the 24-hour campaign

Today’s “political memo” in the Times considers the difficulty candidates have in punching through the 24-hour news environment, finding a message that will stick in voters’ minds (and giving up on the single crafted message that is designed to “set the agenda”).


3 Responses to “the 24-hour campaign”

  1. Melissa Macaya Says:

    This article more than ever is evidence of our fast paced society that no longer settles with the traditional. With so many sources of information out there, not only are the presidential candidates found competing with each other, but so is the media. And of course, instead of finding fault within their own words, the candidates and their followers use the media as a scapegoat for blame. Just like many thousands of Americans, I too have been sucked into this inevitable media frenzy that bombards you with different opinions, sources and evidence. I, however don’t see it as harmful as the politicians might say. I see it as the beauty of journalism and democracy. As more information is presented to you, your opinions are shaped and you’re forced to take a stance. The importance here is not how much information we are given, but the impact and quality of it. Politicians need to step it up and mesh into this 24-hour news mayhem or else they will just draw back into the sidelines.

  2. Aaron H. Says:

    This article continues the studies and trends noted in the Tuned Out textbook. People know of the upcoming election. People know it showcases McCain and Obama. Simply put, however, people don’t care. A person can come home from work or school and watch what they want, and go to sleep; no one wants to add extra stress to their lives by watching two educated men call each other names that the normal American won’t understand.

    This article hopes that when the debates come around, America will tune in, showing enough interest in their country’s future to give a damn. Instead, more people will watch Heroes, The Real World, and House, and once again, voter percentage will drop.

  3. Arti Bhatia Says:

    The conclusion of the article is somewhat representative of my opinion on the news mayhem:
    “…this glut of information has created, at least for now, a level playing field where voters are taking in all this information, but ultimately will believe most of what they see with their own eyes.”
    The diverse and ample news resources might provide individuals with an overwhelming amount of information, but it seems that people can reasonable sift through the material and filter out information they believe to be irrelevant. In the face of this frenzy, I do not believe the solution is to simply disregard the media, but I do caution against the practice of politicians to use the media to create a distraction from real issues. I agree with the article’s claim that other political practices (debates) can provide a reliable platform for politicians to voice their opinions and consequently function as a check against such distractions, allowing the public to focus on/isolate the relevant issues.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: