COMM 150: Jon Stewart on "lamestream media" and "America's Tweetheart"

I'm going you an excerpt in dead-tree format from Neil Postman's "Amusing Ourselves to Death" that compares American politics to the iconic Bell telephone (AT&T) ads of the 1980s. The ads were designed to increase long-distance calling, and the theme was "reach out and touch someone." We'll watch one.

Postman was arguing that American "image politics" boiled down issues to slogans that would fit in a 30-second TV ad. And he titled his chapter on politics "Reach Our and Elect Someone." Says Postman:

This is the lesson of all great television commercials: They provide a slogan, a symbol or a focus that creates for viewers a comprehensive and compelling image of themselves. In the shift from party politics to television politics, the same goal is sought. We are not permitted to know who is best at being President or Governor or Senator, but whose image is best in touching and soothing the deep reaches of our discontent. (135)

Which leads us back to Sarach Palin. She's merely the most successful practitioner of image politics. And she's able to compress her message -- her sales appeal as a candidate -- even more. Instead of a 30-second spot, she's using 140-character Twitter messages.

And the media are eating it up. Why? She's good for ratings. Love her or hate her, people connect with her.

Jon Stewart got into this over the weekend with a segment on "America's Tweetheart" in which he made two points: (1) The media suck up everything she Twitters, "like a teenage boy with a crush on the stuck-up girl who hates him;" and (2) the Twitter format is perfect for broad-brush slogans like Palin's. He demonstrates this by showing up what Lincoln's "Twittersburg Address" would have looked like.

Why do people connect with Palin? What's the image she projects? One of the most astute things I've read was a column by Andrew Halcro, who ran against her in a three-way race for Alaska governor in 2006. Halcro wrote:

Palin is a master of the nonanswer. She can turn a 60-second response to a query about her specific solutions to healthcare challenges into a folksy story about how she's met people on the campaign trail who face healthcare challenges. All without uttering a word about her public-policy solutions to healthcare challenges.

It's the "folksy" part that I want to focus on. When Postma died in 2003, Palin was still a small-town mayor in Alaska's Matanuska Valley, but he would have recognized her appeal as a candidate. We hear her, or see her on TV, and it's like looking into Snow White's mirror at ourselves the way we'd like to be. Folksy. Meeting challenges. Who's the fairest one of all? Yada yada yada.

In an op-ed piece in the Christian Science Monitor shortly before she debated Joe Biden in 2008, Halcro recalled a three-way debate with Palin and candidate Tony Knowles:

On April 17, 2006, Palin and I participated in a debate at the University of Alaska in Fairbanks on agriculture issues. The next day, the Fairbanks Daily News Miner published this excerpt:

"Andrew Halcro, a declared independent candidate from Anchorage, came armed with statistics on agricultural productivity. Sarah Palin, a Republican from Wasilla, said the Matanuska Valley provides a positive example for other communities interested in agriculture to study."

On April 18, 2006, Palin and I sat together in a hotel coffee shop comparing campaign trail notes. As we talked about the debates, Palin made a comment that highlights the phenomenon that Biden is up against.

"Andrew, I watch you at these debates with no notes, no papers, and yet when asked questions, you spout off facts, figures, and policies, and I'm amazed. But then I look out into the audience and I ask myself, 'Does any of this really matter?' " Palin said.

While policy wonks such as Biden might cringe, it seemed to me that Palin was simply vocalizing her strength without realizing it. During the [gubernatorial] campaign, Palin's knowledge on public policy issues never matured – because it didn't have to. Her ability to fill the debate halls with her presence and her gift of the glittering generality made it possible for her to rely on populism instead of policy.

So ... does any of this really matter? Do the facts and figures, do the issues matter? Postman would have said it the politics of image he blamed on TV, they don't. What do you think?