Kyle Baker

This conversation is closed.

Does the media choose our presidential candidates for us?

The first result that comes up on Google when you search for Ron Paul is Mitt Romney's website. Upon opening Yahoo's main page, the headline reads as if no other candidate other than Mitt Romney is in the running. Trying to keep opinion aside and sticking to the hard facts, how drastically does the media sway the votes of the people? Lets back up our responses with real evidence!

  • Feb 9 2012: I am really afraid of what is going on in global scale. We are absolutely inflienced by media , and this inclination forces our brain to adapt at new informations much faster and faster. New human being began to absorb informations through a new media. Being a open mind is good; nonetheless , we have to be make sure that we are able to distinguish our inputs. " Mind should be kept independently without arousing any thought in it ," Meditator.

    So, Absolutely , Media can choose our president candidates for us. And , they will.
    We have to afraid what is behind the scene( the media).

    Kyle Baker , make sure " You are awaken"
    " Live moment to moment."

    Thank you , God bless you!
  • thumb
    Feb 8 2012: Daah!
  • Feb 5 2012: One can build as many conspiracy theories as one wants, but they'll miss the point if the golden rule is not at their center: It's about money.

    TV / radio / etc. .... Big "establishment" Media is in the entertainment business for a profit. Their goal is to capture as many viewers as they can for as long as they can. That increases the price of advertising. The best thing is to have two equally bad candidates running against each other. They need to be bad because that generates fear that the worst one will win. That keeps people on the edge of their seats and tuning in every day, in a constant state of anxiety, to see how things are going. It helps too if the two really bad candidates are both extremely corrupt, because that means they'll have a lot of money to spend on advertising themselves .... and they'll have to spend the money advertising because it will be a close race for many months.

    Thus: The desired situation is Romney verses Gingrich in the primaries followed by Romney verses Obama. Ron Paul must be marginalized; not just because he's not bank-rolling crooked lobbyist money, but because he'd run away with in in the general election. That would significantly reduce expected Big Media income.

    BTW: You can get your website to the top of the Google search by paying Google.
    • thumb
      Feb 5 2012: so you think that big media corporations can foresee the future? they could tell beforehand that obama would bring drama and war and turmoil? i mean, he looked like the guy that really means ending the war and working together, not really something a journalist can write about. why did they let obama take the presidency? they knew he won't deliver?

      how do they know romney, if he wins, won't trash the country? it is not good for the media corporations either, they go down too. or how do they know the financial crisis won't eventually make him change his mind, and get the troops home, looking for cheaper solutions, or less involvement in global issues?

      i believe the secret lies in this sentence:

      "Their goal is to capture as many viewers as they can for as long as they can."

      i believe the media does not care. they just sell what people buy. people want to hear about bombing our fearful enemies? put the candidates talking about that on the screen! people listen to any news of tragedies and danger? talk about global warming, tornadoes, supervolcanoes, terrorists with nukes and all these stuff so they watch. they don't pick candidates to support. people do. they can stop this with pressing a single button on the remote. or simply by changing their mind about what is important.

      should people see things as people vs establishment, and ron paul as a "knight of the people" lonely fighting the orc armies of black mage oligarchs, the media would present this battle instead. it is a good story! they would love to broadcast that struggle. but people don't buy it.
      • Feb 5 2012: I'll try to respond in the order of your comments, but I think you missed my point once. I don't think the media "cares" either in the same way that you or I do. What I'm saying is that they just want to make money. They only have to see the future in terms of the candidates running for office. Even I can do that. If elected, Romney will continue to trash the country. You can count on it. Romney doesn't "care" either. He's not trying to get into office to be a good president. Everyone acknowledges that he's an "establishment candidate." So, I'm not saying anything that isn't already common knowledge. (Except some people don't know what that means. They actually think it's a good thing. LOL!)

        The big money maker is in the election process itself. They are taking advantage of that - pumping it for as much profit as they can get. They don't see longer term thinking as having any value. Many business school graduates are like that now. They choose to take as much money as they can get as fast as possible. "In the long run, we'll all be dead."

        They're also doing some battles with the black knights kinds of things. But remember - it's the entertainment industry. To capture the audience they're going after with that, the need black helicopters crashing into HARP buildings with plenty of commentary about the possibility that the friend of the wife of a CIA agent's mother might possibly have passed through the area at one time. Great cover up, huh? If they weren't trying to hide something, why didn't the CIA agent go himself?

