Home / Issues and Investigations / The Role of Media In The American Presidential Elections And Its Impacts Toward The World

The Role of Media In The American Presidential Elections And Its Impacts Toward The World

The U.S. presidential race isn’t only drawing attention and controversy in the United States it’s being closely watched across the globe.

A U.S. presidential election is a complex, multi-stage process that is both confusing and uncertain. It begins when candidates begin to declare their intentions to run for president, often nearly two years prior to the actual election. Candidates begin hiring staff, organizing a national campaign apparatus, and most important, raising money. Before the final, general election campaign, candidates from each major party Democrats and Republicans must compete in a primary campaign, in which they vie to become their party’s nominee for president.

The primary campaign involves speeches, interviews, policy announcements, engagement with voters, efforts to gather high profile endorsements, fundraisers, and ultimately, debates. In debates, which began in late 2015, candidates from their respective parties face a series of questions from members of the media.

Advances in technology and media have also affected presidential campaigns. The invention of both radio and television have given way to the reliance of national political advertisements across those methods of communication. National advertisements such as Lyndon B. Johnson’s 1964 commercial “Daisy”, Ronald Reagan’s 1984 commercial “Morning in America”, and George H. W. Bush’s 1988 commercial “Revolving Door” became major factors in those respective elections. In 1992, George H. W. Bush’s promise of “Read my lips: no new taxes” was extensively used in the commercials of Bill Clinton and Bush’s other opponents with significant effect during the campaign.

Washigton post newspaper , published an article written by the writer : Eugene Robinson,under the title:”No, the media didn’t create Trump”

One of the more absurd things being said about the Donald Trump phenomenon is that the media created it. For the record, we didn’t.

First of all, there is no “we.” The news media operate in what should be every conservative ideologue’s dream environment: an unfettered free market. Outlets compete every day actually, in the Internet age, every hour  to provide consumers with information they need and want. Every editor and news director strives to beat the competition, and the fact is that audiences have decided they need and want to know about Trump.

No one understands this better than Trump himself. To understate by miles, he knows how to draw attention to himself  the late-night Twitter rants, the fire-breathing rallies, the gold-plated jet, the ridiculous hair. After decades in the public eye, he had more than 90 percent name recognition when he began his campaign. So it was no surprise that hordes of media flocked to Trump Tower last June 16 and watched him descend the shiny escalator for his kickoff announcement. Who doesn’t love a good sideshow?

But any carnival barker can draw a crowd. Trump would have been sent home to his Fifth Avenue penthouse long ago if a substantial part of the Republican Party base didn’t agree with what he is saying. If there is any sort of collective media failure, it’s in paying not too much attention to Trump but instead too little to his message.

Were the morning news shows wrong to let Trump call in so often? Before you say “of course they were,” think of the implications. Do those programs have an obligation to treat every candidate the same? If so, contenders such as Martin O’Malley and Jim Gilmore should have gotten as much coverage and airtime as, say, Hillary Clinton and Ted Cruz.

Were the cable networks wrong to carry live coverage of so many Trump rallies? Recall that the events themselves were newsworthy because of the extraordinary size of the crowds. I could buy the argument that the other candidate who drew unusually big crowds, Bernie Sanders, perhaps should have gotten more coverage, but not that Trump should have gotten less.

The “media created Trump” storyline ignores the fact that the “mainstream” media are about as popular among the Republican base as the Zika virus. And the one exception, Fox News, has been tougher on Trump than other outlets, not more accommodating. Chris Wallace, the host of “Fox News Sunday,” has long refused to let Trump call in. And anchor Megyn Kelly, with her sharp questioning and commentary, seems to have driven the blowhard billionaire up the wall.

It is true that Trump delivers huge television ratings and lots of website clicks. But that’s irrelevant. News organizations have to cover the leading candidates, even if they’re dull as dishwater.

The news media, it seems to me, are guilty only of reporting the news  which is that a candidate who has never held elective office, and who displays neither the base of knowledge nor the temperament necessary to serve as president, is leading all comers for the Republican nomination. Commentators should spend less time flattering themselves that the news media have the power to make such a thing happen  and more time trying to understand why Trump is succeeding.

Early in his campaign, Trump staked out extreme positions on illegal immigration: Deport the 11 million undocumented migrants already in the country, and build a “big, beautiful wall” along the Mexico border. Ridiculous, yes, but he got people’s attention.

He followed up, after the San Bernardino, Calif., terrorist attack, with a call to ban all foreign Muslims from entering the country. It is another crazy idea — impossible to implement and counterproductive if attempted — but it resonated with millions of Americans who unfortunately view Islam with fear and loathing.

