I've had to catch some of this year's events in the presidential campaign on the radio instead of TV because I've been driving instead of at home when they aired. And from listening to day-after breakdowns, I'm realizing that there are some aspects you miss when you don't see it happening.
For instance, yesterday at lunch, everyone was talking about how McCain refused to shake Obama's hand following Tuesday's presidential debate. Here's a YouTube video that captures it. McCain also left the stage immediately following the debate, while Obama stuck around, speaking individually with viewers and shaking more hands, even after being brushed off by his opponent.
Earlier in this election season, I listened to Obama give his speech at the Democratic National Convention in Denver. But by listening instead of watching, I missed seeing the much talked about columns on the stage at Invesco Field. Here's what one blogger said about those:
The image of Barack Obama on stage amid those columns is all the Republicans need to reinforce their contention that he is elite. And foreign. And grandiose. And that image will become the visual equivalent of John McCain's not knowing how many houses he owns. Nothing says "out of touch with regular Americans" like Greek columns.
Appearances matter. We've known that since the televised debate between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon in 1960. Most people these days watch, they don't listen. (And with YouTube and Tivo, the can watch over and over and over ...) Even if you miss the televised action the first time around, there are more ways than ever to go back and rehash every gesture after the fact.
Savvy politicians must be ever aware of this as they choreograph the moves they make before American voters.
(Photo: images.huffingtonpost.com)
I guess columns mean different things to different people. Those "foreign" columns have been a prominent part of American civic architecture since the earliest days of our republic.
I watched the debate and saw McCain and his wife shaking hands with audience members and chatting with them. As with editotials video can be edited to look however someone wants it to. I think they both did a good job and can only hope for the evetyone to vote from their heart and may God cast the deciding vote.
The "look" of the stage at the DNC was typical Palladian style. Palladio's work was strongly based on the symmetry, perspective and values of the formal classical temple architecture of the Ancient Greeks and Romans. Washington DC is rife with this style architecture including The White House, The Supreme Court Building, Monticello, The Jefferson Memorial, The Capitol Building, etc.
I don't understand Lynn Grossman's fear. I've been involved with staging and live shows for many years and it seemed very normal to me to set that stage. McCain did a lot of American flag stuff...same thing. Image is everything.
By listening instead of seeing you can better focus on what is actually said and not be manipulated by staging and theatrics. T.V. makes you lazy.Radio makes you work your mind.Baseball for instance is much better on radio because you play it all out in your mind rather than relying on images the producer thinks are important and I also feel music videos destroy what a certain song(when only heard) can mean to us.Disclaimer:This is my opinion only,contains no personal attacks and has been proofread as to not offend anyone who may be offended easily.
Very perceptive Brian. Good stuff! Love your ideas and I probably will use a version of your disclaimer. Parenthetically, I sure hope Joe Morgan does some radio commentary during the baseball playoffs. My usual habit is to turn the TV sound off and listen to his radio commentary.
And on the debates:
I think it’s much more important to read or hear the text of the debates rather than see the debates.
Remember, the debaters are a creation of their "handlers." Debates are rehearsed - continually. Attention is given to certain "code words" that can be slipped into the conversation to convey certain perceptions. Both sides have "drama" coaches and access to PR experts who are skilled in getting you to "buy their product."
Let’s face it - debates are not necessarily about "truth," only perception. There, will of course, be some truth used and revealed at any debate, but that’s not really the goal. Perception is the goal. Everything is about perception for a visual media. Great attention is given to dress, the right color of suit and tie, hair styles, even the right and politically correct lapel pins. Sometimes it about whether or not a debater has had a close shave or not (Of course, Sarah Palin doesn’t have to worry about this!). In the 1960 presidential election - the Nixon-Kennedy debate, a majority of people who listened to the debate on the radio considered Nixon the winner. A poll of TV viewers of that same debate found a clear majority believed Kennedy had won.
It’s about perception. It’s all about smiling at the right moment; it’s all about sounding right and sincere and giving the image of "caring." You can almost see a Hollywood director behind the scenes, controlling every aspect of the debate. Much of what we see is not reality. It’s a carefully scripted waltz, each side trying their best to present an image - the image they feel will best serve their purpose or agenda.
It’s far more important that we look behind the scenes and to the past to see what our candidates really believe.
Disclaimer: This is my opinion only, contains no personal attacks; if offended by any of my gentle rebukes, you are just overly sensitive and probably, for your own good, need to bail out of the blogesphere.
