More than twenty years ago Neil Postman observed the demise of serious political discourse and identified television as the culprit. According to Postman, the triviality of television makes everything on it trivial…including political speech and campaigning. In Amusing Ourselves to Death, Postman argued, “The problem is not that television presents us with entertaining subject matter but that all subject matter is presented as entertaining” (p. 87). Postman maintained that television reduces important conversations to snippits and sound bites, with too much attention paid to the image and too little to the message. For Postman, as with McLuhan, the medium is the message--and TV is a visual medium that caters to those who have short attention spans. Postman also observed more than twenty years ago that the emphasis on the visual nature of the medium means that we will no longer consider overweight or homely candidates. And those with facial hair shouldn’t even think about running for office. But for a candidate who is blessed with good looks, a quick wit, and an ability to perform in front of the cameras, the sky (or the Whitehouse) is the limit.
It would come as no surprise to Postman, (who died in 2003) that Al Franken, a comedian, whose claim-to-fame is as a writer and actor for Saturday Night Live, could consider a run for political office.
Postman, N. (1985). Amusing ourselves to death: Public discourse in the age of show business. NY: Penguin books.
Posts
13 comments:
I agree that Postman would be unsurprised to see a comedian running for office. In fact, if the person running had a solid platform and ideas, Postman would have no problem. I think that it is if the candidate banked upon their success as comedian and tried to draw people to them using the same ‘tricks’ as they did for their act. The danger of a celebrity running for office in our environment is that most of what the public will see is that person’s entertainment role and not their political stances. At the same time, our earliest politicians were somewhat performers. I mean that in order to draw people to them, they needed charisma, something that made the masses pay attention to them. Today, the only way a person can have an effect on the entirety of our nation is through the use of the media, specifically television. Our political system is what it is today because of us. The American people have let themselves be turned into short-attention-spanned viewers. I think the only way this could change is if there was a serious movement to educate people on what their rights and responsibilities are in connection to our political system.
Postman wouldn't be surprised. The way the public seems to look at elections now is on looks. Preseidents like JFK was looked at as a handsome president and people thought Nixon looked old and not right for the public position. Looking at Ronald Reagan and Arnold Schwarzenegger give perfect examples of how anyone can basically run for office. The public just wants to get entertained now until something serious happens.
Jason Bonoan
I think that in this case with Al Franken, he's almost more of a satirist than comedian, or at least that's how I think of him. His humor has always been fairly intelligent and sophisticated.
I think that if somebody such as Robin Williams, or maybe Ray Romano were to run, (doesn't Robin Wms have a movie right now in which he runs?)many would seriously question the audacity of some people who think they can become U.S. president!
I absolutely do believe that increasingly it does seem as if other factors are coming into play for determining who gets a vote, rather than the actual content of their political message and platform.
My theory there is that the content is so complex (think trying to fully comprehend the complexities of national health care)that the average citizen goes instead with looks, wit, and communication style.
My initial post for this didn't make it through for some reason, so I guess I get a second chance to ramble.
I'll say that much of what we see now in the way of decision making in this country is commensurate with levels of apathy seen in the American consumer.
In fact, marketers, advertisers and PR people flat out depend on said apathy.
Now for the apologists of each vocation I'll say this: not all marketing, advertising and pr practitioners have sinister motives. That would be stupidly reductive to say, and I know that there are professionals out there who hold their integrity in high regard.
That said, it should surprise no one that in today's climate any body with anything to sell is apt to try, and that most certainly includes potential presidents.
Ok, so Al Franken vs George Dubya.
Hmmm, Looks? Well, the dubya might win there, but measured by wit and communication style? Franken should win hands down! Even if you don't like Al Franken's comedic style, he most certainly has more brains and talent, not to mention an ability to speak unscripted.
Yet in both 2000 and 2004, Bush was against certainly better educated, and in the case of Gore, better looking candidates, but he still won. Why? Carl Rove.
