Media Predictions Paper for Understanding Mass Media Course at NCC with Professor Martin LoMonaco.
2021 NOTES:
Usually, I put my updated thoughts after the original work but I feel putting it first here is more appropriate given the topic. I am choosing to publish this essay because it represents the spark of the beginning of my career in entertainment. In order to graduate Nassau Community College within the desired two years, I realized that taking some summer classes would be required. In Summer Session I, I took the Communications Dept. course, Understanding Mass Media.
(Something I’d also like to add is that Nassau Community College is one of the best in the country. Professors not only teach there but also other colleges and universities on Long Island and New York City, and/or have taken advantage of teaching at NCC after retiring from highly regarded careers at schools elsewhere. Additionally, most classes are limited to 40 students across all departments including the remedials and intros, and there are no graduate student teachers. An education received at NCC is like that of any other prominent 4-year institution but for much less cost. I am a proud 2006 graduate!)
Professor LoMonaco had taught communications courses and had a career in radio for a few decades by the time I was his student. The main textbook for his class was an excellent introduction into the history of each medium. I was fascinated with how initially constructed technologies with idealized purposes changed to fit the needs of society over time. Not only was the history of film and television covered, but also publishing newspapers and magazines, radio, and the Internet – but still prior to what would become social media. And rather than let his students skate-by in a summer course, he gave the class an assignment that would really make them research and think. Whether or not others actually did, I'm not sure.
The assignment was to find a prediction that was at least 30 years old (i.e., from before 1974), to explain it, and to find out/determine if it came true or not. The prediction I chose was found in the Public Opinion Quarterly of 1964 by William A Glaser (a research associate at Columbia University’s Bureau of Applied Social Research) entitled, “Television and Voting Turnout”. He predicted that television has a significant impact and leaves a significant impression on audiences, but voter turnout does not significantly increase because of television.
I’ll tell you a little secret. I didn’t even start this essay until the day before it was due! Some of us had gotten to the classroom early and one guy asked me if I’d started the paper yet, and I said no. After classes were done at 1pm, I went straight to the campus library’s computers to access JSTOR, decided upon making television's influence on voter turnout my prediction, got some books to read for supportive research and quotes, and finished writing the essay later that night, turning it in the next morning.
When Professor LoMonaco handed back the papers to each student (he could match our names to faces because he took attendance every day) he said mine could have been a thesis! The guy from the previous week, looked at me with a bit of shock and disbelief knowing I’d spent barely 24 hours on it. I gave him a smile and shrug. Looking back, Professor was being generous with his compliment given because I now know what it takes to complete a real thesis!
I am proud of this course's essay. It reflects the position of a college underclassman from 2005. Not only was 2005 still at the beginning of President Bush’s second term but also that Facebook was only a year old and hadn’t quite caught on yet; let alone become what it is today. Please read more current articles/essays to reflect elections and voter turnout.
However, in those 24 hours of my writing the essay, I did not give myself the time to remember taking into consideration how voter turnout also reflects the Constitution’s 26th Amendment’s ratification in 1971 (for those over 18 years old allowed to vote instead of 21), or better understanding the state and local government’s laws and significant obstacles put in place to prevent those from underrepresented/minority communities voting.
THE ESSAY:
(I am not publishing the original paper in its entirety but its most relevant excerpts. It has been updated with better grammar from the originally graded version. Professor’s notes are in larger, capitalized Font. Updated and additional notes are further below.)
This essay received an A and at the top, my professor wrote “Well written, insightful, excellent!
"Television networks and anyone heavily involved in a presidential campaign hold onto the notion that an excessive number of reminders, commercials, mini-films, etc. will automatically increase voter turnout and vote for the candidate with the most TV exposure. It makes sense that this should be true since television reaches such a vast audience. In the early 1960s, William A. Glaser, a research associate for the Bureau of Applied Social Research at Columbia University said, “Some observers have guessed that television has important effects on voting turnout…They believe that television raises the level of political interest by graphic presentation of the news and creating a closer contact between a candidate and viewer…” than any other medium. The voter turnouts for most of the 20th century and the elections of 2000 and 2004 should reflect the impact television has had, but it doesn’t. (TRUE:) If television really had as much of an impact over turnout, then the percent registered voters and those who voted would be in a high unprecedented range.
The image of a candidate has become so important that it outweighs any other criteria. Instead of focusing on the issues, TV news concentrates on an uncovered scandal, a mispronounced word, a klutzy moment, and which candidate is in the lead each day. Since presidential campaigns have been televised it is not about what the candidates represents but who (just their name and political title) is running, what their voice and physical characteristics are (so they can be embellished in editorial cartoons and TV sketch comedies), what skeletons can be exposed, and if they have the charisma to please the public. Once Howard Dean made his shout heard ‘round the world the stations were constantly replaying it, embarrassing him over and over, condemning him for not making a proper shriek and only stopped until he resigned from the race. Then the press paid attention to the next leading guy in the polls. Another important image tactic is to get more exposure and supporting voters by appearing to already have a huge number of supporters. When a speech or convention are televised, there are hundreds of people in the audience cheering for their chosen leader, and might as well be saying “We’re voting for ‘so-and-so, and you should too.” It’s the bandwagon affect. “The party conventions of (Dan Quayle) were designed to create pretty pictures for the television…”. (Diamond, 184) (TRUE:) It must mean it is easier to win votes by appearing smart and worthy of the position than actually being smart and worthy. The presumption that a candidate should be photogenic stems from the massive amounts of images viewers and voters have been shown.
