In the first section of this chapter, the authors note that one of the strategies employed by politicians to make their campaign theme more consistent is the controlling of media access. “Public officials routinely control press access and media exposure as best as they can.” (Page 318) As we discussed in class recently, problematic information is usually released to the press after the deadline so that there is significantly less coverage of the information.
An example of limited media access happened during the 2008 Presidential election. After Sarah Palin was presented to the nation as John McCain’s running mate, his team of advisors limited press access to the Vice Presidential candidate. When she met world leaders in New York, media access was very limited and this continued for a while after the GOP Convention.
Is this kind of limitation of media access helpful or detrimental to a political candidate’s campaign? Provide an example to support your answer.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I believe that controlling press access and media is more detrimental to society, than helpful. U.S. citizens have a right to know what is going on in the country, and be given accurate, unbiased information. By controlling press access and media, stories can be geared towards a certain side, leaving the other one to fend for itself.
ReplyDeleteAn example of this is the post-9/11 media and press regarding Bush and his claim that weapons of mass destruction (WMD’s) were in Iraq. In a time of uncertainty, the media got behind Bush’s accusations, even though they eventually proved to be false. Page 318 states, “Public opinion in turn influences political action.” Bush used the agenda setting theory to make Americans support the War in Iraq and believe that there were WMD’s in Iraq. As a public official, Bush used his control to the media and the press the best he could.
In my opinion, this example exhibits why media control is more negative than positive. In the world of news, journalism, and reporting it is important to tell both sides of the story and not let influential public officials get in the way of the truth.
Limiting media access during a political candidate’s campaign is detrimental to society.
ReplyDeleteOn page 318 it states, “Candidates obviously want to minimize journalist access to information that might contradict the image their campaigns are trying to convey.”
According to a Los Angeles Times article on latimes.com, in the 2008 Presidential campaign, limited access of John McCain’s medical records were given to only a small group of reporters hand-selected by the campaign. McCain’s medical records were only available to these hand-selected reporters for a limited amount of time.
McCain’s health was a key interest in voters. He would be the oldest President starting a first term. Many voters were concerned about whether his health would allow him to finish out a term. Therefore, anything revealed from those medical records could hurt his image and contradict what he was saying about his ‘good’ health. McCain and his committee knew this, which is why they tried to withhold his medical information from the public. Every voter wants a healthy President to run our county and withholding this important information is very detrimental to society. After all, medical records are public information and we have the lawful right to know.
This illustrates the importance of allowing media access to information during a political campaign. Limiting media access skews our voting decisions and is more detrimental to society, then helpful.
Well, I think it depends on the situation to determine weather it is helpful or detrimental to a political campaign. From the campaign point of view, I think that some limitation of media access are helpful for the campaign if there are information that are not appropriate to be shared, but from the opposite angle it will detriment the campaign because they are hiding information.
ReplyDeleteFor example, the 2008 presidential election from Taiwan, President Ma actually controlled information about his past and it let the opponent use it against him. President Ma decided not to disclose his information about receiving a green card for the US, for his campaign they want to focus on what Ma can do to help change the economy in Taiwan, but for the public its deceiving because they want to know all the side story of their president.
I think because of the media today it make limiting media access seem more detrimental toward the public, and from comm law I learned that once a person decides to become a public figure his/her privacy is open to public, but still I think depends on the situation some limitation of media access is helpful for the campaign itself.
Politicians ability to control media access is very helpful to the specific candidate running the campaign, but it is detrimental toward the citizens trying to become educated on the best candidate. Nobody is perfect so their is always going to be some point in a candidate's cammpaign that would like limited media coverage. By knowing exactly when to release the negative information can drastically decrease the amount of coverage the issue will receive.
ReplyDeleteAgenda Setting is a huge part tool used by the media to get the public thinking about specific issues. If a candidate can make their news seem unnewsworthy by releasing it at a bad time, the media may look past it. With all the advancements in todays technology it is almost impossible to avoid the media. Even if you don't want to believe what they are saying they are still putting the issues in your mind for you to think about, which is the goal of agenda setting.
