Yves here. Since I rarely watch TV (I listen to, as opposed to view, the YouTubers I follow), yours truly is not sufficiently attuned to the power of its visuals, and those of its contemporary analogue, short clip and images on social media. After all, politicos pay big bucks for advance work, particularly staging, when they make public appearances. Trump gave strong preference in his cabinet appointments to candidates who had worked in, as opposed to merely appeared a lot, on TV. So it should hardly be surprising that his Administration is fixated on appearance and soundbites, yet at Tom Valovic explains, regularly reveals more than they might realize about their priorities.
By Tom Valovic, a writer, editor, futurist, and the author of Digital Mythologies (Rutgers University Press), a series of essays that explored emerging social and cultural issues raised by the advent of the Internet. He has served as a consultant to the former Congressional Office of Technology Assessment and was editor-in- chief of Telecommunications magazine for many years. Tom has written about the effects of technology on society for a variety of publications including Common Dreams, Counterpunch, The Technoskeptic, the Boston Globe, the San Francisco Examiner, Columbia University’s Media Studies Journal, and others. He can be reached at jazzbird@outlook.com. Originally published at Common Dreams
I’ve been thinking a lot about how the Trump administration has been using television, social media, and AI-generated digital graphics to advance its policies. This particular thought experiment started when my friend and I were watching the evening news. There was Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem prancing triumphantly in front of detainees in the CECOT concentration camp in El Salvador where Venezuelan immigrants had been deported. Noem was dressed to kill for the occasion with a designer outfit and a $50,000 Rolex watch. The dynamics of the event were telling. She scolded the detainees like they were 10-year olds caught smoking and, curiously, she did not target gang activity but rather illegal immigration as the cause of their plight.
The prisoners (mostly men) were naked from the waist up, packed into tiny cells, and looked like caged animals. While viewing this quasi-surreal and clearly staged event, my friend turned to me and said: “It looks like Auschwitz.” I will have to say that the unquestionable dehumanization in this image still haunts me. This spectacle alone should’ve struck some variant of fear and loathing into the minds and hearts of every American about how aspects of the immigration crisis are being handled.
Thankfully some media pundits got the message. But, in some cases, they appeared more focused on Noem’s watch than the evocative images of dehumanizing treatment. One commenter writing in USA Today looking to win the “too much information” award noted: “The watch that she wears in the video was identified as an 18-karat gold Rolex Cosmograph Daytona, as first reported by The Washington Post, and reportedly sells for $50,000.” Good to know. The writer went on to say that “except for President Donald Trump, presidents in recent decades have opted for more modest timepieces to avoid being labeled as elitist, according to The New York Times. For example, President Joe Biden was criticized by conservative media for wearing a $7,000 watch to his inauguration.” Also good to know. Eventually, however, the writer did feel compelled to point out that “the juxtaposition of Noem’s luxury accessory and her setting was noted by critics and human rights groups.”
The Power of the Viral Photo Op
The Noem footage appeared to be little more than a calculated video-based photo op. It was apparently designed to demonstrate that the Trump administration was fulfilling its campaign promise to deal with the immigration problem. But it made me think of a larger trend. It seems that, thanks to the pervasiveness of our “global village” and how easily digital tech can be used to shape our collective thinking, political dialogue has now largely shifted from a platform of reasoned discourse to battles of digital imagery and “optics.” The poet Robert Bly has pointed out that, cognitively speaking, television images bypass the parts of the brain involved in rational processing and nest comfortably in the so-called reptile brain where raw emotion dwells, a phenomenon well understood by the advertising industry. The political analysis of Trump’s actions that surfaces in the mainstream media needs to take his admittedly skillful media manipulation into far more serious account.
To understand Trump’s control of the media (and hence the typical voter mindset) it’s helpful to look at the work of the French media theorist Guy Debord. In The Society of the Spectacle, Debord addresses the media-induced degradation of contemporary life where authentic social interactions have been replaced with their mere representation. He posits that “passive identification with the spectacle supplants genuine activity.” Here it’s worth noting that Debord was writing this well before the advent of the internet, which added yet another layer to the commodification of societal and political interaction.
The Spectacle of the “Imperial Presidency”
It was the media theorist and prophetic thinker Marshall McLuhan who pioneered the concept of the global village in the 60’s. Decades later, heightened media awareness expanded even more, wrought by a combination of television, the internet, social media, and telecommunications technologies which some refer to as the New Media. This new mediasphere has radically altered our collective awareness while subtly shaping the underpinnings of political dynamics. Its effects on polity and political outcomes are incalculable. While television viewership has been declining for some time, the images generated by television often become viral social media fodder in a kind of endless feedback loop. So, in this sense, television is still a force majeure in our perceptions of accelerating world events.
