am

Masters of MediaA Comperative Commerative Edition

JFK: Celebrity inthe White House

Obamania

Charisma:Is ThatAll ItTakes?

Takes Overthe Media

ammagazine

Editors

Production Manager

Art Director

Publisher

EDITORIAL OFFICEMcEwen 210,

School of CommunicationsElon Univeristy, NC

Senior Editor

Dear Readers,

AMANDA LONG

AMANDA LONG

MY NGUYEN

MEDIA HISTORY, MEDIA TODAY

MY NGUYEN

DAVID COPELAND

For our Interpreting History project, we chose to compare the media coverage and perceptions of John F. Kennedy and the current President Barack Obama.

OnOn the surface, the two men share a number of similarities. Both are or were young, ivy-league educated Democratic Senators. Both are or were the first of their kind, as Obama is the first black president and JFK, the first Catholic president. Both men also faced discrimination for these reasons.reasons.

Politically, Obama, like Kennedy, appeals to the independent voter.

What most people recognize, however, is that both are or were attractive, inspiring, charismatic, captivating orators.

Yet even these similarities--no matter how uncanny--may be attributed to mere coincidence.

Our aim, then, is not to compare JFK and President Obama solely as individuals, or even as presidents, but rather as subjects and masters of the media.

OnOn September 26, 1960, 70 million U.S. viewers tuned in to watch a handsome, young senator from Massachusetts--namely, John Kennedy--debate Vice President Richard Nixon in the first-ever televised presidential debate. The first of four televised debates between the two, this Great Debate marked televisions entrance into politics and the presidential race.

These televised debates enabled voters to see the presidential candidates in compe-tition, and certainly, the contrast in their appearances was dramatic.

By the time of the first debate, Nixon was pale and underweight due to a serious knee injury and two weeks spent in the hospital. Kennedy, however, was tan and prepared both in mind and appearance. According to The Museum of Broadcast

Communications, Nixon later wrote, I had never seen him looking so fit.

Substantially,Substantially, the candidates were more or less evenly matched--those who heard the debate on the radio declared Nixon the winner. However, the 70 million viewers saw a candidate sickly and obvi-ously discomforted by Kennedys smooth delivery and charisma.

In 1960, Americans voted with the debates in mind. So would continue Americas and the medias infatuation with their charming, handsome presi-dent. Proceed then, to April 26. 2007, the date of the first Democratic debate for the most recent presidential election.

DespiteDespite being dubbed as inexperienced, Senator Obama proved he belonged on the stage with his longer serving rivals, particularly with his chief rival, Hillary Clinton.

ClintonsClintons advantage over the young sena-tor was rooted in an issue of experience; but like Nixon found in his debate with Kennedy, experience is not everything.

By the end of the debate, Obama showed himself to be as adept, equally well informed, capable, and more articulate than his more experienced rivals. His soaring rhetoric and magnetic personality won voters, and now seem to have entranced the media. Because of the evo-lutionlution of media, however, this love affair is perhaps not as glaring as that of Kennedys.

In this issue, we seek to highlight and compare medias relationship with these two men. Through an analysis of articles written both about the invidiuals them-selves, as well as about the medias cover-age of them, we hope to explore how the media lends itself to charismatic individuals, and how this affects the audiences perceptions of them.

Contributors

"CBS Poll: Obama Boosted Most By Debate." CBS News: Politics. CBS News, 26 Sept. 2008. Web. 04 Dec. 2009. .

Gould, Lewis L. "JFK: Celebrity in the White House." BBC. BBC, 5 Nov. 2009. Web. 01 Dec. 2009. .

Greenberg, David. "Playing the Tolerance Card." Slate. Washington Post Newsweek, 20 Apr. 2007. Web. 01 Dec. 2009. .

"JFK in History: Campaign of 1960." John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & "JFK in History: Campaign of 1960." John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum. John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum. Web. 04 Dec. 2009. .

