
[
Home ] [ 1960 ] [
2000 ] [ Comparison ] [ Timeline
]
Television. In 1960 the first televised debates occured, revolutionizing
the way that politics was done in the United States. The television
has been, for 40 years, the focal point of advertising, fundraising,
and communicating. Now it's the year 2000. Enter the world wide web.
Could this be the "television" of the
future? In other words, could the web revolutionize the way politics
are handled? Consider that the base audience available on the web is
growing everyday, that the web is a highly interactive medium, and that
is very inexpensive. It's advantages are enormous. It is our contention
that the phenomenon surrounding the effect television had on politics
in 1960 is occuring again. The world wide web is the new front for political
battles, and whoever learns to take advantage of the technology may
have a distinct advantage in the future.
TRENDS IN TELEVISION TECHNOLOGY
1960 - 2000
Since the sixties, television has become one of the most dominant technologies
in both the private and public spheres of American society. Rampant
TV ownership began, primarily in 1956 when 73% of Americans owned sets
in their home, doubling the number of owners from1952 (47, 24). The
number of sets owned continues to increase. Television grew to become
the dominant medium for political communication, broadcasting speeches,
debates, ads, etc...
TELEVISION AND POLITICS
1960 - 2000
The Debates
Given that the vast majority of Americans own TV sets in their home,
consequently, TV has remained a steady source of political news for
Americans, whereas radio usage has sharply declined (35). The 1960 election
between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon launched a new era in politics
such that American voters now enjoy the opportunity to view, and ultimately
judge, their presidential candidates through publicly aired, TV debates.
For over four decades, these debates have continued to shape the minds
and decisions of American voters, with 90% having viewed at least one
of the three, aired debates between Al Gore and George W. Bush in the
2000 presidential election (39).
The Commercials
During the elections over these past four decades, TV has been used,
not only for airing such debates, but also for advertising the candidates.
In the 1992 presidential race between Bill Clinton, George Bush, and
Ross Perot, 90% of American TV viewers reported having seen such commercials
for each of the candidates, and as a result, formed opinions about each
of the candidates (33); 55% of American viewers believed
Perot ran the most informative commercials, followed by Clinton at 20%
and Bush at a trailing 8% (41). Yet beginning with the 1996 election
between Clinton and Bob Dole, opinion polls have since reported a growing
dissatisfaction with these commercials. During this election, the majority
of Americans believed that labor unions and corporations were in the
wrong for endorsing presidential candidates on TV (3). In the 2000 election,
this negative sentiment has persisted. 65% of registered voters surveyed
would have preferred a series of structured presidential debates in
lieu of the frequent campaign commercials (4), and half of another surveyed
population of voters attested to being at least somewhat bothered by
these TV ads (38). Yet the American TV viewing population does not represent
the only group that remains bothered by the ads. During the 2000 election,
campaign spending, including TV ad spending, reached an excessive peak
for both the Democratic and Republican parties. As a result, special
interest groups and other lobbying organizations have pressed more strongly
for campaign finance reform. Moreover, these reform efforts have spread
even among bi-partisan lines, with the Democrats, Republicans and more
notably the Green Party all making reform a at least somewhat of a plank
in their platforms. The web may allow groups to eliminate much of this
by making commericals an optional stop on a tour of their web site,
along with a host of other possibilities.
|
 |
The Loss of Control
As TV continues to serve as the dominant technology used in the political
scene, it has taken some control out of the hands of both special interest
groups and the American public in terms of their ability to contribute
to the democratic election process. Special interest groups have failed
to achieve much reform in campaign finance as it remains fixed in a
political impasse; in the 2000 election, the presidential race proved
to be so close that parties were forced depend heavily on campaign spending,
just to attract enough voters for even a slight lead. On the other hand,
Americans have lost some control in obtaining the most in-depth and
accurate political information as possible. Essentially, TV presents
to the public information according only to the will of media producers.
Not all information about domestic and foreign affairs is publicly displayed,
and often, this information is wrong. During the 2000 election, major
news stations declared Gore as the winner of the presidential race even
before all of the voting was completed, and faced the backlash of an
angry public when official voting results gathered after the fact forced
them to retract Gore's victory and instead declare the race too close
to call. Even during the fifties, the media had such elitist qualities
when newspapers ran headings falsely declaring Dewey the winner over
Truman. Furthermore, Americans have remained helpless, not only in situations
such as the Florida scandal, but also by the onslaught of endless TV
ads that, especially in swing states like Michigan and Ohio, devoured
serious air time. In effect, TV has forced the American public to rely
more strongly on election information that is given to them, rather
than on information they seek themselves. During the 1960 election,
more Americans wrote to their political officials and special interest
leaders to obtain information about elections and politics than they
have written during more recent elections (5). In essence, the uni-directional
nature of television is becoming a hinderence to it being an effective
tool.
WORLD WIDE WEB: THE NEW
TECHNOLOGY FOR POLITICS 2004?
Giving back the control
Since the rise of web technology in 1993, Americans have enjoyed a new
way of regaining some of their control over obtaining accurate information
that they had lost as a result of the rise of the television since 1952.
