First things first: I am not endorsing either candidate with this post. And I was inspired to write this after reading Presentation Zen: John McCain’s background visuals.
I watched the McCain speech on TV and yes, I was really bothered by the green screen behind him. And the blue screen. Of course, those in the live audience could see that it was not a green screen, but an image of what we now know as Walter Reed Middle School. Pundits have speculated that the campaign meant to show a photo of Walter Reed Army Medical Center – either way, I want to know why no one thought about how the background would look to the TV audience and more importantly, what it had to do with McCain’s speech.
The McCain camp was quoted as saying that “it’s [the Walter Reed Middle School image] simply a generic photo, like others used and it had no specific meaning.” I hope that the PR person running the campaign doesn’t really believe that because it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of our cultural communication.
Images ALWAYS have specific meaning. That’s what they do. To brush off a photo used in the biggest speech of his campaign as “generic” is incomprehensible to me. These background images should have been carefully chosen to support McCain’s message. We live in a visual culture. You can’t slap something up on a 52×30-foot screen during a nationally-televised speech and not think about what message the image conveys.
Thoughts?
Tags: JohnMcCain, visualrhetoric
I got a little over-zealous moderating comments awhile back and accidently deleted this thread. I’m re-copying them in here:
From James Socol:
I couldn’t have said it better myself: “fundamental misunderstanding.”
It amazes me how often you see people, often “experts” or “authorities” in their fields make mistakes like that. I wonder how one rises to a position of importance in the campaign when they really shouldn’t have passed some of their undergraduate classes.
Reply from Lindsey LaTour:
Well, here is the thing: I don’t think either side has “passed” some of those classes. Don’t get me started on Obama’s Greek columns and the rhetoric behind them.
I’m not trying to call one side or the other stupid. It’s just alarming to me that pictures and stage sets get by like that seemingly without any real consideration for the meaning of it all. “Oh, aren’t those columns pretty. Yes, that would look nice.” Are you kidding me? Everything has meaning. Nothing is generic or merely decoration.
Didn’t our political communicators learn anything from the ballot design debacle of 2000? Design is EVERYTHING. It is the form and the function..
It is frustrating for me to see such important elements brushed aside or carelessly planned.