Comments on: Stagecraft as statecraft…

By: Rachel Cohen

Rachel Cohen — Sun, 18 May 2003 08:23:38 +0000

I think this is a tempest in a teapot. Is Bush in a flight suit somehow more reprehensible than Calvin Coolidge in a war bonnet? Certainly the most damning TV image of a politican was Nixon sweating during the debates. And Kennedy’s operatives completely rigged that, as well.

THink of Bill and Hil’s love fest on 6o Minutes–or Hilary in a pink sweater and headband explaining her trading windfalls and both of those interviews were on NEWS programs–not photo-ops.

This is a problem for the older generation, like Bumiller. Anyone who’s grown up on MTV doesn’t pay it a second’s notice.

By: acline

acline — Sat, 17 May 2003 06:30:16 +0000

One way to define depth in this context would be: political utility, i.e. what use can we make of the information. In terms of what Bush wants, these images have high utility. But what can we citizens do with them? I’m not sure we can say much about the man with such images because the presidents have always been, to various degrees, characters is a show played by men.

By: cj

cj — Fri, 16 May 2003 15:38:45 +0000

Andrew,

I agree with your assessment, there is certainly no DEPTH of understanding. I do believe the quotes in the post acknowledge the manipulation of visual/electronic media. Of course, such manipulation means that the TRUTH can be easily disguised. Probably nothing NEW, more an indication of said manipulation couched as a positive for the audience. Also, I daresay, an acknowledgement of Bush’s lack of articulation: He does come across better in “concrete images” (the USS Lincoln landing, the megaphone speech at the WTC) — and thus such images do communicate to a certain extent his philosophy and persona.

But as you say, what is lacking is DEPTH (in the communication or the man — your call ;^)