From the word "internet" springs "interactive," which denotes
a mutual or reciprocal relationship between two or more parties. Whereas
TV provides simply a uni-directional form of communication technology,
the internet and the world wide web not only allow individuals to receive
information, but also to engage in the retrieval of this information.
A TV news station may dispense information only according to the producers'
will, but the web remains open for individuals to search more broadly
through varied sources of information, and consequently, to add to this
plethora of information often referred to as an "information highway."
Currently, internet use in America continues to increase, from a mere
9% of Americans accessing the web regularly in 1996 to a striking 83%
in 2000 (31), and it also continues to expand among demographics, include
greater numbers of minorities who are beginning to access the web regularly
(44). As we've demonstrated elsewhere on the site, while the internet
itself is not yet as used among minorities, more minorities do use the
web for powerful purposes, like obtaining their news and political information.
Entire sites devoted to the minority perspective gives them a chance
to see things in a way not available on traditional media
In addition to designing basic web pages, such web tools as message
boards, chat rooms, and news groups allow people to give information
back to their retrieval source by conversing with others outside of
their regular social circles. This tool has even resulted in the powerful
vote-swapping phenomenon, which has caused an uproar in some states.
The web has essentially allowed voters of a certain mindset to swap
votes for candidates so that certain candidates can get their government
funding in the next election, and other candidates get a better chance
of winning in a close state. Moreover, like the Americans who wrote
letters to their political leaders more frequently in the sixties, increasing
numbers of modern-day Americans are beginning to send such letters via
pre-composed e-letters which require only minor textual changes, a name
entry, and a home and email address. All the short comings that a uni-directional
technology like television has can be solved with the world wide web,
which in itself is not even yet fully developed. The possibilities seem
nearly endless.
Bibliography
1. America's Watching; Public Attitudes toward Television, Roper Organization,
Jan 1993
2. CBS News Poll, New York Times, 12 Sept 2000
3. CBS News Poll, New York Times, 22 Oct 1996
4. CBS News Poll, New York Times, 27 March 2000
5. Citizenship Survey, National Opinion Research Center, March 1960
6. Congress and Media Coverage Survey, Institute for Social Inquiry,
Roper Center, June 1996
7. Democracy Corps Survey, Greenberg Quinlan Research, 13 Sept 2000
8. Gallup Poll, Cable News Network, 2 Oct 2000
9. Gallup Poll, Cable News Network, Oct 1992
10. Gallup Poll, Gallup Organization, 5 Jan 1966
11. Gallup Poll, April 1965
12. Gallup Poll, June 1965
13. Gallup Poll, Dec 1965
14. Gallup Poll, 11 Nov 1964
15. Gallup Poll, Gallup Organization, 22 Nov 1960
16. Gallup Poll, 7 March 1960
17. Gallup Poll, 4 Aug 1960
18. Gallup Poll, 30 Aug 1960
19. Gallup Poll, 15 July 1958
20. Gallup Poll, May 1957
21. Gallup Poll, 30 April 1957
22. Gallup Poll, 19 Dec 1956
23. Gallup Poll, May 1956
24. Gallup Poll, Sep 1952
25. Gallup Poll, Nov 1956
26. Gallup Poll, June 1952
27. Gallup Poll, 8 Aug 1952
28. Gallup Poll, 19 Jan 1951
29. Gallup Poll , Aug 1950
30. Harris Poll, Luis Harris and Associates, 18 Feb 1998
31. Harris Poll, Louis Harris and Associates, 15 Feb 1996
32. Harris Poll, Louis Harris and Associates, 18 Nov 1996
33. Harris Poll, Louis Harris and Associates, 22 Nov 1992
34. Harris Poll, Louis Harris and Associates, April 1965
35. Los Angeles Times Poll, 27 Sept 2000
36. Markle Foundation Election Watch Campaign, Princeton Survey Research
Associates, 8 Nov 1996
37. News Interest Index Poll, Princeton survey research associates,
17 Feb 2000
38. News Interest Index Poll, Princeton survey research associates,
23 March 2000
39. Opinion Dynamics, Fox News Poll, Opinion Dynamics, 26 June 2000
40. People and the Press Biennial Media Consumption Survey, Princeton
Survey Research Associates, 11 June 2000
41. People, the Press, and Politics Poll, Princeton Survey Research
Associates, 15 Nov 1992
42. People and the Press Political Poll, Princeton Survey Research Associates,
15 Oct 2000
43. People and the Press Poll, Princeton Survey Research Associates,
15 Nov 1996
44. People and the Press Typology Survey, Princeton Survey Research
Associates, 14 Sept 2000
45. People and the Press Voter Attitudes Survey, Princeton Survey Research
Associates, 13 July 2000
46. Roper Commercial, Roper Organization, 7 Feb 1994
47. Roper Commercial, Roper Organization, Sep 1956
48. Technology and Online Use Survey, Princeton Survey Research Associates,
16 Oct 1995
49. Time, CNN, Yankelovich Partners Poll, Yankelovich Partners, Inc.,
July 1996
50. Tracking Online Life Survey, Princeton Survey Research Associates,
10 May 2000
51. Values Update Survey, Princeton Survey Research Associates, 20 April
1998
52. Wave Poll, Washington Post, 14 Jan 1997
[
Home ] [ 1960 ] [
2000 ] [ Comparison ] [ Timeline
]
|