March 18, 2007
From the desk of Jane Galt:So here it is a foul, disgusting Sunday morning in New York City. The streets are covered in slush, and the corners have accumulated deep puddles that look like something might be living in them. Like, the Loch Ness monster. I, wisely, am sitting inside, watching the political shows with my Dad on his shiny new HDTV while silently girding my loins for the coming battle with packing tape and bubble wrap. Did I mention I'm being evicted? But I digress.
The first thing you notice about HDTV is that some of the politicians look really awful. Studio makeup is not enough to cover up the sagging, cragging, and pitting of all those cruel years in Congress. Some of them look fine . . . John Kerry is positively handsome, if you like men who look kind of like a wrinkly old orange. (Can't his wife buy him a really convincing fake tan? Sigh. Yet another reason not to bother getting rich.) Others—and you know who you are, Senator Specter—not so much. Charles Schumer has a deep crease on the side of his forehead that looks like he slept on his glasses . . . on top of a lit stove. And Tim Russert seems to have a little rosacea problem.
There has been talk about this problem for a while among television personalities and . . . er . . . adult entertainers. Today, though, it suddenly occurred to me that this might have an impact on the 2008 election. Just as the introduction of television famously altered voter perceptions of the candidates in the 1960 election (those who listened to the debate thought that Nixon had won, but those who saw it on television overwhelmingly favoured the more telegenic Kennedy), HDTV could skew who we nominate and/or elect.
For example, though I've never met him, my understanding from those who have is that McCain's image of vitality is very carefully projected, and that when you actually meet him up close, he looks pretty frail. Will that come out on HDTV? How about Hilary? HDTV is least kind to older women; I'd bet it puts at least ten years on her. I suspect that Obama is the only candidate who will actually look good on HDTV; he's younger, and even light black skin ages better than caucasian. I'm tempted to side with Drezner against Cowen solely on the distribution of HDTVs in the country.
Posted by Jane Galt at March 18, 2007 10:18 AM | TrackBack | Technorati inbound linksMcCain without makeup looks like he has one foot in the grave. But maybe this will appeal to voters who traditionally vote Democratic.
McCain without makeup looks like he has one foot in the grave. But maybe this will appeal to voters who traditionally vote Democratic.
Only half way, most likely...
Jane Galt --
Do you plan on voting for a candidate based on his or her appearance on HDTV?
If so, don't you think that's rather vapid?
If not, why do you expect a plurality of American voters to do so?
How big was the HD screen?
I still think it is more because of giant screen TVs, where face shots are 2 to 3 times normal size that cause the problem, than whether they are shot in HD or not. High def on the smaller screens is much more forgiving, IMO.
I, too, think that the better looking candidate has the better chance. That is relatively speaking, of course. (I don't think any women were getting the vapors during the Bob Dole/Bill Clinton debates, not even Hillary and Libby.)
If looks really do matter, should we just go ahead and crown the Democrat president? All the Republicans have are a mannequin, two trolls, and a Newt.
Reporter: What makes you think your mother's a witch?
Mr Gingrich: Well, she named me after a Newt!
Reporter: A Newt?
Mr Gingrich: [meekly after a long pause] ... I got better.
Apologies to MP, but I can't be the only one who thinks that every time he shows up on TV.
Looks do matter, particularly for women voters.
How has John Edwards gotten so far? He just served 1 term in the Senate, and is the very stereotype of an ambulance-chasing lawyer.
Truly, what qualifications does he have other than looks?
Obama might suffer because he's a smoker, and smoking is hard on the skin.
This is an interesting question, and I think the answer will lie in how politicians adjust to HDTV. Basically, Thompson looks good on HDTV because they take the time to make him look GOOD. He's in an authoritative role in Law and Order, and must look the part. He's also going to understand what it takes to make him look good, whereas other candidates won't necessarily.
While chances are good that looks alone won't decide the race, they can disqualify someone. Think Nixon vs. Kennedy - the electorate did shift somewhat because of that, but it wasn't looks alone that decided the outcome - Kennedy was more charismatic in general anyway.
Candidates that look too old and decrepit will be pencilled out on account of age and the demands of the job by voters. Look at how Bush has aged, and not well, given how well he takes care of himself.
Clinton was a shadow of himself, physically, by the end of his second term.
Hillary will look too old and worn-out for Dem Primary voters seeking an energetic new face, while Obama will probably look good.
Same with McCain, while the wild cards are Rudy (how will he look? Dunno don't have HDTV). Thompson as noted will simply take his current make up people along so he'll look good. Plus people already see him as a leader/authority figure on TV so it's an easy transition.
Thompson is also tall and has that great baritone voice, so he seems to fit the idea of a President.
But the big question is, how will Rudy look on HDTV? If he looks old and tired he might lose to Thompson in the primary (McCain doesn't have a ghost of a chance).
Don't think the HDTV installed base is big enough yet. Maybe in 2012 or 2016, though.
Sorry about the eviction!
How much of an issue is this? We already see what our public figures look like underneath the unflattering light of flash bulbs and still cameras, and those professional SLRs have several times more resolving power than the HDTV standard.
Granted, magazine photos might be taken with favorable lighting conditions, and might be touched up to remove blemishes, but there will inevitably be photos of tired candidates, taken towards the end of the day after months of campaigning at small town rallies, posted on blogs without the intervention of Photoshop, passed around by email to supporters and detractors. In terms of image control and how a candidate looks, how is this worse than what we see on HDTV?
Lastly, if the reference is to Nixon and JFK in 1960, I think America at the time was not an image saturated society. We're now used to the idea of how the images of public figures on TV may differ to what we see of them in People.
Given the price range for HDTV, this will be an issue primarily among those that earn above the median salary (maybe above the 75th percentile). Which voters are more likely to have HDTVs?
Have a read of Neal Stephenson's novel Interface, which makes exactly this point (among many other brilliant ones on media and politics).
Comments are Closed.