RESOLVED: The influence of the media is detrimental to the American political process.

"Whoever controls the media, controls the culture." - Allen Ginsberg It is because i agree with Allen Ginsberg, I affirm the resolution, "RESOLVED: The influence of the media is detrimental to the American political process." The value i will be upholding in this debate is Democracy. As our political process is, with elections, a democratic political process, valuing democracy is logical.The resolution implies this value as the question is whether the "influence of the media" is good or bad for our political process, which is a Democracy. The criterion to achieve democracy is upholding the will of the people. I offer the following definitions. Influence an effect of one person or thing on another Source: Collins English Dictionary Media transmissions that are distributed widely to the public Source: Vocabulary.com Democracy a form of government in which people choose leaders by voting merriam-webster So if in a Democracy the people choose leaders, upholding the will of the people must be the criterion to achieve democracy. If I show that the influence of the media undermines the will of the people you can affirm because this would be detrimental to our political process, which is a democracy. My thesis is that the media undermines the will of the people. Contention 1. The media has the power to select the candidates we vote for. Zuzana Pi"těkov", "The Public and the Media in the U.S. Presidential Campaigns," Diploma Thesis, MASARYK UNIVERSITY BRNO, 2008 Another effect that the media have is the power to decide who will be the candidate in elections. It is necessary to eliminate the candidates who fail to perform in front of a camera or look unimpressive because the television brings the image of the candidates directly into the homes of voters. An overweight William Howard Taft or an ugly Abraham Lincoln would not have much chance in these days. Favorable media reporting over a period of time can create presidential candidates out of governors, senators and other political figures. The media create name recognition which is the essential quality of a presidential candidate and the first step to successful election. On the contrary when the media fail to report activities of an aspiring candidate, they can completely disclaim him. Once the media have agreed on one candidate as a winner in the party, he receives the majority of the media coverage and all other opponents are sentenced to sink into obscurity. Financial contributions to opponents begin to dry up because no one wants to patronize the losing candidate.77 In the 2000 presidential primary cycle only candidates who were perceived positively by the public received extensive media coverage. For the Democrats, the only candidate to receive media attention beside Vice President Al Gore was former New Jersey senator Bill Bradley, who had been a star basketball player before he turned to politics. The other candidates were felt to be unimpressive and that is why unworthy of attention.78 So the media undermines the will of the people by eliminating potential candidates not because of performance or issues but based on superficial media concerns meaning the media precludes the people from knowing who might be the best candidate and so you can affirm. Contention 2. Media front-loading is causing a shortening of the presidential primary process leaving less time for voters to evaluate candidates. Zuzana Pi"těkov", "The Public and the Media in the U.S. Presidential Campaigns," Diploma Thesis, MASARYK UNIVERSITY BRNO, 2008 One of the examples how media influence the procedure of primaries is front-loading. It means that the candidates concentrate on building their image and good reputation in states that hold early, important primaries. They also realized that winning in the beginning of the primary process such as in Iowa caucuses or New Hampshire primary elections, mean that the media label the winner as the front runner and pay the winner much more attention. This brings also increase of the candidate"s media exposure and more money from his donors. Also the states and state political parties have realized that the early primaries bring more advantages and started to have the primaries sooner to secure those advantages. The first state which holds the primaries is New Hampshire. Some states decided to move the dates in the following week and also the other moved their primaries calendar. California, which had traditionally held primaries in June as the last state in the primaries circle, has moved the event to March. There is one big advantage among others- the candidates and parties have more time to raise money for their campaign. On the other hand the critics of the frontloading of primaries criticizes that the shorter primary period does not allow the voters to evaluate the character and important topics of the candidate.80 So the media undermines the will of the people by helping to shorten campaigns meaning the people have less time to evaluate candidates and determine which ones have the character and beliefs to properly represent them and so you can affirm. Contention 2. The money and media complex forces politicians to conform to its interests. John Nichols and Robert W. McChesney, "The Money & Media Election Complex," The Nation, November 29, 2010 The emerging money-and-media election complex is perfectly designed to make participants conform or suffer the consequences. It should come as no surprise that some of the most troubling results of 2010 involved the defeats of independent players of both parties who had battled hardest for clean politics and ethical government"Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold, the leading progressive Democratic reformer, was defeated, as was Representative Mike Castle, a moderate Republican beaten in Delaware's GOP Senate primary by Tea Party heroine Christine O'Donnell. Nor should it get better in 2012. "It's a bigger prize in 2012, and that's changing the White House," says Robert Duncan, chair of American Crossroads. "We've planted the flag for permanence, and we believe we will play a major role for 2012." This means that the views of the people as a whole are not represented. The views that are represented are the views of the media who control the message and who gets covered. So media influence is detrimental to the American political process because it has managed to arrest control of that process and undermine the will of the people and so you can affirm. Contention 3. The media focuses more on the game of campaigning than the issues. Zuzana Pi"těkov", "The Public and the Media in the U.S. Presidential Campaigns," Diploma Thesis, MASARYK UNIVERSITY BRNO, 2008 But what are the media interested in? The answer indicates Thomas E. Patterson in his studies of the presidential election in the year 1976. In the table 4.1 below is visible that the media- network evening news, a newspaper and two news magazines- devoted a majority of their coverage to the games, which means winning and loosing, strategy, logistics, appearances, and campaign hoopla. Issues, policies, traits, records and others received only around one third of the campaign coverage.82 This table implies that the campaign is presented to the voters not as policy debate but rather as a struggle for power between the candidates by means of meeting, travels, press conferences, speeches and sometimes debates. They also report what the candidate"s strategy is, how much money they are spending, what the response of the audience was and so on. Much less attention is devoted to the issues, policy or endorsements by other political leaders.84 And this situation lasts probably until these times. Most of media and people are more interested in stories and political games than in candidate"s presentation of important issues. So the media undermines the will of the people by focusing coverage not on issues essential to citizens but to the sport of campaigning, who is winning and who is losing. This means that people are less informed and so the winner of the election is less likely to represent the will of the people and so you can affirm. Contention 4. Media front-loading is causing a shortening of the presidential primary process leaving less time for voters to evaluate candidates. Zuzana Pi"těkov", "The Public and the Media in the U.S. Presidential Campaigns," Diploma Thesis, MASARYK UNIVERSITY BRNO, 2008 One of the examples how media influence the procedure of primaries is front-loading. It means that the candidates concentrate on building their image and good reputation in states that hold early, important primaries. They also realized that winning in the beginning of the primary process such as in Iowa caucuses or New Hampshire primary elections, mean that the media label the winner as the front runner and pay the winner much more attention. This brings also increase of the candidate"s media exposure and more money from his donors. Also the states and state political parties have realized that the early primaries bring more advantages and started to have the primaries sooner to secure those advantages. The first state which holds the primaries is New Hampshire. Some states decided to move the dates in the following week and also the other moved their primaries calendar. California, which had traditionally held primaries in June as the last state in the primaries circle, has moved the event to March. There is one big advantage among others- the candidates and parties have more time to raise money for their campaign. On the other hand the critics of the frontloading of primaries criticizes that the shorter primary period does not allow the voters to evaluate the character and important topics of the candidate.80 So the media undermines the will of the people by helping to shorten campaigns meaning the people have less time to evaluate candidates and determine which ones have the character and beliefs to properly represent them and so you can affirm.