What happened tonight at the White House Correspondents Dinner... many said Barack Obama outdid Larry Wilmore on the comedy front. Barack delivered a fine performance-- skewering Hillary Clinton, by imagining myself pulling down a much of Harriet Tubman's ($20 bills) by taking Goldman Sachs money for delivering speeches after he leaves office. Barack has been to eight of these events and his experience showed nicely. He knows the journalists well but chose to make most fun of his own kind, politics and politicians, and that focus gave his remarks a certain modesty and self-deprecation. Wilmore, had to find another tact, and made fun of the journalists in the room. He highlighted the struggles of news outlets, the dying print media and brainless CNN reporters, and that proved a trickier endeavor. Wilmore attempted to add comic intensity, but often sounded mean-spirited. Nothing could be further from this comedian's true colors, Larry Wilmore is by nature an easygoing, amiable personality.
Truthfully, I think Larry Wilmore is too cerebral a comedian, more a comedy writer than a rough and tumble standup, to perform the role of emcee at a Roast. Wilmore strongest performance actually occurred in a non-comic vein when he lauded President Obama's amazing achievement, proving a black man capable for the biggest leadership role in the world.
Wilmore's comment came toward the end of his performance. Wilmore, approximately the same age as Obama, reminded us that years ago many did not believe a black man capable of playing quarterback much less leader of the free world. I found Wilmore's tribute to Obama more significant that any joke could ever be. Wilmore embraced the real truth of Obama-- a miracle in our lifetime, the game changer of an African-American president-- and did a great service in that moment.
Wilmore struggled to get an edge to his performance-- but he seems more capable of provoking thought and quiet laughter in his cerebral comic style. The material was there but maybe the standup's anarchic personality, the ..."I don't give a damn 'cause I just walked in off the street" persona is not a natural pose for this nuanced comedian. Wilmore has great comedic skills but the assignment works better for the Stephen Colbert type performer, full of piss and vinegar and loving the attention and the spotlight. We were lucky to have the selfless Wilmore on hand to deliver thanks to Barack Obama, a more important task than "killing" the audience with laughter.
Saturday, April 30, 2016
Thursday, April 21, 2016
How We Got Into Vietnam (David Halberstam)
Finished "The Best and The Brightest" book by Halberstam on Vietnam. I'm glad I got to the end. He talks about LBJ's failed decision-making on Vietnam. LBJ looked to the past and the Cold War to try and understand Vietnam:
"The forces at work in the fifties were very real to him. If Jack Kennedy was a man who knew more about where the sixties were headed but whose intellect preceded his courage, who stepped forward gingerly, then Johnson was more a man of the past. He reacted to what he thought the country was; the country which twice defeated Stevenson for the Presidency, where the powerful people on the Hill seemed primarily to be hawks, where the dominant figures of journalism were proud survivors of the worst of the Cold War, and where American universities had also given willingly, too willingly in fact, of their talent and support to the Cold War." (p. 592)
And here is how LBJ got us so deeply involved in the war, using his astute political skills, for subtly escalating the War, while missing the boat on the sixties revolution brewing and about to explode:
"That would all come later: perhaps another politician might have sensed it, if not clearly identifying the change. But Lyndon Johnson did not sense it, rather he sensed that he had position on everybody else, he had control of the center, he had moved all opponents to the extreme. He had handled the Congress, signed it on without really signing it on: he had handled the press by slicing the salami so thin that they are never able to pin him down, and he handled Ho by making it seem as if Ho were attacking him at Tonkin. He was using force but using it discreetly, and he was also handling the military. They were moving toward war, but in such imperceptible degrees that neither the Congress nor the press could ever show a quantum jump. All the decisions were being cleverly hidden; he as cutting it thin to hold off the opposition." (p. 593)
This poses some interesting questions for me on how public policy lurches forward-- often based on the prevailing, conventional wisdom, based on the leader's beliefs about his peers and what they will find acceptable, as rational behavior. Of course, our Vietnam policy does not appear rational in retrospect, but LBJ operated within the paradigm he knew and had experienced.
What do we believe now-- based on a present-day conventional wisdom that is actually totally inaccurate and misplaced? People think we need to get industry back to America? Is there any likelihood of that? How might our energies and resources be used to improve the situation in our country? I'm sure there is much confusion on the subject, and some of our unlikely Presidential candidates (Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Bernie Sanders) have risen because of confusion around where the country should be heading. Not sure any of the candidates has proposed anything of substance. Mainly its emotion-- Make America Great Again, Stop the 1%.... Obama has kept a cool head. He didn't come out with a "New Deal" or anything on a grand scale. I doubt there would have been support for that kind of thing in this environment. The candidates kind of imply that they will achieve something on a grand scale. That seems unlikely.
