Media Fuels Mudslinging Fire and Impacts Outcome of Nomination Process

At all of the rallies I have attended, there has been at least one negative mention (either directly or through a joke) of an opposing candidate. Understandably, candidates have to address other candidates in debates and to a certain extent. Some candidates decide to run paid negative advertisements, and others try as hard as possible to stay away from it.

Interestingly enough, mudslinging has proven to be fairly effective in local and national races across the country. There have been times when two front-runners have been so nasty that a candidate formerly in third took the race.

However, it seems to me that the media fuels the mudslinging fire far more than the candidates alone. I was glued to CNN before my trip to Iowa and in any free time, we have tuned into to local and national coverage. Everytime a candidate does a live interview with a show host or reporter, they almost always ask at least one instigating question about another candidate.

In Iowa, caucus-goers get the chance to meet as many candidates as they would like, so to an extent, they may not rely on the media for this coverage. To much of the rest of the country, they have to rely on these interviews and the media to develop their feelings about candidates.
The media seems to have an even more drastic impact on the selection of the presidential nominees as well. Many people have questions about why Iowa is so influential when it only represents the votes of one states' voters.

My simple answer is the media. When a candidate wins in Iowa, they seem to get the greatest amount of positive press coverage. This springboards them into the lead in other states where voters rely on that media coverage and have had little or no chance to interact with candidates themselves.

In 2007, Herb Strentz via NeimanWatchdog.org stated, "The most pressing question about the Iowa caucuses is not how can the news media do a better job of campaign coverage, but rathers how can Iowans rescue the caucuses from what the news media have become."

I find the issue to be a combination of both of these aspects. There should be continuous efforts to improve coverage because of the fact that the rest of the American voters don't have the same opportunities as Iowas. And the campaign events and rallies are not quite like appearances that will be made later in 2008. However, Strentz made a strong, very relevant statement referring to our somewhat slanted media.

The relationship between media coverage and election outcomes is an interesting one to watch, especially in our country where reporters are supposed to be neutral. Is it really possible - no matter how great a reporter?