"Many Say Coverage is Biased in Favor of Obama." News Interest Index. Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, 5 June 2008. Web. 02 Dec. 2009. .

Rich, Frank. "Ask Not What J.F.K. Can Do for Obama." New York Times [New York] 3 Feb. 2008. The New York Times Online. The New York Times, 03 Feb. 2008. Web. 3 Dec. 2009. .

Vennochi, Joan. "Not quite the next J.F.K." The Boston Globe [Boston] 18 Jan. 2007. The Boston Globe, 18 Jan. 2007. Web. 3 Dec. 2009. .

Wilson, John K. "The Myth of Pro-Obama Media Bias." Extra! Sept. & Oct. 2008. FAIR. FAIR. Web. 01 Dec. 2009. .

All images used were found through Creative Commons

am Contents4

6

8

12

ASK NOT WHAT J.F.K. CAN DO FOR OBAMA / FRANK RICH, NY TIMESIn the 1960 election, John F. Kennedy was a long-shot candidate compared to the experienced Rich-ard Nixon. Similarly in the 2008 election, Barack Obama paled in comparison to government veteran John McCain. Ask Not compares both Kennedy and Obama, focusing on their desire to change the state of America during their presidencies.

The 2008 Presidential Election was one of the most covered by the media in recent history. However, the coverage of each candidate was not equal. The focus on Obama outnumbered that of fellow candidates McCain and Clinton in both coverage and public visibility. This difference in coverage was apparent to all of audiences; nearly four-in-ten people say that the organizations favored Obama in coverage. The differences in coverage lead to an heavily involved election by both candidates and the public.

John F. Kennedy was able to establish a celebrity status while being the nations President. In the public eye, Kennedy and his wife were the most glamorous presidential couple to reside on Pennsyl-vania Avenue. The press agreed to keep their personal lives out of the papers, while focusing on covering events in the papers as well as televised press conferences.

This editorial piece is a final look into the relationships media shared with the late John F. Kennedy and President Barack Obama. In it, we explore the manner in which media covered these two men, but also the ways in which they utilized the media to drive their campaigns and public perceptions. Though the similarities shared by both are many, perhaps most remarkable is the way that each saw and answered the need for change not only in a political sense, but also in a technological sense.

MANY SAY COVERAGE IS BIASED IN FAVOR OF OBAMA / PEW RESEARCH

JFK: A CELEBRITY IN THE WHITE HOUSE / PROFESSOR LEWIS L. GOULD, BBC

INTERPRETING HISTORY: JFK AND OBAMA / AMANDA LONG & MY NGUYEN

ASK NOT

Before John F. Kennedy was a president, a legend, a myth, and a poltergeist stalking Americas 2008 campaign, he was an upstart contender seen as a risky bet for the Democratic nomination in 1960.

KennedyKennedy was judged an ambitious but superficial playboy by his liberal peers, according to his biographer Robert dallek. He never said a word of impor-tance in the Senate, and he never did a thing, in the authoritative estimation of the Senates master, Lyndon Johnson. AldaiAldai Stevenson didnt much like Ken-nedy, and neither did Harry Truman, who instead supported Senator Stuart Syminton of Missouri.

J.F.K. had few policy prescriptions beyond Democratic boilerplate (a higher minimum wage, comprehensive hous-ing legislation). As his speechwriter Richard Goodwin recalled in his riveting 1988 memoir Remembering America, Kennedys main task was to prove his politicalpolitical viability. he had to persuade his party that he was not a wealthy dilettante and not too young, too inexperienced and, above all, too Catholic to be presi-dent.

How did the fairy-tale prince from Camelo vanquish a field of heavyweights led by the longtime liberal warrior Hubert Humphrey? It wasnt ideas. It cer-

tainly wasnt experience. It wasnt even the charisma that Kennedy would show off in that falls televised duels with Rich-ard Nixon.

Looking back almost 30 years later, Mr. Goodwin summed it up this way: He had to touch the secret fears and ambiva-lent longings of the American heart, divine and speak to the desires of a swiftly changing nation--his messaged grounded on his own intution of some vaguevague and spreading desire for national renewal.