Ok, a better way to say it is the culmination of over 50 years of pseudo-scientifically refined Marketing, Advertising and Public Relations strategies and tactics. This has led to foolishly short sighted behavioral and communication models that basically work, for awhile.
A person so inclined need only study the rudimentary concepts of the three in order to sell a new type of bogus diet pill every month. And Americans buy it because of apathy.
Now imagine what a studious mass communications student by the name of Carl Rove was able to do with the soft, malleable lump of nothing called "the Dubya." He packaged bush and sold him affectively enough to solidify a zealotous, conservative platform. Every one else who voted for him, I would say, simply walked off the edge of the cliff along with the other lemurs.(I'm fully aware that's a personal opinion, but screw it.)
I am surprised by nothing, other than the fact that the man was actually elected twice.
m. taghizadegan
So Michael, are you suggesting that we (the American public) are so easily manipulated by PR and marketing strategies that the candidate/product is inconsequential?...that communication strategies trump substantive issues?...and that voter apathy and ignorance means that we are doomed to elect unworthy leaders? It sounds like you subscribe to the propaganda and mass society theories of mass communication that were the rage the first half of the 20th century.
Thanks for responding Dr. Ebersole.
I'm glad to get a chance to continue an interesting conversation. Remember, I only claimed to not be surprised by the introduction of an unusual candidate.
First, I'm not sure to which so called theories you are refering. For me, any theoretical models pertaining to a social science are merely rhetorical constructions based on generic statistics that speak only to relative truths,and are not worthy of a "theory" label because of their likeliness to fade in and out of popularity and use.
This same tendency to wax and wane cannot be applied to legitimate science. As you know, in real science once a theory has been debunked, the faulty elements are disgarded or corrected and likely not to return.
Conspiracy theories and wild propaganda typically share the same fate as modern social theories.
As much as I like to read, I've not sunk myself into the literature pertaining to mass communications or even marketing models of this or any other era. It seems a futile pursuit.
My view is that the relative truths of any given social theory are incumbant upon the context to which they are applied.
What's more, if there is a keen understanding of how a target market or audience perceive that context, then a product or idea can easily be developed and then sold. The audience and consumer base then has the potential to be grown
or diminished based on the resiliency of the product or idea.
Now 911 produced a context for our country. A context of fear. the Dubya was packaged to be an answer to the newly perceived threat of terrorism, which wasn't really new.
His administration's policies up to the 2004 election had arguably produced little tangible results, and no one I spoke with from the academic community voted for him.
Coincidentally, nearly half a billion dollars in advertising alone was spent in what was one of the closest elections in say 20 years, maybe?
So if the American public were not apathetic and therefore able to clearly identify the subsantive issues of the election, then why was it so close?
But for the conspiracy theorists claims that the election was rigged, how come so many thoughtful and insightful voters were so deeply, and equally divided?
Finally, to respond to your assumptions of my opinion from my first post: Yes, we (the American public) are too easily manipulated by marketing and advertising strategies and tactics. But let's get it straight now... Communication strategies and tactics are applied "methods" often unethically used to trump the public's understanding of substantive issues.
But it was you who implied that "we" are doomed to elect unworthy leaders. Please don't put words in my mouth.
Lastly, I base my personal opinions on my own life experience and understanding.
I do not wallow in or borrow from historical non-theories nor authors thereof to shape my understanding of what is consistently changing.
That is your area of expertise Doctor.
m.taghizadegan
Michael,
You and I have already had the “theory” discussion, so I won't take time for that here. I merely raised those theories because they assume a gullible audience easily swayed by powerful media. Even if you don't like to call them theories, we can agree that media effects generally are believed to be powerful or weak depending on one's perspective on how humans make meaning in a constantly changing world. If you are a behaviorist you view the world through a stimulus/response model. If you’re a humanist, you interpret events and phenomena in the context of the social environment in which they occur. These are gross generalizations of course, but I mention them because we all create our reality while coming from a diversity of assumptions about how that reality is known and understood. Some of us like to refer to those approaches as theories. Your comments about the power of media tactics in the hands of Karl Rove indicate that you believe in powerful effects.
