catapult magazine

Great article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/16/politics/16IMAG.html

Great article indeed. I guess being in the “biz” makes me a little slanted, for I appreciate the professionalism that goes into making a great scenic and sonic landscape for the viewers. It is important to not distract the viewers from the message being converyed, but still important to project the imagery necessary to keep their attention. Hats off to President Bush and his advisors for a job well done.

…or what would be a job well done if this were a movie, or for some other sort of fiction.

(It seems too much like manipulation for me to appreciate it all that much). But journalism has tended towards production and news is now entertainment, so he’s just going with the flow, it’s not like he invented it.

Image is everything. Until your image is so perfect that it’s obvious that it’s a fake, and then you’re screwed.

I didn’t read the article because I am lazy and don’t want to register. I assume it’s discussing Bush’s landing on the USS Abraham Lincoln in a fighter jet. A very nice touch, indeed. Partly what’s so great about Bush’s photo-op was that it was real life, just like the movies.

This sort of thing has been going on for a very long time. Before photography, statues and portraits did the trick. Kennedy beat Nixon because he had better television presence for the televised debates; and before that, people with great radio voices won the presidency. Reagan used images very effectively, too (as a former actor, he was of course qualified for the job).

Why does the use of imagery feel like manipulation to you? …And I’m not sure what you are referring to when you talk about a fake image. Was this in the article? Are you suggesting that Bush’s image-making is a lie because it isn’t accurate or just because he’s using powerful images that cover over the really real world?

Grant, I understand that appearance and sound make a difference in people’s opinions. (I’ve heard it claimed that it Joe Clark had grown a beard and hidden his double chin he could have been Prime Minister).

It’s not the use of imagery per se that feels manipulative, it’s the misuse of imagery and the molding of reality to fit an image that is manipulative. (The article actually went into more detail than the fighter jet photo-op: eg. making people in the crowd behind him—who would appear in the shot—take off their ties so that they looked like “ordinary people” that he wanted to portray his plan as helping, as opposed to corporate business people I assume).

Bush’s photo-op was not real-life. He’s not an air force pilot (and back when he was supposed to be he never fulfilled his obligation http://www.motherjones.com/news/outfront/2003/02/ma_217_01.html), and he didn’t fight the war in Iraq. He wasn’t far out at sea (they had to position the media on the side they were on so that they didn’t get the skyscrapers in their shots).

(as an aside, I’m not sure I agree with the little line you slid in there—very slick! :)—about movies being real life. They may (and may not!) reflect or represent real life, but they are not it themselves.)

I was suggesting that Bush’s image-making presents a false image of himself (and his policies). The “fakeness” I refer to is the mismatch between the persona and the person. I’m not saying he’s the only one who does it—we all do. Most of us just don’t have millions of dollars to present on it, and ours aren’t broadcast onto international television.

It’s the reality-image dichotomy that I disagree with. I think it’s high time we put this idea to rest (the “really real world” slip-in was supposed to be the slick one) that the shadows on the wall are to be distrusted in favor of the true world of reality.

Bush’s act doesn’t need to be manipulative, just because he’s trying to tell a certain story (with images) about his presidency, about the man he is or wants to be understood as publically.

Democracy then is about who can make the best movie about himself. Preferrably an action movie with lots of explosions and two-dimensional bad guys with names that are hard to pronounce.

No, Democracy is about making whatever film about yourself you want. Yes, and capitalism has it’s perks in that whoever has the bigger checkbook may be able to make a prettier movie, but prettier doesn’t always fool the masses, and it is raraely that the big spender is accepted without a bit of suspicion.

Grant,

I’m not quite sure how Plato’s cave relates to this discussion.

I’m also not quite sure what “reality-image” dichotomy you’re talking about. It’s not the fact that he’s using images (or that it’s on tv or in a movie) that I think is the problem. The problem is that it’s not true, and the use of image in an inappropriate way is intended to manipulate people’s reactions and responses. Images aren’t necessarily bad, but they can be used wrongly.

You seem to be implying that the “shadows on the wall” are to be trusted unconditionally, which I know you do not believe based on your discussion of American Beauty. The idea of beauty as presented by that movie is wrong. So we should distrust it, right? Could you clarify your statement?

Another way to say it is: it’s not the fact that he unfurled a big “Mission Accomplished” banner. It’s that he did so when the mission was not accomplished (ie. no WMD had been found and Iraq had not been democratized).

Here’s an editorial related to this exact discussion.
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?sid=11521&mode=nested&order=0

Here’s an interesting article which ties in slightly a Canadian twist on the stage-managed politiking (for those who follow the politics of up there).

http://www.torontostar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar
%2FLayout%2FArticle_Type1&c=Article&cid=1052251641396
&call_pageid=968256290204&col=968350116795

If I’m the only one interested in political stage-managing of major media, I guess I can just forward myself the links… Grant, where are you? Did you lose interest?

May 27. I am breaking this link so that it doesn’t screw up the page with the horizontal scroll. If you want to look at the article, you’ll have to cut and paste the link.