U.S. elections in the 1700s didn’t have videos, audio recordings, or photographs. Instead, voters received information regarding political candidates by reading and speaking. Over time, innovations in media allowed the public to see who they were voting for in new ways. Candidates responded by making conscious efforts to manage this perception. Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s candidacy was troubled by his polio, but he made great efforts to hide his disability. This is because he did not know what the American or global public would think of him if they knew that he was handicapped. Today, the press and any onlookers can share information on any candidate or official, flattering or unflattering, with the simple push of a button. This easy sharing of media can create a competitive advantage or disadvantage depending on the nature of the media.
Voters are wisely encouraged to use any information they may legally procure about candidates as they decide who to vote for. After all, the President of the United States is one of the most coveted and powerful positions in the world. Media sharing can alter the course of election seasons — especially today, where non-policy-related media regarding candidates impacts the competition more than ever before. Photos and videos have often easily shifted the conversation from policy to optics. Candidates may never know what moment will go viral and must carefully craft their public appearances according to the way they wish to be perceived in the public eye.
This year, alongside criticisms of their talking points, presidential candidates were judged based on their perceived relationships with loved ones, their physical and mental abilities, and facial or body language, among other aspects. Before the first Presidential debate this year, there was much discourse regarding the media’s discovery of Melania Trump’s absence from the debate premises. Following that same debate, the conversation shifted to focus on perceptions of Joe Biden’s mental and physical abilities that had been on display.
When Kamala Harris became a presidential candidate, the media often focused on her body language and reactions toward her opponents. These major shifts and focal points in discourse, some of which caused considerable changes in candidacy for this election, would not have happened without audiences that shared media of candidates far and wide.
The saying “if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound?” is applicable here. During the first presidential election, if a candidate floundered for a moment in front of a small crowd, the opinions of the people in the crowd on the candidate’s capabilities may have changed. However, the audience would not be able to instantly transmit a copy of that moment to places far away. Candidates themselves could not possibly reach every inch of our country as they do today via smart devices. Thus, most people did not have the opportunity to meet or hear directly from presidential candidates. The information that constituents originally used to vote was generally sourced from policy reports, distributed by the supporters of the candidates, in written form and spoken at events. This begs the question of whether the competition results back then would have been different if voters had had access to a consistent feed of media displaying the candidates themselves, aside from simply their policies during election cycles.
Coverage unrelated to public policy can easily shift the conversation away from contenders’ ideas and towards other facets of candidates and parties. One might wonder how our government and history would be different if we rid our presidential races of this feature, which today is so vital to the competition. We had no audio or visual media in the early days of our country. If we reverted to this situation, how much information would we truly know about candidates? How much did voters in the first popular elections truly know about their candidates? Who would be running today? We may never know, but we can start to pay attention and notice moments when the digital media of candidates impacts our perception of them. We are lucky to have so many ways to “interact” with candidates in the 21st century and should use these resources to holistically review who we choose to vote for.
Emma Hait ’28 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at e.hait@wustl.edu.