Silence in the senate. I remember vividly, as a child, that my mother quite often had the television on in the living room as she assembled the furniture she’d built for our house. Most often, the programming on the screen was C-SPAN (the Cable Satellite Public Affairs Network). I remember that a lot of the programming in question was unquestionably boring in nature – most often, it was votes, with numbers changing ever-so-slowly as congressmen and women cast their votes on issues I was too young to understand. I remember only a few speakers: most of the ones I remember are remembered because my parents pointed them out to me, or more often, because they were entertaining to watch or listen to.
In the introduction to The Assault on Reason former Vice President Al Gore poses what he says is a familiar question to Americans in the early 21st century: “Why do reason, logic, and truth seem to play a sharply diminished role in the way America now makes important decisions?” (Gore 1) A part of what he seems to blame is the passive reception of television news-media by a public who relies too much on the “news as entertainment” system: connecting to both the theory that television hooks into an “orienting response” (21) which survives in our evolutionary inheritance of DNA, as well as the idea from Marshall McLuhan that “the medium is the message” (20), Gore proposes what I think is an extraordinary hypothesis. Our instincts – specifically our survival instincts – are being honed in on to keep us watching the television without actively questioning the material conveyed to us.
In the course of the past few years, I’ve noticed that one of the startling “truths” within the satire of Jon Stewart’s The Daily Show or its spin-off, Stephen Colbert’s Colbert Report, is that when you juxtapose different speeches by the same politician, or different parts of the same speech, you often find interesting and contradictory evidence. My question for discussion: is there a concrete way in which television has affected our reception of the candidates for national office in this election year? Do you think commercials affect your response to candidates? What about the kerfuffles in which candidates find deep meaning in comments that are not necessarily meant to be meaningful?
My immediate reaction is that they’re trying to distract us from the actual issues: perhaps if we’re concerned about how the other campaign has wronged them, we won’t notice that no politicians really like to talk specifics. What about you guys? Can you think of examples of this in recent days from political coverage of both sides? What I'm interested in here is the effect of commercials, speeches, rather than their content: what does the medium through which the candidates present themselves do to our perception of their message?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
"My question for discussion: is there a concrete way in which television has affected our reception of the candidates for national office in this election year?"
- This as an opening question seems like a great jumping point for further issues. In terms of accurately answering the question however, a number of other factors need to be taken into account. Namely the interaction of the media WITH the candidates themselves. Too often, criticism is leveled on media outlets for going beyond mere "reporting" into "color commentary" and sometimes, sheer biassing. But let's not forget that it is also the candidates that have the choice of how they can best be represented, in their words and on their terms. If, for example, Senator Obama states a conflagrative remark during an interview or campaign meeting, as he recently did with the "pig and lipstick" comment, the media and television in particular jump at the opportunity to use said remark in their reports, as it becomes the focus of the political scene. This does not excuse either party from being wrong in doing said actions. The attention is then channeled to the viewers who feed unequally on one side or the other, when true reporting would simply bring the facts and issues and let the audience make the informed decisions. Frankly, examples such as the one previously mentioned are why I believe the media and the candidates alike have a responsibility, not only to one another but to the general voting public, to uphold decency and fairness without resorting to petty in-fighting and playground bullying. It is those RE-actions that in turn perpetuate the cycle of ill-informed media coverage.
Do you think commercials affect your response to candidates?
- In terms of the commercials, I honestly believe they are simply tools for getting simple messages across to those viewing, namely the candidates' name, and an issue that may find favor in a given audience. Do I believe they affect the average individual's response to the candidates? Yes, but I don't believe it gives that individual the excuse to base his/her decision on a simple 30 second TV commercial rather than informed research.
What about the kerfuffles in which candidates find deep meaning in comments that are not necessarily meant to be meaningful?
