This module's readings attempt to characterize the relationship between mass media and political parties/candidates. What is missing here? What don't the readings explain? What questions do you stil

This module's readings attempt to characterize the relationship between mass media and political parties/candidates. What is missing here? What don't the readings explain? What questions do you still have? Find a news article that answers some of those questions and cite it here.

*Note: Reaction posts should be approximately 2 paragraphs in length. Responses to other students do not have a length requirement but serve as your participation grade (i.e., the more thorough the better).

Links to readings 

http://journalism.uoregon.edu/news/six-ways-media-influences-elections/

https://www.thebalancecareers.com/how-politicians-use-media-to-win-elections-2315204

https://www.wired.com/story/ossoff-social-media-campaign/

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Student replies 

3 sentences each 

#1

The readings for this module explain a decent amount between mass media and parties/candiates. The University of Organs article in particular explains how the media faces politicians. The readings neglect to address tone and partisan attitudes of mass media regarding politicians.

https://niskanencenter.org/blog/media-bias-real-perceived-rise-partisan-media/ states that while many perceive the media to be more biased than ever, "partisan bias is actually the norm in media history." While there have been claims that the media is more biased to liberals than conservatives,"Overall, studies examining the content of news coverage have not found consistent evidence of bias favoring Democrats or Republicans across many different elections. There are studies finding Republican bias and studies finding Democratic bias. Others find only media bias toward the frontrunner, regardless of party. Dave D’Alessio examines 99 prior studies of presidential election coverage bias and finds no consistent partisan bias." The article also claims that officials lambastment of the mainstream media has lead to the creation of more biased media sources that cover candidates with more favorable biases.   

#2

In the articles that we read this week, I learned just how much social media impacted politics. Being savvy in social media during a camping is a real game changer. Social media is the new way that the public can take a closer look into candidate's campaigns. People don't really read the news anymore. It is all bout TV, and the Internet, and all the social media that we can access in one push of a button. This is one statement that didn't really surprise me, but just supports me; "According to a recent Pew Research Center study, 62 percent of Americans get their news via social media platforms." Social media is very important to a campaign because any announcement or anything can be shared to millions of people very quickly. One thing that I read in another article that I didn't see in our articles for this week is how they are getting this information out - sharing. "he White House's Facebook page has nearly half a million fans; its Twitter feed has 1.7 million followers. That's no surprise: President Obama was the first candidate to announce his White House run via Web video and his vice presidential pick by text message." I found this very cool and interesting because it shows how much we have evolved. The idea that the President shares information through Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc is so cool to me and really shows how personable social media can be. 

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2010/02/04/5-ways-new-media-are-changing-politics 

#3

In reading the articles I noticed that the impact of social media in politics has become a central focal point of a candidates campaign. Using the media as a means to promote the individual along with the issues that they plan on tackling in office is a sure way to put them out their publically. I do believe that a lot of what is being written may not necessarily be true, and the ads, interviews, news conferences, etc always have an agenda to promote the candidate. 

Depending on which side of the media you are on can either hurt or help a candidate. There are a lot of ads that are put on reflecting more negatives against each other, rather than focusing on what the issues they plan to tackle are. Public perception of a candidate is huge in regards to swaying voters.  While on freedom house it listed countries that have internet freedom, allowing the internet to be used as a means to manipulate and disinform the citizens.  What struck out the most is that in bold on the site it stated that "Governments around the world have dramatically increased their efforts to manipulate information on social media over the past year.  So how can you trust who is being elected when those who are being elected play a part in that statement? 

https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-net/freedom-net-2017