Those who work on campaigns and TV networks believe since television began showing presidential campaigns it is television that decides the winner before Election Day. If they show the viewer enough reminders and enough images, there will be a mass voter turnout all voting for their favorite channel’s candidate. Yes, TV is influential, but it is not the only source of information. People rely on the newspapers for a more detailed report, the radio for commentary, and friends for discussions. The problem is that there are not enough facts about the candidates’ issues. If all the voters only relied on television they wouldn’t make a wise decision because so much time is spent on their outside image rather than their values and philosophies. What many voters know about the candidates they voted for is limited.
When the Kennedy/Nixon debate of 1960 was televised and voters actually saw the candidates’ behaviors, many were quick to declare Kennedy the winner because he kept his cool and confidence. (Biagi, 276) From this, the myth of television being the most influential presidential predictor was born and all future televised campaigns were meant to follow the race and polls which would secure a massive voter turnout. Every four years the networks kept a day-by-day score, kept their most promised candidate in a good light, and played the candidate’s commercials of reminding people to go out and vote. But the numbers never matched the high expectations. In 1960, 63% of registered voters voted (fec.gov) and as the years went by that percent decreased to 50% in 1988 (which was the year of the most money spent on TV campaigns) with the slight exception of 1984. But even when television wasn’t the main medium, voter turnout was still relatively low (only making it to about 59% in 1956). What is interesting is that between 1924 and 1944 voter turnout increases coincided with the radio’s popularity and then the FDR administration (fairvote.org). There was enough airtime for the candidates and FDR to say what they had to say without limited themselves to tight time slots and featurettes, images, and short audio samples. “In 1968 the average television sound bite was more than 40 seconds. In 2000 it was less than 8 seconds.” (LWV, 51) And how did the candidates react to this? They made sure all they had to do could be summed into one sentence than neither helps nor hurts their campaign and will be repeated throughout their campaign. Candidates state their platforms (what they are for and against) but never go into detail about them. It is like they have a secret weapon that will save us from our downward spiral and will only be revealed if elected. We are supposed to trust their vague promises and vote for them because they are the right ones for the job.
“Six out of ten Americans say television is their primary source of information about elections, government, and current events, newspapers a distant second.” But they also “say that coverage has become more ‘tabloid’. (PBS) The practice of not showing what is truly important in a presidential campaign has even been evident since the 1970s. Instead of reporting on Senator McGovern’s speeches, the news showed his motorcade surrounded by supporters. (Patterson, 27-28)
“Several studies have documented the immense public exposure to politics that has resulted from television, an exposure greater than that achieved by previous media, particularly during presidential elections.” (Glaser, 72) With the popularity of television came the greater access to the country’s politics and democratic system. Anyone could see it all and feel part of something big. Unfortunately, too many people in the television business and government believed the best way to gain ratings and supporting voters was to have attention grabbing stories and excessive exposure. The news began to pick apart the candidates not for their platform but for their appearance and private pasts. For over 30 years of televised campaigns, despite an increase in spending on television, on Election Day not more than 63% of registered voters voted. These figures should have destroyed the notion that TV exposure equals voter turnout but it didn’t. The myth made sense. Only when the country is in turmoil does voter turnout increase because more is at risk. TV reminds us to vote and who is running but there is nothing more substantial than that. There could be a million messages and reminders but when that day in November comes only about 60% enter those booths and pull down the lever. Their opinions are based on personal beliefs and histories, not what a *television program shows. “Campaign propaganda usually reinforced the public’s preferences rather than alter them.” (Parenti, 21) Due to the lack of information in television and the younger generations usually not reading daily newspapers, it is likely voting will be based on who belongs to which political party.
Works Cited:
Biagi, Shirley. Media Impact: An Introduction to Mass Media 7th Ed. United States; Thomas/Wadsworth. 2005. Page 276.
Diamond, Edwin. The Media Show: The Changing Face of the News, 1985 -1990. Mass; The MIT Press. 1991. Page 184.
https://fairvote.org/turnout/preturn.htm
http://www.fec.gov./ages/htm/to5.htm
- National Voter Turnout in Federal Elections 1960 to 1996
Glaser, William, A. Television and Voting Turnout. Columbia University, Bureau of Applied Social Research. 1964.
League of Women Voters. Choosing the President 2004 – A
Civilian’s Guide to the Electoral Process. Conn; The Lyon’s Press, 2003. Page
51.
Parenti, Michael. Inventing Reality: The Politics of News
Media 2nd Ed. NY; St. Martin’s Press. 1993. Page 21.
Patterson, Thomas E and Robert D. McClure. The Unseeing Eye: The Myth of Television Power in National Elections. NY; G.P. Putnum’s Sons. 1976. Page 27, 28.
http://www/pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/uly-dec00/media.html - Newshour Extra. Election 2000. MacMeil-Lehrer Productions. 2000.
No comments:
Post a Comment