Can one imagine a world without any news stations, media outlets or journalists to give society the daily updates on politics around the world? It would be extremely difficult to keep politically aware. News organizations such as NBC and CNN cover political rallies and events and present them to the general public. Without their constant coverage of events such as these, society would be blinded to the political world. The first emergence of political journalism in media came about with the production of newspapers and magazines that covered local politics and events. Next was the discovery of radio and television which changed communication all together. In recent years a new media platform has taken the stage, social networking sites. These sites have brought upon a whole new form of communication that happens quicker and more efficiently than ever before. Beginning with Facebook in 2004, up until Snapchat in 2011, and all the social networks created in between, society is now more connected than ever. With advancements in communication also came those in politics. New tools enabled politicians to spread their messages to the public with just one click. This increases society's connections to the political world and encourages citizens to become more involved with politics. With all of this in consideration, media output and social media usage has a positive  impact on a political campaign and election because of its’ ability to spread information accurately and quickly throughout the United States and in return keep voters connected and in tune with the election process. 

Today, society is constantly attached to some sort of screen, meaning that the people are steadily receiving a large intake of information. The first example of politicians realizing the ways they can use the media to advance their campaigns and win re-election was with President Franklin Roosevelt's “Fireside Chats.” Over the radio, the president was able to sooth Americans with his voice of encouragement and reassurance during a time of economic depression and war in the United States (The Media). Almost thirty years later with the invention of television came the first ever televised presidential debate. The Kennedy-Nixon debate changed politics forever. It allowed for voters to see and hear their candidates in a live setting and not just in pictures and words on a page. Voters can now judge political candidates on a completely different basis. Those who listened to the debate, believed Nixon had won. However, they were the minority. Eighty eight percent of Americans watched the debate on television, and to them it seemed as if Kennedy had won. Nixon looked pale and unwell due to a recent hospitalization before the debate whereas Kennedy appeared calm and confident. Based on looks, it was clear to the American population that Kennedy was the clear winner of the debate. It also became more clear to Kennedy himself days after at a event in Ohio when the crowds turnout was larger than they had ever been (Webley). This first ever televised debate and voters reactions have a lot in common with the social media outlets used today. Society is judging and analyzing everything that politicians post online, meaning if they make one wrong move, the entire United States will see it. After the debate, everything changed for politicians. Everything they did started to matter and was constantly in the public's eye. Facebook was released in 2004, it began as just a new way for people to communicate with friends and family worldwide. Slowly people began using it for business purposes, advertising and then politics. Political conversations started popping up all over creating a new platform for conversation. 

With new media outlets that allow for real-time conservation with strangers, rising in popularity society is in need of someone/something to talk about. Luckily the media gives society exactly what it asks for turning an unknown politician into a major public figure. Journalists follow a code of media ethics that encourage them to make the right decisions when presenting facts to the public. It is imperative, for the public's sake, that the people with this journalistic power present both sides to every story along with a reasoning as to why society should pay attention to it. Throughout recent decades, politicians have realized their own needs from the media. Jonathan Cohen explains in his paper the Influence of Presumed Media Influence in Politics that “much of what politicians do… is driven by their belief in the power of the media, which motivates their desire to be featured in news coverage” (Cohen 331). Their realization for the need of media to promote themselves changes the ways in which they interact with the media. Politicians spend time with consultants when writing their speeches to focus on the things they find most important and want covered when recapped by the media. They also pay close attention to their words and the ways they say them to ensure they cannot be manipulated or turned around into something they never meant. Cohen speaks about the ideas of “the influence of presumed influence,” which he describes as people acting upon their perceptions of how the media influences them rather than if these perceptions are true or not (Cohen 332). This idea is centered around the belief that whether or not individuals in society have been personally influenced by the media in their political viewings, they still sense a media impact and understand its influence to those around them. Mediatization is classified as the increasing influence of media in politics and that politicians adjust their behavior to be sure they receive the most coverage. The media has the power to create the overall image of a politician. Their personality, looks, voice and ideas all play into this appearance. With new forms of media and how the media portrays politicians, society has created a new form of personalized politics. Voters want to feel a connection or emotional bond with the candidate they elect into office (Shah). To make this happen politicians rely heavily on media output to create an image of themselves that is trustworthy and admirable. To create these bonds, political figures address the american people personally in speeches giving them the sense that they are talking to “you.” 