I fully agree that communication strategies and tactics work best with an uninformed mass audience. A public that is ignorant and/or prejudicial is more easily manipulated than one that is well-informed and thoughtful. But that is exactly why we need you, Luke, to use the force for good and not for evil!
Re putting words in your mouth…after rereading your post, particularly the next to last paragraph about Rove and Bush, I'm not sure that there is any other way to interpret it than how I did. If there is, and I misunderstood you, please tell me how.
Finally, I hope that you will reconsider the importance of historical authors and even their “non-theories” as you struggle to understand this crazy, mixed-up world. While personal “life-experience and understanding” is important, knowledge is a cumulative process that takes into account the lessons taught by history.
Not to say that there is blame to be assigned, but if there were, upon whom should it be? Is television to be faulted for providing its patrons what they desire? Likewise is it not better to be given a "snipit" of information in opposition to being completely ignorant to a topic as a whole. Postman has a valid point in that people are not receiving enough information and are becoming more concerned with the format it is presented in rather than the information itself. This valid point is hidden beneath a wrongfully pointed finger of accusation. If blame is to be assigned it should fall upon the consumer. You can not blame a company for tailoring itself to those that supply it with the money to continue running.
I think that celebrities should have the right to run for office just like anyone else born in the United States, but it is a problem how people view these elite canidates.
First impressions are a big thing that Americans judge on. Though if we would stick around and listen to the ones who may be overweight or who are particularly unattractive, we would judge according to their plans and beliefs.
I know President Bush gets made fun of because he isn't the best at delivering speeches, but that's just a character flaw that people should learn to over-look, and begin to really listen to what he's saying.
Hopefully, and I would like to think that the peoole who really care about politics listen to all canidates and really choose the person they think would do the better job, not the person who has the best personality or carries themselves the most professionally. Those are good character traits in a leader but not the most important.
Again the issue of comedians running for office comes up. Some have the best of intentions like Arnold. Others make light of this office. No wonder with the way things have played out over these past years.
It is true, I have noticed that people are concerned with the looks of a president and that he possesses charisma. Good speaking ability is essential. How can you convey your thoughts if you can't pronounce the words in your speech. No names please. If you are a democrat you may be aware of a canidate named Dennis Kucinich. Unfortunatly he was given about seven minutes of time during a two hour debate. I think this is because he is a short, dare I say, not so attractive man with a few quirks. However he is one of the most democratic out of the bunch. I wish people would seriously look at the canidates and make an informed decision based on their voting records.
When it comes to politics and celebrities, there needs to be a line drawn. Obviously. Here in America, I believe that we already have a fake, and easy to make fun of government, so what we don’t need is some comedian becoming the next president of the United States (figurative speaking. I believe that if they are fit for the job and have good values and are what we are looking for here in America then they are what we can possibly need. But is it that they'll get the vote because they have been seen on TV time and time again? Will they get the votes because his/her fans are just those fans? Or will it be because they are a good candidate for the job? That is where we need to draw a line between who can actually run for these positions. But that is not where we stop them from running. Let who ever, run for whatever. Just as long it is not a joke.
Postman's predictions were all to true and obvious at this point. Postman understood the media in the sense that he could point out all challenges about the media with all too true theories. He must have possessed a lot of knowledge on the matter to begin with. Once I read about Postman noticing political campaigns and viewer's habbits I was stunned to realize that to an extent it is again all to true. He made a good point about people being almost superficial if you will in such media news as presidental campaigns. I can only imagine what could happen in the future and the media's influence on such serious issues as campaigns.
I dont really think that celebrities should run for any type of office. I kind think its a way for them to try to become more famous than they already are. Politics should be left to politicians and not actors. Those positions in government are too important and reflect our nation way to much to be takin on by anyone who doesnt know exactly what their doing.
Post a Comment