Media Matters

      Wins and losses as played out on TV often seem like an American preoccupation, perhaps understandable because of our county's competitive nature.  Consider our interest in the World Series, the Academy Awards, and, of course, the federal elections, all traditions featuring shared experiences ( like sports, culture and politics, respectively). However, and without a doubt, the recent elections were different from years past. Wins and losses took on new meanings, driving everyone absolutely BONKERS, at least everyone this critic knows.      Thus, by the time election day came around, it was almost anti-climatic. While voters still cared which candidates won or lost, they were also tired of boring debates, attack ads,  journalists' views, and pundits' opinions; they didn't wonder so much about results. The idea, "less is more, " certainly didn't apply to the election events on TV.      Some viewers, including myself, began to wonder, was there any cover

     As the mid-term elections get closer ( and they can't get much closer than they are right now ), a peculiar phenomenon begins to take shape. We are so sick and tired of the debate replays,   breaking news about candidates' bad deeds, social media outpourings and political attack ads that we don't know who to vote for. It seems that considering party affiliation may or may not be the primary reason to vote for anyone these days.      There are now other new reasons why we should vote for a particular candidate although we probably don't realize it. It's no longer whether we agree with a candidate on policy issues or whether we have found so called "common ground." In a nut shell, research shows that three elements play the biggest part in our voting decisions: the candidate's perceived knowledge, trustworthiness and charisma.  Of course, our assessments are often subjective and just plain inaccurate. No matter. What counts is that charisma is what