March 28, 2012
HOW BIG of a role does the media play in our presidential nominations?
Did Obama win the 2008 election because of skill or the pure celebrity status he gained during his campaign?
Will this year’s candidate be chosen upon influential status as well?
The media litters our headlines every four years during presidential elections.
And it’s no surprise that when the candidate is placed in office, the United States, as a whole, is somehow disappointed.
How serious are we about making such a vital decision?
Our focus seems to detour when it comes to making a presidential selection.
Our economy is in the midst of recovery, we are at a constant standstill with Iran and Afghanistan and an increase in poverty are just a few issues we face, but our main concern during election time is who is best at stroking our egos.
Media has the power to engulf our views and shape our opinions solely based on empty promises made by whoever’s face is shoved in the camera at that moment.
How important is a candidate’s full, comprehensive biographical background?
Well, sure, we obviously need to know their educational background and what type of experiences and/or jobs the candidate has under his or her belt to even qualify as president of the United States.
But do we really need to know who their great-grand grandparents were? Or what type of car they drove in the year 1974? No.
Media can inform, but it also can misinform and skew perceptions.
With all the available information out there regarding presidential candidates, it’s easy to become concerned with the surrounding nonsense, especially when that nonsense is on constant display.
Real issues like health care and economic relief are huge, lingering issues that Americans should be concerned with when it comes to electing a president. Somehow, though, those issues get overshadowed by the number of pets Mitt Romney keeps at his ranchhouse.