Media Matters by Dr.Marion Wolberg Weiss



 
Today's news broadcasts have come a long way.
     Why? Because language has taken center stage, especially in this politically- charged environment dominated by President Donald Trump. Years ago, daily political broadcasts were often boring, even during election campaigns where candidates' personalities  were at the forefront. What candidates said was not particularly cogent. What candidates looked like or sounded like were. Subject matter was not salient. Charisma was. Images prevailed over ideas.
     Since Trump has become president, however,  it's become apparent that IDEAS conveyed through words now have greater impact and consequence: inciting hate and violence; insulting people; becoming codes that attract like-minded individuals.
     While words now communicate potent ideas more than ever, they also provide images at the same time. Some terms are powerful because they  carry BOTH ideas and images.
     Let's see how this works.
     Presently, Trump uses the word "Caravan" when describing the group of immigrants making its way to America's southern border. The designation "Caravan" conjures up a large, unrelenting entity which suggests strength as well as an image of danger. And whenever we hear the word "Caravan" we see and feel that threat. Similarly, Trump's employment of "MOB" ( characterizing Democrats  who demonstrated during the Kavanaugh nomination hearings ) offers another image of a threat while also denoting  an idea/event that's gone amiss. ( Think of the 1968 anti-war demonstrations.)
     Trump's famous nicknames for his presidential competitors  also convey words that are both idea and image - related. Consider, for example, his moniker for Marco Rubio: "Little Marco." While Rubio  is literally "small"  compared with Trump, the image of his standing next to Trump depicts weakness as well. This is Trumps real message concerning Rubio.
    Other oppositional words are also idea-image related. Take, for instance, Michelle O'Bama's comment in her 2012 speech at the Democratic Convention: "When 'they' ( the Republicans) go LOW, we go HIGH." The idea suggests a dynamics predicated on what is good and what is bad.  We create  an image in our mind's eye:  a potent swing from one end of a continuum to another. Moreover,  the expression "High and Low" connects both an idea and an image based on the kinesthetics of "high" and "low." Such a bond is bound to produce a snappy effect. 
     Some words used by Trump take ideas and images a bit further.  Remember the President recently calling three black news reporters "stupid" and a "loser"  when they asked questions during various press conferences. The President's ideas couldn't be clearer or more insulting; the images are more than clear as we see that the news reporters he refers to are black women. Stereotypical references are  made obvious ( African American women are not smart; they are also failures.)  Thus, ideas ( stupid ) and images  ( black women )  are reinforced.
     One person who understands the particular importance of words is Stacey Abrams, the recent candidate for Georgia's Governor. As she said a few days ago: " Words have meaning, and I choose my words carefully." 
      Of course, Trump  selects his words carefully as well. 



Future  MEDIA MATTERS will examine the meanings behind  what we see on TV/ film and read in newspapers/magazines. These examples will include both fiction ( like Hollywood movies ) and non-fiction genres (TV documentaries and news coverage).

The writer, Marion Wolberg Weiss, holds a Masters degree in Media from New York University and a Ph.D. in Communications from Howard University. She has conducted workshops in "Politics and the 
Media"  for The American Film Institute and has taught for over 30 years at such institutions as New York University, American University and The Pollock- Krasner House in East Hampton, New York. Dr. Weiss is an art and media critic and the author of a critical biography on Martin Scorsese

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

THE BEST OF 2018; WHERE SETTING IS THE REAL STAR

Now that it's the end of the year, media critics are submitting their favorite films and TV shows of 2018. Which then soon starts  an avalanche of international  awards, like The Golden Globes and Academy Awards. It's interesting to see if our own personal " bests" win any of those awards. They should. After all,  we select special works that people may neglect, not recognizing that they are extraordinary?  We  critics, in other words, have better aesthetic taste than the so- called  media "judges" who are considered primarily representatives of popular culture, not "art."  What's more, we critics don't, hopefully, single out winning media for political reasons ( ie. It's Joe Smith's turn to garner a  best actor award because he's getting old ).     While describing what media critics are and are not, I have often wondered what characteristics we do consider when picking the "Best." The obvious criteria  include ...
Read more

YEAH FOR "VICE"

A look at the new movie, "VICE" about Dick Chaney, relates to last week's blog regarding " The Best of 2018." In an odd way, that is.     "Vice" is a prelude to "The Best of 2019":  It has a good chance of winning  for  Best Picture. And for sure, Christian Bale will garner a Best Actor Award. As proof, consider Gary OLdman's Oscar  for his role as Winston Churchill in "Darkest Hour."      Be that as it may, the more challenging issue is this: what is the film's intention? Is it to change people's minds about Cheney, who as George W. Bush's Vice President, was a provocative and disliked elected official? In other words,  is the movie supposed to humanize Cheney, to make viewers feel sorry for him? Or is it to enhance  what we always thought about Cheney in the first place?        On another level, is this primarily a film about our political system that corrupts people ( and especially Republicans )?...
Read more

Today's Living Room War

If we had been committed TV viewers watching the Vietnam War, we would have known it as "The Living Room War," based on its qualities of intimacy and frequency. Today, news broadcasts, while not aways about a war, have those similar elements. Yet they exist for different reasons.      Back in the day, "intimacy" meant watching the same group of soldiers and their often- daily exploits. We came to know them. We came to care about them. They were the main "characters" leading the parade. Presently, such characters in a newscast are the hosts or broadcasters themselves, not the topics. These individuals are those who carry the dramatic weight, and we look forward each day to seeing and hearing them: people who have potent personalities, like Fareed Zakaria, Sean Hanity, Rachel Maddow and loads of others, who cover  broad  demographics based on race, gender, sexual preference and political ideology, among other aspects.        Regardless ...
Read more