Thursday, May 16, 2013

Reflection of the Vote (Media Influence)

   In a democratic country, election is essential for the future of a society. A vote can not only determine the victory of a party, but also affect how the country develops. A vast majority of people claim that media plays an important role during the election season. However, others argue that media does not really have any effect on the voting. There are various factors that account for the sharp contrast between the two views. Therefore, this issue should be viewed and analyzed in multiple perspectives. 

   It is irrefutable that media has been considered as one of the most major elements to determine the outcome of an election. First of all, an election cannot leave the help from social media, such as television, radio and internet. In this case, using these types of media can spread the information and process of the election wider and more efficient. For example, during the election between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney in 2012 president race, media, television and internet in particular, broadcast each debate they have to all of the America citizens. Since each debate between the two celebrities is successfully broadcast, the citizens can make their consideration more carefully on the voting. In addition, media has the advantage for citizens to share their personal opinions about the election, which can possibly influence others as well. In this sense, different opinions between residents also have the potential to change the result of the campaign. Last but not least, media can provide celebrities who attend the election a stage to spread their thoughts and plans faster and clearer. It contains more information than the campaign posters back in the old days and expresses the information to every resident who needs it. As a consequence, it is undeniable that media and the result of the election have a vital connection.

   Skeptics, however, disagree with the above perspectives. In their opinion, every vote comes from the result of resident’s consideration. It has nothing to do with the influence on the media. Internet and television are just ways to get information about different parties. However, every vote is the result of debating inside one’s mind, whether vote for this party or the other. Secondly, the debate between the party’s leaders and the celebrities is more accurate and essential than the arguing between some random people talk on the media. Therefore, skeptics insist that only the debates between the campaign celebrities are worth to listen and listen. Lastly, fake messages that are made for attacking certain parties purposely are crucial to be aware of. One of the disadvantages of the media is that any information can be provided for the residents. Consequently, not relying on social media is the best method to avoid this type of situation.

   In view of both justifications, it is fair to say that media can be a major factor of an election’s outcome. The efficiency of the modern media helps citizens to save time, but also gather more information as they wanted. However, at the same time, it is also vital to beware of the false or fake messages about certain parties. As a result, we could conclude that election is a personal voting thing. Nevertheless, with out the support of the media, the results of the election can be vary.


                   

3 comments:

  1. It is a bit hard to understand what you are trying to point out (eg. 'an election cannot leave the help from social media'?). I disagree with your statement that
    'It is irrefutable that media has been considered as one of the most major elements to determine the outcome of an election.'
    You are saying that media is a big part to determining who wins an election. Have you heard of the recent unexpected and overwhelming Liberal victory in our provincial election? The media, specifically Pollster, had concluded that the NDP would have a 45% win compared to the Liberal's 36% support, but that did not happen at all (rather the opposite). I do agree that the media lets us people have more insight into the election details and debates, but I don't think it is such a big part of the real results. Also, I think when you say 'celebrities', you mean the candidates right? Your third paragraph is a bit confusing. There is lots of random info; who cares if SKEPTICS think you should only listen to the real candidate debate, you are trying to explain how the media in general effects elections. I don't understand how the conclusion of your third paragraph relates to the topic. Your essay is very informative of both views.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh yeah, my reference to the pollster thing is from http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2013/05/15/bc-election-pollsters-wrong.html , or you can just google it.

      Delete
  2. You sound veey confident in your essay, which is good because it convinces the readers to agree with you. However, I found this essay a little hard to read and understand. The first thing I noticed was that you chose to call the candidates "celebrities" which did indeed confuse me a little. And I personally didnt like the fact that you started out saying that media does have an influence on the votes but in your second paragraph, you talked about how media does not really have a big influence on the votes. This really confused of which side you were agreeing to and disagreeing with. I think it would've been better if you just chose one side and strongly supported it instead of supporting both sides with weak points.
    Other than the minor mistakes (second paragraph : "last and last" ?? ) the essay had a good structure and I enjoyed reading it =)

    ReplyDelete