Before any means of mass communication existed, Presidential Candidates would have to travel around the U.S. and meet with voters one on one. They would gather in designated areas with speeches so that all who gathered could discover who these men really were and what they stood for. It was a tedious and time-consuming task, but at the same time intimate and forthright. Though, as innovations in technology progressively moved forward, so did the way Candidates presented themselves to the people. They were quick to jump on the media bandwagon and spread their views to as many people as they could.

The first form of media to involve matters related to presidential elections was the newspaper. Though newspapers were never used directly in relation to presidential candidates, they were still used to relay information pertaining to political affairs. In the time leading up to the 1948 election, things were not looking good for Harry Truman. The Democrats were so badly split that they didn’t think Truman had a chance against Dewey and because of this there was little money behind Truman. Truman on the other hand did all he could to win the election. He traveled many miles to talk to as many people as he could; he gave direct answers instead of beating around the bush and just told the truth. In fact, because of his ability to be such a straight talker, crowds began the slogan “Give ‘Em Hell, Harry” (Miller 260).

On Tuesday, November 2nd, 1948, the Chicago Daily Tribune prematurely released pressings stating “Dewey Defeats Truman” on their cover page (Miller 406). As we all know from History class, this was not the case and there are many factors that influenced this fabrication. First of all, the normal employees of the Chicago Daily Tribune were on strike, so inexperienced workers were running the newspaper. Also, returns from the election were slow and the newspaper was on a deadline. Many of the employees were convinced, by the returns that were in before the paper went out, that Dewey was sure to win.

This event led to one of the most memorable pictures of Harry Truman as he stood on the back platform of a train on his way to Washington, D.C. holding the paper. He is quoted to have said, “This one is for the books” (Miller 209). Unfortunately, newspapers and politicians did not take full advantage of the medium. Yet, newspapers do have their place in the history of media and politics.

The next form of media to come along was radio. The first radio station, KDKA of Pittsburgh, started broadcasting in 1920. “The potential of radio to impact politics was felt almost immediately later that year when KDKA informed its listeners that Warren Harding defeated James Cox in that year’s presidential race” (Douglas 300). On a side note, FDR used the radio to his advantage by broadcasting his “Fireside Chats” with his soothing voice, to inform the public of his plans for the economy.

The first debate to take place over the radio happened in 1948 between Republicans Harold Stassen and Thomas Dewey (Debates: History). The broadcast took place just days before the Oregon primary. Other than that, it seems radio was never really used to it’s full potential. At least not until 1960 to broadcast the debate between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon, but by then the debate was also broadcast on television. Instead, the radio has been used more as a propaganda tool. A medium by which men like Rush Limbaugh and G. Gordon Liddy can help push their conservative agenda. It is yet to be seen if radio has passed its heyday when it comes to politics and only the future holds the answer.

It seems television finished the job that radio never got done, though there were still drawbacks. In 1934 Congress passed the Communications Act of 1934, which stated “a broadcasting station permitting a candidate use of its facilities had to give an equal opportunity to all other candidates for that office” (Debates: history). This means that all minor candidates as well as the speaker’s major-party opponent would be give equal airtime. So in order for a debate to take place, an invitation must be extended to all persons running.

In May of 1952, the first nationally televised debate took place between Republican and Democratic contenders, or their representatives. They answered two questions each at the annual convention of the League of Women Voters (Debates: history). It was not a huge success due to the limited amount of questions. On May 21, 1956, Democrats Estes Kefauver and Adlai Stevenson participated in the first nationally televised intra-party primary debate, which took place before the Florida Primary (Debates: history). Once again this was a much-overlooked event.

But then in 1960, Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy took the stand to publicly debate on national television and broadcast radio. It is believed that this debate came about for three reasons: “Both candidates saw political advantage to using television, the national networks were eager to prove they could be civic-minded without federal regulations, and debates were seen as a part of a larger movement to reform presidential campaigns” (Debates: history). Congress also suspended the Communications Act in order to allow for the two-man debate (Miller 281).

It is believed that those who watched the televised debate thought Kennedy won, while those who listened to the broadcasted debate thought Nixon had won. This is because of how Nixon appeared on television. “He didn’t wear make-up, was recovering from the flu, had lost weight, and suffered from a knee injury. He also wore a gray suit, which provided little contrast with the background set. Kennedy, on the other hand, wore a dark suit, wore make-up (though he already looked tan), and was coached on how to sit (legs crossed) and what to do when he wasn’t speaking (look at Nixon)” (Miller 285).

Another example of the television being a great tool for politicians is the 1964 telecast of the Daisy (also known as Daisy Girl or Peace Little Girl) campaign advertisement. This was an advertisement used by the Johnson campaign to help shock voters into electing him. In the commercial a young girl counts the petals on a flower while in the background the viewer hears the countdown of a missile launch sequence. As she looks into the sky the camera zooms into her pupil. When her pupil completely encompasses the screen a nuclear explosion takes place. It was a bold move on behalf of the Johnson campaign and the commercial was immediately taken off the air after its short-lived single viewing. Yet, however controversial the advertisement may have been, Johnson was still elected into office.

Even though television was, and still seems to be the best medium for a Presidential Candidate to get his or her views across, it not the only form of media capable of expressing ones views. In 2004, 5 months before the 2004 election, Michael Moore released his controversial documentary entitled Fahrenheit 9/11. It was an unrelenting film that questioned the agenda of the Bush administration. On it’s opening day it earned more money than any other feature-length documentary. It is believed that the timing of the film release was intended to sway voters against reelecting President Bush into office. However, the film failed to do so and President Bush was reelected.

On October 5th, 2007, David W. Balsiger released his documentary George W. Bush: Faith in the White House (Strom). It was hoped that the film would combat Fahrenheit 9/11s anti-Bush sentiment and also present an “examination of the president’s personal practice of Christianity” (Strom). So far it has not stood up to the popularity achieved by Fahrenheit 9/11. Whatever the case may be, both of these films are a true testament to freedom of speech and the power of media when it comes to politics.

The most recent frontier available to politicians is the Internet. Now that almost every home in America has a computer, it is easy to see why it is such a hot commodity. So far many have been slow to react to its wide use and availability, but progress is being made. The most recent venture into the World Wide Web was the YouTube debates. This is when Internet users had the opportunity to post video-recorded questions to candidates via YouTube, and have the chance of them being answered on live television.

It is still unseen as to how this may effect the election, but many speculate that it won’t change anything at all. “Most debate experts agree presidential debates reaffirm people’s opinions rather than change them. The debates are very useful for swing voters who, before the debates, have never seen the candidates without some type of a media filter.” Though, the possibilities for the Internet have yet to be fully utilized. The Internet is not only limited to campaign coverage and advertisement, but if used properly, has the advantage of being open to a whole range of other opportunities: online voting being one of them. Who knows what’s in store for Americans in the future, but rest assure that multimedia will have something to do with it.