2006-07-16 02:48:01 · 16 answers · asked by cliff 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Certainly, Kennedy/Nixon debate; For those who listened on the radio, Nixon won that debate, for those who viewed the debate on TV, Kennedy won. Nixon looked like warmed over death and Kennedy looked sharp. Appearances, rather than what was said, won the day for Kennedy.
Clinton/Dole in their California debate.Clinton had the advantage in appearance and was declared the winner of that debate. If you listen to an audio without video of that particular debate you will discover that Clinton actually never answered any of the questions but talked around them while Dole responded very well to all of the questions.
Unfortunately, people form their impressions of political candidates from visual input the same as they do when meeting people. I'm guilty of the same thing as I have formed opinions of people I meet based upon their outward appearance.
2006-07-16 05:03:02 · answer #1 · answered by doobie 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Visual Media can influence the audience and bring some changes in the voting.
This may be in America, but, in India, Money and Liquor (apart from the caste/religion) are the two that have great influence on the electoral prospectus.
2006-07-16 09:59:43 · answer #2 · answered by Electric 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Media (television) forms public opinion of voters therefore it can influence the result of any political campaign. How do you think Arnold Swartzenegger got elected? He's a movie star already so his image is perfect for television. Like taking candy from a baby.
2006-07-16 09:52:55 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
See: Presidential election of 2004. When you have the VIce President on TV saying things like "if the people make the wrong choice, there will be more attacks", the President acting like a loveable idiot, and the evil genuis of Karl Rove smearing and spreading lies about the oppositon, then you can say that TV is a direct influence. Why, even a chimp can win election in the US.
2006-07-16 10:00:09 · answer #4 · answered by BarronVonUnderbeiht 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, the most contact that any citizen has with a politician is through the T.V. Candidates that are not visually friendly don't have much of a chance to enter a party in the first place. Networks are dominated by their advertisers, so politicians are marketed the same as any other product..
2006-07-16 10:23:31 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Unfortunately they do, just like yard signs and bumper stickers. If they didn't, the politicians wouldn't spend money on them.
It is unfortunate that people vote based on seeing a clever commercial of a politician with their family and their dog and that influences them in any way to go and vote for that candidate.
It is up to each voter to educate themselves on each candidate and vote for the candidate that most resembles their views on how they would vote. Not how the guy looks in a blue suit.
2006-07-16 10:55:54 · answer #6 · answered by e1war 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Definitively, Ike was the first presidential candidate to effectively use it in his campaign. And Professor John Lott has an interesting study on the probabilities with regards to media bias.
2006-07-16 09:58:23 · answer #7 · answered by wyrdnews 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Of course it can. Look at the campaign of the veterans group against Kerry. Ads on TV. Debates on TV and appearances of the candidates allow us to see them as we never have before. Of course winning or losing debates is not important.
2006-07-16 09:55:28 · answer #8 · answered by ringocox 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The same people who market tooth paste are the ones who handle the marketing of campaigns
2006-07-16 10:11:25 · answer #9 · answered by E Train 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It certainly gave it its best shot during the Kerry campaign. Thank god American voters could think on their own.
2006-07-16 09:53:07 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