Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The effects of politics influenced by TV
The effects of politics influenced by TV
The effects of television on politics
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The effects of politics influenced by TV
Reading Response 3
We have been reading up and analyzing politics on the television the last couple weeks. Touching on the fact of how they get portrayed and how they act on television. This article shares thoughts about the fictional aspects in politics and in the media.
Boriskin and Tisinger, talk about the lines being blurred between the entertainment aspect with the news and political aspects (101). Thus suggesting that entertainment for the public is starting to produce more content with news and political items in the form of entertainment. When looking back on just this element of the article I strongly agreed with Boriskin and Tisinger, even just in the last couple years more recently. I have just become aware of at least three more programs that are not only having news and political aspects within the show but are the main core of the show. In the last few weeks we have been introduced to “VEEP”, “House of Cards”, and “The Best Laid Plans” that we have discussed and analyzed in class. Not only are Boriskin and Tisinger right but I have been shocked with the amount of political shows entering into entertainment programming. This is an easy way to grow with the evolving generations and to keep them informed as well as teach the public of how the system works. Instead of people, such as myself, giving up on trying to understand the political world, they are now able to be more understanding of the politics. The three shows mentioned above I never watched before, mostly due to the fact that I have a strong negative response towards anything politics, but after watching each show I get intrigued and have a curiosity to watch more. Noting that each show ends up showing politics in a bit of a different way with different vibe...
... middle of paper ...
...crashing, and how they responded with references of terrorism throughout the season. With this reliance I find that programming is and extremely easy way to influence the mind of the public in whichever way they think. The shows that the public watch influence individuals even if it is not directly related to them, influencing the way they dress, act, think, etc. Thus this form of terrorism entering into the minds of public programming from the television is a way for people to become more timid after the incident of the twin tower crashing, thus resulting in racism. This show ended up not just influencing the public but as well as presenting the news, and how the news interacts with politics.
Works Cited
Gans-Boriskin, R. And R. Tisinger. (2005). The Bushlet Administration: Terrorism and War on The West Wing. The Journal of American Culture, 28(1): 100 – 113
Buying media slots for candidates, which used to be a small business just over half a century ago, has grown so that these companies manage “more than $170 billion of their clients’ campaign funds” (Turow 230). This fact about the growth of such an industry should at a minimum raise an eyebrow, as it characterizes the shift and importance this data analysis has become. It also serves as an important point because it fuels the common fear of corruption in politics, as this data essentially offers a window to the responses and how people think to what politicians say. This could lead to the next phase of the “polished politician” where candidates will say statements that statistically receive favorable responses from the population. This strong pathos is a central pillar of the argument Turow is trying to make, effectively playing the emotion of pity from the hypothetical family situation, and building it into a fear of the system and establishment. Such emotions are strong motivators, and this combination encourages the reader to take action, or at the very least inform someone they know about such issues they weren’t even aware were
Jeffrey David Simon, The Terrorist Trap: America's Experience with Terrorism, 2nd ed. (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2001), 188-89.
This historical study will compare and contrast the depiction of the “War on Terror” in a pro-government and anti-government plot structures found in Zero Dark Thirty (2012) by Kathryn Bigelow and The Siege (1998) by Edward Zwick. The pro-government view of Zero Dark Thirty defines the use of CIA agents and military operatives to track down Osama Bin Laden in the 2000s. Bigelow appears to validate the use of torture and interrogation as a means in which to extract information in the hunt for Bin Laden. In contrast this depiction of terrorism, Zwick’s film The Siege exposes the damage that torture, kidnapping, and
Steven Johnson wrote an article for the New York Times in which he argues that back in the days, television shows use to have a very simple plot which was easy to follow without too much attention. It was just an other way to sit back and relax. However, throughout the years, viewers grew tired of this situation and demanded more complex plot lines with multiple story lines that related to recent news topics. He takes the example of the television show “24”. “24” is known for being the first show which its plot occurs in “real-time”, it is also known for not censuring the violence of its topics. It is a drastic change from what Johnson states as an example “Starsky and Hutch” where basically each episodes was only a repetition of the last one. Johnson also believes that there is a misconception of the mass culture nowadays where people think the television viewer wants dumb shows which in response makes them dumber. Johnson does not agree, for him, television shows such as “24” are “nutritional”. He also states that sm...
Host: On September the 11th 2001, the notorious terror organisation known as Al-Qaeda struck at the very heart of the United States. The death count was approximately 3,000; a nation was left in panic. To this day, counterterrorism experts and historians alike regard the event surrounding 9/11 as a turning point in US foreign relations. Outraged and fearful of radical terrorism from the middle-east, President Bush declared that in 2001 that it was a matter of freedoms; that “our very freedom has come under attack”. In his eyes, America was simply targeted because of its democratic and western values (CNN News, 2001). In the 14 years following this pivotal declaration, an aggressive, pre-emptive approach to terrorism replaced the traditional
In theory, political campaigns are the most important culmination of the democratic debate in American politics. In practice, however, the media shrouds society’s ability to engage in a democratic debate with unenlightening campaign coverage. Because of this, it is difficult—if not impossible—to have educated political discourse in which the whole, factual truth is on display. After years of only seeing the drama of presidential campaigns, the American public has become a misinformed people.
