Sarah Palin's October 18, 2008 guest appearance on ‘‘Saturday Night Live" was a huge hit. Saturday Night Live (SNL) is a weekly late-night 90-minute American sketch comedy/variety show based in New York City, which features a regular cast of typically up-and-coming comic actors, joined by a guest host and musical act.
This video was all over the news after it's broadcast and I felt like it tells us a lot about the role of media in politics, especially in the 2008 American Elections.
Enjoy :)
.jpg)
6 comments:
FOE!! You have no idea on how "evil" the media is during elections! It is a (mis)conception that there is a great amount of democratization of the media as compared to Singapore. First of all, most of the media companies are actually owned by few hands and chief of which is Robert Murdock (owner of Fox News and Wall Street Journal and amongst other) and he is republican. So during the Clinton era, Fox News constantly vilify the Democrats and during Bush's reign, Fox News depicted how great the Republicans were. And political ads on the media (which is a huge chunk of their political expenditure) doesn't undergo verification and fact check. Basically, as long as I pay for it, I can say whatever I want, politically, and the media channel is not held responsible for spreading false messages.
So during elections, you can imagine how much mixed and false messages the ads send and how (lazy) people that vote formulate their opinions just by looking at the ads. But I'm glad Obama won.
Really depends on friend or foe to who. The candidates or the voters?
For candidates, it can really be friend or foe, depends. the media can help you spread yr message, give you all the coverage to help you reach out to voters who do not know you or your policies. Obama had that going for him. Of course, any gaffs and it will also be reported, but you are still given the opportunity to redeem those mistakes. Foe if you are blacklisted or have all your previous misdeeds and wrongdoings being aired in public. Running for public office entails detailed scrutiny. And that was how Palin had herself done in. Allegations about abuse of power, lack of foreign policy experience, total lack of basic knowledge of current affairs or even simple trivia, etc, that was why Palin, who was first touted as the ticket's trump card ended up dragging them all down. There is always two sides to a coin.
I agree wif raysin when he said certain media companies are controlled by very few and hence can manipulate what ppl see on the news. RUPERT MURDOCH's News Corp does control Republican-leaning Foxs News, but the beauty of the American media is that there r so many avenues to get one's news. Even comedy shows like David Letterman can help ppl understand what's going on. In that light, again, the media can play both sides.
honestly, this an impossible debate. the media is what it is, a medium of communication.
but here's a thought. scoping it down to news coverage, as objective as journalists try to be, sometimes the mere delivery of the story itself can skew the perception of voters. e.g. a grim news anchor vs a smiling one.
well personally i've heard nothing positive about mccain during the entire election process. and it's not because i don't read or watch the news (though i admit it's really seldom that i do la haha), because i do hear good things about obama, especially his famed skill in rhetoric.
i watched one of his fascinating speeches on youtube, and turned into one of his foreign supporters immediately! the magic of rhetoric!
i think media literacy is the key here. the media is a great source of information, but if the receipient does not understand the biases of the source, and his/her own biases, the media harms democracy by perpetuating biases or moving the focus away from the real issues at hand.
Well the media has been feeding information more in favor of Obama then that of McCain. First they praised Palin high and mighty then next dropped her like a bomb. So it pays to be in their good books.
Post a Comment