Ironically, Politics and Television reaches the same conclusion about the effects of television as Fireside Politics reached about the effects of radio. A new medium comes along. Proponents and Opponents quickly develop. The proponents preach of how this medium will change political campaigning forever, as well as what a great educational tool the new medium is. They also stress how said new medium will allow citizens to hear candidates in their own words and make more informed decisions about who they should vote for. Meanwhile, opponents of the new medium talk about the potential for abuse, as well as fight over means for regulating it and insuring that political campaigning does not become the same as selling kids breakfast cereal.
However, both books reach the same conclusion. New mediums change political campaigning, but not as much as some would like us to believe. People are still apathetic. No matter how perfect the regulatory structure, one candidate always spends more than the other. But life goes on. Politicians still spend money on advertising in more traditional mediums and still travel the country to achieve a personal touch with the electorate.
All of this is not meant to discount the true changes that did occur. It is merely to put things into perspective, noting that while methods may change, the essential principals stayed the same.
For next week, I plan to continue Politics and Television. Once this is complete, I will have read about the effects of newspapers, radio, and early television on political campaigning. At this point, I will attempt to outline where my December paper is going to go and try to figure out what areas I need to conduct more research in.
No comments:
Post a Comment