The Rise and Lies of Tele-Politics by Denise Morris on 10/26/2007 at 4:00 PM

We published a TrueU article yesterday which talks about how much television has influenced the way we do politics in the U.S. It's quite amazing, really.

The author, Michael Bauman, first talks about how much time we spend watching TV and how it really has changed our reality into fantasy:

In the aftermath of television's conquest of our eyes and of our waking moments, its artificial reality became the measure by which we judge reality itself, much the same way a person standing on an Alpine peak, surrounded by breathtaking beauty on every side, can say something truly ridiculous: "Why, it's as pretty as a post card!" Rather than judging our fantasies by reality, we have reversed the process.

He then goes on to show how much television affects the way we view (get it?!) political candidates. When Nixon and Kennedy debated one another back in the 60s, those who saw the debate on TV thought Kennedy won, but those who listened to it on the radio, though Nixon was the clear victor. Kennedy was younger and good looking, Nixon hadn't shaved and as Bauman puts it he "deprived himself of the  presidency of the United States because he looked like the criminal he turned out later to be."

And in today's voting system, we have created politicians who rely on polls and what's popular instead of values and truth:

In other words, because it engenders the rule of the telegenic and the aphoristic, tele-politics makes it far easier for the small-minded politician to come to power. The makeup artist has replaced the wise political counselor as the adviser of choice in many campaigns and administrations. Superficial news coverage and political commercials that are little more than verbal drive-by shootings, reduce public policy to a sentence, to half-true truisms. We now vote on the basis of shrunken political ideas so shallow they can fit on a bumper sticker.

Even sound bites from candidates on the news have been dramatically cut. In 2004, the average sound bite was 6 seconds, down from 45 seconds in 1980. We can't sit still for long enough to listen to what people have to say. It's pretty sad.

What do you all think? Do politicians really have anything useful to say -- do any of them really believe anything anymore -- or are they just trying to win elections by flashing smiles and saying the right things in the six seconds alloted to them? And if it is the case that elections are won by those who are pretty, popular and fake, what does that say about us?

The Rise and Lies of Tele-Politics by Denise Morris on 10/26/2007 at 4:00 PM

We published a TrueU article yesterday which talks about how much television has influenced the way we do politics in the U.S. It's quite amazing, really.

The author, Michael Bauman, first talks about how much time we spend watching TV and how it really has changed our reality into fantasy:

In the aftermath of television's conquest of our eyes and of our waking moments, its artificial reality became the measure by which we judge reality itself, much the same way a person standing on an Alpine peak, surrounded by breathtaking beauty on every side, can say something truly ridiculous: "Why, it's as pretty as a post card!" Rather than judging our fantasies by reality, we have reversed the process.

He then goes on to show how much television affects the way we view (get it?!) political candidates. When Nixon and Kennedy debated one another back in the 60s, those who saw the debate on TV thought Kennedy won, but those who listened to it on the radio, though Nixon was the clear victor. Kennedy was younger and good looking, Nixon hadn't shaved and as Bauman puts it he "deprived himself of the  presidency of the United States because he looked like the criminal he turned out later to be."

And in today's voting system, we have created politicians who rely on polls and what's popular instead of values and truth:

In other words, because it engenders the rule of the telegenic and the aphoristic, tele-politics makes it far easier for the small-minded politician to come to power. The makeup artist has replaced the wise political counselor as the adviser of choice in many campaigns and administrations. Superficial news coverage and political commercials that are little more than verbal drive-by shootings, reduce public policy to a sentence, to half-true truisms. We now vote on the basis of shrunken political ideas so shallow they can fit on a bumper sticker.

Even sound bites from candidates on the news have been dramatically cut. In 2004, the average sound bite was 6 seconds, down from 45 seconds in 1980. We can't sit still for long enough to listen to what people have to say. It's pretty sad.

What do you all think? Do politicians really have anything useful to say -- do any of them really believe anything anymore -- or are they just trying to win elections by flashing smiles and saying the right things in the six seconds alloted to them? And if it is the case that elections are won by those who are pretty, popular and fake, what does that say about us?

Comments

[1. Colin said the following at 4:17 PM on Oct 26:]

1

IMO, I believe a good example of this would be Mike Huckabee. Governor Huckabee speaks simply, effectively, and persuasively. But when I read his positions online, I find them very unconvincing.

Anyways, I do believe that in the world of tele-politics, a candidate's looks and popularity have become more important than his beliefs.

[2. Brinn said the following at 5:48 PM on Oct 26:]

2

I have to disagree with Colin. When I read Huckabee's positions, I am convinced. His speaking ability just adds to his positions. I like Mike!

[3. Chris said the following at 8:21 PM on Oct 26:]

3

President Bush is very good at this type of stuff. Just look at the staged speeches he gives where both the background images and the people admitted to "town hall" meetings are controlled. It plays very well to the believers when broadcast on TV.

[4. farmer Tom said the following at 8:28 PM on Oct 26:]

4

What do you all think? Do politicians really have anything useful to say -- do any of them really believe anything anymore -- or are they just trying to win elections by flashing smiles and saying the right things in the six seconds alloted to them? And if it is the case that elections are won by those who are pretty, popular and fake, what does that say about us?

