Courtney here. I chose to listen to some talk radio this week for something different. I have never really done this before becasue I was never really interested in it in the past. I ended up listening to a story on Fresh Air about the book Get me Out: a history of Childbirth. This segment only lasted for about ten minutes, but it really got me thinking. The host and author spoke about the highlights in the book. I have watched plenty of TV talk shows that bring authors in and talk to him about their books, and I have decided I like talk radio better when it comes to talking about books.
I am a people watcher, and becasue of that I often get totally engrossed in what a person is wearing, their hairstyle, facial structure, etc. I often get so engrossed in the outer image presented I don't even listen to what they are trying to say. With radio I have to listen closely to what they are saying, and I end up getting more out of it. I also noticed that while listening to talk radio I pay closer attention to the road. Why? I don't know, but I was definitely a more engaged driver. I feel like one quote from Postman that relates to this concept is this "Although the Constitution makes no mention of it, it would appear that fat people are now effectively excluded from running for high political office...Indeed, we may have reached a point where cosmetics have replaced ideology as the field of expertiseover which a politician must have competent control". I feel like I am a result of a society that actually sees political representatives and celebrities every day and can judge them by the way they look. During the last political campaign what were both of the presidential candidates wifes well known for? How well educated they were? No. What good parents they were? No. How beautiful they were and what great fashion they had? Absolutely!!!
It is realizations like this that makes me wonder about media and our society, because they are VERY intertwined.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
As time progresses on, more and more it is indeed the medium that is the message and not the message that is the message.
ReplyDeleteOn the radio, much like posted above, there is still the fighting chance that someone can get a point across without the listener becoming so engrossed in the specific medium that all meaning is lost.
But on television, oftentimes the true message takes a backseat to aesthetics. Am I enjoying staring at this? Is this visually pleasing to me? The correlation between how these questions are answered and the effectiveness of the message is probably startlingly close, and that might be something frightening to consider.
This all reminds me of the televised Kennedy v. Nixon debate I learned about in high school. We were told that radio listeners felt Nixon was stronger in the debate while those who watched the debate leaned more toward Kennedy's side.
And just consider how strikingly different things might be if this debate was not televised. Maybe no Watergate? Maybe no moon?
--Jon
Ok, jotspot7 is Jon. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteYou blew me away with the last two speculations. Whew. Such a comment raises that ever-fascinating question, "What if . . ."
Great comments on radio. The attention to the verbal message that you felt as you listened is exactly what McLuhan and Postman are talking about. The distraction that the set, the clothes, the appearance, the image can have is astounding.
Just think what has happened to radio since the 1990's. Not sure if you're aware of it, but it is huge. Lots of political talk--conservative mostly. And for the reasons you say, I think. The image doesn't matter when the subject matter is engaging. The medium demands attention to the verbal reality. As Jon said, it's the medium is the message and not the message is the message. Well-said.
Let me raise one thing to think about. It is now a number of years since Kennedy/Nixon. Starting with that debate, many prognosticators have often and often said, it's going to be the image. It's going to be the image. And, to a little tiny bit of credit to us, image has not always prevailed.
Our presidents have not been TV-charismatic by and large. Oh yeah, Reagan was so. Clinton was very adept. But neither Bush. Not Quayle. And so on. It's a small caveat, but a real one. We haven't totally lost our minds. Substance does matter some.
Now in what I just said, I can imagine MANY qualifications and objections. I'm not wedded to the point of view. I just think it's interesting that things have not worked out for charisma quite as thoroughly as people thought they would.
Courtney, I'm not sure about your observation about radio and the road. You mean while listening to the radio you pay more attention to the road than if to a CD? Or to nothing? It would seem to make sense that close attention to someone else's verbal message would have a different effect than passing attention perhaps to a song you know well or to the free play of imagination in which who knows where thought will go.
Congratulations in trying a new medium!!
Gordon C