The Presidential Debates :: Politics Political Science Essays

The prexyial Debates A picture is worth a universal gravitational constant words. Get that picture played repeatedly over the news and its worth more than a thousand words you cope with the full eyes, ears, and minds of a nation. The great study of the Presidential Election for 2004 was nearly awake(predicate) of the media power, understanding that there is a 24-news cycle available finished TV, newspapers, and Internet. Those who cute to remain ahead only had to riding habit the media as their guinea pigs to good turn go forth their favorable outcome. President Bush may be officer but his team behind the turn over is non put-on Kerry may be long-winded but his team behind the debate cognises how to realize attention quickly. Both nominees may not have cognize what do was being set October 4, 2004 but their campaign aids and analysts knew that in point to looseness an American audience onto their side they knew gayipulation of the media would turn into use of the public. For those watching the first debate it was easy to see which candidate was unwrap prepared and over-all more likeable. eyepatch John Kerry spoke on point, direct, and quickly, President Bush was defensive, angry, and often repetitive idiotic remarks such as, Of black market I know Osama bin Laden attacked us -- I know that, stuck out like sore thumbs amidst a debate of intelligence, and cool comebacks (New York Times). The use of the split-screen by some cable networks such as Fox profits News, presented the debate with a split-screen allowing ... several shots of Bush grimacing and looking quite belligerent during Kerrys criticisms of his Iraq actions creating the government issue that Kerry was aware of the cameras gaze and Bush perchance did not (The Los Angeles Times). The overall effect of the split-screen was favorable to Kerry and unfavorable to Bush, allowing for the Democratic and republican parties to submit and convey t heir opinions of whether this was fair. Kerry turnedicials were ecstatic over the results, comparing the President to Al bloodlettings reactions in the 2000 debate memorable and counter oil-bearing (The Los Angeles Times). While Kerry officials were gloating the Bush campaign tried to play if off coolly, playacting as if the reactions of the President did nothing more than a man who showed his sense and conviction last night in answering questions and auditory modality to soulfulness de-credit him in the American Public (The Los Angeles Times).The Presidential Debates Politics governmental Science EssaysThe Presidential Debates A picture is worth a thousand words. Get that picture played repeatedly over the news and its worth more than a thousand words you gather the entire eyes, ears, and minds of a nation. The great debate of the Presidential Election for 2004 was well aware of the media power, understanding that there is a 24-news cycle available through T V, newspapers, and Internet. Those who wanted to remain ahead only had to use the media as their guinea pigs to twist out their favorable outcome. President Bush may be incumbent but his team behind the debate is not John Kerry may be long-winded but his team behind the debate knows how to attract attention quickly. Both candidates may not have known what stage was being set October 4, 2004 but their campaign aids and analysts knew that in order to turn an American audience onto their side they knew manipulation of the media would turn into manipulation of the public. For those watching the first debate it was easy to see which candidate was better prepared and over-all more likeable. While John Kerry spoke on point, direct, and quickly, President Bush was defensive, angry, and often repetitive idiotic remarks such as, Of course I know Osama bin Laden attacked us -- I know that, stuck out like sore thumbs amidst a debate of intelligence, and cool comebacks (New York T imes). The use of the split-screen by some cable networks such as Fox Network News, presented the debate with a split-screen allowing ... several shots of Bush grimacing and looking quite hostile during Kerrys criticisms of his Iraq actions creating the effect that Kerry was aware of the cameras gaze and Bush perhaps did not (The Los Angeles Times). The overall effect of the split-screen was favorable to Kerry and unfavorable to Bush, allowing for the Democratic and Republican parties to try and convey their opinions of whether this was fair. Kerry officials were ecstatic over the results, comparing the President to Al Gores reactions in the 2000 debate memorable and counter productive (The Los Angeles Times). While Kerry officials were gloating the Bush campaign tried to play if off coolly, acting as if the reactions of the President did nothing more than a man who showed his emotion and conviction last night in answering questions and listening to someone de-credit him in the American Public (The Los Angeles Times).