The media has a large influence on how the public views political figures and policies. Polls that are conducted to examine potential campaign results reach many Americans. People do not like being told what to do, so the average American may want to go “against the grain” when it comes to voting the day of elections. According to an article on politicaldaily.com, a site branched from AOL news, Senior Correspondent Walter Shapiro writes, “Cosseted by the candidates and pampered by the pundits, these first-in-the-nation primary voters rebel against being taken for granted and revel in proving the dumbness of the conventional wisdom.” Shapiro argues that with the midterm elections coming up, the constant use of poll results and possible election outcomes in the media overwhelms voters. They no longer want to hear about how the elections will turn out, since they are the ones that help in making that decision. He believes “all this is prelude to an against-the-grain notion.” The American people become tired of hearing how they will most likely vote according to polls, so subconsciously they choose to do the opposite.
In Waterman’s book, “The Image is Everything Presidency,” he argues the use of paid political consultants and polls have helped to intensify the concept that image is more important in political campaigns than the candidate’s stance on an issue. “For much of our nation’s history the political parties played a major role in choosing the candidates who would represent them in the fall presidential election” (Waterman 76). However, modern day politics involves hiring campaign teams and the political parties are distanced from this process. This contributes to the idea that image becomes more important than the issues when candidates can only successfully get on the ballot with the help of media experts rather than their political party.
Political campaign teams work to create an image for the candidate that they are representing. Waterman states, “The outcome of the national convention…is now almost always decided well before the convention actually begins” (Waterman 76). He notes that presidential candidates begin running well before the election year. The image of a candidate is created and imprinted into the minds of the American people and they identify on different levels with the candidate. The public feels they know the person not just the policies. However, the problem occurs as Waterman notes, “when image is what wins the presidency” (Waterman 93). The images of politicians portrayed in the media through poll results and knowledge from pundits have become more apparent and voters use the image of a candidate to make their decision and do not factor in the issues.
Shapiro discusses the midterm elections stating, “the expectation of a GOP tidal wave is so ingrained in the media and politically sophisticated voters that it is easy to imagine the morning-after headlines.” The concept in politics of living in the future and always planning for what comes next gets old for Americans. The public hears from the press how a political situation will turn out, and then the opposite comes true. People become exhausted of hearing about the possible results and choose to do the opposite.
Shapiro argues, “what if some of these voters impetuously decide to rewrite their lines without telling the pollsters?” Reporters may lose credibility when their predictions are wrong. They do not intend to trick voters by reporting the facts they gathered, which can turn out to be the opposite of the results. The public must realize that political consultants are not all knowing and polls are not always accurate. I suppose we will have to wait and see if there are any surprises in the midterm elections.
Shapiro, Walter. “Is 2010 the Year Voters Turn Polls on Their Heads?” Politics Daily. 7 Oct. 2010. Web. 9 Oct. 2010. http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/10/07/is-2010-the-year-american-voters-turn-polls-on-their-heads.
Waterman, Richard W., Robert Wright, and Gilbert St. Clair. The Image-is-Everything Presidency: Dilemmas in American Leadership. Boulder: Westview Press, 1999.
This is a very interesting argument. However, what you are suggesting is that the polling process is no longer reliable and the public, as well as political analysts are not able to get an accurate depiction of the way people are going to vote. But this is nothing new. Polls, as accurate as we think they are, are always flawed in some way.
ReplyDeleteAlso, although I can see the logic behind Shapiro’s argument, I believe that there is more to consider when judging this primary election’s outcome. First, the reason why polls so heavily favor the GOP this November, is because they are expecting the right wing voters to have a greater turnout. Also, in political elections (I would at least PRAY) that voters vote based on ideological grounds, not merely because they wish to upset the status quo.
However, image obviously does come into play in elections. Image can only do so much to change a person’s beliefs but it has a huge bearing on undecided and independent voters. For example, Waterman calls Regan “The ultimate media President” and “ from the beginning of his Presidency, Regan’s image makers carefully crafted public perceptions of the president in order to increase his personal popularity, even if the public did not agree with him on personal policy stances.” (Waterman, 53)
Polls being used too often in the media do contribute to what some may refer to as a "horse race" prior to the actual election. It's an interesting concept to examine which comes first- do polls sway the public opinion one way or do they accurately measure it? I think one problem with this is when the media assumes that the public can be an authority on the subject at hand. But I do agree however that the public is an authority when it comes to the image of the presidency, which is why their polls on certain subjects are important in gauging what is to happen in the media. I disagree however with the statement that the opposite tends to happen in polls. Polls are rarely ever accurate down right to the percentage point when it comes to predicting elections, but the public likes to hear hard numbers and facts, which is why the media relies so heavily on publishing those numbers in their reports. Using those numbers too heavily can be detrimental to the foundation of the media's news, but the public wants numbers.
ReplyDeleteI think that you presented an interesting argument. The most recent episode of Family Guy incorporated the idea you discussed, specifically when you referenced how “all this is prelude to an against-the-grain notion.” However, I think the issue is not so much that people are dead set on doing the opposite of public opinion, after all, that's somewhat impossible since people make up public opinion. I think the problem lies in the reliability of polls. There are a few trusted polling institutes, but it is relatively simple to shape poll statistics into whatever idea you'd like to put forth. Perhaps if media were more honest about the amount of people polled, in what demographic, and how the questions were framed this would be less of an issue. Question framing is perhaps the most important, for instance you can ask "Do you feel that guns are dangerous, violent, and harmful to children?" or you can ask "Do you feel that people should have the right to own guns." Both questions cater to a specific answer, rather than letting the individual decide for him/herself. This is why I personally ignore almost every poll statistic I'm presented with. Now it may not mean that ever poll is wrong, but I'd rather be reliant on facts and issues than public opinion. I think that people should depend less on media and more on their own research. However, if I was to venture a guess as to what is the most influential factor on voting I would say it's party affiliation and economic status. You may not know much about your local republican representative, but if times are good, and you're a republican too you're probably going to vote for him anyway.
ReplyDelete