Facebook Platform for the Epoch-Making Battle of Clinton and Trump

The Iranian Hostage Crisis was one of the most severe diplomatic crises between Iran and the United State. It happened from 4 November 1979 to 20 January 1981, and 56 American officials were captured and held at the American embassy in Iran. This event can give important lessons to the present politicians.

There are several reasons to broadcast the hostage crisis. ABC News, as well as CBS, and NBC, were two leading media companies, that saw the crisis as a great opportunity to maximize its viewers and bring them tremendous benefits.

But, unlike CBS and NBC, ABC News was labeled “Almost Broadcasting Company” at that time. However, with “America Held Hostage” which aired the captivity news nightly at 11:30 pm for the 444-day ordeal, ABC News was able to reach out to more audiences and finally became as large as CBS and NBC. In addition, all programs related to the crisis also played an essential educational role. The companies were trying to teach Americans in whom jingoism ingrained more about Iran and mitigate the national tendency to hate American Iranians. Interestingly, the name of the program itself demonstrated the viewpoint of the media corporations that they persuaded American audiences to see the hostages as innocent civilians. And broadcasting programs consecutively also put significant pressure on President Carter that urged him to respond promptly to save the victims.

During the Hostage Crisis, the Iranian authorities were the natural ally of the press. They assured that all hostages would be safe. Acting on that assurance, they voluntarily held press conferences and provided images of the hostages to the Western press. These activities not only mitigate the tension but still conveyed their messages and images to the world. Contrarily to the Iran government, Carter initially did not want to reveal the hostage-taking information to the press, because he had already received extraordinary pressure about the economic situation before the crisis. He dispatched Secretary Clark to secretly negotiate the release of the hostages, but this information was leaked to the press. Quickly, the images of the hostages in Iran were transmitted and caused a shock to the American public, which worsened the accusation of the weakness of the administration, and resulted in a significant decrease in his support rate to merely 30 percent. However, when the president changed his approach, actively providing information to the press, the supporting rate raised again to over 60%. This situation gives a considerable lesson to any presidential candidates that instead of attempting to suppress information, let the public access information in a way that benefits them and try to show that they are trying to fix failures or evils that their opponents have caused.

President Carter regarded the release of hostages as his top priority. He did show the great responsibility of a president to protect the American people through his intense effort to resolve the crisis. But he might have done everything better at the beginning. Instead of allowing the Shah into the US for his cancer treatment, Carter should have dispatched doctors to treat Shah in other countries, such as Egypt, Canada, or Mexico. If he had done so, Carter would have not only demonstrated his promise to protect America’s allies but also avoided unnecessary tension with Iran. Furthermore, Carter failed to predict all the ramifications before making his decisions. Specifically, he failed to predict the fierce response from the Iranian government, and more importantly, he disregarded the safety of American officials in Iran. With the press, he tried to block the hostage crisis information to the press and American people, even with the hostages’ relatives; and then he positively collaborated with the press to provide the information about the hostages as well as skewed information about Iran. But after all, the biggest lesson from this case for the TWEET committee and other forthcoming presidents is to appoint the correct advisors. The original sin of the crisis was the advice of an anonymous advisor of Carter that made Carter allow the Shah to enter the US.

The strategy and approach of Cater offer valuable lessons to President Trump’s Republican and Democratic rivals. When dealing with Iran or any opponents, you must make decisions based on accurate and reliable information, certify information from the perspective of the opponents and consider all the possible risks as well as propose the appropriate solutions for these risks. Carter allowed the shah to enter America which sparked the seizure. Carter failed to predict the likely outcomes of his decision. He also failed to imagine how serious this action was perceived by Iranians, who assessed the circumstance from different viewpoints due to the differences in culture and history. Furthermore, you should consider a broader political context before making a decision. In this case, Carter did not regard the smoldering political conflict within Iran and failed again to recognize the anti-shah passion among the Iranian people. Last but not least, everything might well begin by respectfully talking and listening to your opponents.

With the emergence of social media, politics is accessed easier than ever before. Nowadays, television has not remained its primary source of political information, social network platforms have become prominent. People can get the most up-to-date information from these platforms much earlier than from TV and media. As a result, new media have changed the strategies of political parties and candidates to obtain the voters. Presidential candidates have taken advantage of sophisticated new media to convey their messages to a larger number of media users. People can access more sources of political information. And presidents have their Facebook, twitters, or blogs to connect closer to people and this is a good way to let them have a good image to the voters. The US presidential election between Trump and Clinton is a typical example. It is said that Facebook was significantly attributed to Trump’s victory by providing falsified information about Trump to users.

However, new media allow and require politicians to rTwitterespond more actively and precisely, which means more pressure on our politicians. The merit of social media is its immediacy and spillover. From a quick survey on Facebook or Twitter, the presidential candidates can gauge how the public is responding to rumors, issues, and so forth and thereby adjust their activities accordingly; and social media platforms are also an efficient means to criticize or undermine the opponents. Though voters make decisions based on their own experience, they are also easily influenced somewhat by rumors that might cause harm to rival candidates. In short, the new media makes politics more sophisticated and unpredictable.

Did you like this example?

362

19