Brian,
How about taking it further, reading a book or newspaper beyond the radio theatrics.
Brian and T.C. are missing an important point. One of the most important jobs of the U.S. President is to be the "face" and voice of the U.S. Government in communicating to the American people. We saw that in the days after 9/11 when Pres. Bush effectively communicated the nation's resolve after the WTC and Pentagon attacks, and also in the last few weeks when he not-so-effectively tried to restore our crumbling confidence in the economy.
In the 1940's, FDR could effectively communicate with the American people by radio. Since the 1960's, however, the primary method has been by television.
So if you are judging a candidate based on how he/she sounds on radio, you're only evaluating part of the package.
Mike:
I’m not all that concerned by a visual, public perception - it’s overblown. I want to know what a person stands for. Our whole culture is geared towards "falseness." Hollywood thrives on it - people pretending to be what they are not.
Too much care has been given to a contrived visual presentation. (Incidently, most of our modern concepts of election campaigns were first used by Hitler - his propagandist, Leni Riefenstahl, was a master at presenting things in the most positive light).
I think the point is, that we must all look beyond a TV presentation; we must look at what has been done by the individual; who his associations are; what he has written, asking ourselves what philosophies and ideas has he been exposed too and what has he bought into and put into practice in his own life.
It’s important to know what life experiences an individual has gone through or is going through. For instance, it’s important for me to know and try to understand why Obama remained, for twenty years, a member of a church who pastor espoused black liberationist and racist views. It is important for me to know and try to understand why McCain has until recently downplayed (mostly ignored) his Christian faith - such as it is. Knowledge about the individual will determine my vote. And I can’t get that by just observing another actor on stage in a debate.
I think we can all agree that President Bush is not the most articulate guy in the world. He doesn’t, for the most part, come across "well: in the visual media. The fact that he stumbles over his words, and has a few quirks and mannerisms, has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not he is telling the truth or not telling the truth. (That’s an argument for another blog, at another time, and one that has been constantly beaten up on this forum). His truthfulness - or lack of it - can be discerned, by looking at his past record and his present deeds; by knowing what he stands for; and that knowledge can come through the reading and study of the historical record. That record will expose us to all sorts of opinions - left, right, etc.; Now, what we need to do is apply the standard, the grid we are most comfortable with to discern what we need to know and what the truth is. (And you know what my "standard" is!).
TC it sounds like you are caught up in knowing the truth which is agreeable by most of us.
In the case of Bush that you mention. What if Bush believes something to be the truth and is wrong? You won't second guess him because he believes what he says even though he may be wrong and stuburn enough not to admit it?
It is apparent and widely excepted that we were led into Iraq under false information. Information that was molded to fit Bush's agenda to attack Iraq. He and the Administration made argements to atttack with information presented to carry out attacks on Iraq.
Was Bush "truthful", or do you except that he was given false information that led to his decision?
T.C., I have just one question for you. I've seen others refer to Rev. Wright's "racist" views, but I've never seen any explanation of why they are considered racist by some.
Can you tell me one racist thing that Rev. Wright has said?
Wow....TC...I got completely through one of your posts (October 9, 2008 5:34 PM) and agreed. HA! The only thing I would add is that some debaters need more "handling" than others. Moreover, I think the Town Hall style is clearly John McCain's comfort zone, He does well in them and needs no handling.
Mike has a legitimate point, but still, I'm going to adjust my statement above where I say "image is everything." In a presidential election it's obviously only one of many many things.
I want to hear the information from the candidates own mouth not what the biased newspapers and talk show commentaries have to say. I believe I am a strong enough individual that I can draw my own conclusions and do not wish to have someone elses thoughts to sway my conclusions.
This thread is a perfect example of our reliance on visuals, and the media's use for its own intent. Notice the included link to a video of a clumsy event for McCain (graphic included) but the link to Obama's clumsy event is text-only. Where's the visual of Obama & the columns?
Secondary is the fact that the link is to the Huffington Post (no slant there) with its unflattering images of the opponent, as well as other pro-Obama/anti-McCain articles. I would never voluntarily visit the Huffington Post website, but while I was there, I clicked a couple of times. Slick move...
An informal conclusion (sorry Mike D., no hard data, just a gut feeling based on numerous experiences) might be that the Bee limits exposure to conservative viewpoints, but freely dispenses liberal viewpoints.
For many Americans, image prevails over substance. The same is true for entertainment over fact. The press knew this long before Tivo and the 'net; it's not a new concept. Today's technology just makes all this image and entertainment immediately accessible.