- More or less addressed above. In terms of "meaning", it's about context, about timing (again as in Obama's lipstick comment coming on the heels of Palin's own statement about lipstick at the GOP convention) and finally, about audience. As someone who has spoken publicly before and even ran for "office" so to speak, one of the key tools needed before delivering a speech, is "knowing the audience". In this election season we've seen multiple instances where a candidate has made a statement that to some seem totally neutral but to others totally offensive. Take for example the statement made to rural Pennsylvanians by Obama a few months back that they "cling to guns and religion". It became the focus of criticism not only because it was a generic stereotype, but also because the audience who he said it to was offended.
Finally, in terms of the diversion tactics and the efforts by each side to sometimes focus on the wrongs committed by the other side instead of the issues, I agree with you. I agree that too often the campaigns, pundits, and political analysts focus more on these back-and-forth fights rather than what each side is saying about the issues; the topics of discussion and debate that we, the audience and the people who live in this country, actually care about. By drowning the media with political strife and dribble, both sides in effect cancel one another out, leaving the interested decider not only confused and frustrated, but misguided. Personally, I think the media can no longer be the only reliance of political or even general knowledge. For information and facts the responsibility now lies with the determined individual. Research and explore; take the initiative to find the facts and the truth. It is up to each of us to make an informed decision on who we vote for in this election because to base our vote simply on a commercial or on what Obama said that one time or McCain said that other time, is simply foolish and ignorant.
When I was younger I watched a lot of television. Right after school (on the days I wasn't doing Karate, Soccer, Acting, or whatever else) I would come home and relax for an hour or so watching television. And I didn't have cable and at 2:30pm the tv is of the lowest order and terribly boring. Then I might go to some practice or program, but when I came home I'd go back to the tv, watch some Simpsons, maybe Friends or Will and Grace. Then I'd eat and do some homework and then at 9 or 10, while still doing homework, I watched some more tv (I was a big fan of Gilmore Girls). Point is I watched a lot of tv. But in the last few years I kind of forgot the tv was there. Strangely this is when we got cable and my sister became addicted to the screen. I had more work to do, got much more into reading books and newspapers, and had too many other things to do to think about tv. There are just so many better ways to spend your time. Plus it's hard for me to sit still for so long, unless it's a really great movie with some substance (which is kind of rare).
Because I haven't been watching tv I haven't seen any of those campaign commercials. Except for that one that McCain put out with Britney Spears and Paris Hilton, but I watched that online. (And then watched Paris' response ad, which was pretty clever.) So I can't say that the ads have influenced me, but I am sure that they have influenced the general public (which spends 4.5 hours/day watching tv). As we mentioned last class tv, being allowed to see the candidates, makes a big difference. Someone sweating, someone being taller, someone being beautiful. It all makes a difference. Isn't that a reason McCain picked Palin? Because she's a woman and she looks good? A friend of mine said she read that there is a group of women Hillary supporters who are very proud of Hillary for talking about her weight problems, showing that she is a real woman, and refuse to vote for that "bean-pole Obama." He's too skinny for them to associate with? Even though his policies are infinitely closer to Hillary's than McCain's.
None of it makes sense, but that's what America is focused on. And I agree with MK that the "kerfuffle" (love that word) is just a ploy to distract from the actual issues. It seems to me that for all the elections I can remember people have been saying "Wait, but what are his policies? Tell me the details. Where is he actually going to get that money? Because that idea sounds great, but how the hell is he going to do it?!"
But I think the reason that politicians invite so much fog into the picture is not because they don't have real plans or voices on certain issues, but because they are afraid of how the public will react. They're so focused on winning that they are afraid to say what they actually think because it is always uncertain how many votes they will lose or gain by a certain statement.
Something that scares me a little is McCain's performance the other night at Columbia. It was really great. He spoke well, he was entertaining, and he just seemed like a nice guy. So all those Americans watching tv will think "Yea, McCain is a great guy. I'm soooo voting for him" or "Hey, maybe McCain isn't so bad, maybe I'll vote for him." But almost none of those people will try to find out more. Very few of them will go to the internet and look up his policies, his stance on issues. I bet you majority of his supporters, and Obama's too, haven't even gone to their websites to read what they have posted on issues. Because that would take effort and time and why would anyone go look this stuff up or read when you can just sit in front of the tv and get all the info there is? And plus when are you going to find the time to read when you have over 4.5 hours of tv to watch a day?
