Clinton speaking at the MTV forum.
Cook, Dennis. Clinton MTV Forum 1994. 1994. The Associated PressWeb. 29 Oct 2012.
This question is impolite and especially
inappropriate to ask the president, yet it continues to come up in presidential
campaigns. The question proves the invasive nature of today’s media. Once a
respected and revered office, the presidency has become another exploited
celebrity, an icon of pop culture (Weiskel).
The media has severely altered the
way Americans view their president.
When you think about Franklin D. Roosevelt,
do you think about the New Deal or about his love affair with Lucy Mercer
(McGrath)? In contrast, when you think about Bill Clinton, do you think about
the fact that he greatly reduced our national deficit or his “I did not have
sexual relations with that woman” statement?
The president was esteemed because
of his office. His private life and personal foibles were overlooked, or at
least politely ignored. Early presidents didn’t face so much invasive media because
of limited forms of media: newspapers, which
were read, thrown out and forgotten, were the prime source of information
(Alexander).
Not so today.
Today, presidential blunders are
broadcast on almost every news network and website and commented on through social
media sites. This constant, intense scrutiny disrespects the office of the
presidency.
Television and especially social
media thrive on needing to know every detail of the president’s life. Media has
made him a more present figure, which is good, but he is too present, the
connection too personal and invasive. As a result, the president has become
more of a celebrity than a government official.
Presidents have appeared on Comedy
Central, the Tonight Show, MTV, pandering for popularity and public favor.
Because of this shift from politics of power to politics of personality, “national
politics have become a sideshow where clowns and buffoons strut and bellow
across a movable stage to divert the public’s attention from what is really shaping
their lives…” (Weiskel). This shift threatens our perception of what is
actually going on in Washington.
While it is necessary for the public
to know what our president is doing and some personal issues are germane, it is
not necessary for the public to be involved in his choice of dog or his underwear
preference. The public should be aware of the character of our national leader,
but the details of his personal life are not need-to-know.
Give us the facts, not the just the
face and façade.
"Interview with First Lady Michelle on "Live with Kelly and Michael.'" 19 Oct. 2012. YouTube. 30 Oct. 2012.
Works Cited
Alexander,
Mary S. "Dear Mr. President: Changing Media Environments And The Social Construction Of The
President."
Communication Review 8.1 (2005): 1-25. Academic Search
Premier.
Web. 27 Oct. 2012.
Fastenberg,
Dan. "Boxers or Briefs? Clinton Answers." Time. 29 2010: n. page. Web. 30 Oct. 2012.
McGrath,
Charles. "No End of the Affair." New
York Times 20 Apr 2008, n. page. Web. 30 Oct. 2012.
Weiskel,
Timothy C. "From Sidekick To Sideshow-- Celebrity, Entertainment, And The Politics Of Distraction:
Why Americans
Are "Sleepwalking Toward The End Of The Earth." American
Behavioral Scientist 49.3
(2005): 393-409. Academic Search Premier. Web. 1 Nov.
2012.
By: Alyssa Gisseman
This was super interesting! It's fun to read thoughts about a fresh topic, so good work with that. I also think you did a great job explaining your stance. However, I think there could be a little more said about opposing viewpoints. Maybe an opposing view could be something about the American people needing to know what kind of person the President really is or something along those lines. But seriously good job, this was fun to read.
ReplyDeleteI too enjoyed your article - it's a great topic. While reading I thought of this: maybe the media portrays the president the way it does, because that is all the masses can handle. People's attention spans have decreased, as seen by the fact that more people get their news from tweets than a newspaper. These days, no one would listen to FDR's fireside chats, because there are other, faster ways to get the same information. That can be seen as either a bad thing or good thing. Perhaps the media is also just allowing presidents to stay modern. Before, president's didn't even care about the masses; the founding fathers thought the country should only be run by the "elite." Perhaps it's a good thing presidents now seem to want to relate. Anyway, that is probably more than you wanted to read, but at least you now know your post made me think!
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed your whole post. It kept me interested the whole way through. I like your title a lot. It draws attention so that you can then talk about a more serious topic than the audience might initially think. One counter-argument that I thought of and I think I have heard is that presidents try to let people know about their personal lives to relate more to the younger generation of voters. But that's just something to think about. Your video clip at the end does a very good job of summing up your argument as a whole. Nice Work!
ReplyDeleteYou did a really good job hooking the audience in in the beginning! And you kept interest all the way through also. However it was a bit unclear in the paragraph "When you think about Franklin D. Roosevelt..." because I thought the opposite of what I was supposed to think and then was thrown off on the next paragraph. So maybe take a more clear position instead of asking the readers. The video clip at the end was a bit long, maybe shortening it to the most important parts or something would help. Also addressing a counter argument (like people wanting to know the president's life and actions so they can judge his character and know if he's making good choices or not) would help strengthen your argument. Overall, very good job, it had a pretty good rhythm to it.
ReplyDeleteKate: I agree that a stronger counter argument will be needed for my paper. I think that I need to make it clear that media has allowed us to be informed, and through various forms of news media the American public is able to know what kind of person the president is; however, there is a clear line between what is acceptable and what is just "too far." I should include benefits to using media, but argue at the same time that with these benefits come the risk of exploiting the president's personal life.
ReplyDeleteDiana: You bring up a really good point about including how the audience expects information to be delivered and how that has impacted the forms of media. Before I was only thinking about technology as a force that drove changes in media, but the growing expectations of Americans to have things immediately is certainly an influence on the types of media today. Going along with your comment in my paper it will be good explain how and why the media portrays the president the way it does.
Brittany: While I have considered that the president uses the media as well, I wanted my paper to focus on how the media portrays the president. I could expand this idea to include how the president, in turn, uses the media. I just don't know how broad I want to go, and in including how the president uses media to portray himself might go outside of what I am looking to prove. It is definitely something to consider though.
Chelsea: I was worried that that paragraph might throw off my reader, but I didn't have enough words left to be more clear. I will try to adjust that in my paper. And I know the clip was long, but I can't shorten a YouTube video; the clip I wanted to use that was only 2 minutes wouldn't upload. I'm glad that I was able to keep the reader's interest in my paper because that was something I worked hard on for this paper! I agree that I need to elaborate on my counter argument more, especially about how people do want to know what's going on.
Thank you all for your comments, and I'm glad you enjoyed my paper.