The advent of the television had a drastic impact on the political landscape. Suddenly the average person had a plethora of new ways to consume information about current events and politics. While it would seem that this would have a positive effect on how informed the public would be, in reality things have turned out quite the opposite. Some at the time predicted the potentially tricky nature of television in politics. In 1958, a Senator by the name of John F. Kennedy wrote an article predicting the effects of the television revolution on the political landscape. While he lauded the technologies potential to disseminate information, he also warned of its potential dangers in terms of politics. He mused that politics “could be taken over by public relations experts, who tell the candidate not only how to use the TV but what to say, what to stand for and what kind of person to be”. Ironically, Kennedy would greatly benefit from this paradigm just three years later. In the first televised presidential debates in history Kennedy faced off against Richard Nixon. While radio listeners called the debate a draw or a win for Nixon, those who watched the event on television overwhelmingly declared Kennedy as the winner. While the two were more less evenly matched on substance, Kennedy was charismatic and composed while Nixon was tired and sweaty after a bout of flu and a long day on the campaign trail.

This event started a trend wherein politicians were judged not on the substance of their policies, but on their appearance and mannerisms. Kennedy’s statement in his 1958 article proved to be prophetic, as politicians in the modern era are surrounded by an army of public relation specialists, speechwriters, and cosmetologists. Not to improve the policies of the politicians, but to improve how they are presented to the public.

Another implication of television in politics is how the news is presented to the public. With the advent of the 240 hour news cycle one would think that political coverage would be more detailed and robust than ever. However, that is rarely the case. News cycles typically only use sound bites and snippets of information, rather than exhaustive analysis of policies or social issues. The 24-hour news cycle instead has a plethora of talking heads that offer various opposing opinions, frequently getting into heated and unproductive debates.

There are some shows that focus entirely on issues of policy in drawn out detailed ways, such as CSPAN. However shows such as these tend to draw significantly lower ratings than shows like The Daily Show or Fox and Friends. It seems like the general public simply prefer their politics in shorter, more eye catching chunks. This begs the question, is technology the reason for our uninformed public, or does the fault lie with the public itself? The fact is that the public prefers information about politics to be packaged up into small, easily digestible snippets, or masked with comedy. This is an unproductive way to inform oneself about politics and the world at large, and this dynamic must be changed if we want to have a voting population that makes informed decisions.