In 1959, a young senator wrote an article for a young magazine called “TV Guide” trumpeting the potential for the new medium of television to permanently change the way politics worked. In a little more than a year, that same senator, John F. Kennedy, would be elected president of the United States, thanks in no small part to his charismatic performance in a series of televised debates with opponent Richard Nixon and a TV ad campaign that featured some catchy jingles. By that time, television’s place in shaping the political landscape was undeniable. Of course, it didn’t take long for that direct contact to be mediated, mostly by the network executives, producers and reporters who put together nightly news programs. On the other hand, the introduction of cable news channels like CNN and Fox News, with their 24-hour coverage, has expanded the scope of political reporting. Those that are politically active today could be considered more engaged than ever.
It may be impossible to say for certain whether TV has been good or bad for American politics. TV has contributed to that increase in power by making the president more visible and therefore more a part of people’s everyday lives. With that visibility comes the power to garner support for his policies (as long as he’s popular enough). For example, riding a tide of popularity from his recent election, in 1981 President Reagan made a televised address urging citizens to support a tax and budget package that had stalled in Congress. Big news is generally released by 2 p.m. Congress has had its share of changes brought on by TV, too. C-SPAN, a cable channel that has been broadcasting all open sessions of both houses of Congress since the 1980s, has led to debates becoming more theatrical, with members accusing each other of going over the top for the cameras.
But theatrical or not, televised congressional proceedings have increased the level of transparency between the U.S. With large amounts of time to fill, 24-hour news stations have introduced analysis by spin doctors and talking heads to fill the schedule. Spin doctors, dick und doof usually paid professionals working for one party or another, try to spin the news in favor of their side. That gives news producers a huge amount of power over how the public digests political events. News coverage of elections, for example, usually focuses on “horse race” developments like movements in the polls to determine who is winning. In recent years, savvy political advisers have taken advantage of the power of TV and the talking heads to get their candidates’ messages across. For example, top George W. Bush adviser Karl Rove used skillful control over the media message to help win two elections for Bush, and create momentum for controversial policies like the war in Iraq.
At its best, TV can serve as a watchdog, keeping government officials accountable. Keep reading for more information on how TV has impacted politics.S. Do courtroom dramas change people’s understanding of the law? Dover, E.D. “Images, Issues and Attacks: Television Advertising by Incumbents and Challengers in Presidential Elections.” Lexington Books. Foote, Joe S. “Television Access and Political Power: The Networks, the Presidency, and the ‘Loyal Opposition.'” Praeger Publishers. Gans, Curtis. “African-Americans, Anger, Fear and Youth Propel Turnout to Highest Level Since 1964.” American University. Kaid, Lynda Lee. “Political Processes and Television.” The Museum of Broadcast Communications. Kennedy, John F. “A Force That Has Changed the Political Scene.” TV Guide. Kraus, Sidney. “Televised Presidential Debates and Public Policy.” Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Malcolm, Andrew. “For First Time, You Online News Consumers Outnumber Those Newspaper Readers: The Impact on Politics.” Los Angeles Times (Online). The Museum of Broadcast Television. Silverblatt, Art. “Deciphering Karl Rove’s Playbook: Campaign Tactics and Response Strategies.” Webster University. Smoller, Fredric T. “The Six O’clock Presidency.” Praeger Publishers.
