Daniel Boorstin on Presidential Debates and other Pseudo-Events

From The Image: Or What Happened To The American Dream, the chapter “From News Gathering to News Making: A Flood of Pseudo-Events” (1961):

A perfect example of how pseudo-events can dominate is the recent popularity of the quiz show format. Its original appeal came less from the fact that such shows were tests of intelligence (or of dissimulation) than from the fact that the situations were elaborately contrived – with isolation booths, armed bank guards, and all the rest – and they purported to inform the public.

The application of the quiz show format to the so-called “Great Debates” between Presidential canddiates in the election of 1960 is only another example. These four campaign programs, ponpously and self-righteously advertised by the broadcasting networks, were remarkably successful in reducing grest national issues to trivial dimensions.

In origin the Great Debates were confusedly collaborative between politicians and news mamers. Public interest centered around the pseudo-event itself: the lighting, make-up, ground rules, whether notes would be allowed, etc. Far more interest was shown in the performance than in what was said. The pseudo-events spawned in turn by the Great Debates were numberless. People who had seen the shows read about them the more avidly, and listened eagerly for interpretations by news commentators. Representatives of both parties made “statements” on the probable effects of the debates. Numerous interviews and discussion programs were broadcast exploring their meaning. Opinion polls kept us informed on the nuances of our own and other people’s reactions.

The drama of the situation was mostly specious, or at least had an extremely ambiguous relevance to the main (but forgotten) issue: which participant was better qualified for the Presidency. Of course, a man’s ability, while standing under klieg lights, without notes, to answer in two and a half minutes a question kept secret until that moment, had only the most dubious relevance – if any at all – to his real qualifications to make deliberate Presidential decisions on long-standing public questions after being instructed by a corps of advisers. The great Presidents in our history (with the possible exception of F.D.R.) would have done miserably; but our most notorious demagogues would have shone.

This greatest opportunity in American history to educate the voters by debating the large issues of the campaign failed. The main reason, as [Theodore White, in his book The Making of the President: 1960] points out, was the compulsions of the medium. “The nature of both TV and radio is that they abhor silence and ‘dead time’…Although every experienced newspaperman and inquirer knows that the most thoughtful and responsive answers to any difficult question come after long pause, and that the longer the pause the more illuminating the thought that follows it, nonetheless the electronic media cannot bear to suffer a pause of more than five seconds; a pause of thirty seconds or dead time on air seems interminable.

About these ads
Tagged , , ,
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 82 other followers

%d bloggers like this: