Alissa Milne's Blog Entry

I agree with the reading when the author states that the media greatly
influences public opinion and that campaign debates are especially a large
part of how the public learns about issues. We talked a little bit in
class previously about how people tend to use the media as a primary
resource for learning about politics and candidates/issues because it is
simple and very accessible in our busy lives.

However, the reading focuses on the media's interpretation of these
debates and how the press and television actually influence voters more
than the debates themselves. This doesn't surprise me too much since it
seems like people seem to learn a lot from the headlines and TV news after
the debates. Yet, depending on the election, I would think people would
want to see the debates for themselves and form their own opinions. As the
book stated, the debates are the time for the public to learn firsthand
about how the candidates feel about certain issues in their own words.
However, it seems that voters still trust how other people, as presented
on the television or in the newspaper, interpret the debates instead of
coming to their own conclusions.

I thought it was interesting how the author broke down the debate
discussions into categories, such as issues, personality, qualification,
etc. The study presented in this chapter was very, very specific, almost a
little too much so, in my opinion. Nevertheless, it clearly presented
certain results, like that candidates attacked each other on issues more
than on personality or qualifications. I also thought it was interesting
that candidates who attacked other candidates, like Huffington did, got
more press coverage. She was not talked about very much before the
debates, but afterwards she and her issues were discussed in more detail
in the media.