        It's that or you can switch channels to get the latest gossip on Newt Gingrich's infidelity during his three marriages, a build up to a cute response in an actual presidential debate. Who needs Jerry Springer?
  • thumb
    Feb 4 2012: Of course not Krisztian. I was merely using "our choice" speaking of the country as a whole, and simply pointing out how easily most humans take in whatever they read as gospel. The format of advertising, televised media and the use of images has a pretty profound impact on the mind, and thinking critically to get around those parameters is not quite the common trend...But yes, we can find the right sources of media and research the candidates and form a legitimate opinion of those we put into public office
    • thumb
      Feb 5 2012: so you believe that media can tell other people how to vote, but not you. why? what is the difference?
      • thumb
        Feb 9 2012: We are all told who we can vote for. The Media can remove any candidate from running, so while perhaps they cannot pick who will win they can certainly choose who will run and then they can choose who will lose. I voted for my choice, and ive voted for the candidate i thought was best of who would win

        The media can destroy or choose not to destroy a political figure. If Reagan or Bush I and Bush II were to be as harshly investigated and chastized by the media, then there fates might have been more like Nixions, is it un clear to you that the presidents (with the exception of Cartte, and Clinton) have been as Guilty of crimes as Nixon was most of much worse crimes that Nixion, Carter withthe daily front page box count of the days the hostages had been held was ruined by the media.... where were the box scores for Iraq? Afganistan? The Impeachment of Bill Clinton was over the charge of lying to congress, which was done by Reagan and Bush the I about Iran and the wepons deals and the contras, Bush the II stood in front of a joint seesion of Congress and lie during his state of the union address, he violated the united states constitutions supremacy clause that makes all ratified treaties the highest law of the land. Not to mention the united states war crimes act, as laid out in UCS 18 2448 so these past years the Teflon President Bush the I and Shrub have all gotten virtual free rides from the media. While the press coverage that was negative and antagonistic against Carter Clinton and now Obahma has been crushing. I will be surprised to see Obama win this election and that is without even guessing who he'll run against.
        • thumb
          Feb 9 2012: "he Media can remove any candidate from running"

          really? how?
        • thumb
          Feb 9 2012: Krisztián, you have underestimated the power of gossips and slanders. Don't you have magazines such as 'Hello!' in your country? There are enough people in this world who care not about the truth but sensational and scandalous material.
        • thumb
          Feb 9 2012: no, edward, i'm very much clear on that. but i say the problem is not media, they just serve the demand of people. the problem is people.
    • Feb 9 2012: We deceive ourselves . We think we make a choice , but we select a choice that has already been manufactured in terms of reason(intention) behindit.

      Krisztian , PEOPLE ARE THE CENTER OF THE MEDIA , SO WHAT HUMAN BEING SHOULD DO?
      As a buddhist , I would like to ask? Can emptiness apply to the medida.
      Everything is empty , where is emptiness in the world wide web (or media)
      • thumb
        Feb 9 2012: about emptiness. one must understand that the nature of *everything* around us is emptiness. it is not an argument against or for anything. your body is illusion. a log of wood is illusion. so yes, media is exactly as real as a piece of rock is. it is pretty much real for your senses. dwelling on that does not help to understand its behavior and place inside the samsara.

        as a metaphor, it is like your friends talk about whether deckard was a replicant or not, and you reply that no, he is just a role in a movie. it is not a correct answer, the question was asked within the framework of the movie, not in the outside world.
      • thumb
        Feb 11 2012: As much as I'd like to think that the Buddha might have been a cool dude, "emptiness" is not solving our problems at the moment, or is it?

        Of course, we can't deny the possibility that one day if everybody starts blending into a tree or a lamp post next to him/her, stop doing anything, and most importantly, stop pretending whatever it is that they're doing is in any way meaningful, a radically different world may emerge.
  • thumb
    Feb 3 2012: In a nutshell, yes and no. Whoever pays off the media decides who the candidate will be...the media ensures we only hear good things about them and only bad things about the other candidates (or they get no attention whatsoever) and then we, like automatons, believing we are free-thinking, put the paper in the ballot box where we've been told to.