In other words, Kennedy needed two things. He needed poetry, and he needed

By Frank Rich

4

February 3, 2008

WHAT J.F.K. CAN DO FOR OBAMA

Mark Wilson/Getty Images

a country with some desire, however vague, for change.

Mr.Mr. Goodwin and his fellow speechwriter Ted Sorensen helped with the poetry. Still, the placid America of 1960 was not obviously in the market for change. The outgoing president, Ike, was the most popular incumbent since F.D.R. The sub-urban boom was as glossy as it is now depicteddepicted in the television show Mad Men. The Red Panic of the McCarthy years was in temporary remission.

But Kennedys intuition was right. Americas boundless self-confidence was being rattled by (as yet) low-grade fevers: the surprise Soviet technological triumph of Sputnik; anti-American riots in even friendly non-Communist countries; the arrest of Martin Luther King Jr. at an all-whiteall-white restaurant in Atlanta; the inexo-rable national shift from manufacturing to white-collar jobs. Kennedy bet his cam-paign on, as he put it, the single assump-tion that the American people are uneasy at the present drift in our national course and they they will have the will and strength to start the United States moving again.

For all the Barack Obama-J.F.K. compari-sons, whether legitimate or over-the-top, what has often been forgotten is that Mr. Obamas weaknesses resemble Kennedys at least as much as his strenghts. But to compensate for those shortcomings, he gets an extra benefit that J.F.K.J.F.K. lacked in 1960. Theres nothing vague about the publics desire for national renewal in 2008, with reviled incumbent in the White House and only 19 percent of the population finding the country on the right track, according to the last Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll. America is screaming for change.poll. America is screaming for change.

Either of the two Democratic contenders will swing the pendulum. Their marginal policy differences notwithstanding, they are both orthodox liberals. As the partys voters in 22 states step forward on Tues-day, the overriding question they face, as defined by both contenders, is this: Which brandbrand of change is more likely, in Kennedys phrase, to get America moving again?

Lost in the hoopla over the Teddy and

Caroline Kennedy show last week was the parallel endorsement of Hillary Clin-ton by three of Robert Kennedys chil-dren. In a Los Angeles Times op-ed article, they answered this paramount question as many Clinton supporters do (and as many John Edwards supporters also did). The loftiest poetry wont solve Americas crises, they wrote. Change can be achieved only by a presi-dent willing to engage in a fistfight.

That both Clintons are capable of fistfighting is beyond doubt, at least on their own behalf in a campaign. But Mrs. Clinton isnt always a fistfighter when governing. Theres a reason why Robert Kennedys children buried the Iraq war in a single clause (and never used the word Iraq)Iraq) deep in their endorsement. They know that their uncle Teddy, unlike Mrs. Clinton, raised his fists to lead the Senate fight against the Iraq misadventure at the start. They know too that less than six months after Mission Accomplished, Senator Kennedy called the war a fraud andand voted against pouring more money into it. Senator Clinton raised a hand, not a fist, to vote aye.

In what she advertises as 35 years of fight-ing for Americans, Mrs. Clinton can point to some battles won. But many of them were political campaigns for Bill Clinton: seven even before his 1992 presidential run. The fistfighting required if she is president may also often be political. As Mrs.Mrs. Clinton herself says, she has been in marathon combat against the Republican attack machine. Its antipathy will be increased exponentially by the co-president who would return to the White House with her on Day One.

For all the Barack Obama-J.F.K. compari-

sons, whether legiti-mate or over-the-top, Obamas weaknesses resemble Kennedys at least as much as his

strengths.

Its legitimate to wonder whether sweep-ing policy change can be accomplished on that polarized a battlefield. A Clinton presidency may end up a Democratic mirror image of Karl Roves truculent style of G.O.P. governance: a 50 percent plus 1 majority. Seven years on, that formulaformula has accomplished little for the country beyond extending and com-pounding the mistake of invading Iraq. As was illustrated by the long catalog of unfinished business in President Bushs final State of the Union address, this has not been a presidency that, as Mrs. Clinton said of L. B. J.s, got things done.

