"PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES ON TV: IT'S NOT WHAT YOU SAY, BUT HOW YOU SAY IT"

     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. 
      Consider this critic's comments in a related article devoted to Biden's and Palin's use of non-verbal elements. For example, eye contact captured the viewers' attention when Palin's open, informal manner was reinforced because she often looked directly at Biden; conversely, Biden's eyes seemed a bit small, closed and "beady," because eye contact was not particularly emphasized. Another non-verbal tool ( vocal cue ) was utilized by Palin to communicate a personal and familiar attitude. For instance, she would drop the last letter of words like "coming" and "going." The result ( " comin" and "goin" ) conveyed an authentic and down-to-earth demeanor. Her use of "ya," as in "ya all " had a desired similar effect.
The point: Biden did not use any particular element that would perhaps communicate a more informal tone. 
     There's no doubt about it:  TV debates prove it's often HOW you say something, not WHAT you say.

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 of these diver
Read more