Next time someone says they support so and so ask why and probably you won't get a very specific or satisfying answer.
from Andrew G
First off I do not pay a lot of attention to politics so I only know the basics. What I do know about political commercials is that they criticize their opponent for the majority of the commercial. This leads the viewer to not believe the commercials. These commercials seem childish like an argument between 2nd graders who only communicate to each other through someone else. This other person happens to be a televison. I try not to believe the political propoganda on TV because I don't know how true the statements are. I realize that politics requires a lot of manipulation and smack talking in order to win. The whole goal is to find reasons why voters should vote for you and not your opponent. Even so, I tend to ignore the commercials and make the decision on my own for who to vote for.
And one thing I found interesting was that when John McCain strongly proposed an ROTC program at Columbia he was booed by almost everyone in the audience, but when Obama indirectly said the same thing, there was not nearly the same response. Just something intriguing i thought about.
From Sarah Camiscoli
After reading Al Gore's piece on the effects of television and media on our political biases and human reasoning, I found myself disillusioned. "We are all responsible for the decisions are our country makes," and I am not sure what I have done to improve this stagnant pool of reasoning we live in today (Gore 2). I feel as if I have been a mere contributor in this slow decline of human logic and I have only spoken out against a collective mindset that I too was following. Perhaps I can begin to redeem myself by responding to this blog-an innovative marketplace of ideas- in a way that is true, honest, and well thought out.
In response to the initial question, there is no doubt in my mind that television has affected the national reception of this year's presidential candidates. It is not a miracle that Barack Obama's ratings dropped significantly after news casters bombarded the public with Reverend Wright's religious fanaticism and anti-American comments. While Obama never even alluded to sharing Wright’s beliefs that George Bush was involved in the attacks on 9/11, people throughout the nation grabbed catch phrases such as “anti-Christ” and “fanatic” from bits of flashing images they had seen throughout the week. Another prime example is Hilary Clinton’s momentous emotional breakdown that was broadcasted for an entire week with broadcasters across the country claiming “maybe we aren’t ready for a female president.” As the democratic party ignited into a famed soap opera, the nation witnessed a “systemic decay of public forum” (Gore 10). Politics have become a sitcom. The candidates are the stars. We are the audience. Where are the issues? Has television merely had an effect on our reasoning, or has it lead us into a complete loss of the values that our country stands for?
When focusing on the commercials specifically, I’d have to say that the general idea of selling a set of values to me like a bar of soap or glass of wine makes me physically ill. Each political commercial has been nothing more than useful material for shows like The Daily Show and The Cobert Report, and profit boosters for local news channels. Hilary Clinton’s commercial picturing a small child sleeping soundly in her bed did nothing more than entertain the opposing side and hinder her campaign after the child star said she wasn’t even voting for Clinton. After the commercial was aired, newscasters had a ball mocking every bit of the commercial and failed to even mention Clinton’s platform and innovative ideas. A similar example occurred after John McCain aired and publicized a commercial attacking Obama as a celebrity. He compared him to Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan. As an educated human being, it has to be in some way jarring to see a nation accept such political banter from our next potential president. Picturing theses two pop stars on the opening page to his website, McCain blatantly defined his politics through a Hollywood lens. Ironically, the only real opposition this leader faced was from the Hilton family, enraged that the candidate they had supported monetarily for the past year was making their daughter into a mockery.
How can we accept this? How can hundreds of news channel abandon the political issues and take what will be one of the most historical elections at face value? Instead of asking ourselves these types of questions, television has thrust us into a very different, very visual, and very superficial mind frame. Instead many ask, “Are we ready for a black or female president? Is Obama the anti-Christ? Will he be assassinated? Is McCain too old?” It is true. The television, the media, the candidates, and the public have abandoned the concept of “well informed citizenry”(Gore 12). The truth is jarring. We are stagnant. "We are all responsible"(Gore 2). Now it is time to take a step away from the television and take a moment to actually think about the flashing images that are debilitating our human reason.
