richardhutnik said:
GameOver22 said:
RVDondaPC said:
There is no benefit. Close elections mean a lot more money being spent on advertisements by both sides and it means more eyes will be watching, which also means more money for those ad spots. |
Yes! The media definitely wants close elections because of ad-buys. Close elections generate more money spent by both sides, and campaigns are going to shoot for tv ads if they can afford it. They're expensive, but they work. This holds for most "big" elections (president, US Senate and House, state governor). The further you get from national elections, the less likely you are to see tv ads because of how expensive they are, so you probably won't see many tv ads for local offices.
|
And my take away from what I thought I was seeing is that the media guys are going to do whatever is needed for ratings. And they want things close, so people tune in.
|
perhaps. A close election is good for the media. However, one thing that is even better for the media is a imploding campaign. Media LOVES campaign mistakes, even the tiny ones. They latch onto these mistakes and blow them out of proportion. I mean, look at the month of september, the media didn't focus on a close election, but on Romney's imploding campaign.
So, my take is that while the media might enjoy a close election, they love an election with an imploding campaign even more.
