How accesible do we want our canidates to be to the media? I would think pretty accessible considering the media is where we get the majority of our information about them. In an article on cnnnews McCain is said to be one of the most accessible canidates if not the most at this point. He holds "availabilities" on his bus and sometimes after speeches or meetings. I feel as though I always want to hear what the canidates have to say... all the time, and I like that McCain tries his best to provide that. This article also says that part of McCain's charm with the media is that he jokes around with them and has playful chit chat. "Some of these same critics also suggest McCain gets more favorable press because he is so accessible, and because he so clearly enjoys both the serious exchanges and playful banter that punctuate his relationship with the media," says John King, CNN Chief National Correspondent.
However this type of media availibility can also counteract with itself because while this helps one put their voice out there, their voice is ALWAYS out there. Things that McCain, or any politician for that matter, can be twisted and taken out of context leaving the person shaking their head saying to themselves, I never meant it like that.
McCain's wife made her addicition to painkillers public and of course that left her vulnerable to the media. In McCain's home state of Arizona, The Arizona Republic, his hometown newspaper published a cartoon of his wife taking pills from an infant. While I think that this was wildly inappropriate and in bad form, especially from his hometown newspaper, the media did not care about him being polite with them and allowing him and his family to be put out there and let the public know what is going on. This is an example of how the media can turn on someone in a heartbeat, regardless of playful banter and easy accessibility.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
John McCain had reporters on the bus when he was on his way back to the airport after speaking in Jacksonville last month.
I agree, it is neat that candidates are accessible and open. If the candidate was closed and secretive, it would be harder for the American people to trust him. American people are looking for someone to be real with them, as Roland Martin reiterated last night during his speech at FCCJ.
There are times (i.e. Sarah Palin's daughter's pregnancy) where the media should have backed off for the sake of the privacy of Bristol; however, with Palin thrust into the spotlight in a matter of hours, there was no evading what happened. It turned out for the better for the McCain-Palin campaign.
The media can be biased. The more open to them you are, the more forgiving they can be. For example, in sports, the media seemed to quickly push aside the affairs of Michael Jordan and the pain killer addiction of Brett Favre, we they never miss an opportunity to jump down the throat of Barry Bonds or Terrell Owens.
One thing you can't do is always categorize the media a single entity. The media is a huge number of people from all walks of life. Some share opinions, some differ. That particular cartoonist was displaying HIS opinion.
You bring up a good question, how accessible do we want the candidates to be?
I agree with you that I like to know what a candidate has to say most of the time, but they need their privacy too. When a person is always in the public eye they become a target for word twisting and critism, and while this can often be amusing, sometimes it's taken to far.
I like that McCain allows reporters on his bus after speeches and whatnot, and that he is willing to talk to the media comfortably, but I think they should stick to onlyl bothering him at press confrenses, bus meetings, and speeches. After all the man does need his privacy. You only mention McCain in your post, do you know if Obama has the same welcoming attitude towards media and McCain does?
Candidates’ accessibility to the media is like a two way street. Going one way helps benefit eager people like me who always wants to know what is happening. But, going the opposite direction gives media the advantage of misinterpreting or slanting the truth.
Great question, and a good topic to think about.
I like it when politicians are accessible. Privacy is good, yes... but they really do need to recognize that thier voters want to hear from them. After all, we're the ones deciding who'll get to White House.
I agree with you on the Cindy McCain issue. I do think that sometimes people get a little out of hand, and making such a mockery out of her obvious personal struggle was poor taste.
I think having your entire life put under the microscope of the media is just something that comes with the job of being president, or even running for president.
It really comes down to how well someone accepts it. McCain seems not to have too much trouble, which is definitely good, because I do believe that the candidates need to be under a certain amount of scrutiny. Not to the point of getting into matters that are way too personal, but just so that we know just who it is we are voting for.
Privacy is great, but something the media takes prides in is exposing the truth.
The media deffinately should look beyond the surface of a candidates life to give the audience a more rounded view, but are there lines not to be crossed?
I think the media becomes unethical and untasteful when they report trivial information on a politician thats highly sensitive.
Post a Comment