The televised debate between Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy in 1960 has been cited as a political milestone. For the first time in history, the televised image may have helped elect a president. The election of a former television actor, Ronald Reagan, continued on this trajectory. An article by Matthew Wills framed it this way:
“Politics in the United States has always been a performance art,” writes Tim Raphael in his analysis of the branding and image-crafting that now dominate our political system. Throughout his eight years as president, Ronald Reagan had much more positive poll numbers (60-70%) as a person than did his actual policies (40%). Raphael attributes Reagan’s success to the potent combination of advertising, public relations, and a television in every home. (There were 14,000 TVs in America in 1947; by 1954, 32 million; by 1962, 90% of American homes plugged in.)
If Reagan plowed this territory, then Donald Trump, with his many years of experience as a Reality TV star, turned it into an art form. Trump learned to use the media to advance what historian Arthur Schlesinger called “the imperial presidency.” The New Media, in combination with the trajectory of politics as “performance art,” has accelerated this process significantly. As just one example of many, one of Trump’s recent media plays has been to allow television coverage of a two-hour Cabinet meeting. Given in historical terms that this is an unprecedented event, it seems important to ask: Where does what appears to be or is sold as “transparency” cross the line into being mere performative optics? And while the Biden presidency was characterized by Oz-like behind-the-scenes operation in terms of press conferences, speeches, and media events, Trump is quite the opposite. Many of his visits with foreign leaders are attended by the media, staged, and televised. In this sense, while there is nominally more transparency there is also the deliberate use of optics for political advantage.
It’s likely that the meme fodder of Donald Trump’s imperial presidency will only increase in frequency and intensity. This media saturation has a purpose: It creates displacement sucking up available bandwidth in both the media and our own cognitive processing. “All Trump, all the time” is a familiar trope that we will somehow have to learn to live with and correct for. Back in the day, you could spot the occasional bumper sticker that said: “Kill your television.” On one level at least, there was a certain wisdom to that. But the advent of full-blown technocracy now makes it very difficult to turn away from a kind of forced participation in the now all-pervasive digital mediasphere.
The day after American voters re-elected Trump, Markos Moulitsas, founder-owner of Daily Kos, opined that symbolically they were choosing “security” over “freedom,” seeing a parallel to Nayib Bukele’s popularity in his native El Salvador.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2024/11/9/2284496/-What-went-wrong-Part-2
I’m actually surprised that the author did not go more into the 1960 Kennedy – Nixon debates, especially the first one. Television was still new at the time and Nixon badly misunderstood how to make use of it and the need to take into account how he would appear on TV-
‘Nixon refused make-up for the first debate, subsequently his facial stubble showed prominently on black-and-white television screens. During the debate, Nixon started sweating under the studio lights. His light gray suit faded into the backdrop of the set and seemed to match his skin tone. Reacting to this, his mother immediately called him and asked whether he was sick. Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley in an interview said: My God, they’ve embalmed him before he even died.’
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960_United_States_presidential_debates#September_26:_First_presidential_debate_(WBBM-TV_studios,_Chicago)
So can this be an example of how the medium is the message? Twenty years later and some people had still not learned this lesson. In his body-building days, Arnold Schwarzenegger was to go up against a black body-builder who could give him a run for his money. So Ah-nold made sure that the background of the sets where they would display their muscles was very dark if not black. The result was that the black guy’s body kind disappeared into the background while Arnold’s white body stood out in full contrast which led him to win that contest.
After the ambush of King Abdullah of Jordan, and the February “sure made for great reality tv” (as Trump put it) spectacle that even Zelensky’s past life as a television actor couldn’t have prepared him for, we in South Africa wait with bated breath to see how our President, Cyril Ramaphosa, scheduled to meet Trump tomorrow, survives his leap into the lions den where the Trump, Vance and Musk triumvirate lie in wait with daggers drawn. What with all the talk about a “white genocide” currently under way here and the 49 Afrikaaner “refugees” that arrived in the US last week triggering a social media memefest.
The ever faithful to western imperial interests local Fifth Column and its associated acolytes are licking their chops at what they hope will be Cyril’s humiliation, televised for all the world to see and recorded for posterity. Cyril’s misguided belief that he’s going there to reset bilateral relations and counter the prevailing white persecution misinformation with facts may prove to be his undoing. If the leader of a country with the most sophisticated intelligence gathering apparatus in the history of mankind can’t be bothered to ask the CIA to verify (and falsify) the claims of white genocide then why Cyril thinks putting empirical meat on this bone will have Trump salivating for the truth is beyond me. Trump alleging genocide where none exists while being a principal backer of an actual genocide is just Trump being Trump by going after the ratings and dazzling his transfixed audience with BS, no amount of factual information is going to “set the record straight”. If facts mattered to him and he stood against the sanctimonious mass slaughter of innocent people, Netanyahu and Israel would be cast adfrift from their American moorings by now.