    We also believe that we are not affected by advertising...so why do Macdonalds spend over a billion a year on it...misguided are they? I doubt it. In the recent trials in Britain over phone-tapping, Rupert Murdoch talked of how sick he was having to court Presidents, Prime Ministers and world leaders. Now that the internet is beginning to replace newspapers, the government and corporations are trying and succeeding in gaining as much control as possible over it. They're not stupid...they know we are sheep, and lazy sheep at that.
  • thumb
    Feb 11 2012: btw i just took the effort to test the claim in the opening statement. the first result if you google ron paul, for me, is wikipedia article about him, and the second is his official campaign website. third is news. 4th is his own website. romney is not on the first page.

    but as far as i know, google results are affected by our previous choices and clicks. so maybe the problem with google is your own set of preferences? maybe it is a good metaphor for the problem being with media is the reader?
    • thumb
      Feb 11 2012: You're right. There is an inherent bias on my part when reading anything presented to be skeptical and accusatory. I try to be mindful of my own blindness so thank you for pointing that out. There is something to be said about the way you conduct your conversations on this forum. You obviously have many great things to offer Krisztian but your responses are often heated and a little offensive. This isn't necessary. I can understand to a certain extent your frustration with what people put out as their opinion. This site is for educating each other. Your words are very insightful and thoughtful, but I feel that your frustration shines through more than those ideas. Just something to be aware of. But thank you. And as far as google goes, I'm not sure why Mitt Romney's campaign would be the first to appear if google results were dictated by previous searches...
  • Feb 11 2012: Hi Kyle! ( how are ya? ) The media will never confess up to your comment. Hence, I cannot supply hard evidence. The American humans, have a very hard choice to make. Huey, Duey or Luey? :) It is all one sided. They make the money. They have the, big factor in the decision. Our own Supreme Court, has cashed in on it. So , cannot give you, real evidence. ( oops, I bad ) :)
  • Feb 10 2012: Technically no, the media doesn't choose our Presidential candidates. Persons of high political ambition and their sponsors and confederates use and abuse the media to advance the candidate they affiliate themselves with. That means that besides being a vehicle for promotion of one candidate and/or the vilification of opponents, the media--especially the Internet can be abused to misdirect people who search for information to self-serving sites which bend or break many of the traditional rules of the broadcast and print media for being truthful and accurate.

    What people see in the media DOES however weigh heaviest on what people perceive as the field from which to chose. A person without the funds to use the media or abuse the media will not make it into that field. It is sometimes true that media organizations themselves will make self-serving choices to exclude coverage of those who run for high office because they are businesses driven by ratings. Thus a Buddy Roehmer whom has done what it takes to run for President officially and has political credentials of a record of being in high state office does not get coverage. He is judged by the media and thus sentenced by the media. In that regard, the media could be said to choose who we get to see as the Presidential candidates, but the media are not a cooperative force who initiate the processes of running persons for POTUS.
  • Feb 10 2012: Yes the media has a dramatic impact on our perceptions of Presidential candidates, but as more media falls into our control, I believe we can take this power back.

    Try to listen to views beyond limited bubbles in researching for my recent voting I was happy find much more information on what exactly my Representative have done. I think we have the ability to be better informed and make better choices, we just have to do our unpleasant homework, and provide a good sales pitch for why our views our correct to our fellow Americans.

    Ron Paul like Al Sharpton for the democrats has helped shape the issues but I think has some ideas too far from the mainstream. Because the media views both in similar lights, they tend to side step the candidates despite sometimes doing well in preliminary debates or polls.

    Picking a winner. People like to see that their source of information is accurate in past current and future text. The Dewey Defeats Truman blunder is truly a nightmare if you are trying to be an accurate source. I think one direction this leads is a lot of mainstream media tends to try to make safe stable predictions that are somewhat re-enforcing.
    • thumb
      Feb 10 2012: I think that the coming shift in how people acess their news will bring about a huge change. T would like to see paid access to web sites that have no advertiser and are outlets for joournalists, journalist co-ops where the number of readers you have determines your share of revenues, channels where you are fined for mistakeds in facts or dropped for out right false hoods.... The radio yesterdaty said that they practiced fact based Journalism, the only alternative to fact based journalism is opion based as far as I can see, and thats just the same as saying propaganda.
  • Feb 9 2012: Your social and cultural background choses for you.
  • thumb
    Feb 9 2012: Krisz- If what you say is true what is wrong with yur country? Why have the people not reformed the tax system that you told me about? You say the Media just serves the demands of the people ? Next you'll say the same thing about politicians. I am looking forward to a more web based election soon but I'll tell you what, when it happens the wealthy parties will hire chatters and contacts to create a flood of "grassroots activist and supporters" I think its cute the way you act as if the world was going to play by the rules of the social contract when everywhere you look you see the only 2 rules that are being respected by the elite are Win!, and Don't get caught
    • thumb
      Feb 9 2012: not next time, i said it already. politicians also do what people buy. they don't care what will happen. they do whatever buys them one more vote. exactly that is the problem.