Trump rails against free trade agreements whose effect, in his view, has been to eliminate millions of manufacturing jobs. He pledges to reduce the cost and scope of U.S. involvement overseas. He denounces other politicians as lackeys who dance to the tune of rich and powerful campaign donors. And he plays on the anxieties and prejudices of white voters unnerved by demographic change in a nation that will soon have no racial majority.

With apologies to Marshall McLuhan, in this case the media are merely the messenger, not the message. Blaming ourselves for Trump’s rise is just another way to ignore the voters who have made him the favorite for the GOP nomination.

For those who knows a little about trump , and needs more deep information about him and about his opinion and aims toward the arab words and the middle east   ,here is a brief about the common character that all the media around over the world is talking about:

Donald trump, Republican presidential nominee hopeful,  television personality.

Real estate developer Donald John Trump was born in 1946, in Queens, New York. In 1971 he became involved in large, profitable building projects in Manhattan. In 1980, he opened the Grand Hyatt, which made him the city’s best-known and most controversial developer. In 2004 Trump began starring in the hit NBC reality series The Apprentice, which also spawned the offshoot The Celebrity Apprentice. In 2015 Trump announced his candidacy for president of the United States and shortly after the first Republican debate became the party’s frontrunner.

Donald Trump has offered a complicated and often difficult to navigate plan with regard to IS. Initially, he was hesitant to engage in the conflict, arguing that he was comfortable letting Russia fight IS. He stated there was no need for U.S. intervention and that the United States could simply “pick up the remnants” after Russia defeated IS. In any effort he supports a limited number of U.S. ground forces. He supports bombing Iraqi oil fields to cut off IS revenue, but also wants Iraq to supply the United States with $1.5 trillion in oil revenue to repay war costs. Trump supports killing the families of IS fighters in an effort to dissuade recruitment. He argues that IS must be defeated before the United States deals with Assad.

Syria and refugees-Trump has both recommended the use of “tremendous force” against Assad and expressed concern about what would come after his fall. He is skeptical of training Syrian moderates and whether they can be trusted. He opposes no-fly zones in Syria, but supports establishing safe-zones. Trump says he would prevent refugees from entering the United States and argues that until the U.S. immigration system can improve screening processes, he would ban all Muslims from entering as well.

Iran/nuclear deal-Trump opposes the Iran nuclear deal and argues he could negotiate a better deal. He has at moments sounded as if he would renege on it and at other times suggested reneging is a poor strategy. He states that he would stop the Iranian nuclear program “by whatever means necessary.” Trump also supports an increase in economic sanctions, presumably above the pre-deal baseline.

Israel-Trump has voiced strong support for Israel as a military and economic partner. He supports a close alliance with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He has not been clear about his views on the establishment of a Palestinian state. He is also supportive of Israeli unilateral action against Iran.

Gulf states-Trump demands that Gulf states pay for safe zones in Syria, adding that the United States can contribute some assistance to the effort. He also argues that Saudi Arabia should compensate the United States financially whenever the United States assists in the protection of Saudi interests.

Other issues-Trump claims he would renegotiate any and all U.S. trade deals that disadvantage U.S. interests, arguing that he can negotiate better deals. Such renegotiation could have an impact on existing trade deals with Bahrain and Oman, and could influence efforts at trade deals with the Gulf region. Trump states that he is in favor of using tariff wars even against nations like China who he argues “don’t play by the rules.” He also states that the United States should only intervene in conflicts around the world when America is directly threatened, not simply for humanitarian purposes. Finally, he supports dictators throughout the world if they ensure stability.

After A glance at some of the international  newspapers, we noticed that each state has a specific opinion against  the US presidential election , but this election has the impacts on every country in the world  and each candidate has its own program toward the countries and especially the middle east , and the most prominent articles that was published around the world are:

Tim Stanley is a columnist with The Daily Telegraph:

News coverage is dominated by Donald Trump. He reminds us of Gordon Gekko, but without the sex appeal. Britons find having money embarrassing and boasting about it nauseating — and The Donald makes matters worse by challenging our multicultural sensitivities. Trump has been criticized by the Prime Minister, and members of Parliament debated banning him from Britain.

The debate was widely mocked. It was an illiberal excuse to virtue signal, and some MPs appeared to forget that Trump has invested generously in our country. A lone, brave MP admitted that many of his constituents share Trump’s views. No one pointed out that Britain might just as easily ban President Barack Obama on the grounds that his administration has deported record numbers of illegal immigrants, or that UK citizens have been denied entry to the United States apparently on the basis that they are Muslim.