Publicly humiliating Ramaphosa is red meat for much of the MAGA base. And for the Zionists outraged about the ICJ complaint against Israel. It will make great viewing on FOX.
Unlike Zelensky, Abdullah or the Ivy League presidents, South Africa isn’t dependent on the US for life support. Free capital flows to London and New York from extraction will continue unabated. One can see concessions for Musk’s businesses or perhaps US Navy use of Simonstown as a goal for Trump. But would the former union leader, now billionaire Cyril care about such things if cronies can stuff their pockets as part of concessions? I think not. After all, the Freedom Charter is just a piece of paper from decades ago.
The money that sloshes around US politics and acceptance of the conflict of interest that it must create is always shocking,
Kristi Noem was Governor of South Dakota; salary $140k.
Yet she wears a $50k Rolex? These things are typically hard to get too (I believe) even if you have the money.
Speaking of Mass Media and Spectacle
The Eurovision Song Contest (ESC) took place last week in Basel, Switzerland.
The Israeli entry received the most votes from the audience, which pleased a spokesperson for the Jewish Community because, in his view, it shows that most people aren’t falling for the anti-Israel propaganda.
However, some see things differently…
https://www.bluewin.ch/de/entertainment /wegen-israel-debatte-um-publikumsvoting-bei-esc-2703545.html
“Eurovision in the headlines
Debate over Israel’s first place in the public vote
A music show becomes a national affair: In Spain, the Eurovision Song Contest finale is in full swing. Among other things, the controversial audience vote is at stake. But questions are also coming from another country.
A debate has erupted in Spain over Israel’s participation in the Eurovision Song Contest and the country’s strong performance with the public. Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez called for Israel’s exclusion from the competition.
…
Referring to the treatment of Russia, the socialist politician said: “We must not allow double standards in culture.” No one was outraged when Russia was excluded from the Eurovision Song Contest because of its invasion of Ukraine. “The same should apply to Israel,” Sánchez said.
Meanwhile, state broadcaster RTVE said it intended to submit its request for a review of the televoting to the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) during the course of Monday.
“Several countries will also submit the same request, as they believe that the televoting was influenced by the current military conflicts and that this could jeopardize the cultural character of the event,” the broadcaster said.
…
Belgian Broadcaster Questions Eurovision Participation
Meanwhile, the Belgian public broadcaster VRT is questioning its future participation in the Eurovision Song Contest due to what it considers to be unanswered questions about the Eurovision viewer vote.
Serious answers to concerns about the Eurovision Song Contest are needed, the broadcaster stated. According to VRT, the European Broadcasting Union (EBU), which is responsible for Eurovision broadcasting, intends to hold talks with the participating broadcasters.
While there is no evidence that the vote count was conducted incorrectly, VRT stated, it added: “We demand full transparency from the EBU. The main question is whether the current voting system guarantees a fair reflection of the opinions of viewers and listeners.“
The ESC is increasingly at odds with the event’s original norms and values, as well as with the norms and values of public broadcasting. VRT’s website also states that it supports the call for a debate on Israel’s participation in the ESC.
Israel Leads Audience Vote
Israel was clearly ahead with the audience. The country had sent singer Yuval Raphael to Basel. The 24-year-old is a survivor of the massacre by the Islamist Hamas and other terrorist groups on October 7, 2023. Due to the Gaza War, there were repeated protests in Basel against her participation.
Israel also received high scores in the audience vote from countries where the actions of the Israeli government are viewed rather critically, such as Spain, Belgium, and Ireland. In total, Raphael received almost 300 points from viewers in the 37 participating countries – more than anyone else.”
Speaking of Eurovision Song Contest, I’m old enough to remember the time of it being not bad at all. Then the Cold War ended, and the slow decline started, by some unfathomable concidence.
UK should withdraw from EBU. It is a farce. I’m not gonna defend this on cost grounds (since they’re probably tiny) but it should put countries on notice that we don’t defend the politicking that is no longer subtle but now blatant.
If Germany, France etc wanna fix it so Israel wins go ahead. I want no part of that nonsense.
I think it’s important to realize that in the US there are no political parties. Certainly, not in the traditional sense of an organized electorate participating within the party and creating a leadership that promotes the people’s priorities.
What we have are two organizations, Democrats and Republicans, that are little more than candidate selection institutions that cater to elite donors.
If there were real political parties, someone like Trump, with zero political experience, would not exist. Trump, for example, ran his successful 2016 and 2024 campaigns on, among other things, returning jobs to the US. If there were real political parties, why would the people send their jobs overseas in the first place or push for neoliberalism as an economic system and reduce taxes for the rich?
