Impotence Of The Spoken Word

It's one thing to be used in 1984. It's another to be used in 2018, 34 years later. Steve M. blogs about the dishonest incident in which

Donald Trump Jr. posted a fake graphic to Instagram on Wednesday to misrepresent his father’s approval rating.

It was unclear who made the fake graphic that the president’s eldest son shared in an Instagram post that has not yet been deleted, but in it his father’s 40 percent approval rating is clearly visible below a photoshopped 50%....

The fakery was called on out the Instagram post and on Twitter.

John King of CNN explained thoroughly this gross misrepresentation, which SM noted compared "Trump's numbers now to Obama's at the same point in his presidency.On the air, King made clear several times that Obama had taken office at the depths of a recession, while Trump took office during a recovery." Still, SM concluded,

What King said gave the full story, more or less. But it's 2018. King and CNN should have known that a graphic like this will inevitably be used by pro-Trump partisans, who, of course, won't provide the context. Broadcasting the chart without a visual explanation of the context was a mistake.

This wasn't specifically- or maybe not solely- King's error. I saw Chris Cuomo of the same network also showing the chart, though he demonstrated that the 50% job approval of Donald Trump had been sneakily changed from 40%.  However, it is 2018, decades beyond 1984 and CNN  should have realized its value not only in promoting Trump further to his loyalists, but also to voters undecided about President Trump or who could be easily swayed in either direction. 

Here is Lesley Stahl explaining in 2015- as she has chosen to do on many occasions- what she (distressingly) learned from the Reagan camp in that year of the Reagan landslide:

Stahl concluded

We learned that we can’t be conflicting with the picture. You can’t. And just to run these- we used to call it “wallpaper"- we’d put up these pictures of the President- whatever he did, whatever it was, just to show it and we'd say something completely different. So we stopped doing that.

If Donald Trump has studied the tactics of Ronald(6) Wilson(6) Reagan(6) even 10% as much as he has those of Adolph Hitler, it's a lesson he has learned, also.

Share |

No Big Deal


Oddly enough, Chris Christie seems to "get it"- or, as they say in English, "understands it."

A few days ago, Carl Campanile of the New York Post wrote an article entitled "The whale at the wall" and subtitled "Christie weighs in at Israel holy site."      It seems the Governor, in Israel to meet with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu allegedly to drum up business for New Jersey, made a "huge impression at Israel's western wall," where he" brought his political heft."

The post incurred deserved criticism, even from a political rival, Democratic State Senator Richard Codey, who described it as "way over the top."        Christie himself, however, took it in stride, remarking "It’s really just a distraction and it’s unfortunate that the Post decided that it wanted to go there,” Christie said. “In the end, I’ve told people many times, that kind of stuff really doesn’t bother me. If that’s the way they like to sell newspapers it’s up to them.”

It was well over the top, and it is the way Murdoch's New York Post likes to sell newspapers. It's how this Republican mouthpiece rolls, as when it printed a political cartoon (immediately below) in March, 2009 portraying President Obama as a rabid chimpanzee, then "apologized" by blaming "opportunists" for misinterpreting its intent and seeking "payback."

Christie's muted response suggests an understanding that the recent piece cannot hurt him politically.     There was no revelation- everyone knows, and Christie has acknowledged, that he is fat.      Not only would any reaction be a backlash which would aid the Governor, but the optics which accompanied the written material can only be helpful.      The Governor was pictured (below) apparently praying at the Wailing Wall, hardly a troublesome video in a state with a large number of Jews,almost as many who vote, and many of whom can afford to make a campaign contribution.

And photo ops rule, as Lesley Stahl discovered 28 years ago, as described by The Daily Howler's Bob Somerby:

Dick Darman clued in Lesley Stahl—it's all about the pictures. During the 1984 presidential campaign, Stahl aired a lengthy report on theCBS Evening News; it was broadly critical of President Reagan. In her recent book, Reporting Live, Stahl described her thoughts as the piece went to air:

STAHL (page 210): I knew the piece would have an impact, if only because it was so long: five minutes and 40 seconds, practically a documentary in Evening News terms. I worried that my sources at the White House would be angry enough to freeze me out.

But that isn't what happened, she says. When the piece aired, Darman called from the White House. "Way to go, kiddo," he said to Stahl. "What a great piece. We loved it." Stahl replied, "Didn't you hear what I said [in the broadcast]?" Darman's answer has been frequently quoted:

STAHL: [Darman replied,] "Nobody heard what you said."
Did I hear him right? "Come again?"
"You guys in Televisionland haven't figured it out, have you? When the pictures are powerful and emotional, they override if not completely drown out the sound. I mean it, Lesley. Nobody heard you."