British understanding of the U.S. election is, as always, prejudiced. Sympathy is overwhelmingly with Hillary Clinton because we know very little about her, she isn’t a Republican, she’s a woman, and we like Bill Clinton. Sexual misdemeanor rarely kills a political reputation in Britain. We’re obsessed with money: Overcharge the taxpayers for official use of stationery and you risk assassination.

Koya Ozeki is the Washington correspondent for the Yomiuri Shimbun, Japan’s largest newspaper:

Just consider a New York Times article from July 1990, which cited a recent poll asking about potential threats to the United States. It found 58% of Americans saw Japan’s economic power as a bigger threat to the United States than the Soviet Union’s military power.

That’s quite a statistic. Of course, fast forward to today, and the idea that Japanese economic might somehow endangers Americans is almost laughable after two decades of deflation in Japan. But that earlier poll came at a time when Japanese-manufactured cars were being vandalized on the streets of Detroit, and anti-Japanese rhetoric was seen as a vote-winner. Indeed, “Japan-bashing” was a central theme of Dick Gephardt’s presidential bid in 1988.

I’m not going to argue with this diagnosis — plenty of people already have. But what is troubling is the way Trump and other candidates have tried to stoke people’s fears about other nations and their people as a way of collecting votes. Trump may be the most explicit and controversial in doing so, but he is by no means the only one, at either end of the political spectrum, to suggest that America should be scared.

Ferial Haffajee is an editor of City Press newspaper:

I realize that Trump isn’t the only one running for president, but as in the United States, he has dominated the coverage of the race, and the other candidates have simply not found space in South Africa’s coverage of the primaries, outside of small, intellectual circles. It is Trump this and Trump that, outdoing himself again and again with his bigotry.

Now the same country that elected Obama seems to be toying with the idea of electing a comb-over king who doesn’t seem to like Muslims and Mexicans very much, leaving some here to wonder what he feels about black Americans and Africans.

So the focus has been on Trump, who unfortunately has run an insular campaign. If asked about his African foreign policy, I fear it would sound something like this: “Kenya? Isn’t that the place where Obama was born?”

Camelia Entekhabifard is an Iranian-American journalist and author of “Save Yourself By Telling the Truth”:

 It’s probably too early for the Iranian public to decide on its preferred U.S. presidential candidate. At this point most Iranians just don’t know enough about the individual contenders. But they do know the differences between the parties  and what that could mean for ties between the two nations.

But there is a certain irony in the tough line being taken by the Republican candidates  electing a conservative Republican could also have an impact on the next presidential election in Iran, and not in the way they might be hoping. The fact is that extreme talk fuels animosity in Iran  and increases the chances of Tehran’s hardliners seizing power. And that is presumably not what they intend

Iranians are hoping to see relations improve based on recent diplomatic achievements, while the implementation of the nuclear deal ,hopes that a Democratic president will follow in President Barack Obama’s footsteps.

Mikhail Fishman is editor in chief of The Moscow Times:

President Putin likely knows he will never be regarded as a legitimate partner by any mainstream president of the United States. So it’s now all about Trump, who challenges not a political camp, but the core of the U.S. system itself. It was not by accident that Putin endorsed him last December, and the official Russian media has taken the same line since then.

If Trump secures the Republican nomination, Russian officialdom can be expected to celebrate his victory much like Napoleon celebrated his triumph in the battle of three emperors at Austerlitz two centuries ago.

Ultimately, the Kremlin takes a two-pronged approach to the United States. Tactically, Russian authoritarianism presents itself as not all that different from Western liberal democracies. The argument goes that both kinds of regimes are flawed, with their strings pulled by forces from behind the curtain. Indeed, Putin is always keen to emphasize flaws in the American democracy, usually pointing out that George H.W. Bush won the presidency in 2000 despite losing the popular vote. In doing so, he seems to be sending a message to his nation that rigged elections in Russia are somehow a similar phenomenon.

Nadim Ladki is editor in chief of Lebanon’s Daily Star newspaper:

The U.S. presidential election has long ceased to be just a local American story, and with the campaigns approaching the final stretch as the primaries begin, international interest in the race to the White House is set to intensify.

It’s testimony to the fact that the United States remains the true global power that people and the media in most countries will follow the race closer than they follow even some local stories. This is particularly so in the war-ravaged Middle East.

While the social and economic agendas of candidates inevitably top the focus of the American public and media, the main interest in the Middle East is the foreign policy of the pretenders to the position of most powerful person in the world.