The article explains that any television star is well suited for politics in the United States as the culture has become media based (quite literally); so too its political system.
You make the mistake of conflating politics with democracy.
However, the word ‘democracy’ does not appear in the Constitution and neither does ‘political parties.’ Democracy has one meaning for elites and something entirely different for everyone else. And that means not every tv star is well suited for politics.
Television and other msm media are all owned by the same elites who control both political parties.
It matters little how gifted you are speaking on tv, if you’re not endorsed by the elites you’re going nowhere in the current so-called two party structure. In fact, if you’re running for election in another country and not endorsed by American elites there’s a good chance you’re not going anywhere there either.
A real political party would change the balance of power in the media system.
As a Brit (technically half Aussie too), I have always found USA news interviews and the behaviour of their reporters at White House briefings ridiculously anodyne.
When BBC news was a respectable institution we got this, the Home Secretary being asked almost 20 times to answer the sodding question. Ironically the person who arguably did the most to critically damage the career of that (by then former Home Secretary but leadership candidate’s chances) was a now Reform Party woman who comes across as a complete and utter lunatic who is trotted out on TV when they want a ratings boost to see what nonsense she is espousing today.
As a PS, there were whispers at the time when his Conervative leadership campaign was underway (and even after he got elected leader) that anti-semitism was at play to bring him down (given his background and especially how the woman I referred to described him) so whilst I am in no mood to defend Labour at the moment, one should think back to what was considered “legitimately newsworthy” early this 21st century regarding how certain Tories wanted Howard gone.
I confess to not remembering exact details but I remember it being an issue and someone like the Colonel might have more informed things to say given his apparently photographic memory and ability to add to any UK political story from past 3 decades ;-)
(So I’m not asking for homework from anyone!)
Mass media intersects with so many moneyed interests that a few like pharma bear reiterating. That largesse of ad revenues has parallel flows through Congress, too.
If you have ever been curious about the how and why of your Critter’s seemingly counterintuitive actions, here is an explainer. They may give lip service to voters, but have significant incentives to vote their pocketbooks and their committee and Speaker interests. They won’t come right out and admit that, but their actions leave trails.
Be a shame if media bit the hand that fed them. /:
Don’t Presidential candidates who are fat or bald get winnowed out early in the primaries? So you’d never get a Taft or an Eisenhower as President now. The candidate’s appearance and style of speaking is a major factor in how we end up with our Presidents now, and has been since television became peoples’ primary way of getting information. I think the internet has had an additive effect for this trend, but mainly it has acted to increase the tribalism of that portion of the electorate that bothers to vote.
Reading today’s news I’m reminded again and again that the 24-hour news cycle and private/corporate media ownership have given our culture the attention span of a flea.
This is how someone like Trump can post on his Truth Social in the heat of the 2024 campaign that he was going to “get SALT back” — a tax increase that he had imposed during his first term and that he is today pounding the table to continue. He just lies with exactly zero accountability.
This is how we had 4 years of President Totenkopf, a revivified corpse whose policies were being created by a bunch of winged monkeys behind the curtain spreading suffering and death throughout the world as if playing X-Box. The entire charade was enabled by the media who self-censored even the suggestion that this might be wrong (see Michelle Goldberg’s recent mea culpa in the NYT).
People’s ability to experience empathy has been numbed by television, the internet, and gaming. American culture is nothing but superficiality and cover-ups.
I also haven’t watched TV in donkey’s ears, decided long ago it was annoyingly manipulative, a case of the white noise being better than the signal.
Somewhat related and perhaps of interest, there’s a movement within Christianity around media fasting. It’s about reordering desires, making room for God, reclaiming your interior space, reclaiming silence. Taking your 30 days in the wilderness now means taking respite from the digital. Reclaiming your mind from those who currently own/occupy it. I say perhaps of interest because I can see the possibility of a time when 2+ billion Christians worldwide collectively opt out of the dog and pony show, recognize it for what it is, an evil, a distancing from God (and you don’t need to be religious to see it’s a distancing from all that is good).
Google’s getting lax on things of significance to our tribe. Jacques Ellul wrote about “visual thinking,” but the g-engine’s striking out on that phrase at this moment. At least for me. So far I haven’t wanted to see if AI can retrieve anything, but I’m getting curiouser about whether or not it’ll fail at this also. Religiononline seems to have less of “The Humiliation of the Word” (book) than it used to…I dunno for sure.
https://www.religion-online.org/book/the-humiliation-of-the-word/
Think it was at the Jacques Ellul Society site where I ran into an interesting comparison of Ellul and Neil Postman.
I’ve failed to make a list of alt search engines through the years. Can anyone recommend one or two?
The objective, of course, is to deliver the appearance of transparency while exterminating authenticity.