The rhetoric of narrative…
William Powers would like the news media to cover the “movie” of the presidential race–a ubiquitous political metaphor that highlights the rhetoric of narrative. Powers says:
We all know this is how it works. But our knowledge of the game doesn’t diminish its power. To me, the mystery is why these elements don’t get more attention from the media. As a culture, we are extremely sophisticated about the way image and sound work together in the movies to make us think and feel a certain way. Yet our political journalism feels like a remnant of the 1940s, with its creaky emphasis on electoral mechanics–the swing-state obsession–and earnest discussion of which Big Issue, the economy or the war, will matter most.
I can tell you one reason the news media do not cover the movie production of campaign politics: For the most part, journalists know nothing about rhetoric (and other important language issues). Language training for journalists begins, and usually ends, with basic grammar and grounding in the AP Stylebook. The production of a campaign is a complex rhetorical construction. A momentary dramatic scene in the production (e.g. a he-said, she-said situation) is a far easier moment to cover day to day. These moments have the feel of news because they fit several of the structural biases of the profession.
The political production (or “spectacle,” as Murray Edelman called it) could, however, be a source of news of a sort journalists readily understand. Considering the persuasive tactics of politicians on something more than a surface level might lead reporters to interesting inquiries, especially in the presidential campaign concerning who may be lying about what. Add the role of custodians of fact to the job description and we just might begin to see some politically useful journalism.
Does it have to be either-or? In other words, does the fact that political campaigns structure their rhetoric to create images mean that the other stuff does not matter? I’m not really disagreeing with you or Powers, but suggesting the idea that campaigns are ONLY about rhetoric is unduly cynical. Issues do matter, at least in the broad sense of creating a prism through which to evaluate the candidate’s message. Someone who is pro-choice is not going to vote for Bush no matter how he structures his message.
What you and Powers are saying does fit with something that I believe–that the voting decision is more a matter of “feel” than it is intellect. Even if you don’t know the candidate’s positions on specific issues (or maybe even don’t agree with them), the key is whether you feel this person is generally aligned with your values. In that sense, the rhetorical structure of the campaign creates a resonance with the voter that is more important than specific issues.
Politics as Entertainment
We all know that presidential campaigns are highly scripted and tightly staged, but why don’t journalists cover this aspect? Surely they understand how each scene is set up to manipulate public opinion; almost everyone does. Still, they cover these eve…
Except, of course, that journalists seem pretty loathe to talk about the issue, either – at least not in a truly critical mode. As Powers points out, most of the political coverage out there has to do with the horserace – what gesture will appeal to what demographic in which state. This is not information that is useful to anyone making a decision on who to vote for. I would be all for truly critical treatments of the issues, in fact I think that’s more important than rhetorical analysis, but right now we’re getting neither.
MWS…cynical if I defined rhetoric in its pejorative sense–the sense that most in the news media understand it. From my particular theoretical perspective, rhetoric is bound up in everything we know and communicate. It is itself a way of knowing. Issues do not exist outside of a rhetorical context.
sleepnotwork…how can you have a critical treatment of an issue outside a rhetorical framework?