It can be argued that the results of the current election cycle are evidence of a subtle but very significant change in the impact of the media.
Nothing is more probing or revealing than being in front of the public by way of visual media. This phenomenon, which is understood to have first shown its importance during the Kennedy/Nixon debates, has been increasingly significant in recent elections where the 24/7 news cycle, and most recently Utube and the Internet, have appeared.
Some will argue that the impact of modern media saturation is largely negative, and cite the influence of sound bites and the visual style of political advertising. Certainly, the skill which some advisers have displayed in manipulating the media to their candidates purposes in past elections is both impressive and discouraging. If however, we give more thought to how media factors are playing out in this cycle, I believe we can see a tendency for the influence of the media to be much more truthful and honestly revealing than it has been in the past. I don't believe this truthfulness is the result of media outlets endeavoring to make their content more factual. Quite to the contrary, the desire of media pundits to promote their individual "brand", has only led to more sensational and less meaningful discussion and questioning than we've seen in the past, witness Tim Russert.
If we examine the impact the large number of debates, candidate speeches, and their wider dissemination over the web has had on the fortunes of many of the candidates, I do see encouraging signs. I see evidence that the real stories are getting out their, and the candidates real attitudes toward the public are being seen, and felt, in spite of the best efforts of those candidates handlers to disguise or manipulate those images.
Consider the candidacy of Mitt Romney. His efforts to reinvent himself as something other than a traditional country club Republican backfired spectacularly, when he attempted to represent himself as a hunter. His subsequent transparent attempts to explain this away were so visually revealing, and so widely disseminated, that this one incident may have been enough to sink his candidacy. Rudy Guiliani is another example worth considering. His too consistent efforts to capitalize on "911", and what I believe was his wife's highly negative visual image, served to turn a front runner into a loser with a speed seldom witnessed. John McCain in contrast, went from being virtually counted out to the presumptive nominee by showing a willingness to take positions which could not be viewed as "popular", and his quite obvious belief in those positions was apparent in the media. This earned him a reputation for being willing to stand on principal. He also displayed a obvious disdain for the posturing of his opponents during debates. I don't think these visual cues were overlooked by Republican voters.
On the Democratic side its not hard to see in Hillary Clinton's candidacy, her willingness to allow herself to be packaged and "disciplined" in her public appearances. The Clintons heavy reliance on advisors, thought to be so skilled in manipulating public attitudes, contributed significantly to the perception that she is dishonest. Once again, Obama's greater reliance on his own instincts in dealing with his image and the quite striking sense of his being more genuine than his chief opponent, are a major contributor to his success.
Will advisors become more skilled in manipulating these factors in future elections? Possibly, but this seems to be more difficult to accomplish with the greater candidate exposure we are now seeing. One more reason to be thankful for the Internet.