The rap on Mr. Obama remains that he preaches the audacity of Kumbaya. He is all lofty poetry and no action, so obsessed with transcending partisanship that he can be easily rolled. Implicit in this criti-cism is a false choice that voters have to choose between his pretty words on one handhand and Mrs. Clintons combative, wonky incrementalism on the other.

Theres a third possibility, of course: A poetically gifted president might be able to bring about change without relying on fistfighting as his primary modus ope-randi. Mr. Obama argues that if he can bring some Republicans along, he can achieve changes larger than the microini-tiatives that have been a hallmark of Clin-tonism. He also suggests, in his most explicit policy invocation of J. F. K., that he can enlist the young en masse in a push for change by ramping up national service programs like AmeriCorps and the Peace Corps.

His critics argue back that he is a nave wuss who will give away the store. They have mocked him for offering to hold health-care negotiations so transparent (and presumably feckless) that they can be broadcast on C-Span. Obama support-ers point out that Mrs. Clintons behind-closed-doors 1993 health-care task force was a fiasco.

A better argument might be that transpar-ency could help smoke out the special-interest players hiding in Washingtons crevices. Youd never know from Mrs. Clintons criticisms of subprime lenders that one of the most notorious, Country-wide, was a client as recently as October of Burson-Marsteller, the public relations

Barry Blitt/New York Times

giant where her chief strategist, Mark Penn, is the sitting chief executive. Other high-level operatives in her campaign belong to Dewey Square Group, an outfit that just last year provided lobbying services for Countrywide.

TheThe question about Mr. Obama, of course, is whether he is tough enough to stand up to those in Washington who oppose real reform, whether Republicans or special-interest advocates like, say, Mr. Penn. The jury is certainly out, though Mr. Obama has now started to toughen his critique of the Clintons without sounding whiny. By framing that debate as a choice between the future and the past, he is revisiting the J. F. K. playbook against Ike.

What we also know is that, unlike Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Obama is not hesitant to take on John McCain. He has twice triggered the McCain temper, in spats over ethics reform in 2006 and Mr. McCains Bagh-dad market photo-op last year. In Thursdays debate, Mr. Obama led an attackattack on Mr. McCain twice before Mrs. Clinton followed with a wan echo. When Bill Clinton promised that his wife and Mr. McCains friendship would ensure a civilized campaign, he may have been revealing more than he intended about the perils for Democrats in that matchup.

The jury is certainly out, though Mr. Obama has now

started to toughen his critique of the Clin-

tons without osunding whiny. By framing

that debate as a choice that debate as a choice between the future and the past, he is revisit-

ing the J.F.K. playbook against Ike.

As Tuesdays vote looms, all thats certain is that todays pollsters and pundits have so far gotten almost everything wrong. Mr. McCains campaign had been declared dead. Mrs. Clinton has gone from invincible to near-death to near-invincible again. Mr. Obama was at first not black enough to sweep black votes and then too black to get a sizable white vote in South Carolina.

Richard Goodwin knew in 1960 that all it took was a single significant failure by Kennedy or an act of political daring by his opponents for his man to lose espe-cially in the general election, where he faced the vastly more experienced Nixon, the designated heir of a popular presi-dent. Thats as good a snapshot as any of

where we are right now, while we wait for the voters to decide if they will take what Mrs. Clinton correctly describes as a leap of faith and follow another upstart on to a new frontier.

Many SayCOVERAGE IS

BIASED INFAVOR OFOBAMA

A Study by The Pew Research

for the People & THE PRESS

June 5, 2008Summary of Findings

6

Jason Kosena

Over the course of the primary campaign season greater numbers heard about con-troversies associated with Barack Obama than heard about other campaign events. Nonetheless, far more Americans believe that the press coverage has favored Barack Obama than think it has favored Hillary Clinton.Hillary Clinton.

