On
April 27, 2013, the Vancouver Sun published a special feature on
BC Liberals' Christy Clark. The major selling point of the article was the
journalist's account of Clark running a red light... while the reporter was in
the car. Urged on by her 11 year old son Hamish, Clark ran the red light on the
way to his hockey clinic, after which Hamish commented, "You always do
that," Needless to say, the article shed a negative light on the current
premier and probably succeeded in swaying a lot of undecided voters away from
the Liberal party in less than a paragraph. Voters with no strong opinion in
the first place are often the voters that decide the election results. This
incident caused a lot of uncommitted citizens to reconsider their ballot; the effects
of the media in this case were substantial.
The
media is also able to affect elections by generating attention, whether through
negative press, or simply through their choice in coverage of a candidate. If
the politician in question knows how to "work the media", this is not
necessarily bad. For example, President Franklin Roosevelt was known for his
regular "Fireside Chats" in which he soothed American citizens
about war and economic depression over the radio. To add, nowadays, many people
believe that far too much attention is focused on how a politician looks or
comes across on camera, versus how relevant and appealing their platform really
is. Carefully staged media events and photo opportunities have become very
important aspects in politics for a candidate - maybe too important!
Lastly,
the media is inclined to influence the public's perception on the viability of
a candidate. If a news report confirms that a certain politician is far ahead
in an election, the public will generally accept that statement, which may
change how the voters cast their ballots. Most people do not want to waste
their vote on a candidate who reporters are pretty much saying does not have as
great a chance at winning. However, when the media reports on the viability of
a candidate, it tends to turn the political coverage into a competition
centered on who is winning or who is ahead. This may cause voters to sway their
focus towards a candidate's campaigning skills, instead of to who has the best
platform or leadership skills. Voting like this defeats the function of
democracy, which is to elect candidates that represent what the people want.
Based
on the evidence shown above, I do believe that the media plays a large role in
determining the outcome of a political election. Negative campaigning has
become essential in politics in this day and age, and negative reporting only
adds fuel to fire. Christy Clark running the red light was definitely not a
smart decision, but if the journalist had not made a point to write about it in
the article, it would have gone unknown and unnoticed. The media has a choice
on which candidate they choose to focus on, or which issue they feel the
public should believe is the most important. It plays a key role in building up
or lowering a politician’s reputation and viability, as well. The media,
government, and public have a cyclical, codependent relationship, but it is up
to us to decide exactly how large a role each factor will play!
No comments:
Post a Comment