But Washington is also being looked upon to help ease tensions between regional powerhouses Iran and Saudi Arabia. And it is in a unique position after the nuclear deal to check Tehran’s interference in the affairs of its Arab neighbors and to use its historic ties with Riyadh to contain the fires raging in the region.

One interesting thing to note here is it’s not only candidates who are showing an affinity towards social media; websites like Facebook, Google, Twitter and Snapchat are doing their bit to warm up to politicos too.

Twitter, for instance, shut down two apps that showed tweets that politicians had deleted – if ever a social network pandered to political advantage, this was it. Twitter later formed an agreement with Politwoops. They even hosted a breakfast event in Washington rolling out the proverbial red carpet for election candidates. And they went on to partner with Square so people could tweet their donations to their preferred parties and candidates.

Eric Laurence, Facebook’s head of U.S. Industry for Politics and Government, once cited the benefits of their video advertising saying it was a “great way to reach and mobilize supporters and voters that candidates need to win elections.” He further added that “those voters are on Facebook,” which is not far off the mark, counting the 200 million U.S. citizens actively using Facebook. The company has a dedicated team which meets candidates and offers assistance with Facebook’s advertising services.

Even the fairly new entrants like Snapchat are proffering filters and 10-second video ads catered to political campaigns. The first few candidates to run ads on this platform were John Kasich, Rand Paul and Scott Walker. Snapchat even hired ex-Google leader Rob Saliterman, who led political ad sales during the George W. Bush administration.

Coming to the giant now, Google is a leader when it comes to 2016 elections. From sponsored links in Google searches, YouTube video ads and the new-fangled programmatic display ads on online publishing websites such as New York Times, presidential candidates have a lot of scope to reach out to right audience through Google.

Critics also argue that the Electoral College is archaic and inherently undemocratic. With all but two states (the exceptions being Maine and Nebraska) using a winner-take-all system, both the Democratic and the Republican candidates are all but certain to win all the electoral votes from those states whose residents predominantly vote for the Democratic Party or the Republican Party, respectively. This encourages presidential candidates to focus exponentially more time, money, and energy campaigning in a few so-called “swing states”, states in which no single candidate or party has overwhelming support. Such swing states like Ohio are inundated with campaign visits, saturation television advertising, get-out-the-vote efforts by party organizers, and debates. Meanwhile, candidates and political parties have no incentive to mount nationwide campaign efforts, or work to increase voter turnout, in predominately Democratic Party “safe states” like California or predominately Republican Party “safe states” like Texas. In practice, the winner-take-all system also both reinforces the country’s two-party system and decreases the importance of third and minor political parties.Furthermore, a candidate can win the electoral vote without securing the greatest amount of the national popular vote, such as during the 1824, 1876, 1888, and 2000 elections. In theory, it is possible to secure the necessary 270 electoral votes from just the top 11 populous states and then ignore the rest of the country.

the Republican Party are distrusting or even disdainful of groups that do not look like them, including Muslims, Latinos, and immigrants of all kinds. The immigration debate on the Republican side has been particularly harsh, as some candidates have sought to distance themselves from each other with extreme rhetoric. Many, however, fall back on a common refrain among Republicans: keep them out. Mass deportations, security walls at America’s borders, or both, have been the preferred means to deal with immigration issues on the right.

That anger over immigration has also bled into foreign policy, combining with fears over terrorism. It is in this context that Muslims have become a specific target of the Republican candidates’ harshest rhetoric. Ben Carson compared Muslims to “rabid dogs,” several candidates have suggested banning Muslim refugees, and Ted Cruz criticized those who speak out against anti-Muslim rhetoric. Meanwhile, Donald Trump has proposed a ban on all Muslims entering the United States and suggested closing mosques and entering all Muslims already in the country into a government-run database. More than anyone, Donald Trump has recognized the realities of that anger and xenophobia and has consolidated that support. What sounds offensive or off color to some is music to the ears of a significant portion of the Republican electorate, and Trump’s support reflects that.

In the end, who the United States will elect as its next president will have a significant impact on the direction of foreign policy, particularly on an issue-by-issue basis. The choices over existing agreements, partnerships, deals, and alliances could see changes in the next administration. Changes in the direction of American foreign policy must be put into context, however. Rhetoric from presidential candidates is often an exaggerated version of their true beliefs or the actions they would take as president. Oftentimes, to understand what a future administration would look like, it is more important to read between the lines than to read the actual lines of their speeches.


lebanese Ministry of information

 by Zeinab Zahran


click here to read more

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *