Chapter 6 argues that television allows politicians to caption their words with images, thereby uniting two very powerful persuasive media. Jamieson looks at how Reagan managed to accomplish this task in his rhetoric. Try to extend this kind of analysis to the media coverage of a more recent president—George W. Bush. What images do the news media use when depicting Bush? Think about the often-repeated image of Bush staring out the window of Air-Force One to survey the damage done by Katrina (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/pictures/WAS713D.htm), or the image of Bush at the site of the WTC attacks, speaking through a bullhorn, or the image of him declaring the end of major combat operations in Iraq in front of the now famous “mission accomplished” banner (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/28/mission.accomplished/). How do news media stories caption these images with words, and how does that captioning relate to what Jamieson sez about using words and pictures together?
I felt the same way when gazing upon the two images of Bush. The pictures do say a great deal about Bush in response to certain situations but I think that Jamieson really believes in the importance of not only the visual image presented, but also the impact of the caption associated with it. "Mission Accomplished", while short and to the point is a bit lacking in what Jamieson describes. However, this can be contested. Just before I wrote this post, I consulted my roommate about how impacting this statement was. He, being an avid supporter of Bush, said that it was the perfect caption. Short and to the point, it actually had more depth than people realize (according to him). I didn't really understand his point, but I found it interesting to hear this point of view.
At least from a print media perspective, I know that most published photos are chosen after the story is written. The news and design people will walk in and say 'we need a picture of Bush that makes him look like an idiot' or 'we need a picture of Bush looking patriotic,' but sometimes the same photo will fit both those criteria (those are both real quotes from two different media sources I've worked for). There are extremely few photographs of Bush (or any politician in the spotlight) that are not set up beforehand by White House PR people, and I would argue that the media uses what it can get. There are only so many ways to shoot a press conference with a 'Mission Accomplished' sign lurking in the background - but depending on what the story is about (bush's visit to an aircraft carrier vs. a story 6 months later about who hung up the banner), the image could go either way.
To me it seems like the media can put any image alongside Bush and we will associate it with him. I don't think that the picture of Bush looking out Air Force One at the hurricane damage was effective. It did make him look like he was just passing by, looking at the damage without really doing anything about it. I can't recall what the captions were on tv when they showed this image, but I think that the images are necessarily affected by the captions.
The image I associate most with Bush is the flag. However, it's not the *American* flag, it's the *Republican* flag. The Republicans hav effectively put forth an image of themselves as the "true" Americans. It feels to me like they use the flag not to assert a positive feeling about America, but a positive feeling about Republicans, like they're giving the finger to the Democrats and saying, "We won!" It just doesn't feel like a true honest use of the flag to me. Am I alone in this?
Speaking as a person who has often felt that Bush was given too much easy press, I find it interesting to look back at that picture of Bush on the aircraft carrier and see it as unflattering. I remember that being a much more patriotic image on the ship, however when we realize that the war was not over, and more losses would occure, cnn used an ugly picture of bush's mouth wide open to make him appear dumb. In that picture, the patriotism originally intended is lost.
Even the picture of Bush gazing out his window at the devasted city of New Orleans makes him seem helpless and unsure. The stories tell only that he thinks it will be years before the city is rebuilt. These images of failure or empty leadership seem a far cry from the immediate post 9/11 pictures of Bush embracing rescuers in the rubble of the world trade center.
The caption "Mission Accomplished" places this visual and its sentiment in the rhetorical history of our nation, and now it is piping fresh and ready to be used against Bush as casualties continue to accumulate.
I wonder if Bush had actually used this phrase after the Iraqi election or the drafting of the Constitution if it would have resurrected the phrase or redeemed it somehow.
Certainly it would then be appropriate for some smart ass to show a photo of an Iraqi purchasing a car with a caption "Mission Accomplished" underneath.
Sorry just had to express my feelings with sarcasm. I totally agree though. The high casualties, lack of exit plan, low approval rating, and the increase in out defecit all are signs of "mission accomplished." (More sarcasm) At this point I'm not sure any amount of positive rhetoric can save him from his mess up. Now, if someone else were to use this phrase at a different time and with different circumstances, then I agree that this would be very powerful word usage. It paints a positive strong picture for the public and can help them rally behind whoever says it. Even in this Iraq situation, I think that if things had gone better, then it would have been more appropriate for him to say. Once the troops are home, the newly elected officials are running Iraq and people can move on to more productive things, then we can truly say Mission Accomplished and mean it.
I have noticed that very often Bush will be speaking and then cameras will cut to a man in a soldier's uniform in an audience full of civilians who is madly cheering. He is almost always seen near an American flag, banner, or backdrop. The air force jacket is worn very often. Then there are the images of Bush with the cowboy exterior which as a Texan, I do find somewhat insulting. Bush was born in Connecticut and attended Andover and Yale. Do you know any other Texans that fit that description? Anyway, these images speaker top bush being the powerful leader of the united states who has military competency and relates to the Iraq War as a trooper and defender.
