Resolved:
- The media are too hard on presidents
**Please post your three (3) questions for the Pro, Con, or both sides of the debate, as well as indicating a question or two you would like to see asked in class (through submitting a "reply". Make sure you read through the questions posted before you, as repeated questions will not count! Questions should be submitted by10/31 at noon (12pm).
Do you think the President would be able to accomplish more if he wasn't so worried about his image?
ReplyDeleteThe media criticizes almost everything the President does in some sort of way. Scrolling through my news feeds on twitter, I see at least one comment a day of "Oh, I'll just blame Obama". Do you think this blame of the President on a social media website has an overall effect on everyone reading it? In other words, do more people just start to hate/disapprove of the President because it is so easy to blame him in the media?
What is the soul reason you think the media is too hard on the Presidents?
The third question is great!
DeleteI'm a fan of the 1st.
Delete1. Is the media simply giving the public a scapegoat by putting a lot of blame on the president?
ReplyDelete2. Is it possible at all to restrict the media from being too hard on the president?
3. Is the media possibly too hard on Congress as well?
I like question #2.
DeleteI like question 1 a lot!
DeleteIs it fair to the public for there to be limitations on what information the media can and cannot release about the president? (e.g. limitations in press conference questions, also - limiting what the press secretary can say in speeches, etc.)
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think is the biggest difference between presidencies that had no media coverage and presidencies that did have media coverage?
Overall, do you think media coverage on the presidency has more positive effects or more negative effects? Why?
Question #2 is interesting.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Delete1. Why is the media increasingly hostile and skeptical towards the President?
ReplyDelete2. Assuming the media is being hard on presidents, what are the possible implications on a president's presidency?
3. Does the media serve as a check on the presidential power?
I like #3
DeleteLike question #3
Delete1. Kerbel talked about how the television age has seen the presidential approval Why do you think television made such a huge impact compared to newspapers or radio?
ReplyDelete2.Do you think the internet and social media does more positive or negative publicity for the president?
3. Does the media even affect the public's opinion of the president? Why or why not?
Question 1 is really interesting - has this shift occurred because of the type of media we now see?
Delete1. If the media was indeed too hard on the president, would not the president or his Office of Communications do something about it? For example, would he not create his own Facebook page or Twitter account and share information with the public?
ReplyDelete2. When Clinton’s affair with Lewinsky was exposed to the public, the media was indeed hard on the president, it affected his work with Congress, yet his approval ratings were steady, if not improved later on. Knowing this, do you think that the media by being too hard on the president has a positive and a negative impact?
3. Is the media too hard on the President just because of political bias? Why or why not?
Is it healthy for the country to have an administration that crafts the release of information to avoid media scrutiny?
ReplyDeleteDoes the availability of different opinions on the internet affect the way the public views the president?
If the main two reasons for the increased critical nature of the media on the president are the political environment and turbulent times, is it fair to critique the man in the office?
I like question #1!
Delete1- A president who knows how to use his voice is particularly powerful. The most effective presidents of the modern era have known how to work the national media that emerged at the turn of the twentieth century. Theodore Roosevelt was the first to recognize that the presidential office was a great podium from which to shape public opinion. Franklin Roosevelt and John Kennedy were also effective communicators. Ronald Reagan was the best at turning the presidential public support to his advantage. The “Great Communicator” was masterful not only at delivering a message, but also at controlling the delivery of that message. Do you think a president has a good control over the media for the delivery of his message? Is it a total control, or do you see media controlling the president’s actions? If so, explain how.
ReplyDelete2- Do you think media is helping the growth of president’s office or is it a threat?
3- Obama and the media have a hostile relationship — as contentious on a day-to-day basis as any between press and president in the past decade. How do you evaluate that trend?
I like question 2!
Delete1) Does the increased amount of negative media coverage contribute to the polarization of the political parties, or rather does the level negative press result in part from the increased polarization in politics?
ReplyDelete2) If the founding fathers were around today and had witnessed the overwhelming amount of negative press Washington receives, would they have reconsidered adopting, or at the very least tailoring, the first amendment?
3) Does the increased level of negative press deprive the president of the secrecy and autonomy necessary in politics?
I like question #3!
DeleteHow important is media in our lives and does it have the power to reshape our government?
ReplyDeleteDo you think the media shapes the voters or do you think the voters shape the media? (does the media reflect the views of society?)
Does the media have the ability to make weak presidents look strong and make strong presidents look weak?
1. How has the media evolved the presidency? Shape your argument to defend your side of the debate.
ReplyDelete2. If the media wasn't hard on the presidency, wouldn't that create a false image of the executive branch? Is that what democracy was founded on?
3. How much influence does the media actually have in shaping the image of the president? Doesn't the president have the ability to manipulate the media as he sets his agenda as well?
Would the President have a lower or higher approval rating if there was no media?
ReplyDeleteDoes the media have the power to "set" the agenda by asking certain questions and emphasizing certain stories?
Do White House staffers leak information to select journalists in order to shape the coverage?
Question 1 is really interesting.
DeleteWhich news organization has been more critical: MSNBC of Bush or FoxNews of Obama?
ReplyDeleteIs there a way for media to investigate and cover all the ins and outs of the presidency without being considered critical?
How would America be different if we had a government sponsored news program? And what would that program look like?
1. Depending on the media institution, the portrayal and criticism of the president varies. Does this affect the public's belief on how fairly the president is treated.
ReplyDelete2. In presidential politics, candidates are ultimately evaluated by the media. Is this a positive or negative effect on public opinion? Or does it vary on the particular media?
3. If you were a journalist, how would you view this question? Does fairness matter as a factor or is it simply a journalist's job to report on the president as they see the facts?
Number 3 is a good one
DeleteDoes the perception of media change with each president or even by term?
ReplyDeleteHow would presidential politics be shaped if the media were not even allowed to report on goings on?
What is, in your opinion, the greatest flaw with media with regards to the presidency and politics?
1. If the media changed the way it covers presidential politics, what would be the result? How would this influence the presidency?
ReplyDelete2. Do you think the 24 hour news cycle has contributed to the idea that the media over-scrutinizes the presidents?
3. If the president supposedly has the ability to influence much of the media, why do you suppose the media remains as hard on presidents as it is?