Subscribe to VICE

La televisione aveva già fatto la sua apparizione sulla scena politica per un paio d’anni prima del 26 settembre del 1960, data in cui fu trasmesso il primo dibattito politico sullo schermo tra il Vice Presidente Richard Nixon e il poco conosciuto Senatore Irlandese-Americano John F. Kennedy. Ma fu per la prima volta, proprio quella notte, che milioni di televisioni lasciarono un segno sulla faccia della scena politica Americana.

Quelli che avevano ascoltato il dibattito sulla radio davano per vincitore Nixon. Ma quelli che lo avevano visto in televisione pensavano l’esatto contrario. Vicino a Nixon, che mostrava un’apparenza sudaticcia, pallida e sottopeso a causa di un recente ricovero, Kennedy sembrava un bel ritratto di calma e sicurezza. L’immagine di Nixon miglioro nei giorni seguenti ma il danno era già stato fatto. (Vedi video qui)

Il 12 novembre, quattro giorni dopo aver vinto la presidenza per un piccolo margine, Kenneddy riconobbe il ruolo che aveva giocato la televisione: “È stata la televisione, più di qualsiasi altra cosa, a ribaltare la situazione” disse. Un servizio del 1979 sui dibattiti presidenziali noto che I dibattiti Nixon contro Kennedy “resero incontri in diretta tra candidati la cosa più in voga nella propaganda elettorale dopo la spilla del candidato.” La televisione era talmente angosciante per I futuri candidati che cercavano spesso di evitarle: il prossimo dibattito presidenziale sarebbe stato trasmesso sugli schermi sedici anni più tardi. Da allora non ci hanno mai lasciato.

Ma Kennedy aveva riflettuto a lungo sul potere della televisione molto prima di quella sera. In un pezzo che scrisse un anno prima, per il numero del 14 Novembre 1959 di TV Guide, parlo del tipo di influenza che I mass media hanno sulla politica, e vice versa. Mentre il Presidente Wilson, durante la sua presentazione della Società delle Nazioni in un tour lungo tre settimana, si procuro un ictus dopo il devastante viaggio, Kennedy noto che “Il Presidente Dwight Eisenhower può far sentire la sua voce sulla situazione del lavoro a diversi milioni di persone in solo quindici minuti, senza neanche dover lasciare il suo ufficio.”

Nonostante la false credenze di questa opinione (vedi lavoro di storici come Walter Lippman e Daniel Boorstin), sicuramente Kennedy aveva capito qualcosa. Come scrive, facendo riferimento alla Gore report, nel 1956 il Comitato Nazionale dei Repubblicani spese oltre 3,000,000 di dollari per la televisione e il Comitato Nazionale dei Democratici, ne spese appena sotto I 2,800,000 dollari per la telecomunicazione. Nelle elezioni a medio termine del 2010, le ricevute per le campagne elettorali si sono avvicinata ai quattro bilioni di dollari.

Ma Kenneddy riconobbe che il potere della televisione di portare un immagine alle persone non significò intimità e onestà. C’è un rischio che le campagne elettorali “finiscano sotto il controllo di esperti nel settore delle pubbliche relazioni, che istruiscono il candidato non solo su come usare la televisione ma anche cosa dire, cosa rappresentare e che tipo di persona essere.” La miglior difesa contro le bugie televisive, dice, sono le masse di spettatori in continua crescita. Come I quiz televisivi, scrisse Kennedy, le campagne politiche “possono essere pre-stabilite…il potere di percepire inganni e stratagemmi e ricompensare onesta, è nelle mani della gente, e anche domandare una legge dove necessario.”

Cinquantun’ anni dopo la sua prima pubblicazione, nel bel mezzo della nostra era di campagna elettorale da svariati bilioni di dollari, pazza, virale, che somiglia ad un tea-party, segnata da Facebook, da spot pubblicitari di 30 secondi, questo tema porta la sua età come un vestito grigio degli anni ’60: è raffinato, funziona ancora, ma ha un aria tiepida vicino agli splendidi abiti di Glen Beck e in confronto ai veicoli di comunicazione come YouTube. Non è difficile immaginarsi Kennedy che suda come fece Nixon alla vista di tutte queste innovazioni.

Qui sotto c’ è il suo tema in versione completa:

A Force That Has Changed The Political Scene

By Sen. John F. Kennedy
Democrat, Massachusetts

The wonders of science and technology have revolutionized the modern American political campaign. Giant electronic brains project results on the basis of carefully conducted polls. Automatic typewriters prepare thousands of personally addressed letters, individually signed by automatic pens. Jet planes make possible a coast-to-coast speaking schedule no observation-car back platform could ever meet.

Even wash-and-wear fabrics permit the wilted nonstop candidate to travel lighter, farther and faster.

But nothing compares with the revolutionary impact of television. TV has altered drastically the nature of our political campaigns, conventions, constituents, candidates and costs. Some politicians regard it with suspicion, others with pleasure. Some candidates have benefited by using it – others have been advised to avoid it. To the voter and vote-getter alike, TV offers new opportunities, new challenges and new problems.