For example, when the media released the pictures of Obama with a rag on his head insinuating that he was a Muslim put ideas in many peoples heads. Even those who didn't believe what was being said, still had the images in their minds and were thisnking about the issue. This just shows how persuasive media can be because although Obama is not Muslim the media had many people believing he was or at least wondering whether he was or not. This shows how not being able to control the media can be very harmful to a political campaign.
In the end, being able to hide coverage of events a politican wouldn't want to be seen is very harmful to a voter. If a candidate would confront the issue at hand and handle it in a respectable manner, I believe that would show better character than trying to hide it. Just as Obama did about the Muslim comments, he addressed the issue properly would saved face for him to many people.
This is a question that could definitely go both ways because limited access can do one of two things: help the candidate if he or she isn't the best with words on camera or it could decrease credibility.
ReplyDeleteGiven that, the example of Sarah Palin works very well with this discussion question. It seemed that limited media access was best in her situation, because after most of her major interviews she was scrutinized a lot. Her credibility then took a hit after some of the interviews that didn't go as well because she didn't seem to quite understand what she was talking about. However, if she had even more limited media access, and the public never really heard or watched any interviews with her, her credibility again would have sank because it would have most likely seemed like she was being hidden.
Another point that is important to bring into this discussion is what is stated in the text on page 326. The section discusses the media concepts used in the political concepts and in the sub-section on the candidates it talks about front-runners, minor candidates, and also rans. It states, “Front-runners and contenders receive more news coverage than do minor candidates and also-rans, and the type of coverage they receive differs. With the example of Sarah Palin, I wouldn't exactly call her a “front-runner,” or even a “contender,” for that matter. She was almost like a shiny new toy to the American presidential race. Therefore, it makes one wonder if in her case if the media access was really controlled or if she just didn't receive as much coverage as Barack Obama who was definitely more of a front-runner in the 2008 election.
All in all, I believe limited media access can go both ways for a candidate. It can help them by not allowing them to make irrational statements on national television that can never be erased, however it can also hurt their credibility by making people think that they can't handle high-stress situations such as a national interview.
The particular type of limitation of media access used by the McCain campaign both helped and hurt the campaign. The fact that Palin was not allowed to participate in any major interviews for the first few weeks of her Vice Presidential candidacy helped the campaign because though Palin was criticized for not participating in any interviews, she was criticized more when she did finally get in front of the camera and answer questions; Palin was simply not very effective in a one-on-one interview setting. However, this type of limitation hurt the campaign because not allowing Palin to participate in any interviews left the media wondering and building up the suspense for when she was finally allowed to participate in one-on-one interviews. By the time the media was allowed to broadcast one-on-one interviews with Palin, the entire world was watching even more closely because the media had built up extreme suspense.
ReplyDeletePalin’s first public speech at the Republican National Convention was very good for public opinion of her because she was in a highly scripted situation—where Palin was much stronger. The McCain campaign should have prepared Palin with more scripted answers for what may have been asked of her in one-on-one interviews—especially the particular interview with Katie Couric which was broadcast and criticized over and over. On page 318 of The Interplay of Influence, the authors mention Maxwell McCombs argument that, “the news media do not tell us what to think as much as they tell us what to think about.” The fact that media criticized Palin for not giving interviews at first definitely got the public thinking about it; because of this, the public was waiting and watching Palin more closely and in suspense.
The media is the eyes and the ears for the public to gain information about political candidates, so when a candidate is not strong in one aspect of media coverage, the campaign is smart to shy that candidate away from the particular type of situation where he or she is weak (i.e. Palin was weak in unscripted one-on-one interviews). In my opinion, the McCain campaign was clever to keep Palin out of the limelight for the weeks following her first appearance at the RNC; however, the media’s building up of suspense for interviews with Palin made the public more critical of her and question her competency.
I think this kind of limitation of media access can be detrimental to a political candidate’s campaign. Limiting access does not provide voting citizens with adequate information to make an informed decision when at the polls.
ReplyDeleteLimiting information to the media leaves potential for unwanted information to actually get out to the public. If the media isn’t getting the information or access that they want about a candidate they have other ways of getting information. The information that the media can “dig up” could be worse than anything the candidate could be trying to hide by limiting access.
