Imagine the mainstream media did not exist, televisions were not around and the only way people got information was from reading newspapers, radio and word of mouth.
Do you think this would have a profound affect in current times when it comes to voting for candidates?
Do you think the current and past partys' from as far back as 40 years ago may be different if mainstream media and television did not exist?
What kind of impact would it have on your personal political affiliation?
Please explain.
2007-08-26 14:58:15 · 17 answers · asked by Glen B 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
I know the question itself isn't catchy but I would really like to know a lot of peoples opinion on this.
2007-08-26 15:00:48 · update #1
Believe it or not, much of the coverage of politicians back in the 1700's mimics ( although through different mediums) coverage of today. Opponents of Thomas Jefferson threatened and followed through on accusations that he sired children out of wedlock with a slave to derail his presidential aspirations, but still failed. Information then spread through word of mouth, newspapers and books. Much of the info was probably not verifiable, but just hearsay. Newspapers chiefs were bought off by politicians for smear coverage on an opponent or for favorable coverage. If this is all we had today, I am sure coverage of candidates would be reduced to the daily **** flinging and smear coverage that takes place today and no my choice will always be conservative.
2007-08-26 15:23:12 · answer #1 · answered by aCeRBic 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
On one hand, I am confused by your question b/c newspaper and radio are mainstream media, to me...but I see the point of your question.
Well, I think that without TV and internet, it would be a PROFOUND impact. I personally don't know who I am voting for, but let's face it...one of the front runners is Barack Obama. How far would that name alone go in America? But let's say his name was William Smith, with the same credentials, but we couldn't see that he is black?
It's really interesting. I think that mainstream media is the only reason why someone like Barack Obama can even be a contender in american politics. I can't say that I would be interested in him much if I couldn't see his face.
I also do not think Ronald Reagan could have ever been elected without mainstream media because he didn't have much going for him on paper. An actor? But he had a personal appeal that was received when you saw him on tv, in debates, etc.
Hillary Clinton could never get elected if we couldn't hear her talk. I think seeing her on mainstream media seperates her from being "Bill Clinton's wife." Don't get me wrong, she's stacked on paper. But she is a motivational speaker. When she speaks, everyone is moved and claps. I think that is her edge over Obama right now. If they were debating on paper, I think he would have her beat...
Good question
2007-08-26 16:46:45 · answer #2 · answered by sexy law chick 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The same as I do now. My positions on the candidates is based on information I gather myself and then analyze to decide who to vote for. This is of course for the primaries only since I can no longer ever consider voting for a Democrat as long as that party is controlled by Soros and the Socialists.
Additionally I am fortunate to live a good portion of the year were I cannot get television, and it is the most refreshing thing that has ever happened to me, 8.5 months in the last year, totally TV free.
2007-08-26 16:39:51 · answer #3 · answered by rmagedon 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The media is all controlled by the liberals. To get some facts straight I have resorted to reading foreign press and putting their views against those pushed by the liberals. If the large corporations did not control every phase of media all of us could vote with better information.
My vote is not controlled by any party other than they limit candidates that can be on the ballot. Look at how the democrats are trying to force Florida into changing their primary date. That is unheard of in history. Since when can a political party be allowed to force elected officials to change dates. I wonder if that is a sign of things to come in the future.
I feel sorry for my children and grandchildren because they will never have the freedoms I had during my lifetime. The crooked politicians of both parties have given away the future and are on the road to a one party system.
2007-08-26 15:25:20 · answer #4 · answered by mr conservative 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Great question. I pay little attention to talk radio and TV as far as allowing them to sway my political beliefs and ideology. In fact, for many years, I didn't even turn on a TV set. I read a lot and spend time doing on line research.
Who's getting donations from where, voting records, political stances, etc. An informed voter is a good voter. It's too bad that too many people head for the polls without having a clue. :)
2007-08-26 15:10:28 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Obama uses the mainstream media of yesterday, that is why he is actually raising the funds that he has acquired in his campaign chest. He is to be commended, job well done.
TV and the Internet do, have a profound effect to reach the voters, however, many still believe in grassroots movements and townhall meetings, and the ultimate is "word of mouth".
Such as: "Hey, call Old Charlie Brown and ask him who we should vote for." And, this is why townhall meetings prevail over the TV and the Internet or the mainstream media that you are referring to.
Good question, I enjoyed thinking about this.
2007-08-26 15:03:33 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
As though information about candidates is not already distorted plenty, regressing to a time when our only means was the printed press would mean even more quotes and opinions of candidates would be susceptible to being taken out of context. Twisting, spinning and propaganda was even more alive before internet, TV and radio. The information would arguable be even less reliable. TV, radio, and video on the net can allow us to hear voice tones, recognize jokes, and see the general demeanor of the candidates.
It's still all a puppet show though.
2007-08-26 15:04:15 · answer #7 · answered by Buying is Voting 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Good Question. I think that TV and talk radio is the main source of all the corruption in politics. People now days depend on major media to tell them who they should vote for instead of researching each candidate for themselves. For example, Rudy G. and Mitt R. are being pushed big time by Fox News and why? Then we have CNN, MSNBC pushing for Hillary C. and Barack O. These candidates in my opinion are worthless and have done nothing to prove to me that they have the qualifications to lead this country, let the voting records speak the truth and vote in that manner. To be fair, I have a candidate picked and refuse to mention his name but the reason I like him is because of his firm stance regarding the constitution and honesty voting by the constitution. The hell with major media and talk radio, due your own research and vote accordingly.
2007-08-26 15:26:45 · answer #8 · answered by markalus 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Hopefully, it would be the same way - based on the issues.
I would support the candidate that best reflects my very views on the topics I find important. Last I heard, that is how one is supposed to do it - not based on gender, religion, ethnicity, age, appearance or money. It saddens me that people merely look at the (D), (R), or (I) at the end of the person's name to vote. Look where it got us for the past 8 years. . .
2007-08-26 15:57:56 · answer #9 · answered by volleyballchick (cowards block) 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The media is plenty to effective of a power on society. all of us ought to earnings by using speaking up ourselves, and, coaching ourselves to the numerous opportunities, and, factors of view on an greater type of subject concerns. i'm hoping this is sensible to you, as elections are basically one small area to the everyday difficulty.
2016-10-17 01:52:27 · answer #10 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