But for better or worse-and I side with those who feel its net effect can definitely be for the better – the impact of TV on politics is tremendous. Just 40 years ago Woodrow Wilson exhausted his body and mind in an intensive cross-country tour to plead the cause of the League of Nations. Three weeks of hard travel and 40 speeches brought on a stroke before had finished “taking his case to the people” in the only way then available. Today, President Dwight Eisenhower, taking his case to the people on the labor situation, is able to reach several million in one 15-minute period without ever leaving his office.

To cite another example: The most dramatic political trial in our history was the Impeachment trial of President Andrew Johnson in 1868, avidly followed by all the Nation. Newspaper accounts were decidedly partisan – those who wished to see and judge for themselves flocked to Washington by carriage and train. But even if every seat in the Senate galleries had been occupied by a different person every day for the two months of trial, no more than 3000 people could have witnessed that historic event. But In the month of May 1954, an estimated 70 million TV viewers watched part or all of the Army-McCarthy hearings.

These hearings, the Kefauver crime hearings, the McClellan rackets hearings, the conventions of 1952 and 1956-these and other “political TV spectaculars” have given the American public new ideas, new attitudes, new heroes and new villains. Less dramatic but also important have been the televised panel press conferences, the debates, interviews, campaign speeches and even the political commercials. Many new political reputations have been made on TV-and many old ones have been broken.

The searching eye of the television camera scrutinizes the candidates-and the way they are picked. Party leaders are less willing to run roughshod over the voters’ wishes and hand-pick an unknown, unappealing or unpopular in the traditional “smoke-filled room” when millions of voters are watching, comparing and remembering.

The slick or bombastic orator, pounding the table and ringing the rafters, is not as welcome in the family living room as he was in the town square or party hail. In the old days, many a seasoned politician counted among his most highly developed and useful talents his ability to dodge a reporter’s question, evade a “hot” Issue and avoid a definite stand. But today a vast viewing public is able to detect such deception and, in my opinion, willing to respect political honesty.

Honesty, vigor, compassion, intelligence – the presence or lack of these and other qualities make up what is called the candidate’s “image.” While some intellectuals and politicians may scoff at these “images” – and while they may in fact be based only on a candidate’s TV impression, ignoring his record, views and other appearances – my own conviction is that these images or impressions are likely to be uncannily correct. I think, no matter what their defenders or detractors may say, that the television public has a fairly good idea of what Dwight D. Eisenhower is really like – or Jimmy Hoffa – or John McClellan – or Vice President Nixon -or countless others.

This is why a new breed of candidates has sprung up on both the state and national levels. Republican Governors Rockefeller (New York) and Hatfield (Oregon) successfully countered the Democratic trend in 1958 with particular reliance on TV appeal. The list of fresh Democratic faces who understood – and scored on – this medium in 1958 is almost endless: including new governors such as Edmondson of Oklahoma and Patterson of Alabama, new senators such as McGee of Wyoming and Hart of Michigan, new mayors such as Gracy of Baltimore (1959)-as well as a host of others, elected or reelected in 1958 or earlier.

Most of these men are comparatively young. Their youth may still be a handicap in the eyes of the older politicians – but it is definitely an asset in creating a television image people like and (most difficult of all) remember.

This is not to say that all the politicians of yesteryear would nave been failures in the Age of Television. The rugged vigor of Teddy Roosevelt, the determined sincerity of Woodrow Wilson, the quiet dignity of Lincoln and the confidence-inspiring calm of FDR-all would have been tremendously effective on TV.

Can you imagine the effect of televising FDR’s “Fireside Chats”? How different history might have been had a nationwide TV network carried Bryan’s Cross of Gold speech – or the Teapot Dome investigation – or Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address.

But political success on television is not, unfortunately, limited only to those who deserve it. It is a medium which lends itself to manipulation, exploitation and gimmicks. It can be abused by demagogs, by appeals to emotion and prejudice and ignorance.

Political campaigns can be actually taken over by the “public relations” experts, who tell the candidate not only how to use TV but what to say, what to stand for and what “kind of person” to be. Political shows, like quiz shows, can be fixed-and sometimes are.

The other great problem TV presents for politics is the item of financial cost. It is no small item. In the 1956 campaign, the Republican National Committee, according to the Gore report, spent over $3,000,000 for television-and the Democratic National Committee, just under $2,800,000 on television broadcasting.

If all candidates and parties are to have equal access to this essential and decisive campaign medium, without becoming deeply obligated to the big financial contributors from the worlds of business, labor or other major lobbies, then the time has come when a solution must be found to this problem of TV costs.

This is not the place to discuss alternative remedies. But the basic point is this: Whether TV improves or worsens our political system, whether it serves the purpose of political education or deception, whether it gives us better or poorer candidates, more intelligent or more prejudiced campaigns – the answers to all this are up to you, the viewing public.

It is in your power to perceive deception, to shut off gimmickry, to reward honesty, to demand legislation where needed. Without your approval, no TV show is worthwhile and no politician can exist.

That is the way it always has been and will continue to be – and that is the way it should be.

La televisione non era il solo gadget di Kennedy, era anche famoso per le sue abili doti con il vocoder.

Tags: Kennedy, Nixon, Potere dei media, Televisione, Campagna elettorale,

http://www.motherboard.tv/2010/11/14/a-force-that-has-changed-the-political-scene-jfk-s-essay-on-his-favorite-and-most-feared-technology