EOTO #2 Reflection

 EOTO #2 Reflection

Personal Reflection

Researching Election Night Results and Coverage made me realize how much I take immediacy for granted. 

I’ve grown up in a world where information is constant and instant, so it’s hard to imagine a time when people waited weeks, or even months, to find out who won an election. 

The idea that early Americans experienced elections as a slow trickle of updates rather than a shared national moment feels almost disconnected from how we think about democracy today. It shows that the “event” of election night is not something inherent to voting itself, but something created by technology.

What stood out most to me was how each technological shift didn’t just make things faster, it changed the emotional experience of elections. The telegraph and the establishment of a uniform Election Day turned elections into something closer to real-time, but it was really newspapers and later radio that made it feel collective. By the time radio broadcasts began, people could follow along from home, which feels like the first version of the modern “election night experience.”

Television and computers took this even further, but they also introduced a new tension: speed versus accuracy. The example of UNIVAC correctly predicting the outcome before networks trusted it shows how uncomfortable people were with relying on machines. At the same time, mistakes like the “Dewey Defeats Truman” headline and the chaotic 2000 election demonstrate the risks of prioritizing being first over being right. This tension still exists today, especially with social media, where information spreads instantly but isn’t always verified.

What I found most interesting is that despite all these changes, the actual process of counting votes hasn’t really changed. Local officials still count ballots and report results upward, just like they did in the 18th century. That contrast between a slow, careful counting process and a fast, high-pressure media environment helps explain why modern elections can feel confusing or drawn out. The “red mirage”
phenomenon is a good example of this mismatch between expectations and reality. Overall, this reading made me see election night not just as a political event, but as a product of media evolution.

The History of Campaign Coverage- Nyla Castro

The presentation, "The History of Campaign Coverage" by Nyla Castro, adds another layer to this idea by showing how journalism itself has transformed alongside technology. In the early partisan press era, the goal wasn’t to inform but to persuade. Newspapers openly supported political parties, which feels very different from the idea of objectivity we expect today. The shift to the penny press is important because it introduced the idea that campaigns could be covered as news rather than propaganda, even if that coverage was still flawed.

What really changed things was the rise of wire services, which pushed journalists toward more neutral and standardized reporting. This makes sense because a single story had to appeal to multiple audiences with different political views. However, even as objectivity became more important, new technologies kept reshaping coverage. Radio allowed politicians to communicate directly with the public, forcing journalists to interpret rather than simply report. Television then shifted the focus again, making image and personality just as important as policy. The Kennedy-Nixon Debate is a perfect example of how the medium can shape perception.

The Watergate era seems like a turning point in defining journalism as a watchdog. It’s interesting to see how one major event could reshape an entire profession’s sense of purpose. But the later rise of 24-hour news and the internet complicates this role. With constant demand for content, the line between information and entertainment becomes blurred, and the challenge shifts from getting access to determining what is actually true.

War Reporting during the television/ Modern Era- Mia Thomas 

The presentation, "War Reporting during the television/ Modern Era" by Mia Thomas, connects to these themes in a powerful way. Like election coverage and campaign journalism, war reporting has been shaped by technology, but the stakes feel even higher. The Vietnam War demonstrated how media could
influence public opinion by bringing the realities of conflict into people’s homes. In response, governments tried to control that narrative, which shows an ongoing struggle between access and independence.

What stands out most in the modern era is the role of digital media. On one hand, it allows for unprecedented access, with real-time updates and firsthand accounts. On the other hand, it creates new challenges, especially with misinformation spreading so quickly. Journalists are no longer just reporting events; they are also verifying and correcting information in real time.

All three presentations have shown a common theme. 

Technology changes how information is delivered, but it also reshapes how people experience and understand major events. Whether it’s election results, campaign coverage, or war reporting, journalism is constantly adapting. At the same time, its core purpose of informing the public remains the same, even as the tools and challenges evolve.