Television’s Effect on Politics

By Cayla McKay ‘25

When John F. Kennedy was running for president in 1960, he published an article in TV Guide about the potentially harmful effects of television, then still a recent invention, on the political process. Candidates would become heavily reliant on television’s abilities of mass communication, he warned, and that, to properly utilize its potential, they would in turn become dependent on sources of campaign funding to pay for these ads, damaging the accountability of presidential campaigns and their front-runners in the process. Additionally, candidates would become far more populist and vitriolic, focusing more on how they present themselves and their opinions rather than what those opinions actually are. 

​​

The advent of television allowed elected officials and candidates to speak directly to millions of people; whereas before, debates were held before small crowds and broadcasted by radio, forcing listeners to hear both sides on an argument, now they could selectively focus their attention to only one candidate.
Those who tuned into debates could both hear in-depth reasoning from both sides, rather than mere segments of an issue in a political advertising campaign. Furthermore, presentation and performance have become increasingly more important than words and ideas as a greater emphasis is put on public image.
Famously, the 1960 presidential race debates were hosted for the first time on both television and radio. People only listening concluded that Kennedy’s well-spoken opponent Richard Nixon won the debate, while those watching believed Kennedy to be the victor, based on Nixon’s swarthy, sweating appearance as opposed to Kennedy’s calm and attractive demeanor. Kennedy ended up winning the 1960 presidential election against Nixon, only narrowly beating the future 37th president in a close race, a victory likely influenced by Kennedy’s dashing good looks and populist, common charm.
Since then, television has become an even more instrumental part of political advertising, causing a rise in targeted messaging from candidates and decreased exposure to alternative viewpoints. Today, American citizens increasingly live in information bubbles of their own choosing, posing a risk to American democracy. 
Network executives, producers and reporters for news programs have quickly learned to harness this direct influence on viewers, manipulating the news in favor of one party and shining a negative light on the other. Now, channels such as MSNBC and Fox News give insight to only one political side. MSNBC gives viewers an understanding of the liberal opinion on political issues, while Fox does the same, only with conservative views. By consuming news through only one opinionated lens, viewers only see one side of an issue, allowing half-truths to be spread as both sides become further disconnected from reality. 
​Although television has allowed voters to become more politically engaged and consume more news, many times they only hear one side of the story. In a political system that depends on compromise, targeted advertising risks hardening attitudes and beliefs that can stall the development of the nation.