Bush is photographed with his dog and his kids to make him seem like a normal person. He is photographed with rolled up sleeves when down in New Orleans to appear as though he is one of the people, working hard to fix the problems.
Images are extremely powerful. Toby Clark's Art and Propaganda in the 20th Century assumes that images are able to convey information quickly and evoke deep emotions in their viewers. This power of the image derives from its ability to convey a message all-at-once, as a gestalt or whole chunk of meaning.
The way the brain processses images also contributes to their power: we can see, remember, and be moved by an image that we have not really thought about. It can enter into consciousness below our analytical radar--or be moving too quickly--and continue to influence us from our subconsciousness.
Just a thought. Instead of captions I choose to call these words that are present under the images 'hints' on fox news when fox airs 'A Just War" under bush's veteran's day speech... that's a hint at what they want you to think.
Of course there is every likelihood that I am full of crap and feeding you propaganda, at least in this setting you can think critically about it.
Hey PS: remember way back when I mentioned the Freenet situation that allows those in China who wish to criticize or speak out against the government the opportunity to do so on a source that can't be traced? Well this is the link to Freenet if anybody's like interested:
This is freenet-China but unless you have a way to read Chinese characters, it may just come up jibberish
When Bush is speaking in public, the cameras first cut to a woman, then to 3 or 4 persons of ethnic or racial minorities, back to another woman, to an old man (but for some reason never an old woman, unless it's W's mamma), then a young man/woman, THEN to a soldier in uniform, preferrably an air force reservist based out of Texas. Seriously though, because of our wonderful perceptive organs, everyone the camera cuts to while W is speaking, we assume agrees with what he is saying. That connection is pretty obvious if the camera shows them standing and clapping, but half the time this isn't the case. We see a shot of this wonderful, bright-shining cross section of the Utopian-United States, where everyone of every color and ethnicity is welcome...as long as your not Native American or gay. I completely agree with Devon's points and I think it's something we should all think about. I have made my stupid little puns about it previously, but then again, I never really thought about how much it effects me. Now, I am determined to get Ricky Williams and Earl Campell to be at the televised speech for the next Democratic contender for the presidency. We'd carry the entire state! Except for College Station, that is.
[1] How do news media stories caption these images with words, and how does that captioning relate to what Jamieson sez about using words and pictures together?
On September 12, 2001, Bush stood on top of a pile of rubble at Ground Zero in New York. Bush wore clothes like the average volunteer, was accompanied by NY firemen, and spoke through a bullhorn to rally all of America.
In his uplifting speech to the nation, Bush said, "I can hear you. The rest of the world hears you. And the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon." With that statement, Bush's past and previous images of Bush were swept clean. In my opinion, 9/11 created Bush as the hard-ass, good ol' boy that so many love.
In chapter 5 of her book, Jamieson said, "the media shape viewers' memories of an event" (113). For Bush, catastrophies like 9/11 helped shape his image. Now, I don't believe that Bush was ingenuine at his speech on 9-12. In fact, I actually like President Bush. I think he'd be a lot of fun to grab a beer with. What I do believe is that his administration or public relations team did a damn good job at associating Dubya hand-in-hand with 9/11. Jamieson herself says, "A visual symbol can associate one person...with a place" (116).
In chapter 6, Jamieson talks about how Ronald Reagan created a "supporting cast" during many of his speeches (121). On 9/11, the Bush administration did this too. Although it would seem natural to have firemen by his side, rallying the public, the image that was set up was no accident. Bush was side-by-side with firemen, clothed like a regular volunteer, and using a bullhorn as if he were the leader of the relief effort. This was brilliant.
Like Reagan united Democrats and Republicans in his first inaugural speech, Bush did a great job at uniting both Democrats and the Grand Old Party with 9/11. While Reagan used Srgt. Trujillo, Bush used the victims and heroes of 9/11. Bush stood on the rubble of 9/11 not for himself, but for America. He truly evoked a common visual experience.
Bush steered from reinterating the tragedy and focused on action against terrorism. He conjured images of patriotism and sacrifice, rather than failure and the unknown.
The media loved the image of Bush wielding a bullhorn next to NYC firefighters, and I think that the majority of the public loved the image as well. Talking about Nixon and his attempt to "evoke confidence in the future," Jamieson argues that Nixon understood that the "rhetoric of renewal and restoration must build on a high level of audience participation" (143). When Bush says, "the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon," he is not only asking for public participation, he is including himself in the word "us." Here, I think he is attempting to make an agent of the public without "consciously speaking as president" (160). I think that you're right to say that this image was no accident, especially when you consider the televised images of Bush reading to school children in Florida while the attacks were happening. Is it possible to caption an image with another image? I don't remember very well how these two images played out on television or what sort of headlines and segueways the media used to move between the two images. I suppose the point is that I did remember them.
