Not a day goes by in this 2016 election year without hearing the engraving campaign words and phrases such as “Feel the Bern” and “Make America Great Again.” The television in every single living room across the country blares live debates while updating every single American citizen on the status of each candidate. Although there is a mute button for the television, unfortunately, there is no mute button for politics. Ever since the first televised presidential debate in 1960 between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon, the use of television in politics has grown enormously. Time seems to have frozen in a time and place in which the television is feeding the minds of the American citizens with the information they want to hear – or even worse
…show more content…
Ever since the founding of the United States of America and the establishment of electing a president, competing candidates have continually slandered the opposing side. It was a whole new ball game when, in the 1950s, the television became a standard piece of technology in the home of Americans across the nation. It was incredible how quickly one could relay information through a screen. Soon, though, the candidates competing for the position as President of the United States took malicious advantage over the tube. Accurately noted in a CNN article about the negative consequences of mudslinging, Bob Greene states, “…you can expect the tone of the advertising to make sewage seem pristine by comparison.” Although this comparison is truthful, candidates continue to use mudslinging in an attempt to one-up the opponent. There has been a significant increase in the amount of money spent on television advertisements that negatively impact the political process. “Spending by independent individuals or groups on television spots has mushroomed in the 1980s and 1990s, and often such television spending has been concentrated on negative attacks on candidates” (Political Processes and Television). From this gargantuan increase in the number of commercials and advertisements aimed at negatively attacking candidates, it can be inferred that television truly does have a negative impact on presidential
Ever since the founding of the United States of America and the establishment of electing a president, competing candidates have continually slandered the opposing side. It was a whole new ball game when, in the 1950s, the television became a standard piece of technology in the home of Americans across the nation. It was incredible how quickly one could relay information through a screen. Soon, though, the candidates competing for the position as President of the United States took malicious advantage over the tube. Accurately noted in a CNN article about the negative consequences of mudslinging, Bob Greene states, “…you can expect the tone of the advertising to make sewage seem pristine by comparison.” Although this comparison is truthful, candidates continue to use mudslinging in an attempt to one-up the opponent. There has been a significant increase in the amount of money spent on television advertisements that negatively impact the political process. “Spending by independent individuals or groups on television spots has mushroomed in the 1980s and 1990s, and often such television spending has been concentrated on negative attacks on candidates” (Political Processes and Television). From this gargantuan increase in the number of commercials and advertisements aimed at negatively attacking candidates, it can be inferred that television truly does have a negative impact on presidential