Approval ratings and campaigns

[jballscalls]

I have a question for some of you. I know Bush's ratings are in the dumper, but i know alot of that is from uninformed people who hear stuff on the news. Left Bias or not, the news is going to report more sensational stories rather than good ones.

I friend of mine is a Seal, and he was saying that many of his guys are upset because many of the good things they do in Iraq arent getting publicity.

OK, so my question is, many years ago when there werent all these goofy cable news shows like Fox and MSNBC etc, were there many muckraking type campaigners and politicians?? Instead of Candidates talking about what they will bring to the job, they just try and bring up bad qualities about their opponents. Just curious if that was how campaigns were run in the past. How can anyone have good approval ratings when all we hear is bad stuff about them? either current administration or campaigners?

[Tom]

I think we used have more "news" agencies than we do now. I don't know that we really have any news on TV anymore. Certainly not CNN, MSNPMS, or even Fox. The majority of so called news is an embarrasment. Whoeve called TV the vast wasteland insulted vast wastelands.:rolleyes:

Stop watching all TV and radio news. Your life will improve.

[riskman]

Most of this gloom is started by government telling us about all the things that we should be worried about and that only they can fix – with the use of our money of course. Terrorists, sexual predators, pesticides, light bulbs, cell phones, cigarettes, fast food, cholesterol, SUVs, asbestos, lead paint – is there anything that isn't a hazard and needs a government program to correct?

Radio is full of talk shows with constantly complaining hosts taking calls from a miserable whining public.

And what does TV offer? Reality shows on the major networks. You have to go to cable and after going through 300 channels you might find 5 that are interesting. Whatever these shows may provide it's not "fun." Neither are the shows that depict people's insides being dismantled! And look at grumpy Hugh Laurie on House, and disparaging Simon Cowell on American Idol. Miserable MOCKERS AND DEBUNKERS are in.

And the commercials! People used to enjoy smoking and actually did it onscreen! "I'd rather fight than switch," "It's a whole 'nother smoke." Sure, we knew that smoking wasn't good for you but we didn't get all in a knot about it! Nowadays we are fed an endless stream of information about what's wrong with us and what we need to buy to make it right. Available are Advair, Aleve and Ambien; Celebrex, Cialis, Claritin and Crestor; Flomax, Lipitor, Valtrex and Viagra, just to mention the few I've noticed. After pinpointing a perceived problem, these commercials feature earnest actors or voiceovers delivering grave warnings about all the terrible things that could happen if you do use the product. If you don't die from the disease the side effects of the drug could make your life a living hell anyway! Whatever happens you're on the way out! It's useless. Living is worse than dying. What's the point? Even if you survive the diseases and the drugs your life is going to be so unhappy that you might as well give up right now. :lol:

Political Campaigns--There just like TV and theater, except the main actors(candidates) suck! Readers used to have to wait for the morning newspaper, then the radio or the TV for their latest news. They got only what the editors chose to provide. The Internet opened up a wild world. There's not only news available from every conceivable source, but original studies and reports, the kind of things that in the past were available only to journalists. TV news has been around for ages, but it's never been this accessible, and now every person is a potential cameraman, who can capture a campaign-destroying sentence with a $200 camera. We'll see what it means in the long run, but in the short term, political candidates need to be careful what they say.

[rastajenk]

Negative campaigning has been around for a long time. I know that back in the 1800's, presidential candidates were routinely characterized as drunks, adulterers, closet queers, and all manner of evilness. The mass media then was newspapers, so there wasn't the reach that could be attained later; and of course fact-checking wasn't so easy, either. So Hardball is not a recent invention.

[jballscalls]

characterized as drunks, adulterers, closet queers, and all manner of evilness. .

Ted Kennedy, Clinton and Spitzer, and Larry Craig, i thought you said this was in the 1800's LOL

[46zilzal]

In one outrageous moment of Canadian history, John MacDonald (prime minister) was drunk at a scheduled speech and on the way to the podium after his opponent had finished speaking, he vomited all over the stage. Thinking quickly he simply said "THAT is what I think of my opponent in this election!"