The Media and the 2004 Presidential Election

For several months leading up to Election Day, the candidates for president compete with each other, utilizing every outlet at their fingertips such as the media, grassroots volunteers and advisors, in order to reach the common goal of every campaign, as claimed in classroom discussion: building a winning coalition. During the 2004 United States presidential election, the relationship between the campaigns and the media was studied via content analysis. It was found that the coverage of the campaign lacked the intensity to encourage voters and provide them with the information necessary to make an informed voting decision. Several factors contributed to this assumption, including the negativity of the campaigns themselves and the coverage of them, as well as a misinterpretation of the media’s primary role of information giving.

A coalition consists of supporters of a political party that will help lead the candidates for the Oval Office to victory. For example, since 1932, the Democratic Party can count among its supporters (and therefore, can count them as a member of their coalition) labor unions, environmentalists, gay rights activists and African Americans, as according to classroom discussion. Since the last political realignment in history, when the dominance of the traditional political parties of the past declined, the purpose of every campaign is to put together a winning coalition and build a majority. You do this based on factors such as issue stance, to gain loyalty and support for your party and candidates.