Media Matters

       The visual image of a "FIRE" burning bright has conjured up many different meanings and purposes throughout the history of the world. In literature, fires have stood for varied  symbols, like passion, wisdom and energy. In Greek mythology, Prometheus held an important position as the stealer of fire      In movies, fires have served as a primary theme, ( like in "The Towering Inferno '') where Hollywood superstares ( Paul Newman and Steve McQueen) used their power and control to prove that men can save the world from unbelievable catasthrophes,      The recent fires in California also  provide a theme; this time it is TV broadcasting a  real event  that is horrific because the viewers know it's authentic, and because we can't take our eyes away from the images. We are both drawn in and drawn away from the visual explosions.      But there is another theme accounting for the na...

        Documentary films made specifically for television broadcast have become not only accepted but also respected since the early 1960s. Similarly, the directors who make these motion pictures have been highly admired as contributing to the art of cinema. Frederick Wiseman's works about significant American institutions, like mental hospitals and high schools, are still honored  after more than 60 years as are Wisemen's more recent documentaries.  Films by the  Maysles brothers about cultural icons like The Rolling Stones ( " Gimme Shelter " )   continue to dominate our TV legacy. Ken Burns fills public TV with stories of American history, like the Civil War and the game of baseball.          Another documentarian, Errol Morris, is not as well-known. Yet his latest movie, " Separated,  " is headed to become very salient in today's political landscape. Its style is a combination of both non-fiction  ( int...

       Recent Presidential Debates have exposed Americans to an essential matter, even though they probably didn't realize it. In a nutshell, the TV audience has begun to consider the following question: which is more important - WHAT the candidate says or HOW he/she says it?       For years, the appropriate answer was CONTENT: what information the person running for office had to covey about important topics like the economy, wars,  violence, immigration and so forth.       However, it appears to this critic that the situation has changed particulaly in the last few months. Consider the debate on June 27th between President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump. When people remember the interaction between these two men, Biden's awkward non-verbal communication comes to mind quickly.  His obvious stutter, confused look, and disorganized wording  (among other body / voice elements ) were so prevalent i...

      Real life on TV is often more dramatic than fictional enactments; political events have proven the point time and time again. Consider the national nominating conventions where visual images have become part of our media legacy. Remember when Bill and Hillary Clinton, along with Al  and Tipper Gore, broke into spontaneous dancing at the conclusion of Clinton's 1992 Acceptance Speech. As audience members, we were witnesses to  a movement of optimism and joy. At the 2000 Democractic Convention, Gore again provided a lasting visual image as he kissed his wife so passionately that even she seemed overwhelmed. So were we. Potent images of family continued in 2008: Joe Biden embracing his son, Beau, after being introduced as the Vice Presidential nominee. A silent, salient moment passed between them as they looked into each other's eyes: a defining moment between father and son that said more than any speech could. That picture remains in our memories, long afte...

      Six years ago, one of this critic's first "Media Matters" article highlighted what was important in political speech making. Until then, daily political broadcasts were often boring, even during election campaigns where candidates' personalities were at the forefront. What people said was not particularly cogent. What individuals looked like or sounded like was. Subject matter was not salient. Charisma was.      Nowadays it appears that language is what counts, although It's true that Biden's "performance" became the most important element in his debate with Trump. While aspects of delivery ( like gestures, posture and facial expressions) will always matter, WORDS will always remain a relevant consideration. Various recent examples prove the point.      To start with, Trump's and Vance's use of words are particularly dramatic, colorful and provocative. As such, they conjure up images in the minds of the listener, which is an e...

      If Abraham Lincoln were running for President today, he would probably not win. Why? Because his TV presence would do him in. He was too tall, too gawky and too unshaven to project an effective presidential image. Moreover ( according to newspaper accounts at the time ), his voice was too high, and his posture was pretty awkward.      Some things never change. We shouldn't forget that during the first TV debate in 1960 between Kennedy and Nixon, physical appearance played a potent part by giving Kennedy the edge. For example, the color of Nixon's suit didn't offer enough contrast, and he "faded" into the background.      Which brings us to the recent debate on June 27 between President Joe Biden and Donald Trump where "delivery" continued to be essential (especially regarding Biden). It's also curious to note that Biden's 2008 debate "performance" when he ran against Sarah Palin for Vice President focused on delivery.  ...