In the context of 1996, where Richard Harwood claims the average American admits to more knowledge of what actors are on television programs, rather than the people that have been voted in or appointed to represent them in local and national government, The average American voter feels alienated. These voters are alienated to an extent of which they feel they have very little ties to the political system of that time. Harwood references a much older document that illustrates the modern day plight among the voters. He does so to say that this problem isn’t one that is new, but is one that has caused trouble for a long period of time. In Harwood’s article, he is on the side that media is to blame for the alienated voter, but he analyzes it deeper
The film Swing Vote is an American political culture film that relies heavily on film subtext to depict the negative attitude many Americans have towards voting, corruption inside a political election, and the spectacle of media frenzy. While the film gives a light hearted impression of a rare political snafu it is still consistent with the main themes of other political films of manipulation, money lust, and power hungry political heads that will stop at nothing for their own personal gain. We also see the political candidates merely as puppets while their campaign managers are the ones truly calling the shots. Swing Vote is a unique political culture film because due to the ordeal in the film’s plot, the politicians are at a disadvantage when they are usually the ones in power. With the tables turned we see how they construct their corrupt schemes and the direct effect it has on the character representing the American perspective. The strong symbols that convey the cultural norms in America’s political system are in need of a deeper analysis.
Friedersdorf mentions how media outlets seem to respond to media criticism, and he continues the statement by saying that he agrees that there is a liberal bias that is swayed by America’s conservative movement. Although this is true, he also states that the conservative movement doesn’t necessarily benefit the media. The conservatives had been giving false reports that the initial situation in Iraq was favorable when in reality it was a disaster, and the conservative bias believed that they were telling the “real” story. Meanwhile, years later, the situation between Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann brought to light what a liberal bias without an ideology could do, and it changed the media more than the conservative bias did in years. This bias issue goes perfectly with what Cassidy says is the main issue with modern day political news media. Cassidy believes that it is not that there is a lack of serious reporters, but an issue with people finding sources that favor their own personal agenda. This happens on both ends of the spectrum, but it is more extreme on the conservative end. This idea perfectly supports what Friedersdorf had said in his article.
Timothy told Abigail his story-how he’d taken both bones but switched out Mr. Harwood’s for the real one. He told her what he meant to do with it. He told her about Mr. Crane knocking on his front door, and what happened later when he came back to his room to destroy the object, how he thought he’d seen her appear in his bedroom, followed by the Nightmarys, as the jawbone’s curse fought to protect itself from being
He talks about how America is easily manipulated by images. They cannot differentiate between lies in the truth. Many people in America are illiterate or barely literate. They could read somewhere around a 6th grade level. This affects them when they have to vote since they do not make decisions off facts. Moreover, politicians are very aware of that. Their campaigns are made so they could get emotions out of the audience rather than go based off facts. “We prefer happy illusions. And it works because so much of the American electorate, including those who should know better, blindly cast ballots for slogans, smiles, the cheerful family tableaux, narratives and the perceived sincerity and the attractiveness of candidates. We confuse how we feel with knowledge” (Hedges). Politicians use the slogan such as “yes we can” and they would tell stories so we can sympathize in voting for them. They make fake that they will take care of all of your problems as healthcare, schooling, taxes and a nation united. Yet, when the candidate wins, they forget about promise that they made in the campaigns. Matt Taibbi’s article “How America Made Donald Trump Unstoppable” stated, “Like the actual circus, this is a roving business. Cash flows to campaigns from people and donors; campaigns buy ads; ads pay for journalists; journalists assess candidates…Nine out of 10 times in America, the candidate who raises the most money wins. And those candidates then owe the most favors” (Taibbi). This quote shows it does not matter if people vote or not, their votes are not a key factor in the campaigns it is the donors. When the campaigns are over, the illiterate have no voice once again. Politics is not about the ideas about the ideas
“The initial expectation is that a substantial gap exists between the voting rates of the socially advantaged because the latter are less informed about politics, feel more alienated from the political system and are not the main target of mobilization efforts by political parties”
For example, Abramowitz uses the Converse study to show that education was a strong predictor of ideological sophistication. This is important to note, because as Abramowitz mentions on page 35, from 1956-2004 the percentage of respondents that took place in the ANES survey with only a grade school education went from 37% all the way down to 3%. Furthermore, participants with at least some college experience went from 19% to 61%. Using this information, Abramowitz directly refutes Fiorina’s claim that little has changed in the American public since the 1950’s. Fiorina believes that even 21st Century Americans are still not very well informed about politics, along with not holding views very strongly and are not ideological. This is at odds with Abramowitz’s view. Abramowitz concedes that among the politically disengaged, Fiorina’s argument does make some sense, however, when referring to the politically engaged his argument does not hold up. It is important to remember too, as Abramowitz points out, the politically engaged is not just some small fringe group, they are actually a substantial group of the American
In his book, Tyranny of the Minority, Benjamin Bishin refers to this occurrence through his very own proposed concept called the Subconstituency Politics Theory of Representation. Centered on social psychology and reinforced by multifaceted studies on the behavior pattern illustrated in legislators’ voting, the subconstituency theory is able to effectively explain how candidates ' behavior in campaigns and legislators ' behavior in Congress are affected by the degree of knowledge and participation harbored in the average citizen. According to Bishin, a candidate’s career depends on their ability to “transform passive citizens into active
On the third, Trump tweeted “The rigged Dem Primary, one of the biggest political stories in years, got ZERO coverage on Fake News Network TV last night. Disgraceful!”. Trump attempts to show the extent of bias in the media exposing that they didn’t report a major event. This tweet has bias towards Trump’s personal agenda against the media. Additionally, Trump exposes the strength of the media’s gatekeepers and how greatly they can impact which issues are talked about.