Perhaps McCain and his advisors weren’t completely confident in the choice of Palin as running mate and wanted to limit media access to her in order to see how well she did in certain situations before giving her more access to the media, which in turn could be more helpful to the candidate’s campaign.
I think that depending on the situation it could be helpful or it could be detrimental to a candidate’s campaign.
In Palin's case, I think it helped her because later on in the campaign it became clear that she didn't perform well in situations that were off the cuff. By preventing media access, advisors were able to put Palin in situations where she would perform well and would limit situations that would fluster her (Katie Curic Interview).
ReplyDeleteWhen advisors limit media access, I think the media gets more anxious to hear the candidate’s messages which could lead to extensive coverage over a very well rehearsed speech. In the end I think the other side to media coverage is being over exposed. If a candidate is over exposed, the public and media can get bored with the message.
I think overall, having limited media access is a good thing for candidates but not beneficial for society. You end up getting candidates that are very well scripted to handle the situations they are in and not prepared to handle unrehearsed situations.
I think having limited access of press coverage is detrimental to society. Page 318 of our textbook states, the differences between the image of the candidate projected in commercials and the actual behavior of the candidate are likely to be exposed in reporting. If media access is limited, then citizens will not be able to see the true candidate. Reporters publish many stories about candidates when they run for office. These stories are needed in addition to commercials because the commercials themselves can be very one-sided. Limiting media access will only hold back reporters from putting out more information about each candidate.
ReplyDeleteLimited media access can also be detrimental for the candidate if citizens only see political campaign commercials of the candidate and are not persuaded by them alone. Some people need to receive information from more than one source to believe the information and deem it reliable. Having the media hold back information because of limited access can hurt the candidate. The candidate should want to have a lot of press to become well know to the people who are voting.
I think having limited access to press coverage can be either helpful or detrimental depending on the candidate and the situation. I think the republican party made a good decision when they decided to limit the access to press coverage of Sarah Palin right away, because it was clear later in their campaign that she was not always the best or most effective speaker when being interviewed one-on-one. I also think it was a little detrimental to their campaign by limiting the access because it left the public wondering why she wasn't being seen, and whether or not she would become available for interviews so the public could make judgements on her for themselves.
ReplyDeleteOverall, I think limited media access is helpful to most candidates, but detrimental to society because it leaves people wondering what is going on, and possibly thinking that the candidate is not believable.
I believe that limited media access is detrimental to both society and the candidate. As Jess stated in her response, keeping Palin out of the media was a good thing right away; but was basically cancelled out when she finally did do an interview because everyone in the world was there to scrutinize her every move.
ReplyDeleteLimiting media access prevents voters from getting all of the information they need and also from "getting to know" the candidate because they end up being in such scripted/rehearsed situations. I believe that in order to know who to vote for, you have to see them in every type of situation.
I can see where limitation in media acess can be a good thing for a candidate's campaign; but overall, I think it is detrimental to society because it doesn't give people all of the information to help them make an educated vote.
I think it is smart for political campaigns to control their media coverage. If you think back to the agenda setting theory that basically states the media doesn't tell you what to think, just what to think about, this plays right into that. And, as discussed last week, a political candidate is very similar to a product or brand. By manipulating the media like this they are better able to control what people know or think about their brand, as well as what they don't.
ReplyDeletePage 318 in the textbook also states "Candidates obviously want to minimize journalistic access to information that might contradict the image their campaigns are trying to convey." By missing deadlines with content that contradicts their goal image the news media is therefore almost forced to focus on the content campaigns want to be shown.
There is the argument that it is detrimental to society, however as mass communication students I feel that we are more susceptible to thoughts of skepticism regarding what campaigns are releasing to the media. Considering that the average reading level in the U.S. is still in the middle school range, I would think that a decent portion of the public probably wouldn't think to ask about what the campaigns aren't distributing because the media is supposed to report the news, not what the candidates tell them too. And so I think the fault could possibly be shifted to the media for not being investigative enough.
In addition, every one of us does the best we can to monitor our public image. Think about our Facebook or MySpace accounts where we selectively choose the photos and status updates to reinforce what we want our image to be, and how we are able to delete those things that we deem contradictory to that.
