I had a discussion at work about what has more inpact. The candidates themselves and the things they say or how the media portrays and spins things?

I argued the media is more impactful.. I use the term media loosely, email, radio, tv, internet and so forth. My main point was we had a guy come into work and say he was anti-Barak because he took his oath on the Koran, is musslim, and has ties to Al-qeida. While i would say all but the final point should have no infleunce on the outcome, i asked the guy where he heard this, and he said it was a random email his wife was sent and they shared with his entire Retirement Community.

Granted typically in Florida, many of our older residents are staunch republicans who wouldnt vote for Obama anyway, but my point is something this simple, even though untrue, effected the vote of atleast 20 people.

What do you all think?

With shows like the O'Reilly Factor dominating ratings, I think it's definitely a valid concern.

I think your story illustrates our more fundamental problem though. As long as people are lazy enough to ignorantly believe any single source of news as the truth, they will always be poorly informed.

Some people are interested in policy and vote with policies they endorse. I'd say that these are in the minority.

Some people are most comfortable with candidates that share their demographic identity, and they vote that way. Along similar lines, some people vote for a candidate because they like "the look" of that candidate.

Some people vote a certain party line because a) that's how they've always done it; b) that's the party their family has always belonged to; c) assumptions about that party's identity; d) they hate the other party.

The media plays a role, of course, highlighting some issues while down-playing others. However, there's so much media out there now, so many options, that I'm not sure that its impact is as strong now as it was, say, during Kennedy/Nixon. Also, how much of media is simply a reflection of what the mass market wants rather than what media leaders want? The two seem inextricably linked. I wonder what kind of ratings The All Candidate Policy Show would net.

I don't know how many people are really convinced by things like the e-mail you mentioned, though that particular one sure is getting a lot of play. Do they really change minds and sway opinions, or do they just reinforce dispositions against a candidate?

I had a discussion at work about what has more inpact. The candidates themselves and the things they say or how the media portrays and spins things?

I argued the media is more impactful.. I use the term media loosely, email, radio, tv, internet and so forth. My main point was we had a guy come into work and say he was anti-Barak because he took his oath on the Koran, is musslim, and has ties to Al-qeida. While i would say all but the final point should have no infleunce on the outcome, i asked the guy where he heard this, and he said it was a random email his wife was sent and they shared with his entire Retirement Community.

Granted typically in Florida, many of our older residents are staunch republicans who wouldnt vote for Obama anyway, but my point is something this simple, even though untrue, effected the vote of atleast 20 people.

What do you all think?

i think the guy youre talking about might be legally retarded.

Do they really change minds and sway opinions, or do they just reinforce dispositions against a candidate?

you raise a valid point, but the fact that the person is now actively telling people is what concerns me. Even the whole McCain scandel, same thing, i heard just the headline and found myself villifying (spelling?) him. I am jsut as guilty at times. Fighting the power of the media would make a raid encounter :p


in response to Wiggo, you have to relize i live in an area that people are very old, very conservative, and typically born in the south. My particular county gains nearly 20% in population during the winter because of old people coming down. So we have people born during the civil rights days that some didnt move on. I must see 3-5 bumper stickers a day saying the south will rise again, and/or just the confederate flag.

but the fact that the person is now actively telling people is what concerns meI hope you're ridiculing him and those who fall for his line, every step of the way. =)

Unfortunately, humans aren't very well equipped for "wait for further investigation" type attitudes. We receive inputs, form patterns, and come to judgments very quickly and are susceptible to linguistic manipulation by those who know how to use it. This is the sort of thing the media should be a firewall against, but obviously they aren't very effective in that role.

Grey, I just think Wiggo wanted to use his favourite English word....

I think people actually elect the President, but will pick and choose what they want to hear from the media to support thier own views.

Unless people can go to every campain rally (not very feasable) and hear directly from the candidates themselves without the media "condensing" thier message, people will never truly receive, 100% unbiased information.

With enough "condensing" Barak can be made to look like a staunch conservative, and McCain a raving liberal....

Unfortunately, humans aren't very well equipped for "wait for further investigation" type attitudes. We receive inputs, form patterns, and come to judgments very quickly and are susceptible to linguistic manipulation by those who know how to use it. This is the sort of thing the media should be a firewall against, but obviously they aren't very effective in that role.
I suppose it goes back to the fact that we're still wired for fight or flight. In most cases, our ancestors who saw danger and acted quickly were more likely to survive and reproduce than the ones who stopped to intellectually ponder it.

So, if you've associated the name Hussein with "enemy", it's probably very easy to respond and form an opinion before you've really thought it out very well.

So, if you've associated the name Hussein with "enemy", it's probably very easy to respond and form an opinion before you've really thought it out very well.Which serves very well those who crow about it at every opportunity or wish to link it to nefarious slanders in mass e-mails.

So what would happen is there was a world leader in Iran named Brett Farve-Mahmundi...would we all like him? /snicker

Depends on how many touchdowns he can throw in a 17 year period.....

Most people don't know shit about politics. They are too apathetic to care, but they know that it's considered important by society, so they manage to conjure up political 'opinion' when it is necessary. This is usually accomplished by regurgitating things heard on television, or by adopting the views of someone else who does pay attention to politics.

It's been shown in scholarly study that the media does not so much attempt to influence in a partisan manner. In other words, it does not tell you what to think. What they do, however, is tell you what to think about. The agenda setting power of the media is great - not just in deciding what to cover, but also what not to cover. Self-censorship of unpopular ideas, (things that wont get politicians elected) by the media has a huge role in influencing public opinion.

Anyways, next time someone offers up their opinion on a political figure, simply ask them to articulate their exact position. I've met maybe two or three people who can successfully do this. Some people might realize that they're idiots and re-evaluate their ideas, but most will become pigheaded and get angry at you for showing them how little they actually know about something they profess to be very important to them.

During the 60 Minutes story on the election the other night they had a panel of voters from Ohio and were asking how they viewed the candidates. One of the panelists parroted this misinformation about Obama, but said he was still more than likely going to vote for him. He was corrected, btw.

I grew up in the area Grey lives in the 70's, lived there for a few years in the 80's, last time i was there was in 97 on a 3 week work assignment. one thing i can guarantee you is those dumbass's aint changed in any one of those decades. the internet if anything has only served to re-inforce the ignorance.
I applaud Grey for trying actually have an intelligent debate with these folks, but he'd probaly have better luck convincing a Tampa crackwhore that birthcontrol is a good thing.