While I agree that social media gives everybody a chance to participate in political discourse, I also agree with the article that this opens the doors to much argument and misinformation. Such accessible negativity has made politics an even more sensitive topic today.
The podcast brings up an interesting point: how do you decide what to report on your party’s opponent? Trump’s significant negative coverage actually benefitted him, so if a media group wishes to benefit their party more, should they report less of the other party’s candidate?
I wasn’t surprised to hear that one of Bush’s strategies during the election was to give his opponents humiliating nicknames. Those who voted in the 2020 election are likely familiar with names such as “Sleepy Joe” and “Pocahontas” as spoken by President Trump.
Between our lessons on First Ladies and this podcast on Nackey Scripps Loeb, I’ve noticed something: women can work significant roles for decades behind the scenes without issue, but the second they step into a more public role, they are treated as if they can’t do the work.
I can understand logically that TV presence alone didn’t win JFK the election in 1960, but I can’t help but imagine how such a close election would’ve gone without it. It just goes to show how important such political debates and on-screen appearances are to campaigns now.
For Gerald Ford to be seen as clumsy and “oafish” in the eyes of the media, he was lucky that Betty was willing to put herself out there in such a bold way to make up for his press mishaps. She exposed the most personal parts of her life to the press, and we hardly remember her.
Considering LBJ’s more unsavory moments with the press as if they occurred today, I imagine being on his PR team would be quite difficult. If my job was to make a president look good and he was caught on camera being locked out of his bedroom by the First Lady, I would collapse.
The hauntingly precise detail with which Lady Bird Johnson was able to recall the Kennedy assassination was incredible to hear, particularly from her own mouth. The fact that she had the presence of mind to record it just 8 days after the event is remarkable.
The reading made an intriguing point: all media is technically liberal media, as journalism was always meant to be “liberal” in the sense of free press. Because we’ve established a mainstream media with the expectation of objectivity, “liberal media” refers to left-leaning press.
I never thought about what pre-automobile traffic stops were like before now, but hearing about President Grant’s many instances of speeding and one-time arrest, I want to hear more. This story is also a perfect example of even early politicians thinking they are above the law.
The Zapruder film makes me think of how many historical events could’ve gone so differently without someone filming. We have access to cameras at all times now, and that is not a power we can take lightly. To me, it’s now our responsibility to document everything when we can.
Being of a younger generation, when I think of presidents who have declared war on the media, Trump is the first who comes to mind. I now know that Nixon attacked the media far earlier and successfully got his desired reaction out of conservatives: outrage on his behalf.
I liked that the article on political tv ads pointed out that these commercials are “selling” candidates as if they are a product. It emphasizes the subconscious effect that said ads have on viewers and the democratic process - how even if we don’t believe them, they have impact.
I find it ironic that the most well-funded political ads can actually be the most simple. You’d think the more simplistic ads couldn’t afford to be creative when in reality it’s the other way around. I tend to favor more matter-of-fact ads, however, so I suppose it makes sense.
I cannot understand how I hadn’t heard of Ethel Payne before I read about her today. She was the ‘first’ of so many things journalistically and paved the way for so many others, and yet her grave goes unmarked. I hope journalism schools begin consistently teaching her legacy.
Hearing personal stories about Harry Truman from his grandson really humanizes him, even posthumously. When we have public figures like presidents who are constantly in view of the nation, it’s easy to forget that they also have these intricate lives outside of the presidency.
In my opinion, the Hardings were the first presidential couple to truly show the public just how important an insider’s understanding of the press can be. While many prior presidents played well with papers, Harding presented how to advantageously work the press from experience.
While I was fascinated by the efficacy of President Harding’s front porch campaign, I was more captivated by Florence Harding’s work with the Marion Star. I wonder what kind of influence she could’ve had on American politics had she written for the paper, even under a pseudonym.
I always thought that propaganda in the US was mostly limited to wartime posters and ads in movies, but after hearing that we went so far as to have propagandist speeches during church sermons, it’s no wonder it truly took off around WWI for us.
Knowing how bold and active Theodore Roosevelt was as a president, I was surprised to learn how well he worked with the press. I can see how he benefitted from (mostly) playing nice with them by fighting the anti-press bill and often giving them transparent content to work with.