Political advertising in the United States has been around since our inception. From Andrew Jackson's mobilization efforts to William Henry Harrison's log cabin campaign, campaign slogans and advertising have been used in a variety of ways. As technology has progressed, so has the ability to disseminate information. While this is can be good, we increasingly see the dangers of it. President Trump transformed the media to fit his presidency to produce emotional reactions from both his base and his opponents. The hope was that he would receive more positive emotional reactions than negatives.
Trump used to brag about the engagement that media got because of him. Even the news outlets that did not like him were getting more interaction. Is this actually a good thing? I don't believe that success is measured by media engagement in this instance. Voters want to be informed on issues and current events, not on who called who a bad name. The media transformed to Trump and then they realized that they do better financially when they are getting more emotional reactions.
The transformation of media can also be seen in the amount of digital ads. In 2017, campaigns spent about $500 million nationwide for political ads. The 2022 midterms were projected to be in excess of $9 billion. We have gotten here because money has driven the media, and politicians are driven by voters. As politicians try to get votes, they have found success in using fear to trigger reactions that scare people to the polls. Instead of showing voter the "One shining hill" (Reagan), we are now voting against issues more than for issues.
No comments:
Post a Comment