Nearly four-in-ten (37%) say that in cov-ering the Democratic race, news organiza-tions have been biased toward Obama while just 8% say they have been biased toward Clinton; 40% say news organiza-tions have shown no bias in their cover-age. Substantial minorities of Republicans (45%) and independents (40%) say the press has been biased toward Obama; somewhat fewer Democrats (35%) see a pro-Obama bias.

The weekly News Interest Index finds that Obama has clearly been the domi-nant figure in the campaign thus far, both in terms of press coverage and public visibility. Despite the widespread belief that the press has favored Obama, many of the events that have registered most stronglystrongly with the public centered on con-troversies involving either Obama him-self or his campaign.

Of nearly 40 campaign events that have been measured, Obama's relationship with his former pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright remains the most widely heard about campaign story. In early May, 62% of the public said they had heard a lot about Wright's speeches dealing with race and the presidential campaign.race and the presidential campaign.

Aside from the Wright controversy, more

than half of the public (52%) heard a lot about Obama's statement that some small-town Americans facing hard economic times become bitter and cling to guns and religion. An additional 51% said they had heard a lot about the videos of Rev. Wright's sermons in late March.

ThereThere also was extensive public aware-ness of more favorable developments involving Obama. A solid majority (55%) said they heard that Obama in late May had amassed a majority of all pledged delegates from the Democratic primaries. And 54% heard a lot about Obama's majormajor speech on race and politics in March.

For Clinton, about half (52%) said they heard a lot about the debate in mid-May over whether she should end her cam-

Many See Press Bias in Favor of ObamaIn covering the Democratic primaries,press has shown. . .

Bias in favor of ObamaBias in favor of ClintonNo biasOther/DependsOther/DependsDont know

TOTAL REP DEM IND

% % % %37 45 35 408 10 10 440 32 43 417 5 6 88 8 6 7__ _ _ _100 100 100 100

paign or stay in the race until the last primary.Four-in-ten Americans heard a lot about Geraldine Ferraro's comments that Obama would not be where he was today if he was a white man. Ferraro was loosely associated with the Clinton cam-paign at the time. Roughly the same numbernumber (39%) heard a lot about Clinton's claims that she had dodged sniper fire on a trip to Bosnia while Bill Clinton was president.

As for McCain, in February of this year, 48% of the public had heard a lot about reports - first published in the New York Times - suggesting that he may have had an improper relationship with a female lobbyist years ago.

TheThe extensive public visibility of Obama's association with Wright is reflected in the fact that 77% named Obama as the candi-date who disavowed his former pastor because of his controversial statements. By comparison, a smaller majority (57%) correctly identified Clinton as the candi-date who claimed to have come under sniper fire while visiting Bosnia. And 42% named McCain as the candidate who has faced allegations of an improper relation-ship with a female lobbyist.

Public and Press Focused on Obama

Since February's Super Tuesday prima-ries, Obama has consistently been the most visible presidential candidate in the eyes of the public. In 12 of 13 consecutive weeks, Obama has been the presidential candidate Americans have been hearing the most about in the news. Last week 54%54% named as Obama as the candidate they had heard to most about in the last week; 27% named Clinton and 5% named McCain.

News coverage of the candidates has fluc-tuated according to campaign events. Nonetheless, Obama has generally domi-nated the news cycle as well. According to the Project for Excellence in Journal-ism's (PEJ) Campaign Coverage Index, Obama has received more press coverage than either Clinton or McCain in 11 of the past 17 weeks. Clinton has dominated the campaign coverage in 4 of the last 17 weeks. McCain has not led the two Demo-cratic candidates in terms of news cover-age since the week of Feb. 4-10, when he

became the presumptive Republican nominee following his victories in the GOP Super Tuesday primaries.