With more social networking sites than ever before, society has found ways to enhance politics by creating political conversation online. With the ability to participate in these conversations in just one click, individuals are becoming more involved and aware of the social issues surrounding them. Twitter is one of the most used social networking sites of this generation. Politicians and their support staffs realize this and have created their own accounts to post photos and tweets promoting specific campaigns, allowing for a new level of personalization between candidates and the american people. In Rory O'Connor's book Friends, Followers and the Future: How Social Media are Changing Politics, Threatening Big Brands, and Killing Traditional Media he describes that in particular, this generation of young people are taking to social media outlets to be heard after years of believing that the mainstream media outlets do not tell the full truth (O’Connor). Mainstream media outlets include newspapers, news stations, radio and magazines, and they have the privilege of picking what topics they want to cover and how they want to cover them making it easier for them to place bias in their coverage and leave out certain details. Due to this, citizens go to social media to hear from their peers and the politicians themselves on what they believe. By doing this many people realized that the stands they had on social issues were similar to one another and were able to organize groups and meetings to attack these issues. Creating marches and protests to draw attention to the matters in questions generates media coverage as they shut down streets and sidewalks to take stands against what they believe is wrong. How and when the media covers this changes the political agenda. Politicians are forced to generate responses to this because many people will be asking them what is going to happen to make a change. Social networking sites allow for american citizens to get their messages across worldwide and also allows for politicians to recognize the social issues that the people find important. Before social media, political figures were spending most of their time focusing on the big issues such as the economy, world trade and lawmaking. Now that they see what the people are focusing on they are able to direct effort towards that in hopes of receiving more support. Dealing with those issues are still a requirement but with this new connection through the internet they can hear the people's concerns first hand and address them in a completely different way than before. This all plays into the fact that social media has created a new level of personalization in the political world (Shah). When political figures have Twitter or Facebook accounts and update them regularly, the public see them as more than just politicians and start to view them as real people just like they are. These changes in technology have come to develop many new ways of policymaking in the government. Politicians are forced to focus on the issues Americans want focused on because of the pressure from the media. If things are not addressed in a timely manner, voters are not afraid to do something about it. It is tough for a politician to say or do anything without being scrutinized by the public, but if the majority of America is agreeing than they know they are doing something right. Social networking sites also allow for campaign teams to promote a candidate, by putting out images and tweets based on a candidate's personality that the mass media does not have access too. These type of “behind the scenes” photos and messages posted on social networking sites allow for the public to get a glimpse into what the candidates deal with on a daily basis and how they handle situations behind closed doors. These sites also create a new space for political conversation that everyone can participate in.

There are many positives when it comes to the new mediatization of politics. First, it gets more people involved, when they see their friends online engaging in political conversation it motivates them to want to participate as well. A study done in 2012, published in the journal Nature, found that political messages on users facebook feeds influences voting patterns. The data collected was analyzed by Facebook data scientists where they found that certain messages promoted by friends on Facebook increased voter turnout by a total of 340,000 votes (Wihbey). It was also found that online friends with real world ties had more of an impact on an individual voter's decision rather than just random online acquaintances. The study also found that among all factors examined, 82% saw a positive relationship between the use of social networking sites and some form of political encounter or participation. Some of the strongest outcomes came from randomly sampled adolescent populations. This youth generation relies on technology more than any generation before. Social media has positively influenced them to become more politically and civically engaged. More and more teens are wanting to learn more about the political world and create their own opinions based upon what they observe. Media output and social media usage also has positive influences on the political leaders themselves. Politicians can express themselves on social networking sites in their own words which allows them to show more of their true selves. Media coverage allows for them to further their political careers and explain their intentions through more than just 160 characters. Both forms of media impact a political campaign and election in a positive way because of the widespread coverage it gives to a presidential candidate. 

Those working in a political campaign know that the way to get a candidate re-elected is to focus on all the good things they did while in office. Inviting journalists and news organizations to staged rallies and conferences to speak about all the positives the candidates have done helps create the image that they know what they are doing and can handle tough situations. Politicians also encourage the output of family photos, it is not unknown that society feels comfort knowing that candidates come from good families and/or have families of their own. Unfortunately, the media can also break a politician's image by exposing them for their wrongdoings. In 1988, Gary Hart had a strong chance of becoming president, however when his affair was revealed by the press it ultimately cost him his campaign (The Media). However, without the media revealing this truth to the public, it is possible that Americans could have voted this man into office without knowing of the type of person he is. Some people argue that although media is imperative to an election, it can have negative effects on the outcomes. Nicholas Carr is a writer for POLITICO Magazine and he argues that the new media has turned out to be more controlling than earlier media ever was (Carr). He believes that politicians are put under too much scrutiny by the media and that the media now has the power to influence policy in lawmaking. That politics is now a form of entertainment to the rest of the world with politicians getting into “twitter wars” and constantly attacking one another. The media requires politicians to always be “turned on” because they are constantly being followed by the press and almost always have a camera on them. This type of pressure is necessary to prove to the public that the candidate can handle the pressures of being in office. Politicians face a tough job in making sure our nation runs smoothly all while dealing with constant interviews and press conferences. Although some may argue that this is unfair to the politicians, it is important for the nation to see the people running their country for who they truly are. If they come across as private and wanting to hide their lives from the rest of the world they will seem as untrustworthy to the american people. The more open they are with the press and the more they allow the media to become apart of their everyday life then society will see them as trustworthy people who they want to vote for. 

Social media and media output in general affects a political campaign or election in many ways. The media has advanced politics into something it never could be without the news organizations and social networking sites we have today. These advancements include those in communication, participation and civic engagement. Citizens becoming more aware of their surroundings and the lives of those around them causes new connections and helps to diminish old stereotypes and stigmas. Social media usage by politicians and society allows for a new form of communication between those running the country and those living in it. It creates an open space where people can speak their mind on controversial issues and have political discussions all from the comfort of their living room. This increases the involvement of americans into american politics. Americans constantly rely on their cellphones, laptops and televisions for information today. With all of it at the touch of their fingers they continually see political advertising or conversation which sparks a sort of motivation in them to becoming engaged in that kind of talk themselves. Social media also gives candidates a chance they have never had before, to speak their mind when they want on certain issues through social networking sites. Without setting up a single press conference or television interview, a candidate is able to express his/her thoughts to the public with no medium between them. Their words go exactly from their mind and out into the world, they do not even have to speak. Without the mass media there would not be a consistent output of political updates. Society needs them to be kept informed on what is going on in their government. Media output and the usage of social networking sites allows for an immense amount of political discussion and engagement, therefore having a positive effect on a political campaign or election. 
