Tuesday, February 10, 2004
I say "potato," you say "war on terror"
Donica correctly argues that, ". . . words convey the entire meaning [of an argument], and are critical to understanding a message." As an example, I refer you to David Brooks's masterful recasting of Bush's arguments in today's NYT. They actually make sense (in a dishonest, naive, right-wing kind of way) when Brooks explains them.
However, much of what Brooks writes in his revisionist reinterpretation has very little to do with what GWB actually said -- or tried to say -- in response to Russert's questioning. Read the transcript (again) here and compare for yourself.
I've heard of "spokespersons" and surrogates . . . but this takes the concept to a whole other level!
How long, do you suppose, before Brooks's words are quoted as GWB's own?
However, much of what Brooks writes in his revisionist reinterpretation has very little to do with what GWB actually said -- or tried to say -- in response to Russert's questioning. Read the transcript (again) here and compare for yourself.
I've heard of "spokespersons" and surrogates . . . but this takes the concept to a whole other level!
How long, do you suppose, before Brooks's words are quoted as GWB's own?
This is Roger Scimé, speaking only for himself from the Reynolds School of Journalism.
The medium affects the message
In thinking about how the Internet impacts the perception of even a television event such as Bush's interview on "Meet the Press," a couple of ideas come to mind.
First, as we saw when television first became part of the political process, different mediums tend to favor different kinds of politicians. The famous example of the Nixon-Kennedy debates indicated that Kennedy was judged more favorably by people who watched the debates on television, while listeners who only heard the debate on radio thought the two politicians were about even. Marshall McLuhan talked about hot and cool mediums, and how the characteristics of each medium tend to emphasize different aspects of the political messages and how the audience interacts and responds to the messages.
Second, the fact that the Internet is text-based means that words convey the entire meaning, and are critical to understanding a message. Without the visual cues of watching someone, or the auditory cues of listening to someone's inflections and pauses, a lot of meaning is stripped from the message, and we're left with bare, naked words. If someone has terrible delivery and drones on endlessly -- but his or her words are lively, or powerful, or compelling, text-based communication is perfect. But if someone is inclined to mix up words, to be imprecise with language, or to make statements that don't quite add up under inspection, television would be a much better medium. The words would float away, but we'd still have a visual and oral impression of the interview that could remain quite positive.
After Bush's interview Sunday, every major news outlet posted the full transcript online nearly immediately. We've had three days now of bloggers and columnists dissecting every sentence, every phrase, every question, and analyzing, critiqueing, and criticizing the President's ideas. The emphasis on the delivery pales in relation to the emphasis being put on the words and ideas -- because of the Internet. (Yes, we've had transcripts for a long time. But making them readily available, and easily dissectable and linked to online, means they are getting much greater use.) The television event lasted for less than an hour -- but the Internet event goes on and on and on.
In thinking about how the Internet impacts the perception of even a television event such as Bush's interview on "Meet the Press," a couple of ideas come to mind.
First, as we saw when television first became part of the political process, different mediums tend to favor different kinds of politicians. The famous example of the Nixon-Kennedy debates indicated that Kennedy was judged more favorably by people who watched the debates on television, while listeners who only heard the debate on radio thought the two politicians were about even. Marshall McLuhan talked about hot and cool mediums, and how the characteristics of each medium tend to emphasize different aspects of the political messages and how the audience interacts and responds to the messages.
Second, the fact that the Internet is text-based means that words convey the entire meaning, and are critical to understanding a message. Without the visual cues of watching someone, or the auditory cues of listening to someone's inflections and pauses, a lot of meaning is stripped from the message, and we're left with bare, naked words. If someone has terrible delivery and drones on endlessly -- but his or her words are lively, or powerful, or compelling, text-based communication is perfect. But if someone is inclined to mix up words, to be imprecise with language, or to make statements that don't quite add up under inspection, television would be a much better medium. The words would float away, but we'd still have a visual and oral impression of the interview that could remain quite positive.
After Bush's interview Sunday, every major news outlet posted the full transcript online nearly immediately. We've had three days now of bloggers and columnists dissecting every sentence, every phrase, every question, and analyzing, critiqueing, and criticizing the President's ideas. The emphasis on the delivery pales in relation to the emphasis being put on the words and ideas -- because of the Internet. (Yes, we've had transcripts for a long time. But making them readily available, and easily dissectable and linked to online, means they are getting much greater use.) The television event lasted for less than an hour -- but the Internet event goes on and on and on.
Monday, February 09, 2004
The logo is the message
A story in yesterday's Washington Post discusses what the author, Bob Garfield, calls logo-ization: ". . . when a journalistic image ceases to tell a story but becomes a symbol for a story, denuding it both of its actual news significance and of its inherent drama."
I'd call it, rather, iconization -- where an image substitutes for a story.
Question: Is there such a logo-ization/iconization of the news, and, if so, would such nuggets be classified as "information" or "knowledge" as defined by Sholle? Or, would they be outside those definitions entirely?
On the other hand, this is wayyyyyy too much for a Monday morning.
I'd call it, rather, iconization -- where an image substitutes for a story.
Question: Is there such a logo-ization/iconization of the news, and, if so, would such nuggets be classified as "information" or "knowledge" as defined by Sholle? Or, would they be outside those definitions entirely?
On the other hand, this is wayyyyyy too much for a Monday morning.
This is Roger Scimé, in all his iconic glory, signing off from the Reynolds School of Journalism
Sunday, February 08, 2004
. . . He shoots, he scores!
Not bad, Mr. Russert.
By all accounts, it could have been a lot worse for GWB; at least he didn't mispronounce nuclear more than once (Hmmm . . . come to think of it, he only used it once). Of course, he failed to answer most of the questions posed by Tim Russert (A transcript can be found here).
I guess it's that old "C student" thing.
Peggy Noonan, writing in the WSJ didn't think much of GWB's performance, either. Of course, though, she managed to put her own spin on it: i.e. that GWB, like Reagan before him, is better at speeches than interviews.
Noonan described it as being the difference between having a philosophy and mouthing talking points.
Bill & Hillary Clinton, you see, are masters at the talking-points game. I guess that means that GWB excels at . . .
Hmmm . . . I wonder what grade he got in Philosophy?
Oh, well, back to Tim Russert: At least after a less-than-stellar-start he proved that the ol' attack dog still has a few teeth left.
And, GWB can always go on that masterpiece of postmodern mirth,The Dennis Miller Show
By all accounts, it could have been a lot worse for GWB; at least he didn't mispronounce nuclear more than once (Hmmm . . . come to think of it, he only used it once). Of course, he failed to answer most of the questions posed by Tim Russert (A transcript can be found here).
I guess it's that old "C student" thing.
Peggy Noonan, writing in the WSJ didn't think much of GWB's performance, either. Of course, though, she managed to put her own spin on it: i.e. that GWB, like Reagan before him, is better at speeches than interviews.
Noonan described it as being the difference between having a philosophy and mouthing talking points.
Bill & Hillary Clinton, you see, are masters at the talking-points game. I guess that means that GWB excels at . . .
Hmmm . . . I wonder what grade he got in Philosophy?
Oh, well, back to Tim Russert: At least after a less-than-stellar-start he proved that the ol' attack dog still has a few teeth left.
And, GWB can always go on that masterpiece of postmodern mirth,The Dennis Miller Show
This is Roger "God, I Hope I Do Better Than A C" Scimé, blogging to you from the Reynolds School of Journalism, signing off!