I'll start with the last question first.

We are the problem. So many of us are ignorant of history, ignorant of the Constitution, ignorant of basic human nature, do not understand our own personal biases, and most importantly have a worldview which is schizophrenic at best, un-Biblical at it's worst.

How can anyone possibly make smart informed choices about political candidates when their personal belief system is a complete shambles?

The impact of the visual on politics is really just a symptom of the empty headed emotionalism that most people consider to be thinking. In reality they are "led about by every whim" because there is no there, there. Our culture is filled with people who emote, therefore they exist.

Thinking reasoned individuals hold their emotions in check, study the facts, analyze the data and reached informed conclusions. Too many in the US today, have an emotional reaction and assume that they are thinking.

[5. Ashley said the following at 10:47 PM on Oct 26:]

5

I watched the Republican and Democrat debates, and I had to laugh at how ridiculous they were for the most part. Exactly what you are talking about here. They typically answer in such a way that will appeal to as many people as possible; often not directly answering a question. It does seem at times that at least the presidential election comes down to a popularity contest. I've really only found one (maybe one or two more) candidate out of all them to actually sound authentic (though they may not be, it's hard to say).

[6. John D. said the following at 8:09 AM on Oct 27:]

6

Abraham Lincoln could not get elected today. He would come across horribly on TV with his gangly frame and his, let's be honest, baboonish appearance. FDR could not hide his polio, and would no doubt be hounded by questions about his fitness for office. George Washington's bad teeth would have given image consultants all kinds of fits.

Furthermore, these days no one would sit still for the Lincoln-Douglas debates, or any debate that allowed answers longer than two minutes or so. People nowadays prefer bullet points and factoids. They're much easier than reading or thinking.

[7. Canadian Boy said the following at 10:00 AM on Oct 27:]

7

I'm glad my favourite candidate is not reduced to six-second clips, but rather 30 minutes, four times a night.

Colbert 08.

[1. Colin said the following at 4:17 PM on Oct 26:]

1

IMO, I believe a good example of this would be Mike Huckabee. Governor Huckabee speaks simply, effectively, and persuasively. But when I read his positions online, I find them very unconvincing.

Anyways, I do believe that in the world of tele-politics, a candidate's looks and popularity have become more important than his beliefs.

[2. Brinn said the following at 5:48 PM on Oct 26:]

2

I have to disagree with Colin. When I read Huckabee's positions, I am convinced. His speaking ability just adds to his positions. I like Mike!

[3. Chris said the following at 8:21 PM on Oct 26:]

3

President Bush is very good at this type of stuff. Just look at the staged speeches he gives where both the background images and the people admitted to "town hall" meetings are controlled. It plays very well to the believers when broadcast on TV.

[4. farmer Tom said the following at 8:28 PM on Oct 26:]

4

What do you all think? Do politicians really have anything useful to say -- do any of them really believe anything anymore -- or are they just trying to win elections by flashing smiles and saying the right things in the six seconds alloted to them? And if it is the case that elections are won by those who are pretty, popular and fake, what does that say about us?

I'll start with the last question first.

We are the problem. So many of us are ignorant of history, ignorant of the Constitution, ignorant of basic human nature, do not understand our own personal biases, and most importantly have a worldview which is schizophrenic at best, un-Biblical at it's worst.

How can anyone possibly make smart informed choices about political candidates when their personal belief system is a complete shambles?

The impact of the visual on politics is really just a symptom of the empty headed emotionalism that most people consider to be thinking. In reality they are "led about by every whim" because there is no there, there. Our culture is filled with people who emote, therefore they exist.

Thinking reasoned individuals hold their emotions in check, study the facts, analyze the data and reached informed conclusions. Too many in the US today, have an emotional reaction and assume that they are thinking.

[5. Ashley said the following at 10:47 PM on Oct 26:]

5

I watched the Republican and Democrat debates, and I had to laugh at how ridiculous they were for the most part. Exactly what you are talking about here. They typically answer in such a way that will appeal to as many people as possible; often not directly answering a question. It does seem at times that at least the presidential election comes down to a popularity contest. I've really only found one (maybe one or two more) candidate out of all them to actually sound authentic (though they may not be, it's hard to say).

[6. John D. said the following at 8:09 AM on Oct 27:]

6

Abraham Lincoln could not get elected today. He would come across horribly on TV with his gangly frame and his, let's be honest, baboonish appearance. FDR could not hide his polio, and would no doubt be hounded by questions about his fitness for office. George Washington's bad teeth would have given image consultants all kinds of fits.

Furthermore, these days no one would sit still for the Lincoln-Douglas debates, or any debate that allowed answers longer than two minutes or so. People nowadays prefer bullet points and factoids. They're much easier than reading or thinking.

[7. Canadian Boy said the following at 10:00 AM on Oct 27:]

7

I'm glad my favourite candidate is not reduced to six-second clips, but rather 30 minutes, four times a night.

Colbert 08.