In the 1990’s, the Internet was this new and crazy idea. The media and television stations were able to yield more power over the public image of Hillary Clinton. Today, the Internet plays a vital role to daily life, and with the evolution of social media, celebrities, politicians, and other public figures are able to control their image more. Although the media still has the ability to manipulate any visuals from public figures, having social media takes away the middleman (the media) in a way. If someone follows Hillary Clinton’s account directly on Twitter, then watching the news might not be a top priority.

It is important to note that Hillary Clinton is a special case since she is running for presidency. Even with social media, television and news station possess a large role in how she is portrayed since the presidency campaign is a high coverage topic. Nevertheless, I believe the news stations hold more influence over the older generations, whereas Internet-based media has a stronger presence in the younger millennial generation. For example, there are viral posts comparing Hillary Clinton against Bernie Sanders, her main competitor for the Democratic nomination, and highlight how “old” or “out-of-date” Clinton is with younger voters. Official media organizations are not responsible for those posts, but instead it is the young adults who are social media users.

Either way, wherever or however people rely on obtaining information, repetition is a crucial factor when enforcing ideas or statements, whether good or bad. There’s a saying that if you tell yourself something enough times, then you will eventually start to believe it. If the media portrays a message enough times, people will start to believe it – similar to war propaganda. A present day example would be Jimmy Kimmel’s Lie Witness News, which showcases how people are willing to lie to sound like they are knowledgeable about the topic. While visual manipulation is probably present, the message continues to be the same and doxa is created, people continue to believe and comment on how ignorant those people featured in the video are. That can be hard when the public relies on news stations to be honest and factual, when in reality they are biased or altering the news.

As stated in the HRC article, images from the 1992 campaign are recycled for stories and therefore, can be re-contextualized for whatever story the media intends to portray. The video shown during class, “Hillary Clinton for Millennials”, used several images and videos from that time period. While the video was published to YouTube in 2015, it displayed visuals from decades ago. News recycling is not something new and will not be eradicated in the near future. From the HRC article, there are multiple motives for the use of news recycling: appearance of consistent and factual stories, saving money, and impression that the news stations was there capturing the important events. Although these are conceivable motives, at what point is news recycling not suitable? There are certainly more current videos and images of Clinton, yet decade old images and the squiggly, colorful aesthetic of the 1990’s were prominent in the “Hillary Clinton for Millennials” video. This exemplifies how the media is trying to create a common belief about Clinton using news recycling. As Hillary Clinton continues to run for presidency and be in the spotlight, her control over her image deceases more and more everyday. Clinton’s social media posts can only sway the public so much, and even then, those posts can be manipulated and reframed by the media.