      solution: we need to educate the people.
  • thumb
    Feb 9 2012: You live in land of dreams and ideals if you think that the media serves anyone but its own self interests. For that matter you are in a dreamworld if you think anyone does anything out of altruism. The media is a business the journalist have to please management and the advertisers, there is a position in a journalism business called editor. the decide what to run or not run in the paper or whatever. How does the media them serve me? The Media serves its owners interests and it does it with out shame.
  • thumb
    Feb 9 2012: Its hard to say that hes just a country boy with no media support though,he has $34,336,169 to spend. Do you think he actually would be in the running with out the media? If you dont think he could be where hes at without the media then he is another media selected candidate
  • Feb 9 2012: Check out this video on YouTube: this may answer your question, or evoke deeper answers

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIzx14AsK2s&feature=youtube_gdata_player
  • thumb
    Feb 8 2012: Thank you for presuming to express my actual opinion, which assumes both that you are so insightful as to know it, and that I am by intent or carelessness lying.You might imagine that that offends me.In my opinion, everyone is "smart enough" to make the choice for who they think would be the best leader of a Democracy, certainly I am able to make choices between in the finite field that I am able to investigate, or discover as well as those revealed to me via media. The real issue is not that the "Majority is Hijacked, " but that the minority is lionized.,The minority who are able to afford media coverage, and those out of this minority who are by the journalists and media pundits deemed "presidential" ,are able to reach people; where as a perfectly competent and qualified person is notFor example how about Ms. G She is lets say a PHD in Economics ,Who has retired from years of working with the state department and has been elected to the state senate a few times,and was once an unofficial presidential ambassador to Spain during a crisis,. Ms. G would never have a chance of being noticed by more that a very few people let alone elected without either a huge amount of money, a unforeseen event elevating her to a media sensation, such as lady Gaga singing about her or a basic change in how informationreaches votersI have high hopes that in coming years campaigns that rely on internet contacts and blogs websites and social networking will answer to the limiting power of big media. I also support the idea that the media access of office seekers be regulated to require them to have no more than equal access to the media, I think that the FCCshould step in and prevent the ads that present opinion as fact or manufacture facts(that is lie) as well as forbidding any sort of negative ad to be paid for by anyone but the candidates campaign, those ads paid for byPAC's and SUPERPAC's should be required to include at the end of the ad which contributor backed this particular
  • Feb 8 2012: I think that when trying to find to what extent the media sways the votes, you have to look at the given change in public opinion in regards to the different tools politicians have to influence it... once you know that, you have to look at the media's power to decide what to show and how to show it and deduce what their capacity to warp reality is.
    adding up the analasis should provide the extent of the influence...

    to answer the question in a general manner (because everything depends on the culture), the media influences the votes... is it the only factor that needs to be taken into account because of it's importance? i think so.
  • thumb
    Feb 8 2012: Yes .
    • thumb
      Feb 8 2012: they choose for you?
      • thumb
        Feb 8 2012: They choose who reaches the public, and who reaches to polls, and who is perceived as "electable" or not.

        Not for me.

        But my choice is not relevant against the tide of people who allow the media to choose for them.

        It does not matter that I was a Delegate fo Kucinich to the state convention, he was "unelectable" and Howard Dean, he was killed as a candidate by the media reaction to a inarticulate cheer he made on microphone

        ,Observing and acknowledging reality does not mean you are passively accepting that reality, in fact without a clear view of reality what can you hope to do to change it for the better.

        In reply to the question in this thread,about media and candidate selection I repeat:

        Yes.

        Does that mean I like and will allow it go without attempting to change the situation.?

        No.
        • thumb
          Feb 8 2012: okay, so your actual opinion is that you are smart enough to choose, and some others, but the majority is just hijacked by anyone with enough media coverage.

          question. how do you plan to maintain a democracy with such people around? if the media don't feed them bullshit, do you think nobody else will? they won't believe in the stupidest ideas even without the media? if you get rid of media influence, they suddenly turn into responsible, thinking individuals?
  • thumb
    Feb 8 2012: No, media does not choose presidential candidates and/or presidents for us, but it does have tremendous impact on forming public opinion. However, final decision is on us. Good marketing is very important in presidential race. It is well known that one must have money to pay ads, so the more expensive campaign, more chancest to win. There is no quality that can compnensate publicity. Media must be deployed to form best possible public opinion, otherwise defeat is inevitable.
    • Feb 8 2012: forming public opinion is choosing a condidate. The final decision is theoretically on us but it's naïf to think that because of that we have liberty of choice.
      If marketing is important in the presidential race and marketing is done by the media, the media chooses the president to a certain extent.
  • Feb 7 2012: The media never chose the candidates for us. We just never looked beyond our backyards.
    • thumb
      Feb 9 2012: We look sometimes as far as the neighbors backyards, but if the media desides to show you cheering awkwardly into a mike over and over and overwhile saying how unpresidential you are. Then I defy you to win.
  • Feb 7 2012: The media is able to put a spin on things. Even if we do not agree with what the media says, it is similar to marketing - if we're surrounded by it, we will be affected by it. I doubt that the media chooses our presidential candidates. It certainly does help, though. The media is not a very honest tell-it-as-it-is resource, and unfortunately some people view it that way. The media is often the start of bandwagons.
  • thumb
    Feb 5 2012: .
    Voting is less about people making informed decisions and more about a popularity contest.

