I can, however, discuss how new media has created challenges for the candidates that previously did not exist.
According to the movie The American President (1995), "if there had been a TV in every house 60 years ago, this country does not elect a man in a wheelchair". Perhaps that's true, but he is considered one of the greatest presidents in American history. Now would be a time for me to get on my soapbox about the quality of our leaders in the latter years, but I digress...
I got a kick out of the JibJab video and I kept thinking about the quote about truth in jest. It must be very difficult to be in the public eye when so many people have the power to manipulate your words and your image. Also, 7,000,000 cigar jokes later, we are still reminded of Clinton's transgression, because we are not allowed to forget. That's what new media does- it creates a permanent catalog of every move of every public person's life and allows anyone to "flip-through" this catalog and borrow any image or situation and use it as they wish and blog it, post it, print it, spoof it or report it.
It has become very difficult, as a political consumer, to decipher the truth. Often, the winner is the one who is the most entertaining. For example, consider the audience pool of the Daily show with Jon Stewart. I think it would be difficult to point to this show as unbiased, yet it is a top source of political information. Also, Stewart went on Crossfire and accused the hosts of corrupting the political process (pg. 236). Amazingly, while the Daily Show specifically makes a point of saying that it is not an objective news source, it has become a force to be reckoned with for political information.
In a country where more people vote for American Idol than the president there are two things to remember: 1. be more entertaining and 2. be careful what you do because someone is always watching.
Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence Culture: Where old and new media collide. New York: New York University Press
You make some very interesting comments about how our politicians have become entertainers of a sort and how everything they do is "up for grabs" by any and all of us. I think this transparency is necessary though it can often lead to misconception. What is the ideal situation? I do not know.
ReplyDeletegreat comments and observations. Part of the success of the Daily Show, in my opinion, that they do the opposite of most tv and assume that the viewers are intelligent and everyone else is stupid (especially politicians!). They also are open that, especially on cable news, there is no such thing as journalistic objectivity and that it's up to the viewers to "consider the source" when they listen to the news. And while the Daily Show does seem to be more on the left, they put a spotlight on anyone who does dumb things and tries to get away with it. It's an interesting place to be in. It's all the more absurd when one considers that the top selling textbook on American History is Stewart's "America (the Book)." ack.
ReplyDelete