"PRESIDENT ZELENSKYY'S WASHINGTON SPEECH: TV DOES IT AGAIN"

     The TV medium is forever showing its diversity and contradictions, no more so than President Zelenskyy's speech before the U.S. Congress this past Wednesday. While the President had previously delivered a somewhat similar discourse near the beginning of the Ukrainian- Russian War, it had been a virtual presentation and, therefore, lacked certain obvious advantages (including President Baden's remark to Zelenskyy at the press conference, "It's nice to see you." ).    This time, the speech's emotional content was also palpable as were the symbolic visuals.  Consider, particularly, Zelenskyy's camouflage-like apparel and the use of the Ukrainian flag as he passed it to Speaker Pelosi and V.P. Harris who were standing on the dais. Even Zelenskyy's faltering English, while potentially an impediment to understanding, carried a potent message: better have authentic and strong resolve than perfect English. Let's face it:  the speech couldn't fail ( at least among Democrats ).

     Yet some right-wing Congressional members couldn't help but voice their disapproval of Zelenskyy's presentation. After all, the President had been a national entertainer, a comedian who had had a popular TV show ( "Servant of the People " ) for several seasons. How could he not be an effective public speaker? It was as if he had been the only elected official to possess such talents in the entire world. But we know differently. Just this last mid-term elections brought us Kari Lake and Dr. Mehmet Oz with similar TV experience, not to mention Donald Trump. Obviously. Somehow being an excellent communicator became a bad thing. 
     Such an opinion is not logical. There are plenty of Congressmen who have excellent communication skills with no professional TV backgrounds whatsoever. ( New Jersey Senator Cory Booker is one, among many, examples. )
     This is not to suggest that Zelenskyy's training as a comedian/actor did not help him to be a good communicator. But more importantly, he became President of Ukraine because of his TV show, "Servant of the People." One potent reason is that the program's plot revealed Zelenskyy's personality, his sense of charisma, honesty, and earnestness. Yet it also showed that he was often hapless, shy and initially insecure. In other words, not perfect. Just human. ( Of course, these are assumptions made by a critic, like yours truly. )
     Secondly, the narrative was realistic, showing Ukranian life as it existed, including the presence of bribery, corruption and incompetence. As the episodes continued throughout three seasons, however, Zelenskyy and his cohorts got more responsible, knowledgeable and caring. Citizens could look forward to the future - on TV as well as in real life - when the country actually elected    Zelenskyy as President in 2019. The nation no doubt felt they were in "good hands."
     It is now 2022. From all appearances, Zelenskyy's Congressional speech proves that Ukraine is still in good hands.  

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

FAKE NEWS: THE SEARCH FOR TRUTH

     The expression FAKE NEWS has become a popular and important one in today's political arena. Yet Fake News has been around for a long time, going back to the idea of "Yellow Journalism" coined in the mid 1890s (where it meant little or no well-researched news). Annenberg School's Dr. Kathleen Hall Jamieson, a well-known rhetorical scholar, is probably one of  the only persons to make sense of it in its present context.  She labeled the term an OXYMORON ( " contradictory terms appearing in conjunction with each other")  and she was right on the button. In other words, "Fake" is not real; "News" is  authentic.       Analyzing the term further, It is the nature of TRUTH that defines fake news.      One characterization is truth's ambiguity.  What truth is to one person may not be so to another individual. It seem to this critic that truth may be equated with personal perceptions:  "the mental process through which we int
Read more

Short Words

The importance of words in this politically-charged environment gets more and more obvious every day. President Trump's expressions in press conferences, interviews and  tweets are engaging as  well as enraging. Anyway you look at it, his words are certainly pervasive.      However, we must not forget that a President's  words serve varied  purposes, becoming part of America's historical  and cultural legacies:  from speeches like Lincoln's "Gettysburg Address,"  to short sentences ( quotes ).  Consider such quotes from President  Obama: "If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon;"  and "Everytime I think about those kids, it gets me mad."  The first expression initiated a national conversation on race; the second, regarding  Newtown's school shooting, spurred intense interaction on gun control.      Both quotes demonstrate Obama's personal emotional connection to the subject matter: respectively, gun violence in both insta
Read more