So, the image of Bush looking out on New Orleans from a plane and the image of him speaking in front of Jackson Square may serve the same purpose. Where one image is contemplative and removed from the action, the other places Bush sort of near it. The media captioned this image with words like "hope" and "rebuild," and always referred to New Orleans in a superlative sense. We even got to see Bush helping out Habitat for Humanity (I think that was the group). Standing with NYC firefighters and working with volunteers in New Orleans--these images mean more to the public, and last longer, than public address. These images are the "evidence" that Bush is doing the necessary work.
I believe the news media sometimes can change the tone of the picture entirely by the way in which they caption it with the stories behind it. For instance if they took the picture of George Bush on the plane above the damage done by Katrina and wrote the article around how he just flew by in his nice comfortable warm dry jet on the way to some other event then the public would see Bush as a rich person taking a sightseeing trip to the damage and resent him for not focusing on helping fix the disaster. On the other hand if they wrote the article around all of the things the federal government was doing to help the victims of Katrina and how the president was deeply disturbed by this tragedy then the public would feel like he is a watchful father overlooking the relief efforts. I believe that this captioning is almost as important as the picture because it guides the reader to how they will feel about the picture. These pictures and captions are used by the media to break down complex issues and evoke common visual experiences with the public. To me this can be dangerous sometimes because even the best picture can be turned around with a dirty narrative. However pictures and their narrative can bring a call to action faster than a plain narrative for example the commercials on late at night with the orphans in impoverished countries. If it was just a guy standing up talking to you about all of these horrible things these kids have to deal with and then they asked for money most people would be skeptical and change the channel. But by showing the narrator actually over in the impoverished countries with the orphans gives it a human feel and we can relate in some way or another with the children. We begin to feel sadness for them and compassion and a lot of people do donate. So using these images with a narrative can be very helpful when trying to get a complex issue across to the busy public.
I do agree that it can be very dangerous. The fact that Nixon might be associated as a humanitarian simply for placing a wreath on a monument illustrates this. You are absolutely right about that. People need to be more informed and critical about what they say.
On the other hand, I do think there might be a place for visuals. The images of the survivors of Katrina almost negate any positive that could have been gleaned from the photo of Bush in the airplane no matter what words accompany it. Somehow a flyover didn't seem sufficient. Symbolically you couldn't get a worse image. People are suffering on the ground, and he is above it all - distanced from it. Public opinion doesn't require words at this moment.
What if someone had taken a photo of Brown walking out of a restaurant in Baton Rouge? I think the whole process of Brown's resignation would have been moved along much faster.
I agree, I don't think that they could have picked a worse image than bush flying over in his plane. But, I think that this class is pretty critical, and might take things further than most people. Most might look on him as a "father figure" as someone stated and point at his sadness, where as we see right through that and look at what he was actually doing, flying in his big cushy airplane. And if I remember right, even though his approval rating is down, many people still support him as president. Hell, I can't drive down a 1/2 block without seeing three cars that say "W for president, or W still president, or just W" People who like something aren't going to question it easily. And a picture that is "less than sufficient" will be simply overlooked by them. Why question that what you believe or what you see is right/true?
I agree that the Air Force One images were less effective than the Russian memorial. Jamieson argues, "We experience Nixon experiencing the event." What made that effective, she argues, was that the public saw "the moment of identification with children of the world..." You can't fully experience humanity "peering" from a jet, so the photo didn't send an impactful message.
The Mission Accomplished photo is ineffective and even detrimental because it relies too heavily on a faulty image. Jamieson argues, "...visual dramatization...rarely can stand as an effective argument in its own right. Sacrificed in the move to show without telling is the capacity to redeem, redefine, contravene, and extend basic premises." The picture lacked the idea that we have learned from history and backed the administration into a corner.
The pictures just end up looking like Bush in a series of costume changes. I think the administration would do well to heed Jamieson's advice that "They must understand when the synoptic visual-verbal statement should be encased and when it should constitute the entire message."
I think how an image is captioned (and which images are used) largely depends upon the news source's agenda. Frankly, I was surprised that the captions used in the two images were not synoptic phrases like Jamieson talks about. Instead of providing the audience with a memorable phrase to go along with the image, for example, the "mission accomplished" caption plainly denotes what the president was doing and where he was. The captions fail to support any message that the audience may draw from the image. While I agree that images are very powerful tools to portray certain ideas, I think what Jamieson describes is a more embedded form of eloquence that emanates from the combination of visual and verbal.