Politics on television is changing

A few bloggers commented on how those who saw Bush's Thursday Iraq speech on a high-definition television, as opposed to a regular television, said the President looked very exhausted.  Kevin Drum of the Washington Monthly predicted what this will mean for the future of televised political speeches:

Clearly we're seeing a technology paradigm shift at work. Just asRichard Nixon "lost" the 1960 debate because, although he sounded fineon radio, he looked bad on TV, so modern politicians are going to haveto learn to look good even when they're looming over their audience on80-inch HD plasma screens. Looking good on a scratchy 32-inch tubedoesn't cut it anymore. I predict booming business for a whole newgeneration of media advisors and skin care consultants.

So who benefits from the HD era?  John Edwards and Mitt Romney, some might presume.  Maybe not so much Dennis Kucinich or Bill Richardson.  No offense.

It is sad we are even bringing this issue up, but the reality is that all throughout US history appearance has, to some extent, affected the presidential vote.  From the paintings of George Washington; to Franklin Roosevelt's unwillingness to reveal his medical condition; to John F Kennedy's debate performance; to George W. Bush's World Trade Center megaphone pep talk -- appearance does matter.

Comments

[Jon]

When will we get lie detectors on our tvs? No but really this was bound to happen. Soon there will be less room for older or less than gorgeous people in media. I think it will have the effect of keeping good people with ideas this country needs from gaining support. Maybe they can have roles as advisers but its one more thing to add to the "life isn't fair" file.

[granny]

It's not about "fair"! It's about STUPIDITY!

[Jon]

In a sense its stupid because we would think that people have evolved to the point where they would want the person with the best ideas to win. But there is no denying that when we can see the people who want to represent us a whole other system of judgment comes into play. When we can see them in bleeding detail then voters can read a lot into the lines on one candidates face or the bags under another's eyes.

Thats what I mean about it not being fair. Politics in the end is about ideas. When we have HD level detail a population that naturally seeks visual perfection it seems unfair to those who have good ideas but not exceptional looks.

[granny]

You're right, Jon. The playing field is never level. Everybody does not get an even break.

What rumples my feathers is that the statement "that's not fair" seems to reduce the problem to a degree of simplicity that excuses everyone from the responsibility of coming to terms with reality. Life is not "fair". But the fact that life is unfair is not the problem. The burden of making it equitable falls to each of us - therein is the problem; the taking of responsibility by each individual for becoming an educated steward, for dealing honestly, for learning that assuring an honest break for the other guy is much more likely to assure we get one too.

We have become a culture of apologists, rather than performers.

And, to take a little of my own advice here, it would have been better if I’d said that in the first place! :)