Reflections: Media and national politics

Media has played an extraordinarily important role in the most recent election. We have been inundated with advertisements on the radio, on TV and in social media. Even if we had so wished, it was impossible to escape the 24-hour news cycle, with stories coming at us from all directions.

Media has always played a key role in political campaigns. But it has taken a variety of different forms in years past.

Back in the last decade of the 19th century, newspapers were key. This was the era of the so-called “Yellow Press,” where papers printed sensational stories as they vied for readership. Joseph Pulitzer, a Hungarian-American politician, was publisher of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and the New York World. He competed with William Randolph Hearst, who reputedly once sent artist Frederick Remington to cover an insurrection in Cuba in the 1890s. When Remington reported that there was no war he could find, Hearst was reported to have said, “You furnish the pictures. I'll furnish the war."

Then came the advent of radio. First developed in the 1890s, it came of age in the 1920s as programs like “Amos ‘n’ Andy” became enormously popular. But politicians like President Herbert Hoover had no use for radio. For him, broadcasting was like talking into a doorknob.

Franklin D. Roosevelt changed everything. Elected in 1932 as the Great Depression ravaged the U.S., he captivated the country with his First Inaugural, broadcast around the country. The words still ring out today: “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself — nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.” FDR, of course, followed that speech with his famous Fireside Chats, where he spoke to the country over the radio in a calm, reassuring voice, telling people what the government was doing to try to alleviate their distress.

Roosevelt demonstrated the power of radio beyond the shadow of a doubt. It created a sense of trust, particularly among members of the working class. As one North Carolina mill worker once commented, “Mr. Roosevelt is the only man we ever had in the White House who would understand that my boss is a son-of-a-bitch.”

Other presidents used the radio for their own ends. Dwight Eisenhower, accused by some of being a “do nothing” President, often knew precisely what he was doing on the air. As he once commented about a prickly problem, “Don’t worry. If that comes up, I’ll just confuse them.”

Then came TV. The debates between Democrat John F. Kennedy and Republican Richard Nixon demonstrated just how important television had become. While both candidates were equally articulate, Kennedy appeared much more relaxed, vigorous and alive on TV, and many observers believed that television helped him win the White House.

Ronald Reagan used television even better. With his acting background, he knew how to appeal to audiences effectively, and did so amazingly well. I can recall watching him on TV, applauding him as he spoke, turning off the television and then saying to myself, “That was good!” only to realize that I disagreed with pretty much everything he said. I once related that story to a Miami University class, trying to demonstrate how good Reagan was on TV, only to have one student complain that I was bad-mouthing the conservatives. Not at all. I intended the story to demonstrate how skillful Reagan really was.

We’re in a new world today. Television ads are more clever, more compelling than ever before. With artificial intelligence we can manipulate sounds and images to say whatever we choose. Political discourse has become even more charged than it was, and it has become even harder to know what is true and what is not.

We can only hope that sensible people will find a way through the noise and use the media for an acceptable result.

Allan Winkler is a University Distinguished Professor of History Emeritus at Miami University, where he taught for three decades. He serves on the Board of Directors for the Oxford Free Press.