Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Current Student Blogs
-
-
The R Word - Not unlike Jed Bartlett's on air gaffe about the intelligence of governor Richie, Obama's offensive remark the other night just seems a little too perfect....15 years ago
-
My "farewell address" [#2] (I always wanted one of these)-COMPLETED Version - So as you all saw I got stuck in the middle of posting the completed version of my final due to the amazing YU internet. I decided that since I am looking ...15 years ago
-
The Media: A Fourth Branch or A Whole Other Tree? - I begin with a video (Notice the Cameo at the end) Try JibJab Sendables® eCards today! And what a time for campaigning it has been. This election season ha...15 years ago
-
-
12 comments:
What do you mean? I've read lots of remarks. The Corner, of course, thinks it's electrifying (though there's some mild disappointment after last night). Sullivan has a lot of links to different internet reactions. It seems like consensus is forming that the speech was written for the Independents/Swing Voters, not the base. And that it was a bit underwhelming - especially with the green backdrop that made him look "ill and old" and the couple of slip-ups.
But let's be honest; Who cares what the pundits think about it? Personally I liked it, since after last night's Ann Coulter'esque rageaholic lunacy it seemed well-mannered and appropriate. (Sorry if my emotions are creeping in.) But let's give it a week, see where the polls end up, and then we can make up some ridiculous narrative to explain the election.
(If you couldn't tell, this whole election thing has made me utterly disillusioned about pundits/opinion makers.)
When is it that presidential candidates begin to talk about their policies? I can't wait for that.
Talk about policies? That's adorable! I shouldn't be quite so flip, perhaps, but -- and you might as well hear it from me instead of on the streets -- the truth is that elections are not really decided on policies, at least not in the way I think you mean. As for Mordy's comment -- quite right. The chatter is inane at its best. But it matters because the narratives that get created (the "consensus forming" that you note) have a power of their own. This dynamic is, of course, nearly the antithesis of Jefferson, Tocqueville, and Stewart's prescription for a healthy press in a democracy. We'll diagnose for the first chunk of the semester, but we will move on to discussions about possible cures.
Btw, funny anecdote. I was watching the speech with some friends (both Republicans, Democrats and Independents) and I insisted that we watch the coverage on CSPAN. Someone asked why and I explained that CSPAN for the most part trained the camera on the speaker and there weren't any talking heads. He didn't believe me and so we quickly flipped through every station broadcasting the convention. Not a single other station had the clean, clear view of McCain that CSPAN had. Some of the others (ABC seemed the most egregious) seemed to have cheap camerawork, and kept focusing on conventioneers that they seemed to feel were interesting. After the survey, everyone insisted we go back to CSPAN. It's like going back to drinking water after a soda binge. It just tastes better.
Slightly off-the-topic btw, but did anyone else watch the Bill O'Reilly interview Pt. 1 with Obama tonight? I swear, it looked like O'Reilly was ready to vote for the guy. He was either exceptionally well-behaved, or they are actually simpatico on basically every foreign policy issue.
Commenting on Mordy's anecdote:
Did anyone else notice that everywhere except CSPAN every time some crazy person in the crowd was getting ejected they just couldn't hold off the temptation to focus the camera on these protesters and forget about the speech itself?
And Mordy, I agree with your analysis of the O'Reilly interview, but maybe this is a strategy he's using (just like McCain canceling on Larry King) to get some point across (although I must admit I have no idea what that point might be)
Even though the speaker should be the focus of the video coverage, I do believe it is important to note something like protesters in the crowd. It gave some context to McCains reaction to the interruption.
I'm not saying that an anchor should start commenting on the protester, because that would take away from the real focus. But it should be shown.
Also we are talking about a speech here, diverting the camera every once and a while doesn't take much away as long as the audio is still there.
I really cant handle watching Mccain speak. It gives me nightmares thinking that we might have to listen to him speak as our president for 4 years. That said, the media response wasnt nearly as positive as the coverage for Obama as Obama made sure that his acceptance speech was a media spectacle.
Hmmm. . . so, if what you posit is true (big if, yes, absent evidence?), then this is because the Obama speech was objectively "better" than McCain's? I know this is the conventional (excuse the pun) wisdom, but how do we judge such things?
Steven, I think no one in America would disagree with the fact that Obama is a more captivating and exciting speaker, but that doesn't mean his presidency will be painful because his speeches are. In addition, I think that Ms. Palin will take a lead on the public ra-ra front. Lastly, who cares how well he speaks, it is rather painful to listen to our current President and has been since day one and yet he was able to win a second term.
I definitely think that oratory skills have been overblown during this election cycle. There's been a lot of media coverage (and media criticism) about the quality of a speaker. Unfortunately, I'm about to invoke Godwin's Law, though I think it's appropriate here. Hitler was a wonderful speaker. Clearly just speaking well has nothing to do with what you'll actually do. Which is to say - pay attention to the words that are being spoken well.
I think what I wonder is: Will voters actually vote for Obama or Palin just because they speak well? That's a really scary thought. Does that mean any politician that can whip up some jingoistic references and provide some fascistic linguistic tropes can be assured of Americans following lockstep behind them?
Ah Daniel, I didn't suggest his presidency would be painful, but rather listening to him speak is painful. And President Bush isn't exactly an example of one of our greatest presidents...
Post a Comment