While paying relatively close attention to the presidential race in the past months, it is evident what a large role the media has in shaping our perceptions of reality. It has also become evident how an in-person encounter can be so powerful as compared with a media encounter.
I’m a New Hampshire voter so I was “courted” by the candidates. Obama shook my hand. And it wasn’t like I had to stick my hand way out there. After 20 minutes of hand shaking, he came back to the corner where I was standing and said; “Oh I missed you guys the first time around.” So impressive! And he is quite handsome in real life. These are just not things that any type of media could ever impart. Charm aside, I voted for Edwards based on his solid policies.
Anyway, I saw first hand how all of the hype and predictions of media actually shaped the outcome. The New Hampshire primary was just after Iowa. Obama won in Iowa and it was predicted almost unanimously by commentators that he would win in New Hampshire. All of this information swayed many voters that I spoke with to vote for Edwards because they knew he wouldn’t win and just wanted him to have the vote. And in the case of Clinton this was even more extreme. This is not to say that New Hampshire voters did not want Clinton. But based on the very confident predictions of media, many voters who might have been on the fence were swayed to vote for Clinton. It is this type of psychology that fascinates me. All of the hype actually creates an alternate reality. And in the end, when Obama may have been close to winning in New Hampshire had it not been for all of the heavy-handed commentary, Clinton won by a landslide. In this case the media becomes an interesting mechanism for not just reporting on events as they are, but for changing the actual outcome.