Stahl's critical report about President Reagan had been accompanied by generally upbeat visuals. According to Darman's theory, the pictures registered more with viewers than anything Stahl had said.

So weep not for Chris Christie.       The New York Post mess is, at worst, a wash- and at best, a boon to the political fortunes of a truly terrible governor.


HAPPY PASSOVER                                                                    HAPPY EASTER





Share |

The Seductive Power Of Pictures

Continuing a tendency to report on a news item not when hot but after it has passed from the news, I found intriguing the recent finding by Gallup that for the first time in the fifteen years it has been polling on the question, more Americans identify themselves as "pro-life" than "pro-choice."

The operative term, of course, is identify. Like the startling findings of the Rassmussen poll a few months ago that found nearly half of all Americans unconvinced that capitalism is preferable to socialism, the abortion poll does not measure support for or against specific policies. It measures identification with a position or, more specifically, a term. Just as "socialism" and "capitalism" mean varying things to different people, so, too, do "pro-life" and "pro-choice" mean something different to you than to your neighbor.

Still, it is interesting, and as Nancy Gibbs recently wrote in Time, the primary reason for the shift in allegiance is probably the tendency of moderates (or, I think, those with largely unformed or shifting perspective) to form an opinion in reaction to the prevailing political winds, or perceived status of abortion policy in the nation. Currently, as she notes, there is a pro-choice (there with that term again) President and a Democratic Congress. Those individuals uncommitted to a pro-choice or pro-life position now will lean toward the latter position, concerned that the pendulum will swing too far left.

Though less of a factor, ultrasound probably plays a factor or, as Gibbs puts it "people under 30 are more opposed to abortion than those who are older, perhaps because their first baby pictures were often taken in utero." The exaggerated impact of something visual, the distorted picture it presents in this case is reminiscent of a great story told over the years by CBS News correspondent Lesley Stahl and repeated by others, and here in the blog common dreams.org. (For more context on the incident, see "Morining in America" by Gil Troy.) In her piece, Stahl

juxtaposed images of staged photo opportunities in which Reagan picnicked with ordinary folks or surrounded himself with black children, farmers and happy flag-waving supporters. These images, she pointed out, often conflicted with the nature of Reagan's actual policies. "Mr. Reagan tries to counter the memory of an unpopular issue with a carefully chosen backdrop that actually contradicts the president's policy," she said in her Evening News piece. "Look at the handicapped Olympics, or the opening ceremony of an old-age home. No hint that he tried to cut the budgets for the disabled or for federally subsidized housing for the elderly."

Stahl's piece was so hard-hitting in its criticism of Reagan, she recalled, that she "worried that my sources at the White House would be angry enough to freeze me out." Much to her shock, however, she received a phone call immediately after the broadcast from White House aide Richard Darman. He was calling from the office of Treasury Secretary Jim Baker, who had just watched the piece along with White House press secretary Mike Deaver and Baker's assistant, Margaret Tutwiler. Rather than complaining, they were calling to thank her. "Way to go, kiddo," Darman said. "What a great story! We loved it." "Excuse me?" Stahl replied, thinking he must be joking. "No, no, we really loved it," Darman insisted. "Five minutes of free media. We owe you big time." "Why are you so happy?" Stahl said. "Didn't you hear what I said?" "Nobody heard what you said," Darman replied. "Come again?" "You guys in Televisionland haven't figured it out, have you? When the pictures are powerful and emotional, they override if not completely drown out the sound. Lesley, I mean it, nobody heard you."

Stahl was so taken aback that she played a videotape of her segment before a live audience of a hundred people and asked them what they had just seen. Sure enough, Darman was right. "Most of the audience thought it was either an ad for the Reagan campaign or a very positive news story," Stahl recalls. "Only a handful heard what I said. The pictures were so evocative-we're talking about pictures with Reagan in the shining center-that all the viewers were absorbed.

Or check out one of those commercials for prescription drugs. Beautiful suburban or rural scenes. Happy, smiling, likeable, and empathetic people. Little attention is paid to whatever side effects the voice over glides through in accordance with federal law. The pictures, the visuals, dominate. It's a reality that marketing consultants, political strategists, and special interest groups depend on and, though a minor factor in the shift of sentiment on abortion policy, still something of significance.