America trusts in its people to vote responsibly, which is essential for an effective democracy. This means that the country’s voters should be encouraged by the media to examine the personal lives of candidates for political office to evaluate not what they are, but who they are. In Roosevelt’s four terms as president, the people’s confidence in him may have been reinforced by the media’s tentativeness to photograph him above the waist, not displaying his handicap, but his wisdom, swift decision-making and resilience of character are the traits that allowed for his sustained support. In other words, a front-page photo portraying his paralysis would not have received nearly the equal negative affect on his image as his leadership and eloquence added positively. This is because candidates receive political office based on merit, not appearance.
Former president, Richard Nixon and former congressman, Anthony Weiner are clear examples of people whose true characters were brought out by the media. The explosion of media regarding Weiner’s sexting scandal and the intense Watergate investigation allowed American voters to realize that they had inaugurated disingenuous men each of whom must have claimed to stand behind family values. By shedding light on their scandals, the media can share the facts with the people who then have the opportunity to elect someone new (in the case of Weiner). This lets politicians know that they must the live under the same standards they encourage while campaigning and encourages voters that democracy still exists.
Respect for privacy by the media is valuable for everyday Americas, but for those running for important political office, they must know that they are subject to high expectations and their flaws will be noticed. If their imperfections, whether physical or action-based outweigh their strengths and become a significant distraction or impairment to their jobs, voters must be trusted to take responsible action, and investigative media helps them do that.
I agree that the media has a huge effect on how citizens of a country view their leaders, and view those running for leadership positions, and that this effect is good. They can make someone appear to be a criminal, or print a picture that makes someone look like a hero, and it is important for the citizen to get this view of the the candidate in order to make an informed decision when they vote. Where investigative journalism may cross the line is when reporters begin to attack people who may be involved with a situation, but have not put themselves out there, such as people who work for the corporations that are under trial, or as in All the President's Men, people who work for the campaigns of people running for office. Was it really fair for Woodward and Bernstein to barge into Sloan's house and begin interrogating him? He had a pregnant wife and a family to take care of, yet the reporters ignored this and just tried to get their story. They were dragging him back into something he had previously tried to remove himself from by quitting. Woodward and Bernstein also use tricks while reporting to get people to admit things they did not plan on sharing. Investigative reporting, while useful, can sometimes drag people who have tried to stay quiet and loyal into scenarios where they are forced into telling.
ReplyDeleteI believe that we are better off as a society with investigative media. Why would we censor our media when we are constantly demanding for the truth? The thought of censoring or modifying news, particularly news relating to politics or the government, seems "big brother-esque" to me. SInce we live under a democracy it is important for the voters to see the full picture of a candidate. A candidate could propose great ideas or social/economic reforms for our country, but it could all be lies if the candidate doesn't actually believe in what he/she is promising. I believe that the public should see the candidate exhibiting what he/she believes in and the public should see when the candidate is not exhibiting what he/she stands by.
ReplyDeleteAs a society, if we decided to go by the means of traditional media our next president could be drug addict, adulteress, or even have a criminal record! I know this is taking it to the utmost extreme, but these people have decided to live their lives in the eye of the public so they should understand that their privacy is limited. I believe with Luke's statement "If their imperfections, whether physical or action-based outweigh their strengths and become a significant distraction or impairment to their jobs, voters must be trusted to take responsible action, and investigative media helps them do that." If you are a strong candidate for a political office and have a loyal supporting fan base, small flaws that are exploited by the media shouldn't effect much to anything at all. Therefore, I would go with investigative media over traditional media any day.
