Splice Now

Did anybody pay attention to the camera placements for the State of the Union speech last night? I was watching ABC, but I think all the networks were taking the same feed. They had only two wide shots, one from the back of the room on a jib arm and one shooting across the room toward the Republican side. Other angles were either on the President or were mobile.

As usual, the senators and congressmen are seated according to party: Republicans are on the right, Democrats on the left.

The wide camera on the jib arm was from the back and left side of the room and showed the Republican side from the front and the Democratic side from the back. The stationary wide shot covered exactly half the room — the Republican half.

Needless to say, Republicans applaud everything the President says, and Democrats often refrain from applauding. But because of the way the cameras were placed, you never saw that. Every time they went wide you thought the whole room was clapping because the stationary wide shot only showed the Republican side. The jib arm showed the Democrats, but only from the back. You couldn’t see what the Democrats were doing. You saw the Republicans clearly.

The only way you could tell that the Democrats weren’t enthusiastic about Bush’s speech was by deduction. You had to look at their backs and figure out that they weren’t clapping. You never saw it plainly.

The effect was to reinforce the idea that the whole room was united around the wonderful policies of our dear leader. Dissent didn’t exist because you couldn’t see it.

Hilary declared her intention to run for president on Saturday, and a lead article in Sunday’s New York Times focused on the fact that Hilary and Obama are each attempting to raise about $75 million — this year alone. An article in today’s paper goes further, telling us that Hilary has decided to skip public financing altogether, thus raising the ante further. Michael E. Toner, chairman of the Federal Election Commission, put it this way, “We are looking at a $100 million entry fee.”

Running for office doesn’t really mean connecting with your constituents, fashioning brilliant policy and building a consensus for it. It means fundraising: creating a war chest that will primarily be used to buy our favorite commodity — television airtime. Hilary’s big advantage is her history in Washington and her access to the Democratic Party fundraising machine.

So here are a few statistics to ponder, picked up from the National Conference for Media Reform:

• The 2006 election, where no presidential contest was involved, cost $3 billion nationwide. $2 billion was spent on TV and radio ads.
• Much of that money went to a few large media companies who consistently resist public financing for elections.
• 65% of the American public says that their primary news source is local TV news.
• Local TV carries almost no election coverage, and when it does, almost no policy information.
• The primary source of information about candidates in America comes from 30-second spots, which, almost by necessity, offer distorted information.

Now I ask you — is this the best way we can figure out to select our leadership?

I continue to listen to audio from the National Conference for Media Reform, which was held last weekend in Memphis. All of the conference sessions were recorded, and they’re available as MP3 files that can be played through your browser or downloaded to an iPod. Transcripts and videos are available as well.

As I work my way through this material, I’m struck by how much of a watershed event this conference was. Media reform, something that seemed very fringy just a couple of years ago, is finally moving into the mainstream, and the effects are going to be felt for years to come. Groups from across the political spectrum are involved.

Most Americans are dissatisfied with the state of our media. But at the same time, they seem to believe that it’ll never change. That may not be true anymore. If you want to learn more, check out some of the sessions from this remarkable event. As starting points, I’d recommend these two speeches:

– Bill Moyers

– Ed Markey – Chair of the House Telecommunications subcommittee.

For more about Network Neutrality, go to the Save the Internet web site, and join the million and a half people who have signed the petition there.

The New York Times ran its second major story about the proliferation of what I’m calling embedded advertising, this time focusing on the many new and unique places from which advertisers are attempting to insinuate themselves into our consciousness. Ads are being printed on subway turnstiles, physicians’ examining tables, airport security trays, and yes, supermarket eggs. Video screens are now a part of elevator doors, school buses and taxi seats. Video is projected onto the sides of buildings.

Last week the paper ran another piece on digital billboards. These things are programmable and cycle from one ad to another every six or eight seconds. Advertisers claim they are no more distracting than conventional billboards, but given that income on these things is four or five times higher than on a conventional billboard, it seems to me that they want to have it both ways. Every time the thing switches, your nervous system, exquisitely tuned to help you pay attention to change, makes you look at them. Drive extra carefully.

People now see more than double the number of advertising messages they did 30 years ago — about 5,000 per day. “What all marketers are dealing with is an absolute sensory overload,” said Gretchen Hofmann, executive VP of marketing and sales at Universal Orlando Resort. No kidding. Fifty percent of people surveyed last spring thought marketing and advertising was out of control.

As long as we accept this situation, it will continue to grow. And technology now makes it possible to put advertising literally anywhere. But people in many communities are saying no. If you want to learn more, a good place to start would be web site of Commercial Alert.

Bill Moyers gave a terrific, passionate and eloquent speech at the National Conference on Media Reform on Friday and I encourage anybody interested in this growing field to check it out. He makes the case that media consolidation and the concomitant narrowing of points of view in the national news represents a critical turning point for our democracy. You can listen to to it as MP3 audio or watch it as Quicktime video.

Patrick Verrone, President of the Writers Guild of America West, also spoke. He’s revealing himself to be one of the most visionary union leaders in media, eager to look at the bigger societal and political issues that shape the landscape we work in. He recently helped sponsor a showing of “Who Needs Sleep,” Haskel Wexler’s seminal film about overwork in the film business and society at large. DVDs of the film are now available for purchase. All the NCMR sessions are available as audio files; the session Verrone participated in, on commercialism and advertising is here.