    To keep it simple:
    Step 1) Whoever agrees to give big business all the tax benefits, unneeded subsidies and turn a blind eye to the borderline-crimes against the country is the candidate who gets the most money behind them..

    Step 2) The candidate who gets the most money behind them gets the most publicity..

    Step 3) Because people generally lack reasonable judgement and education on the subjects at hand, they support whoever can spout the most buzz-words that they want to hear..Such as 'change' and 'yes we can'..

    Step 4) The one who is able to spout the most buzz-words over the campaign that people hear, wins.

    Theres also a branch set of steps where big business owns the media, thus candidates against the establishment get almost no attention, apparently which is demonstrated in Ron Pauls case, both now and in the past election.
  • Feb 4 2012: Not for me. I want one male and one female to be our co-Presidents. Hey, we have a big country. Maybe we need to double the leadership and one female and one male would give us the kind of rightbrain/leftbrain balance that will cause a more humane, efficient, effective, honest government while being a role model for equality between men and women throughout the world. I do write-in votes, when I'm not comfortable with any of the "official" candidates. Seems pretty sad that running for political office requires so much money and especially so much money from corporate sources that shield the names of the actual donors. We need a stronger, more independent media that is free of influence from the corporations that are buying legislation that benefits themselves and does not benefit the taxpayers. Taxpayers should not be subsidizing corporations. That is anti-capitalistic.
  • thumb
    Feb 4 2012: my question is: your choice is determined by media? don't talk me about "our choice". your choice personally depends on what the media tells you?
  • Feb 4 2012: The media controls everything, the only information that we can get about the candidates are from the media. But because the media is not controlled by only one person or group we will can choose which candidate to vote for based on your own judgement. I am from Taiwan the election that took place last year was from what I could tell solely controlled by the media.
    • thumb
      Feb 4 2012: "the only information that we can get about the candidates are from the media"

      or the internet. or friends. or colleagues. of family members. or thinking. or your knowledge of the appropriate fields. or foreign media.
      • thumb
        Feb 9 2012: Do you mean to say that you honestly believe that person can rise by word of mouth to the possition that they can defeat in an election a person who invests 100,s of millions of dollars on media spots? You are Naive.

        I know more about voting than you if you think that the media does not have the power to make or break a canidate. I can lookinto a canidate myself and like them but tell Howard Dean that the Media did not destroy him with that endless talk about his cheer. Or the any one on the recieving end of a carl rove media blitz. You are splitting hairs if you are diviiding the media from those who use it. You are a fool if you think that propaganda is powerless, and that peopel can just find out the truth. What is media? doesn't the internet count? what about books about or by the canidates? when issues are voted on then whose theory of economics do you read ?? when learning your history what happens to the parts of history that might decrease sales of a text book in on area or another of the country? Define Media. If it does not include everything including us what is it? And I hope I amd choosing canidates for some one here.
        • thumb
          Feb 9 2012: i didn't say that, i said what is written there. but yes, i think that too.

          ron paul is 2nd place in the race for republican candidacy. ron paul is first among young voters.
  • thumb
    Feb 4 2012: Democracy has been well and truly compromised by mainstream media. It's all about the capped teeth and snappy sound-bytes - all adding up to a big pile of nothing.

    There should be mainstream media blackouts leading up to elections.

    Social network commentary should be allowed (only if you are a mere, lowly voter and not involved directly in a campaign). It wouldn't take long, I know, before the filthy rich would infiltrate and use social networks to advertise their brand.

    Funnily enough, mass media are allowed to influence elections with their bought and paid-for opinions whereas there are moves to "lock down" networks in case a tax-paying voter's opinion makes enough sense to persuade someone else.

    When people wake up and realise that network news programming is even lower than women's gossip magazines, then we might see a shift away from bullshit.