on facial features instead of the power of the oration.

 However, with the advances in technology, people began to want to see the close, intimate details of a contender, and try to judge their characteristics along with their words. This is especially prevalent in many familiar cases today, such as the recent Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton debates, where both candidates spoke on several issues for a few minutes at a time, surrounded by glossy lights and patriotic backgrounds. Deep, revealing close-ups of the face are shown while the candidate speaks, highlighting their expressions and tone.

Again, the question must be asked, is this form of communication helping or hurting the candidate? While it is important to portray a professional, competent appearance, is the “Hollywood-ization” of political candidates really helpful in determining the best person to hold an office?

It seems that these examples of history point to a trend where less meaningful messages are readily accepted as valid communication techniques. It is not unlike trading a good face-to-face conversation with a friend, for a long-distance phone call, because we can hang up if we are bored. Indeed, in the same way, technology has certainly shaped the way that we view with elected officials and political candidates. It is tempting to view these people as political superstars: they are important, but we do not really have to listen to what they say.

Suddenly, it becomes just as easy to ignore the issue as to learn about it.

The examples in history show us the extent to which our society has accepted these mediums as suitable forms of political communication. It is not so much that technology is the evil, we all use technology everyday for useful purposes, but that our mental laziness has allowed others to use these mediums to play a greater role in our thought process than they should. It is more about the way that we respond to technological messages than the message itself. Who can blame the politician for wanting to look good under camera lights, or wanting to save travel expenses by hosting press conferences delivered to millions of homes? No fair criticism of politicians’ use of the media communication should be without an introspective review of our response to their persuasions. The real trouble is that we have excused these shorter, less meaningful tactics to be dignified as acceptable political rhetoric.

In our modern society, the effects of this new form of communication are relevant to our lives, as the information that we receive about those in positions of leadership are presented in movie-like format. Our ability to make wise decisions about whom to vote for should be filtered with the knowledge that, the image of the man is just that, an image.

This is not a disillusioned attempt to make technology into the bad guy, but a call as responsible citizens to evaluate the opinions we have about political leaders with the knowledge that not everything we see should be believed. Our goal should not be an entertaining representation of reality, but a critical look past the glamour of technology to discern truth.


 

Coleman, Stephen. Televised Election Debates. New York: St. Martin's, 2000.
Postman, Neil. Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business. New York: Penguin Group, 1985.
"Today in History." The Library Of Congress American Memory. 17 October 2007. Library of Congress. 5 May 2008 <http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/today/oct21.html>.
[Trial Transcript]. The World's Most Famous Court Trial: Tennessee Evolution Case. 1925. Dayton, Tenn.: Bryan College, 1990. Accessed 5 May 2008
< http://www.bryan.edu/802.html >