FROM BOREDOM TO ENGAGEMENT: TV'S LAST JANUARY 6 HEARING

     This past Thursday's January 6 Hearing started as, "Here we go again.'' 

     Lots of hype, but still resulting in a boring, almost three- hour broadcast: repeat information and 'so-what' conclusions. Let's be honest. Only people who cared about the issues ever watched this series. The idea that the Hearing was to educate the America public about events during the Capitol Riot only applied to Trump haters and those who did not believe the big-lie. No one else cared.

     Despite that fact, the last program of the summer turned out to hold the viewers' attention after all, at least for this media critic. However, we must ask the pertinent question: why? The answer lies in its unique format, the importance of WORDS and not always IMAGES, and the program's implicit purpose.

     The boring part came with the introduction, the expected perfunctory comments from the Committee Chairs. You know, a bit like a lecture but lacking any attention-getters. When the arrangement of material became obvious some minutes later, the presentation came to life. Here was a presentation based on old material previously seen throughout the ensuing months ( interviews, live action showing the Capitol riot, TV news coverage) juxtaposed with live action, a "you are there" approach primarily featuring two compelling witnesses  (including Trump's Deputy Press Secretary, Sarah Matthews ). 

      This interaction between past and present footage / already aired and live coverage not only kept our attention but evolved into a dramatic performance. U.S. representatives Adam Kinzinger and Elaine Lauri served as "performers," guiding the process and providing step-by-step linkage of Trump's behavior during the Capitol attack. It's obvious that both Kinzinger and Lauri had practiced their part in the performance, animating certain phrases, pausing at the appropriate places. They showed what communication specialists would say were good delivery techniques. ( Lauri got noticeably better after she had warmed up a bit).

     Yet there is one other aspect to the Hearing that garnered our attention: the use of language rather than images. Absent was the idea that pictures are always worth a 1,000 words. Consider the following example: an unknown witness recounts that the Vice President's Secret Service detail called their loved ones to say goodbye when it appeared Pence might be killed by the attackers. Other related instances were bird's eye views of Pence with voice overs ( radio calls ) from the Secret Service with more alarming comments: "If we are going to go, we have to go now." ( Remove the V.P. to a safe place.) Such presentation of words attracted the viewers as it also questioned the fundamental validity of our leaders' safety.

     This observation provides a context for questioning the purpose of the Hearing, however subjective or wrong such a purpose might be. Thus, it's possible that the audience ( an American patriot or foreign citizen ) might be left with the idea that the workings of the American government might not be as strong as it appears. 

     There's another possible interpretation of intentions, particularly Liz Cheney's closing comments.  Therefore, the Hearing's objective was not to prove that Trump should be accused of dereliction of duty during January 6, but that we should never vote for him again should he decide to run for President in 2024.