TheseThese findings are based on the most recent installment of the weekly News Interest Index, an ongoing project of the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. The index, building on the Center's longstanding research into public atten-tiveness to major news stories, examines newsnews interest as it relates to the news media's agenda. The weekly survey is conducted in conjunction with The Proj-ect for Excellence in Journalism's News Coverage Index, which monitors the news reported by major newspaper, tele-vision, radio and online news outlets on an ongoing basis. In the most recent week, data relating to news coverage was collected from May 26 - June 1 and survey data measuring public interest in the top news stories of the week was collected May 30 - June 2 from a nationally repre-sentative sample of 1,002 adults.

Views of Specific Aspects of Coverage

TheThe public is highly critical of how the press has done their job in several respects. About six-in-ten Americans say the press has done only a fair or poor job in covering the candidates' positions on issues (59%), campaign strategies (57%), the candidates' personal backgrounds or experiencesexperiences (57%), and in explaining how the nominees are chosen (57%).

About half (48%) say the press has done an excellent or good job in covering the candidates' debates; roughly the same percentage (45%) say its performance has been only fair or poor.

The one area where the public believes the press has done well is in covering which candidate is leading in the horserace. Six-in-ten (59%) Americans say that the press has done an excellent or good job reporting on which candidate is leading in the latest polls, while roughly a thirdthird (35%) say the coverage is only fair or poor.

Partisans provide roughly equal ratings of the press on their coverage of the can-didates' backgrounds, the campaign strat-egies and reporting on how the nominees are chosen. However, Republicans are somewhat more critical than Democrats of how the press has covered the discussion of issues in the presidential cam-paign. Two-thirds (66%) of Republicans rate the coverage of issues as 'only fair' or 'poor' compared with a small majority of Democrats (54%).

JFK: Celebrity IN THE WHITE HOUSE

A celebrity in the presidency

HavingHaving used the techniques of stardom to get to the presidency, Kennedy and his aides extended these practices after his inauguration. The potential embarrass-ments, such as the state of his health, and his sexual philandering, were kept out of the public eye, and beneath the glittering surface,surface, the doses of fakery and falsehood that helped shape the new president's image were abundant.

During the early 1960s, journalists and informed observers used to discuss in private the president's casual approach to his marriage vows, and his insatiable sexual appetite, but they nevertheless kept the code of silence that then pro-tected the reputations of politicans (and

those of the scribes as well). So Kennedy's extramarital affairs, and his dalliances with women on the fringes of organised crime, went unreported. What the Ameri-can people were allowed to see were care-fully staged occasions, where Kennedy and his wife were seen at their best, displaying their sophistication and good taste. This was how, in the glow of network television, then at the height of its influence, the first truly glamorous presidential couple appeared before the nation.

The glamour and beauty of Jacqueline Lee Bouvier Kennedy added to the sense that a new vitality had come to the White House. Reporters for The New York Times observed in January 1962 that 'the palpable love affair between the White House and a jade called Culture shows signssigns of reaching an impassioned peak this year'. Hollywood chipped in with an

unlikely film about Kennedy's wartime experience, PT-109, although this flopped at the box office.

TheThe glow of elegance and sophistication that came with the Kennedys was an adroit contrivance. The president's attrac-tion to the James Bond spy novels of Ian Fleming, for example, was made to look like a sign of incisiveness, while the west-ern novels that President Dwight D Eisenhower had enjoyed just seemed dull. The well-crafted prose of JFK's speechwriters, and his wife's love for early 19th-century French dcor, also impressed Americans as showing good taste and class.

A cooperative press

In addition to the useful fact that press inquiry into presidential lapses of behav-iour was not considered the done thing during his time in office, Kennedy himself

US Embassy

8

November 5, 2009By Professor Lewis L. Gould

was also adept at providing favoured reporters with the illusion of a special friendship with him, and a sense of access - all aimed at keeping the critical faculties of the journalists dulled. If a reporter resisted such presidential wooing, or wrote disapprovingly about Vietnam policy,policy, Kennedy was willing to use more overt forms of pressure with various pub-lishers. In this way, a favourable press context for Kennedy's public personality was created, and thiswas sustained throughout his brief administration.