-Brittany
I agree with Brittany. When we talk about politics, we as citizens and people who will be directly affected by the administrative actions of people in politics depend on the media to make that connection between "us" and "them". We choose our representatives and leaders based on the potential to do good that they display to us and because the vast majority of people don't have personal relationships with candidates, we rely on the intermediate source to relay to us what we need to do to make a solid character judgement. We can watch a political debate and see a candidate spew ideas and solutions to the general public but how can the public trust in these candidates "beliefs" if they do not live by the morals they preach on a day to day basis? In Luke's example of FDR, a physical impairment would never affect a president's moral compass and whether in a wheel chair or not, the job behind the desk is dependent on a person's capacity to make reasonable, level-headed decisions that comply with the values that would best exhibit a solid representation for everyone. The only way we can be sure that a candidate is sincere is to witness them living by the values that they contend to adhere. Investigative media should positively represent a person if they are truly adhering to these values. This is not to say that there are not exceptions but I believe that investigative media does give us that window into the reality of politics and politicians that traditional media will censor if need be.
ReplyDeleteAngelica
I completely agree with Luke in that voters should be trusted to make sound decisions on who they elect to represent them. Politicians who put themselves in the role of representing others must reveal themselves to those people, or face the investigative media. As Luke stated, people should not be represented by politicians like Anthony Weiner, whose true character would have eventually been discovered by the investigative media even if he had not posted those pictures on Twitter himself (at least I would hope so). The truth always has a way of revealing itself.
ReplyDeleteInvestigative media, while it does serve the purpose of showing the people the true characters behind politicians, must also take into consideration the politician's private life. The media should not go searching through a candidates private life if there is not a single suspicion of the value of his character. Everybody has a right to a private life, whether it be with family or with friends. Even politicians must be granted this right, as long as he/she does not abuse it. However, with more and more ways to invade a person's life, through camera phones, etc., politicians must realize the watchful public eye will always be following them.
Overall, I think Brit was right in saying that we are a better society with investigative media. Politicians are held to higher standards and the people, more engaged than ever, see their representatives for who they truly are.
-Tricia
I agree that politicians should expect their lives to be scrutinized when they become public figures and that they should live with the values they support. However, I personally don't think the media should be as aggressive as they are in trying to "dig up" personal parts of politician's lives. It seems to me the media is more interested in uncovering a scandal than portraying a realistic and accurate view of a politician's "personal life". I think the speakers at the forum made a good point that from some standards, none of our generation would be able to run for public office because we have already put so much ourselves into the public through social media (posting pictures of partying with friends etc...). I don't think this is fair. To take a step back, a politician seldom is able to have a "private" or "real" life; every part of their image and life must be carefully considered because they know the media is watching. Think of the pressure this puts on the family of a politician. Even as a child, you would have to monitor your own actions (they are probably monitored by others too) in order to maintain a good image not even for yourself but for the sake of your parent or spouse. If you do anything that is perceived negatively by the media, you have hurt the campaign or the image. This means that a politician and their family almost have to be actors in order to keep up this perfectly aligned-with-the-values-of-the-campaign picture of family bliss. This is a false image, so it really means nothing to me.
ReplyDeleteI think the media should cover the personal lives of politicians but not to the effect that they imply that these personal lives should overshadow how they actually do their job.
-Kateline
I also agree that politicians should be aware of media coverage, and the ways in which the media will liberally inform the public on their personal lives. As Kateline said, however, the media should also take precautions to not overstep the line between informing and entertaining the public. Yes, the media's job is to do both, but to deliberately go searching for "dirt" on politicians' past does not seem moral in my opinion. Politicians and their families have the right to live in peace without persistent invasion of privacy by the media. Additionally, I think that the public has to recognize that politicians are human too. As much as they try to embody the values that they promote to the public, they are not perfect - they make mistakes as well.
ReplyDeleteOf course if there is reason to suspect that a politician is not - on multiple occasions - living up to the standards that he promotes to the public, then there is reason to be suspicious. In these scenarios the media should work to inform the public so that something can be done. However, to assume that all politicians have dark pasts encourages distrust and doubt between the public and their leaders, which in turn cannot by any means help the nation.
whoops that was my comment
ReplyDelete-Amy