September 11, 2001 was one of the most devastating and horrific events in the United States history. Americans feeling of a secure nation had been broken. Over 3,000 people and more than 400 police officers and firefighters were killed during the attacks on The World Trade Center and the Pentagon; in New York City and Washington, D.C. Today the term terrorism is known as the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives (Birzer, Roberson). This term was clearly not defined for the United States for we had partial knowledge and experience with terrorist attacks; until the day September 11, 2001. At that time, President George W. Bush, stated over a televised address from the Oval Office, “Terrorist attacks can shake the foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot touch the foundation of America. These acts shatter steel, but they cannot dent the steel of American resolve.” President Bush stood by this statement for the United States was about to retaliate and change the face of the criminal justice system for terrorism.
“ Television often provides politicians with more attention turning them into more celebrity than politician” (Hart). This holds some truths in some situations television does over publicize some politicians , but this always is not a bad thing. The modern day politician is suppose to receive a plethora of attention due to their important public figure. Some television networks do sway towards parties , but not all of them. If anything a viewer can watch the network that reports exclusively on his or her interest rather than the interests of the people from another political party. When placed under this public spotlight the true character of the politician is revealed , and the public can get to know them in depth. “Politicians have the choice to abuse their public figure to derive attention or use it for acts of good” (Bazalgette) . This ultimately comes down to the morals of who we chose to represent us. Television plays an important part but at the end of the day if a politician is gonna mislead the public he will do it. Television acts as a checker to make sure the public cannot be fooled so easily. Above all television has helped propel our modern day society into realms that were before thought to be impossible to
Popular culture also plays a role in why Americans do not trust politicians. Late-night television shows use politicians in their comedy skits, where their mistakes are punch lines for comedians. A study produced by Jody Baumgartner and Jonathan Morris found that people who view late-night television shows have a more negative view of candidates, (Medvic p. 5). In particular, people who view The Daily Show have drastically less faith in the electoral process, (Medvic p. 5). Russell Peterson argues that these jokes as “implicitly anti-democratic” because they declare the entire system as fraudulent, (Medvic p. 5).
The transformation of America is often discussed in both popular media and academic dialogue. Each generation has a name, new technologies define new eras, and events seem only notable when they are “historic”. While major events catch the interest of a broad spectrum of the public consciousness, subtle interactions between actors and slight shifts in beliefs are constantly changing the realities of the world. When the twin towers fell in 2001, the United States seemed to be thrust into a new world of Weapons of Mass Destruction, Jihadists, and a global fight against terrorism; bombs were dropped, ground forces were deployed in foreign states, and anyone who publicly questioned the urgency of war was at risk to be labeled a traitor. This one event was indelibly branded on the consciousness of the world and if often seen as a moment of sudden transformation. Most Americans believe that the troop presence in Iraq and Afghanistan are due to the terrorist attacks on the United States and while it is hard to deny that the 9-11 attacks was the impetus for putting boots on the ground, it is imperative that the chain of events following the horror of September 11 are seen to reflect the willingness and wants of actors in control before the towers fell.
Technology is growing fast, as is the new generations branching off with new forms of media and devices that provide us with the news. News and politics have had difficulty when informing its public and community of the events that happen in their community. Now the media and news are growing to reform to the earlier generation’s way of receiving the news and events related to them, by using media and popular culture. According to Wodak, for politics to air and to engage and intrigue its public, it must need scandal, rumour, and speculation (45). The West Wing, is a clear example of where the news and politics enter into the world of entertainment, but still informing its audience of the political world and events they may face. I will be analyzing The West Wing television series in relation to the representations of gender, race, and politics with support from examples and scholarly sources.
Individuals may believe this new exposure of political debates and facts about the candidates would help the public make an educated decision of their president. However, all of that television has done is turn the presidential debates into a popularity contest. Elections were based on image, charm and how the networks wish to have the candidates perceived. Televisions’ contribution to political debates only emphasized personality, visual image and emotion rather than ideas, issues and reason.
Since the 1960s television has served as both a positive and negative influence on presidential elections. Television enables a greater connection between the American public and its presidential candidates; it allows candidates to appear more human in the eyes of the public and makes candidates more accountable for their actions. It has made television fairer and more accessible but has also indirectly forcing candidates to move from pursuing issues to pursuing image.
We see politics everywhere, we are bombarded in our everyday lives with politics. Politics start at home with hierarchies of the house, then follow us to the office or place of employment, our communities, governments, and even world politics. Truly there is no getting away from it, even our entertainment is filled with politics. We see it all the time in movies like Forrest Gump, or series like Bomb Girls, sitcoms such as All in the Family, Roseanne and countless others; even the music to our ears is fueled with political messages. This poses the question why would we navigate freely to politics in entertainment? Simply put it is funny, entertaining, and it can even prove educational. Finding, and presenting the humor in politics is both challenging, and potentially risky, but when done right it is pure genius. The majority of the population is drawn to entertainment that they can relate to, and understand. Often times historical events are played out in various avenues of entertainment in such a way that is easily understood, where it may otherwise be overlooked or not understood at all. Entertainment can also make light of a situation that is in fact very serious, it also allows people to see the error of their ways in a non-confrontational manner, which promotes progress and change for a better world.
From the beginning days of the printing press to the always evolving internet of present day, the media has greatly evolved and changed over the years. No one can possibly overstate the influential power of the new media of television on the rest of the industry. Television continues to influence the media, which recently an era of comedic television shows that specialize in providing “fake news” has captivated. The groundbreaking The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and its spin-off The Colbert Report have successfully attracted the youth demographic and have become the new era’s leading political news source. By parodying news companies and satirizing the government, “fake news” has affected the media, the government, and its audience in such a way that Bill Moyers has claimed “you simply can’t understand American politics in the new millennium without The Daily Show,” that started it all (PBS).