The President showed a deft touch in other aspects of public relations. The scheduling of press conferences for a live television audience made such sessions an on-going media event. The initial reac-tion to the innovation was sceptical, with James Reston of The New York Times callingcalling the step 'the goofiest idea since the hula hoop'. Viewers disagreed, and the Kennedy press conferences became a popular attraction, with the President preparing for these sessions systemati-cally - any mistake would have had large consequences. The telecasts began the process of transforming reporters into media celebrities as well, and as ratings for presidential coverage grew, the media treated the experience more and more as entertainment rather than governance.

To maintain the president's ratings, the Kennedy White House employed a poll-ster, Lou Harris, who helped the adminis-tration in the shaping of public opinion. Kennedy could thus look forward to a presidential style of continuous cam-paigning - a style that has characterised the US presidency from the years of Rich-ard Nixon onwards.

Other means of shaping attitudes were

less savoury. The Kennedys used the Internal Revenue Service - first to pursue the Mafia, and then to attack the far right wing critics of the administration, and undermine their credibility. Raw power had by now become the hallmark of modern presidents, whether Republican or Democrat.or Democrat.

Kennedy in history

Kennedy's murder, on 22 November 1963, marked a significant transformation in the history of the presidency, a change that went well beyond the immediate shift of power to Lyndon Johnson. The shock of Kennedy's death revealed the fragility of the institution, as well as the importanceimportance of the continuity that it pro-vided to Americans. And in the light of what happened later, during the 1960s, the notion that John Kennedy was a presi-dent who would have avoided the Viet-nam morass, and dealt with the domestic

crises of the 1960s more adroitly than Johnson, proved a compelling legend.

ForFor his immediate successors, Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon, Kennedy acted as a formidable competitive pres-ence. Unlike most of the other partici-pants in his administration, Kennedy has remained frozen in time as a youthful, vibrant figure. His early death meant that the promise of his greatness could never be undermined, even by the revelations of his personal lapses and the ambiguity of his views on whether or not to take the US out of South East Asia.

The martyr became an icon whose power to charm and inspire seemed limitless, detached as it was from the reality of American history in the rest of the 20th century. The celebrity that John Kennedy had done so much to create for the office of the presidency, ensured for him a perpetualperpetual fame - an eminence that neither time nor historians have yet been able to diminish.

. . .the Kennedy press conferences became a popular attraction, with the President

preparing for these sessions systematically. . .

. . .Kennedy was the first

superstar chief executive. . .

change is the law of life.

Aaron Shikler

And those who look only to the past or present are

certain to miss the future.

Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for.

We are the change we seek.

Matthew Wright

INTERPRETINGHISTORY:

JFK AND OBAMA

by Amanda long and My Nguyen

Not since John F. Kennedy has the media been so enamored by a president until Barack Obama. The draw of these two charismatic candidates has dominated all aspects of the media. The infatuation with these leaders began before either candi-date was inaugurated. The press followedfollowed the candidates from the conven-tion, to the campaign, to the White House. The young, Democratic senators shocked the public with their poise and charm. Americans were captivated by each debate and newscast surrounding the presidential elects.

For Kennedy, the turning point of the Great Debates in 1960, against Richard Nixon, allowed for the public to see their leaders in the comfort of their living rooms. These were the first nationally televised debates, forcing candidates to be conscious of their stature on national television.television. Kennedy dominated the debates by a vast majority, due to his preparation and composure compared to Nixons lack thereof.

By 2008, presidential elections had grown with the times. Both the Democratic and Republican candidates faced a series of debates on YouTube, co-sponsored by CNN. These debates allowed for presi-dents to debate in a forum style, accepting questions from the online audience. An earlyearly front-runner, Obama, kept his calm composure during the debates, alluding to the forthcoming presidential nomina-tion of his party.

