"PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES: IT'S STILL HOW YOU SAY SOMETHING THAT COUNTS"

      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 it didn't matter what he was conveying. The audience could not understand  it.
     Conversely, the audience did comprehend what V.P. Harris and former President Trump were both saying at their September 10 debate, but it was often through non - verbal communication. Some components by Kamala Harris were so effectively used that she was able to  give people a distinct idea of who she was  and what kind of President she would make. For example, when she shook Trump's hand, she seemed assertive and focussed. When she looked at Trump directly as he was making remarks, she once again remained attentive  and interested. When she made her way to the podium, her up-right posture conveyed purpose. 
     That was not all. Harris' facial expressions were animated, her eyes wide- open, her gestures definitive. She obviously looked "Presidential." And the TV comments that followed the Debate were quick to point out these relevant observations. Critiques of Trump's  non-verbal behavior were also quickly revealed by TV commentators: angry facial expressions; bent-over posture; half- closed eyes. No doubt about it: not evident of a "Presidential" style.
     There was a time when how a candidate expressed his/her ideas was not a consideration in a debate. The closest journalists got to judging a person's non-verbal attitude was when someone was known for their "charisma." TV viewers haven't heard that word for years.

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