Skip to main content

Why were the Kennedy-Nixon debates so significant?

The Kennedy-Nixon debates were very significant. Up until this time, there had never been a presidential debate on live television. For the first time, people were able to see the faces, reactions, appearances, and mannerisms of the candidates, as well as hearing their answers to the questions that they were asked.


In the first debate, when people saw John F. Kennedy, they saw a young, energetic man who was dressed very well. When they saw Richard Nixon, they saw a man who appeared to need a shave and who looked tired. His pale suit faded into the background. John Kennedy looked directly into the camera when answering questions, giving the public the belief that he was talking directly to them. Richard Nixon looked away from the camera as if he was talking directly to John Kennedy. The public felt he wasn’t speaking to them. This first debate influenced some voters to support John Kennedy. While Nixon did better in the other debates, some people made up their mind based on the first debate. When people were asked who won this first debate, those who only heard it on the radio said that Nixon had won. Those who saw it on television said that Kennedy had won. Since the election was very close, it is possible to say that the debates helped John Kennedy win the election.


The debates were also important because it signaled the importance of television when people are running for office. Debates are now common for many elected offices, not just for the presidency. Television is also used to spread a candidate’s message and to attack a candidate’s opponent. These debates showed how important image and style were for candidates running for office. The substance of what a candidate had to say or what the candidate believed was no longer enough. If a candidate lacks style and doesn’t project a positive image, the candidate will have a harder time winning an election based on substance alone.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.