The media is known to lend itself to char-

charismatic leaders, such as Kennedy and Obama. In this sense, the coverage on these men has allowed audiences to perceive them at a higher rate in a more favorable light. The media biases greatly and positively affected the outcome of both candidates campaigns, leading to their election into office.their election into office.

Both candidates were aware that the media is an opinion leader in todays soci-ety. The impact of using the media effec-tively and establishing a long-term rela-tionship in the different mediums was nearly a guarantee to win public opinion. Thus, both candidates were able to utilize the mass media to the best of their abili-ties to maximize coverage.

According to the JFK library, by 1960, 88% of American homes had television, and nearly 70 million people tuned into the first Kennedy-Nixon debate. Kennedy was not only focused on the changes in the American citizens, but also in the changes in technology. With this, Ken-nedynedy realized he must plan ahead for these debates, meeting ahead of time with producers to discuss camera angels and set design. On the night of the first debate, Kennedys poise helped him to stand out, as well as his blue suit on the grey backdrop, as a front-runner in the election.election. As much as the camera loved Kennedy, Kennedy loved the camera, speaking directly into the camera to the American audience. Nixon did not understand the impact of a televised elec-tion, fading into the backdrop and refus-ing make-up resulting in a tired, rundown appearance.

12

He seemed to be unaware of the constant camera coverage, responding directly to Kennedy without facing his audience, and rolling his eyes during Kennedys remarks.

Similarly,Similarly, Obamas on-screen presence was a draw for many voters, but his involvement in online campaigning is what set him apart from his competitors. Obamas involvement on sites such as Facebook, Myspace, and Twitter estab-lished him as a connected candidate, con-cerned with targeting all groups of Americans. Through online fundraising, Obama was able to raise nearly $3 million for his campaign in increments less than $100. Voters could follow Obama and be his friend while contributing and watching public debates. Obamas aware-ness of the changing technologies estab-lished his lead in the election. Similar to Kennedy, Obama was aware of the impact media has on elections, and was constantly prepared during public events. Keeping his composure and speaking directly through the mass medium to the American public helped to elect Obama.

Media coverage is crucial to establishing a relationship with the public during an election. With the cooperation of the press, Kennedy and Obama were able to communicate directly to their audience while being portrayed favorably by the media. For Kennedy, the positive cover-ageage by the press provided the context for his charismatic public personality. The inclination of the press to cover Kennedy in this light sprung from his established public image, as well as his reporter

relationships during his campaign. By allowing reporters to cover his events, such as the numerous press conferences he held once in office, Kennedys open relationship with the press grew, allow-ing his charming personality to be repro-duced in newscasts and reports. For Obama, his poise and knowledge displayed in public arenas impressed citizens believing he was too young or inexperienced to run our country. Of those uncommitted voters who watched debates between Obama and McCain, nearly half reported that their view of ObamaObama had changed for the better. Due to the increase in attention, reporters alike helped to favor Obama in news reports. His ability to maintain composure and focus on the future made him an ideal candidate for a country looking for change. The powerful messages in his speechesspeeches allowed the press full under-standing of his campaign promises. Both presidents were able to establish relation-ships with the media resulting in winning the presidency.

The ability to foresee changes and devel-opments in technology is a feat alone, but Kennedy and Obama were able to discover these trends while running for president. Their ability to utilize cutting-edge technology effectively to increase their public image and their voter following gave them the advantage in their respective campaigns. Kennedys prepa-ration for the first televised presidential debates, and Obamas integration of online media in his campaign established them as innovative public figures. The advantages of new technology allowed the candidates to further display their public image, in more outlets then their rivals. While certain media outlets may withstand change, being on the cusp of new innovation is an ability the public values in their leaders. Lazarsfeld intro-duced the theory of two-step flow and the influence of opinion leaders on their peers. With presidential elections, the media dominates our interpretation of the candidates. Perhaps Kennedy saw then and Obama sees now what we always

should have understood about our rela-tionship with mass media. The media molds our opinions just as much as we mold media coverage. Each candidate in his own right was a master of media.