Giving that we are currently witnessing perhaps one the most thrilling and important presidential races in our lifetime (and that’s coming from a guy who until now has never voted or really followed politics), the Macro-level medium questions that Meyrowitz addresses seem very relevant and timely. No more so than the question he raises on p. 63 of how different medium environments might “affect the criteria that are used to evaluate political leaders?” As an Obama supporter, I couldn’t help but notice how a lot of the pundits (both left and right) and so called “objective journalists” deem Obama’s physical presence as his greatest strength. So if he loses this primary or this election, would it really be a stretch to claim that the average american’s reliance on non face-to-face mediums for information about the candidates cost him the presidency? Who knows. I don’t deny that there is some validity in claiming that a speaker’s physical presence not an important quality for a president to have. But perhaps it doesn’t matter what you or I think because it looks like the succesful politician of tomorrow will be someone who is camera friendly and has a well funded blogging unit.
One thought on “Kyle’s Images of Media Response”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
The internet has definitely changed the nature of American politics. It’s certain that the blogosphere has turned the way that we consume information on its head. The average middle-class American gleans the majority of their political information from the Internet, television and radio. As our search for information shifts away from mass-media and towards the Internet, we can only expect to consume a more democratized form of media.