Is the media too preoccupied with the 2008 presidential election?
When talking about the 2008 presidential election, the U.S. media is truly acting as the voice of the American people. A recent CBS News Poll, the week of Feb 9th, indicated that President Bush's approval rating had dipped to an all-time low of 28 percent. This number ranks up there with the likes of Richard Nixon's record setting 24% rating after his justifiable resignation from office. The media is merely reciprocating the true sediments of the American people in that change is needed in the White House. This coverage is not too soon for the country. The people of America want change and hope for a better future. A future that is focused on America and not an unnecessary war in the Middle East.
On the other hand, this early election coverage could have severe professional and personal consequences on the candidates. Several articles in The Week, a national news magazine, displayed the ugly coverage regarding the presidential candidates. Such news coverage criticized Barack Obama about not being black enough. In addition, another article exposed the excess baggage attached to Hilary Clinton and political campaign.
However, the real question that should be posed is: Why is the 2008 presidential election in the media so early? A recent online CBS article titled, "The Media Consumer's Guide to Pre-2008 Election Coverage," helps to reveal the main factor behind this early election coverage. CBS News online indicated that coverage is arriving early this year because the need for a new candidates is much stronger. The president and vice president's 8 year reign will come to a crashing halt in 2008 and neither one will be in the race again. According to Steve Chaggaris, a CBS news reporter, "It hasn't been this wide open for, I would say, at least 50 years." In other words, it is truly a perfect combination. This wide open race is begging media coverage. Fittingly, the media lives on political news coverage and the citizens of the U.S are demanding for political change.
Victor Montoro
Monday, February 12, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
The 2008 Presidential Election may be almost two years away, but there is an overwhelming push for the next election to be held as soon as yesterday.
President Bush and his administration are not held in the brightest of light by the American public. The national media, seeing and understanding that, are already beginning to roll out the red carpet for the next hosts of want-to-be presidents.
The need for change in this country is rampant and the media, shamefully or not, are already going deep into the basket of presidential candidates to give the public some kind of hope that change is closer than it seems.
Bush’s approval rating is at an all time low. The United States are finally almost entirely “united” in one stance. Basically, the country doesn’t care who replaces Bush as long as somebody does pronto.
The diversity of the candidates is one real reason that the media coverage has been so heavy so early. The candidates all come from different walks of life, more so than arguably any other election before. From Hilary Clinton to Barack Obama to John Edwards, there are viable differences between each candidate that expands far beyond race or sex. And that’s just the Democratic hopefuls.
The media may feel some sort of collective guilt that they so heavily napped through the beginning stages of the Iraqi war. Whatever the case, the extensive coverage can only be beneficial to the American people. In the hopes of not making the same mistakes again, the media has decided to over cover the issue rather than just collect and feed the bare necessities.
There is also no real clear cut favorite to moonwalk into the White House unopposed. The past two elections have been pretty mundane in the primary elections. Bush and John McCain mixed it up a bit in 2000 but honestly there was never any real doubt as to who the two parties would be backing. The next election has not even one candidate that stands head and shoulders above the rest.
Overall, the extensive and expanded media coverage will allow the American people, if they choose to listen, to elect the best candidate for the office. With all of the day to problems the United States is facing, the in your face coverage will be beneficial in the long run even if the election could lose some steam from the marathon race the media has now established.
The presidential election isn't coming much earlier this year. The candidates are declaring their intentions and making appearances the same way they have in the past. I feel that this election is different because the candidates and situations are actually interesting and important enough for the public to follow this early, mainly because Americans are looking for a solution in Iraq.
Obama and Clinton, the election frontrunners, are also not just typical candidates. That is why there is a lot of reporting on them that would be considered "human interest" or "feel-good" stories. At times I feel that the media gives great coverage to the candidates to show people that "there is a light at the end of the tunnel," as people have seen too much coverage of the failing war, that there is something positive to show viewers and readers.
Obama is popular with the youth and notable for his race, age, and issues that make him an unconventional president, such as admitting marijuana use. Hillary is the first woman candidate that has a chance, and also a former first lady.
The Republican candidates are covered very little by the press. This is because of the general disapproval of the Bush administration. It naturally follows that his republican party will lose favor in the election.
It is positive that we have a spotlight on the candidate hopefuls in the senate this early, to hold them accountable for their voting records. The negative side to that, however, is that often times the media will not report on Hillary Clinton the senator, but rather Hillary Clinton the presidential candidate.
I do think that the "wide open" nature of the field has a bit to do with it, combined with the widespread perception that our society is in something of a serious crisis.
I also think the rapid development of digital communications technology has begun to alter the behavior of the "mainstream" media considerably.
Whether the coverage is early or not, I think the true test of its quality will come as the primaries and debates draw closer.
Will the coverage include more information on actual issues and how they relate to people's lives or will the trend toward stage-managed, scripted events, photo-ops and an obsessive focus on personality traits continue?
We'll see.
Just like Christmas decorations are put out earlier and earlier each year, the upcoming presidential election in 2008 seems to be getting more coverage from the media at an earlier date than usual.
But why are the media networks causing so much hype over something that will not take place for another two years?
Despite what others believe, the coverage of the 2008 elections is not that much earlier than the last presidential election. It was around this time of year four years ago that Howard Dean’s infamous screeching holler for the White House gave him a downward spiral in the Primaries.
However, there is so much more riding on this election than any other election in decades.
For starters, after eight years in office, Bush and his administration will be leaving the White House, and none of his cabinet members are considering running for office. This leaves the election wide open for both the Democrats or Republicans to cease the position. There has not been a wide open election where both parties have to choose candidates for decades.
Another reason is the diversity in the Democratic candidates. For the first time, there is both a black candidate, Barack Obama, and a female candidate, Hillary Clinton, that have a real chance at winning the primaries. This kind of diversity in the United States Presidential race is unheard of, and the media is having a field day tracking these candidates campaigns because of the diversity.
The Republican candidates are not getting as much coverage in the media as the Democratic candidates partially because the Democrats are more diverse and therefore make for a more interesting story. Also, it is because the media tends to give more attention to the party not in office at the time. Once the election draws closer and the Republican candidates are more defined, they will receive more coverage.
I am particulary interested in the 2008 elections and I am glad that the coverage is starting early.
This will be the first time that I am legally able to vote for President. Also, there is a Black man, a woman, and a Hispanic man running for Democratic Nomination for President. I wonder who will win.
The Bush Adminstration has been in power for a long time and the country wants something new and different. We want to see what others have to offer. Bush has had a controversial reign.
I will surely be looking into the election and making myself aware of what each candidate stands for.
There were a few things you forgot to mention. First regarding the media and bad coverage. You forgot to mention them bashing Guiliani for his sour relationship with his son. So the democrats aren't the only one's being hurt by this early media coverage. Another thing is most of the reason that the people of America are so against the war, and just about everything the president does is the media. Their bias tells Americans what to think, and this article is just another example of it.
Post a Comment