The Role of Media in Choosing Our Candidates for National Office: Student Projects

Personal Surveys on Free or Paid Media Coverage

"The questions were constructed to effectively discover the public's (60 people) opinion on the media's coverage of the campaign and to distinguish a pattern by age groups. The (participants) were separated into three groups; the young adults 16-25, those 26-45 and those 46 and over. . . .

Questions were . . . asked about the fairness of the coverage, . . . the use of free and paid media (and) . . . whether or not this campaign was more television prone. . . .(Participants) were asked . . . what the role of the media should encompass, . . .if the 1992 presidential campaign was fair to all of the candidates and whether the people had viewed many broadcasts that dealt with the candidates. . .

About 60% (of the young adults) found the media to be very fair in their allotment of time (to) the three presidential candidates; the other 40% found it more centered on the two major party candidates. . . .A strong majority of 90% (were satisfied with the coverage throughout the campaign) although ironically . . .65% admitted to not regularly viewing the news casts anyway. 100% of the young adults surveyed were in favor of the candidates' use of free media, such as talk shows and broadcasts, and yet only 45% of the twenty (polled) enjoyed the paid-media info spots put on by the independent (Perot) . . .85% . . .found this campaign to be more television prone (and preferred). . . it that way.

On the whole, the twenty young adults were very positive in their beliefs of a completely unbiased media and its coverage. . .

65% of the 16-45 age group believed that the media's coverage centered on the two major parties, . . .30% (saw) a preference (for) one of the candidates, and . . .5% (thought) the media (was) unbiased. Exactly one half of (this group) were satisfied with (the media's) coverage and all of them claimed to watch . . .throughout the 1992 presidential campaign. 70%. . . favor(ed). . .the use of free media, while a smaller majority of 55% favored paid media such as that used by the independent candidate. 60% believed that this campaign was more television prone, . . .yet only 45% preferred it. (The 26-45) group (was). . .skeptical about the fairness of the media and (preferred) broadcasts they viewed regularly. . .

40% of (those 46 and older) found the media's coverage of the (1992) presidential campaign to be fairly allotted (to) the three candidates, while (those) remaining . . .split (their answers) between the preference toward one candidate and centering on the two (major) parties. 85% were satisfied with this coverage, although 65% admitted to not regularly viewing it. 100% were in favor of the candidates use of free media and (60%) agreed that this election was much more television prone. . .(and) preferred it.. . .40%. . .enjoyed the paid-media used by the independent candidate (but only 15%) believed the media affected the public's opinion. . . .They agreed the campaign was fair and should not be changed.

In general, those 16-25 were more (emphatic) in their approval of (the media). The 26-45 group appeared more skeptical in their belief of an unbiased media and were less likely to approve of it. Those 46 and beyond, although not as faithful to the belief of a fair media and its coverage, were nevertheless still swaying toward that belief. . . . Each person's decisions and beliefs, whether that of the majority or minority, were equally important to the results of the survey. (However) it would be unfair (to extrapulate from this sample)." FL

"I surveyed ten voters over the age of thirty, and what they thought and felt about the media is pretty clear.

One question was, 'Did the free media or paid campaigns influence your vote more?' Ninety percent of the ten surveyed felt that the free media campaigns influenced their vote more.

The main reason is that in the paid advertisements, the candidates could rehearse and say what they wanted. They could avoid the issue they wanted to and focus on certain ones that pleased the American public. With the free advertisements, like the news programs and talk shows, various topics could be brought up and candidates could be put on the spot. One saw more of what they (the candidates) knew than just what they talked about.

Another question was, 'Which provided more accurate information - free or paid?' Eighty percent of the voters surveyed felt that the free media provided more accurate information than the paid.

The majority questioned noticed that if they saw a candidate on a talk show and they were asked question by ordinary people, (put on the spot on national television), one could easily read their response. One could see how the candidate acted under pressure. Usually in the free media there is no agenda setting which leads to the one-sided view one can get from paid campaigns.

I also asked a question on which source of media do the voters receiveÊmost of their information. One-hundred percent received more information from TV than from the radio or newspapers. With television, on can hear what the candidate is saying as well as see them and their body language.

'Should there be a limit on how much money is spent on political campaigns?' was another question the voters were questioned on. Ninety percent want a limit on how much money is spent on these campaigns; although, in the 1992 presidential election, Bill Clinton used the least amount of money of the three - and won, while Ross Perot spent a fortune and did not even come close to winning. But a set limit would make the campaigning a little more creative. . . . Of all the voters surveyed, everyone felt that the media (1) covered too much on the candidates' personal life, (2) was biased on the different networks, and (3) (felt) that the candidates' appearance on MTV influenced the younger voter population the most.

A question that everyone must ask themselves is, 'Does the media control too much?' With sound-bites and harsh-toned voices they could easily set a voter on a false image of a candidate. But it is the American people that are responsible for what really goes on and they have the power to change it. If the media controls which laundry detergent one buys, it would not be too long until they will start controlling which candidate will win. The future of this country lies in the hands of its citizens, but could soon be corrupted by one little sound bite." FL