I think limited access has an immediate benefits and long term negative effects. Take for instance the case mentioned in the question with Sarah Palin. In the beginning it was beneficial because the candidate was getting attention because they were limiting access. However not long after it was turned around as something negative and she was though to be "avoiding the media."
ReplyDeleteWhile the short term benefits are beneficial to the campaign they are detrimental to society as it is restricting access and information to the general public. Once the public realizes this the negative affects often out-number the positive ones.
I think limited access is both helpful and hurtful to a candidate's campaign. For example, the text explains an event that happened in February 2004. The issue was if Bush had fulfilled his duties while serving in the Texas Air National Guard and his staff released his military records. This was late on Friday and Monday was a national holiday so many news media and reporters enjoyed a long weekend. This situation made it possible that there would hardly be any coverage on this topic.
ReplyDeleteThis situation was smart in the eyes of the people behind Bush, but in the eyes of the public, it may have looked as though he was trying to hide something.
I think that unless someone thought this in depth about a situation like this. Much of the public follows what the media says, so if the media isn't making a big deal out of the fact that Bush released this information during a long, holiday weekend, most of the public will not even think twice about it either.
As the text states on page 318, "Candidates obviously want no minimize journalistic access to information that might contradict the image their campaigns are trying to convey."
After thinking about this issue, I came to the conclusion that I would do the same thing. If the public listens to what the media says, I wouldn't want misconstrued information getting out to my potential voters either.
I think limited access to VP candidate Sarah Palin helped McCain's campaign at first. As the unfamiliar governor of Alaska, Palin was kind of a mystery to much of the general public. When she made public appearances, she looked like a confident woman that could be a good running mate for McCain.
ReplyDeleteI feel that her lack of experience in the public eye is the reason for the McCain campaign limiting media access to her. In my opinion, the more I heard Palin speak, the less I thought of her as a competent leader for America. I think this strategy worked for McCain at first, but it eventually hurt his campaign.
I think it’s fine if candidates limit their amount of media coverage, but they have to be careful. If it seems like they are hiding from the camera, the media might get suspicious and look for information that could in turn destroy their campaign. I guess using the whole Sarah Palin example shows that limitation can be detrimental. People began to question her motives, and seemed slow to trust when she wouldn’t do interviews. I mean I don’t really blame their campaign for doing this, but I think if she would have been open from the start they would have had more luck with their campaign.
ReplyDeleteAt the same time, I don’t think political candidates need to live their lives on television. They are people just like us and they need their space. The whole world doesn’t need to know everything that happens from when they woke up to when they went to bed. More importantly, I think society needs to pay more attention to the issues of the world instead of the personal lives of the candidates.
I believe either way the media will eventually get the information that you may be limiting them and after that happens they can't do anything about it. Yes, it may be delayed for a few days, but eventually the word will get out.
ReplyDeleteSo can see this as both helpful and detrimental to a political campaign. Yes it can give you more time, but at the same time society wants to know what they are/were trying to hide.
I think an example that stands out in my mind during the presidential campaign had to be when it was finally announced that Palin's young daughter was pregnant, not married, and Palin herself just had a young son. Even just a few years ago a family life like this would destroy a political campaign. If this information got out right away it just may have too. But by getting themselves time, they were able to use her lifestyle as an advantage after they came up with the right campaign. Hard working, new American average family, Hockey Mom, etc.
It's all about how you use your time. Is this fair to America? Maybe not, but this is how all media has become.
I think that it really depends on the situation whether this practice is helpful or not to the campaign. Many times, there can be a backlash from the press because they don't like being told they can't be somewhere or they can't cover something. (They usually feel the need to be EVERYWHERE!) If the press creates a backlash against a candidate, it is very hard to combat as much of what the American public knows comes from the press.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, there may not be a backlash from the press at all or the consequences of them having full access could be worse than the backlash. In this instance it would be very helpful for a campaign to use this practice.
This practice is extremely tricky in our current political times as reporters want to uncover the "real person" not just the image the candidate puts out for the general public to see. As a society, we are so used to get the "behind-the-scenes" look that when we don't get it, we sometimes assume something is wrong or someone is trying to hide something.