I think that this election year has been a particularly intense and that we have seen plenty of ads and speeches that are meant to produce a certain response in the audience. The most notable ad of this election process for me, personally, was the ads that were aired within hours of Obama announcing that Joe Biden would be his running mate. The McCain campaign criticized that Hilary Clinton was not chosen, or even considered, despite all the support and votes that she had in the primaries. I don’t honestly think that the McCain campaign was concerned about this fact, probably thankful, yet they wanted to produce anger and resentment in the already divided Democratic Party. To make matters worse, he chose a very obscure and arguably inexperienced governor of Alaska as his running mate. Many of her weakness, which he has attempted to justify, are many of the same things he has criticized in Obama. He is not thinking about what he is saying and whether he is contradicting himself, but on how many votes he can sway and what emotions he can produce.
As to commercials, I think that commercials can have an effect on how you portray the candidate, but it also depends heavily on how much information you receive from elsewhere. Someone who is very informed on the issues will not be as easily swayed by what is said in commercials. As for the kerfuffle’s, it is pretty much the same principal. A well-informed person will fail to see how this connects to the campaign and a person’s ability to govern, but for the masses who are watching the news that is geared to entertainment both of these situations can make all the difference. Since people are reading less and less and getting their news from those stations that are looking to entertain, this is a habit and tactic that is unlikely to go away, especially since some people not little at all about the issues at hand.
I definitely agree with many of the sentiments Al Gore puts forth in his book The Assault on Reason. Although I'm not an American and do not have the first hand experience of following the drama surrounding this year's much hyped election, I have still witnessed many of the so called 'news as entertainment' episodes. I recall tuning into CNN and NBC to watch the dramatic political race between Bush and Gore..and Bush and Kerry. I find it frightening that when I realize what I just watched on TV was not a drama, a movie, or anything that should be remotely entertaining--I was watching the election of the most powerful human being in the world. The media has definitely turned news into entertainment; they have turned the simple act of relaying news to the people to a competition between networks for ratings. Television, then, is truly a frightening mode of communication. Its ability to hypnotize and sway viewers is constantly taken advantage of.
In terms of specific elections and campaigns, television and the media definitely play an integral role, often the deciding role when it comes to deciding on a presidential candidate. I definitely agree with the sentiment that commercials, especially so called 'attack ads' distract us from what is really at stake. Reason certainly has played a sharply diminished role in the way America makes decisions. For instance, even in Canada-- (our elections are obviously on a much much smaller scale and importance), inappropriate ads can determine the course of an entire country. Kim Campbell (I found out recently she actually came and spoke here at Columbia) lost her election to Jean Chretien because she ran a commercial that seemed to feature Chretien's facial paralysis--resulting in a majority victory for Chretien. This is evidently an extreme case, but clearly elections are often not decided by anything to do with the actual candidate's platform and ideas.
Furthermore, I agree with Jess's statement about Mccain's appearance Thursday night. To me, he appeared much more casual, comfortable, and just a nicer guy than Barack Obama. So much of elections are about your image---and it should, but is that most important or is it what you actually stand for? And when I mean image, I don't just mean how you present yourself, but every single word you say, and every little mistake you might make. A political campaign trail--a odyssey of a journey, that costs millions of dollars and hundreds of people (isn't that already somewhat hypocritical to the spirit of democracy as it was born?) involves thousands of speeches, and endless questions from the media. Yes, we're deciding the future president of the United States here, of course the journey would be tough--but does the media need to run their cover story, their feature stories, their breaking stories on a word/sentence (probably taken out of context/misinterpreted) that the candidate said? Does the media have to look for stories to make the campaign trail interesting? The campaign trail is almost portrayed on TV as a sports game is shown on ESPN.
All of this, as Gore pointed out, largely leads back to our most accessible mode of communication today--television. It is a virtual reality in which the viewer's reason, logic and truth are diminished, often buried by the network's goal to make television more intriguing.
Post a Comment