This paragraph jumped off the page while I was reading from Chomsky’s new(ish) collection of essays.
“Elections are run by the public relations industry. It’s primary task is commercial advertising, which is designed to undermine markets by creating uninformed consumers who will make irrational choices- the exact opposite of how markets are supposed to work, but certainly familiar to anyone who has watched television. “
Published this year, by City Lights.
The science
I have two great, old books on the topic of celebrity creation, and the selling thereof.
One is called The Unreality Industry, and is a really amazing look at this topic before anyone was really looking at this topic, back in the 1980’s. It goes on in detail about we not only have the ability to create unreality, we seem to enjoy it and even prefer it at times. Celebrity is an aspect of it, be it movie star or politician.
Stars are often manufactured. They are given new names, new background stories, have their hair and body parts altered, are given handlers and psychiatrists, and have a planned obsolescence built-in, so they retire for a while, then come out again recreated. Madonna is an excellent example. So is My Fair Lady.
The other book is High Visibility, which is basically a (quite awful, morally) guide to become a celebrity. A how-to guide to accompany the above analysis. One thing they point out is that people and products differ in one significant respect – control. It is easier to control a loaf of bread on a shelf than it is to control a candidate.
Fun icky language used:
“Many visibility seekers overlook a central consideration: how to tailor themselves to sector conditions. A good marketing plan requires that aspirants consider the opportunities, rules, and restraints that are unique to each sector.”
and
“Today, appearance modification is common in many non-entertainment sectors.”
and
“The media have evolved a menu of story types that have proven to be reliable audience-pleasers. Aspirants who understand these story archetypes have a better chance of attracting media coverage.”
…
When I taught media, I had a great video about how commercials are made that I’d show kids. It debunked many of the myths of what is seen in a TV ad. Examples included showing a lard-like substance being used in hot TV studios as a stand-in for delicious ice cream, and showing how the perfect catches and tosses of a new toy were carefully edited from footage that showed it not working and kids having trouble playing with it. There were probably 8-10 examples that were used.
Most winning elections since Nixon have been PR campaigns, selling a product. There is some nutritional info on the box, but it doesn’t tell the full story. And packaging can be deceptive.
On the Highest Hoarse
As the ramp-up to tonight’s debate begins, recall the euphoria that accompanied news Bernie had hired the PR team that handled Obama’s 2008 run. Look at the headlines of how he’s raking it in- thanks to new media savvy, and seeing him in his unlikely hero role before waving flags and overflow crowds– the discerning watcher of events can see the selectivity of pattern, as Chris pointed out.
Whenever I see the roiling masses in election mode, expecting their deliverance by the power of personality and rhetoric, I’m reminded of Eric Hoffer:
“To be fruitful, an enthusiasm should be but a condiment. Pride in our country and race, dedication to justice, freedom, mankind, etc., must never be the main content of our lives, but an accompaniment and an accessory”
“The only index by which to judge a government or a way of life is by the quality of the people it acts upon. No matter how noble the objectives of government, if it blurs decency and kindness, cheapens human life, and breeds ill will and suspicion- it is an evil government”
Using the force
One of the things I’m enjoying about the Sanders campaign is that we are in a good position to see how and if Sanders changes himself to appeal to non-Vermonters. We know his routine, and many of us could probably do his stump speech just by repeating things we’ve heard over the last decade+. It’s a good lesson in campaigns.
It’s also interesting to watch how others come at him, and what methods they are using to eliminate him. ‘Crazy socialist” seems to be the right’s attack. “Unelectable” seems to be the left’s.
…
Back to the topic…
In “magic” it is called a force when the magician “forces” you to pick a card that you think you chose with a freewill choice. It’s a simple thing, but has to be done cleverly and without notice. Great card magicians have great skill in coming up with new and innovative forces, and can sometimes even fool fellow magicians.
It would be an interesting experiment to have an election with no declared candidates or campaigns, just election day and a blank space to write in. Who would win then?
One new theory I have, which is mine, is that part of the energy and effort to turn people off from elections by election time may be a way to make us all so happy the damn thing is over that we have no stomach for any follow-up, recounts, etc.
Rhetoric / Reality
Follow live tweets by the Tax Wall Street Party.
who "won"?
The mainstream media anointed Clinton as the “winner” of the debate. For what reason?
I watched and didn’t see anyone “win” the debate.
Clinton was herself. She said appealing things, and brushed off what I felt were legitimate questions about her judgment. At a few junctures she seemed to be winging it… the answer about helping immigrant children seemed like something a kid would make up if they hadn’t done their homework. She seemed to be unaware of her role in Syria and refugees. I don’t buy her claims of all the things she plans to do for the people – she’s had a lifetime to work on many of those issues and has little to show for it. It all sounded good, but there was no substance. She did bring up her gender on more than one occasion.
Sanders wasn’t at his best. He seemed to stumble a bit at the gate, then find his footing later on. He got most of his typical points across, and probably did okay introducing himself to a new audience. I disagree with him that making a really poor decision about an email server isn’t an issue, but he scored one of the biggest applause lines of the evening. I thought he was particularly bad on foreign policy, but typically good on the David vs. Goliath topics closer to home.
O’Malley wasn’t too bad, if you ignore his actual record and just go by what he was saying. He did, however, come across more like an actor playing the part of someone running for office. Sort of a bad Jimmy Stewart impression. I bet he picks up a few new supporters.
Chafee seemed a bit like a friendly uncle. I thought he did best questioning the judgement of anyone who voted for war with Iraq. He seemed to be having a good time, and smiled a lot. Doubtful he’ll get much traction out of this, but he seemed to do ok, given his limited time.
And that leaves Webb. He seemed to best understand the world situation, but his response to that situation seemed to be focused on military solutions only. Other than foreign policy, he came across as rather odd, and had a few cringe-worthy moments (explaining how he helped a black person once, or that story about killing a guy in Vietnam).
Anderson Cooper was better than I expected. Glad he kept things moving along.
…
So, why did the media say Clinton won?
Missing planes and dissing plans
Before I answer about why I think Clinton was declared the winner, a few comments.
I watched with the Chomsky quote as a filter. It was over 20 minutes after the countdown to beginning ended before any candidate even spoke one word. If that isn’t evidence of an ad dominated reality, what is? First a barrage of commercials and cut-aways- then a curious version of the star-spangled banner. One would assume any candidate would be at least marginally invested in their country, so to indulge in show-me-your-patriotism cred, like the lapel flag pin litmus, it feels superfluous and manipulative.
But this is CNN, known for round the clock, over the top.
I’m not going to dissect the performances. The whole election extravaganza strikes me as a hideoulsy overpriced dog and pony show. My guess is that Hilary was declared the winner because she was not only the most polished, but she was the most relaxed. Telegenic=Electable.
Invest!
The ads were fascinating, and not a lot of variety The ones we saw were about F-35 weapons systems, and investing. Lots of investing. I’d say the advertisers thought we were wealthy, frightened retirees.
It would be interesting to compare notes with other viewers in other locations to see if they saw the same ads.
Then there is the weirdness of online vs tv ads, and when an online commercial finishes, the screen gives the warning that a “commercial is in progress” and the content will return shortly. (“You can watch this commercial, but we can’t show you this one.”)
Of course, real political junkies know the truth. Sheryl Crow won the debate.