AP Synthesis Prompt
Introduction: Television has been influential in United States presidential elections since 1960’s. But just what is this influence, and how
has it affected who is elected? Has it made elections fairer and more accessible, or has it moved candidates from pursuing issues to pursuing image?
Assignment: Read the following sources (including any introductory information) carefully. Then, in an essay that synthesizes at least three of the sources for support, take a position that defends, challenges, or qualifies the claim that television has had a positive impact on presidential elections.
Modern day technology has expanded society’s realm of reaching the public and continues to do so with each new event it faces. In events such as presidential elections, where the media must reach a massive audience, the campaigns and debates have been primarily in the hands of televisions. This convenient feature for the public allows the candidates to reach their audiencefrequently, and easily. However, do the effects that television has on the candidates image over power their overall message? sure the appearance is more of a factor through television, but it is not a negative factor and contributes positively to the campaigns.
In Source A, Dr. Stanton states, “Television, with its penetration, its wide geographic distribution and impact, provides a new, direct, and sensitive link between Washington and the people.” In using television, candidats broadcast themselves across the entire nation, and implant their faces into the minds of the deciding Americans. Through their speeches and debates, they are able to express their passion and emotion towards their ampaign through theirdelivery. In doing so, they can sway the public more by connecting with them personally. Yes, by adding the visual, the campaign becomes more concerned with appearances than the message, but isn’t appearance a major factor in a political leader? Why wouldn’t the American public want a leader who holds themselves in such ways to depict confidence and control? I believe the media needs to have the confidence that a significant portion of the audience are educated individuals that will evaluate a candidate from all angles.
There is the argument that radio provides a more neutral approach to evaluating the candidates ideas for and plans for America. In Source C, Theodore H. White states that “People who listened tot he debates onthe radio, scored it a draw; people who watched it thought that, except in the 3rd debate,Kennedy crushed Nicon.” Television produced results while radio produced and indesisive problem. In an election , we are looking for a settlement, not a draw; and if television produces that outcome, why not use it?
In Source B, it is suggested that “because of television’s sense of intimacy, the American people feel they know their Presidents as persons and
hence no longer feel the need for party guidance.” However, why should we need party guidance? If the American public is feeling a sense of personal relation to a candidate, shouldn’t that be the more valued candidate? In order for such a leader to lead and guide a nation, he or she needs to know how to connect to the people so he can act upon their suggestions. If that is the feeling television portrays, I say go for it.
There are many arguments towards both sides but it is clear that television is a vital and critical factor in political polls and should be used to the candidates advantages. In doing so, the American public can then choose the candidate more suitable to run this great country.
has it affected who is elected? Has it made elections fairer and more accessible, or has it moved candidates from pursuing issues to pursuing image?
Assignment: Read the following sources (including any introductory information) carefully. Then, in an essay that synthesizes at least three of the sources for support, take a position that defends, challenges, or qualifies the claim that television has had a positive impact on presidential elections.
Modern day technology has expanded society’s realm of reaching the public and continues to do so with each new event it faces. In events such as presidential elections, where the media must reach a massive audience, the campaigns and debates have been primarily in the hands of televisions. This convenient feature for the public allows the candidates to reach their audiencefrequently, and easily. However, do the effects that television has on the candidates image over power their overall message? sure the appearance is more of a factor through television, but it is not a negative factor and contributes positively to the campaigns.
In Source A, Dr. Stanton states, “Television, with its penetration, its wide geographic distribution and impact, provides a new, direct, and sensitive link between Washington and the people.” In using television, candidats broadcast themselves across the entire nation, and implant their faces into the minds of the deciding Americans. Through their speeches and debates, they are able to express their passion and emotion towards their ampaign through theirdelivery. In doing so, they can sway the public more by connecting with them personally. Yes, by adding the visual, the campaign becomes more concerned with appearances than the message, but isn’t appearance a major factor in a political leader? Why wouldn’t the American public want a leader who holds themselves in such ways to depict confidence and control? I believe the media needs to have the confidence that a significant portion of the audience are educated individuals that will evaluate a candidate from all angles.
There is the argument that radio provides a more neutral approach to evaluating the candidates ideas for and plans for America. In Source C, Theodore H. White states that “People who listened tot he debates onthe radio, scored it a draw; people who watched it thought that, except in the 3rd debate,Kennedy crushed Nicon.” Television produced results while radio produced and indesisive problem. In an election , we are looking for a settlement, not a draw; and if television produces that outcome, why not use it?
In Source B, it is suggested that “because of television’s sense of intimacy, the American people feel they know their Presidents as persons and
hence no longer feel the need for party guidance.” However, why should we need party guidance? If the American public is feeling a sense of personal relation to a candidate, shouldn’t that be the more valued candidate? In order for such a leader to lead and guide a nation, he or she needs to know how to connect to the people so he can act upon their suggestions. If that is the feeling television portrays, I say go for it.
There are many arguments towards both sides but it is clear that television is a vital and critical factor in political polls and should be used to the candidates advantages. In doing so, the American public can then choose the candidate more suitable to run this great country.