As politics and government becomes more complex and involved, more effort is required to keep up with and understand it. As a result, many Americans have lost touch with current events and happenings. Therefore, when election time rolls around, many people lack enough information to develop an educated opinion and support a candidate with their vote, so they just do not vote at all. This lack of information is also related to the belief that one vote will not matter. People believe that their vote will not count, and are therefore following the news less and becoming out of touch with public affairs and politics (Is the System Broken?”). This lack of information is also more strongly apparent among the younger voting population. When interviewed
Over the last few decades, we have seen a shift in voter participation, and involvement in the election arena rather it be national, state, and or local levels. According to Time Magazine, 2014 mid-terms voter turnout was at a 72 year low. At only 36.4% of U.S, eligible voters voted in 2014 mid-terms, down from 40.9% that voted in 2010 mid-terms. Analyst views the decline as the “millennial generation” coming into effect, which clearly indicates the age group (18-33) seems to have a significantly lower turnout rate compare to the older age groups. With less participation in state and local elections, we now face decisions such as elections in South Carolina being cancelled if the incumbent as no challenge, according to Cindi Scoppe associate editor at “The State”. This doesn’t provide ample explanation considering that the mid-terms elections do in fact represent a significant portion of state-level elections, which ultimately allows individuals to experience policies being implemented at a much greater effect. So the questions arise are we happy with single file candidates ascending to the elected office with no election? Is it the lack of interest or it doesn’t matter who’s in the seat? What does this say about the public responsibility for electing these people as our representatives to make decisions that impact our daily lives?
In the article “The Myth of the Vanishing Voter” by Michael P. McDonald and Samuel L. Popkin, it is argued that the decline in voter participation in national elections since 1972 is an illusion created by the Bureau of the Census because it uses the voting-age population to calculate voter turnout instead of calculating the population of citizens who are eligible to vote (2001, 963).
“The media are a primary source of those pictures in our heads about the larger world of public affairs, a world that for most citizens is ‘out of reach, out sight, out of mind’ and what we know about the world is largely based on what the media decide to tell us” (McCombs).
In the late 1980's, Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky proposed a scientific study to determine the media's role in controlling public opinion and news. It was hypothesized that traditional mass media, despite their different political affirmations, will mainly discuss issues and subjects which indirectly correspond to elite governmental power. This study was called the "propaganda model of media control," and concluded that the relationship between government elites and the media was actually very influential through an agreed agenda. This assertion made by Herman and Chomsky was again tested in the UK in 2003, concerning the topic of immigration, and the various newspapers which frequently covered the topic. This particular case study was enacted by Matthew Randall, a researcher who lives and works in Berlin, Germany. Accordingly, Randall used the same hypothesis as Herman and Chomsky did in their interpretation of media conglomerates in "the propaganda model of media control." Not surprisingly, the conclusions for both studies were equally similar, as well as, a compelling grip on the "secret" relationship between government and the mass media.
In terms of political ramifications, alienation leads to a withdrawal from public life originating in feelings of powerlessness wherein the government elected comes to be seen as “they” rather than “we”. (Macionis: Chapter 4) Subsequently, citizens do not perceive themselves as citizens in the true sense of the word. They do not have a sense of belonging or shared identity and as such will not value political activity.
Laura Lane, Yahoo! Contributor Network Nov 14, 2007 "Share your voice on Yahoo! websites. Start Here." Media Bias Mass Media News Media Political Campaigns Political Views Flag Post a comment