Has the media chosen the President for the past 8 elections?

at least?

This is the most I have typed in the past bunch of years, but it happened because of a simple google search that resulted in no informational links. So, here is my interpretation of the previous bunch of administrations, and how I believe that media manipulation is not only nothing new, but unbelievably effective.

Thanks for reading! :)

1972 - Though Nixon was embroiled in the beginnings of a controversy that would eventually bring his presidency down, and has not ended the Vietnam war by "Peace With Honor," he was re-elected against a strongly anti-war democrat, George Mcgovern. The media portrayed McGovern as a weak candidate, though he had an honorable history of defending this country in WWll, and seemed knowledgeable about the subject of war.
Nixon won.

1976 - Gerald Ford had done an admirable job of bringing the country back to a more stable situation. The war was over, there was relative prosperity (though there were some troubles due to the transition from wartime industry to domestic production. He was portrayed in the media as a bumbling idiot that couldn't walk and chew gum at the same time. It didn't help that they endlessly questioned his pardon of Nixon. Carter was portrayed as a peaceful, religious, intelligent man - a peanut farmer - who would be able to connect with people and assist them in returning to the "good old days." The devisiveness would be gone - wounds would be healed.
Carter won.

1980 - Carter was endlessly portrayed as weak, inept, and unable to do the job by himself. There was even talk of having a "committee" of people to be president, because it had become so complex. Enter the Iran hostage situation. Enter Ronald Reagan. Mr. Easy Going. Mr. I'll balance the budget (projected at the time to be somewhere around 50 billion). Mr. (according to the media) Great Communicator. For some strange reason the Iranians released the hostages on the inauguration day of the next president.
Reagan won.

1984 - Though there were periodic questions surrounding President Reagans mental abilities, he was still presented in the media as Mr. Nice guy. Never mind the unheard of deficits and unemployment. They suddenly didn't matter. Walter Mondale - an honorable man, but presented as a loser from the past - a continuation of the Carter presidency. A "LIBERAL!"
Reagan was re-elected

1988 - George HW Bush - Vice President for the previous 8 years. "No new taxes." This was obviously an important statement to the media and corporations in general (see the backlash in 1992). Bush was seen as a stand up guy that supported his president unfailingly for the previous 2 elections, and deserved a chance to "stay the course." Mr. Dukakis was presented by the media as a dope - anti military, but riding shotgun in a tank. Also, Willie Horton got huge play. Also, stumbled on the rape of a family member question. Media presented as a liberal from Massachusetts.
Bush won.

1992 - "Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow" Bill Clinton was a governor from a mid-america, southern state. Though the media gave him a little hell about the "I feel your pain" statement during one of the debates, people believed in his message. The media and corporations were upset that Bush had betrayed them by raising taxes across the board, and portrayed him as weak. The thousand points of light couldn't save him. "Are you better off than you were four years ago?."
Clinton was elected.

1996 - Though disliked intensely by the media and the corporations, they had to admit that Clinton was turning things around. There was beginning to be genuine prosperity for all - from the CEO that was now getting massive bonuses to the regular, everyday worker. Diplomacy, for the most part seemed to be working in various hotspots around the globe, though occasional, brief shows of American military prowess were periodically shown. Life was getting better for many. Dole was put up by the republicans only because he was owed it. They didn't expect him to win.
Clinton was re-elected.

2000 - Unprecedented prosperity. The peace dividend at work - big time. Al Gore, a populist, portrayed by the media as a liar, or at the very least someone who was grandiose in their self-perceptions. George Bush - given a walk by the media on every single gaff, every mistatement, every questionable quote, every historical negative attribute - DWI's, cocaine use, AWOL, poor governorship.

Gore Wins - but the Presidency is given to Bush by the Supreme Court. Democracy suffers a more severe blow than was taken during the Nixon years.

People still give Bush their support. Though dropping, he still enjoys by virtue of the terrorist threats, a majority of Americans support.


2004 - ?





edited: got lost in 1996 - Dole. Not Bush. Guess I have bush on the brain.

corporatism.

I don't agree with the Clinton angle though. We got him in mainly because of the failures of Bush1. It was easy to pick him off there IMO. The media may have helped indircetly, but the major focus of the media was on the failure of the Bush Presidency... not because of the election, but because it was the predominate news story.

Television has made the process more democratic. People are now aware of the conventions (and some of us watch every balloon). Before tv, deals happened in smoke-filled rooms, so they say, without so much regard to the electorate.
And the Kennedy-Nixon debate was a prime example of the power of the new medium.
What they did in 2000, practically anointing Bush and manipulating Gore into the role of challenger, was a crime.

My prediction is that the media will continue the "Bush is God" storyline despite the total disconnect from reality. Enough people will follow it to the polls. I agree with the folks who say another 9/11 will be *'s undoing however.

especially if their masters pull the strings.

The camera loved him, and he was a quick wit and the press loved him..

When they love you, you can do no wrong.. but when they hate you...look out :(

and because I put some effort into it dammit!!!!!


:)

What was it that came up nil in google?

presidential elections
presidential nominees
presidential nominees democratic
presidential nominees elections history

I pretty much gave up.

I'm pretty sure that book (by Neil Postman) in the mid-80's talked about the power of mass media, and argued that Nixon was effectively given the presidency in '68 and '72 because the "media" wanted him in, and he was taken down in '74 because the "media" wanted him out.

I wish I could remember the details (I no longer have the book -- lent it out), but it was an interesting argument.

btw, I agree with you, and it's possible it goes back even farther, to 1960. I don't think it's a grand conspiracy being directed by some Mr. Big in a hidden lair, but there is probably a group-think, herd mentality that affects the punditry and the reporters, and that a critical mass of them ends up steering the tone of the campaign season. I wonder if the successful campaign managers actually manage to influence the herd mentality of the mass media, or if they're just really good at adjusting to it. (It's probably a combination of both -- influencing and adapting.) It's a tough force to control or harness, but every election someone masters it -- Lee Atwater did it well, as did Karl Rove/Karen Hughes, as did James Carville.

It remains to be seen who will harness the herd in '04.

Good post, btw.

is there?