"The forces at work in the fifties were very real to him. If Jack Kennedy was a man who knew more about where the sixties were headed but whose intellect preceded his courage, who stepped forward gingerly, then Johnson was more a man of the past. He reacted to what he thought the country was; the country which twice defeated Stevenson for the Presidency, where the powerful people on the Hill seemed primarily to be hawks, where the dominant figures of journalism were proud survivors of the worst of the Cold War, and where American universities had also given willingly, too willingly in fact, of their talent and support to the Cold War." (p. 592)
And here is how LBJ got us so deeply involved in the war, using his astute political skills, for subtly escalating the War, while missing the boat on the sixties revolution brewing and about to explode:
"That would all come later: perhaps another politician might have sensed it, if not clearly identifying the change. But Lyndon Johnson did not sense it, rather he sensed that he had position on everybody else, he had control of the center, he had moved all opponents to the extreme. He had handled the Congress, signed it on without really signing it on: he had handled the press by slicing the salami so thin that they are never able to pin him down, and he handled Ho by making it seem as if Ho were attacking him at Tonkin. He was using force but using it discreetly, and he was also handling the military. They were moving toward war, but in such imperceptible degrees that neither the Congress nor the press could ever show a quantum jump. All the decisions were being cleverly hidden; he as cutting it thin to hold off the opposition." (p. 593)
This poses some interesting questions for me on how public policy lurches forward-- often based on the prevailing, conventional wisdom, based on the leader's beliefs about his peers and what they will find acceptable, as rational behavior. Of course, our Vietnam policy does not appear rational in retrospect, but LBJ operated within the paradigm he knew and had experienced.
What do we believe now-- based on a present-day conventional wisdom that is actually totally inaccurate and misplaced? People think we need to get industry back to America? Is there any likelihood of that? How might our energies and resources be used to improve the situation in our country? I'm sure there is much confusion on the subject, and some of our unlikely Presidential candidates (Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Bernie Sanders) have risen because of confusion around where the country should be heading. Not sure any of the candidates has proposed anything of substance. Mainly its emotion-- Make America Great Again, Stop the 1%.... Obama has kept a cool head. He didn't come out with a "New Deal" or anything on a grand scale. I doubt there would have been support for that kind of thing in this environment. The candidates kind of imply that they will achieve something on a grand scale. That seems unlikely.
Thursday, April 7, 2016
Life At the Speed of Light
McLuhan said we get messages from satellite transmissions careening around the globe at the speed of light. That is the new reality.
Check out the article from Slate online magazine entitled-- "Is Facebook Live Video The Future Or The Latest Social Media Fad"
Mr. Zuckerberg knows that the faster moving process races around the slower media and will defeat the slower moving programs. TV defeats movies, Online media defeats newspapers. So getting you face-to-face, literally, with your Facebook friends is the place he is headed.
Marshall McLuhan makes life easier. He is the Oracle of Toronto!
See-you,
John
Check out the article from Slate online magazine entitled-- "Is Facebook Live Video The Future Or The Latest Social Media Fad"
Mr. Zuckerberg knows that the faster moving process races around the slower media and will defeat the slower moving programs. TV defeats movies, Online media defeats newspapers. So getting you face-to-face, literally, with your Facebook friends is the place he is headed.
Marshall McLuhan makes life easier. He is the Oracle of Toronto!
See-you,
John
Monday, March 28, 2016
The Meaning of Commercial Television (1966)
The Texas-Stanford Seminar (1966)
The Texas-Stanford
Seminar on “The Meaning of Commercial Television,” a gathering of television broadcasters was held by the two universities
in 1966 with the ambitious goal "to help bring about the general improvement of
television.” TV Guide sponsored the conference. Marshall McLuhan was one of the headliners and Stanley Donner, a professor at the University of Texas, documented the seminar for a University of Texas Press publication. McLuhan, not
surprisingly, blew the assembled minds and Stanley Donner does a nice job capturing the
process. Donner reviews describes McL’s demeanor and
impact on the conference with a nice freshness. The information which follows comes from Donner's work. I’ll quote Donner from here (The Meaning of Commercial Television (1966)-- pages 108-110):
Marshall McLuhan’s
unusual views of the electronic media and their effects on society evoked
considerable interest among the broadcasters.
The audience was
particularly impressed by the concept that our present total environment is
invisible and produces a nostalgia for past environments—thus the popularity of
Bonanaza and, on a different level, Batman. Final judgment was suspended,
although many were persuaded in part by compelling arguments and equally
compelling examples from film, radio and television, and from cultural and
social changes in current society. The listeners were not sure where total
agreement might lead them: what kind of commitment they would be making. Also,
there was the suspicion that, although McLuhan’s argument was plausible, there
might be some hidden fault in the scheme which could nullify the whole theory.
McLuhan assisted this
suspended belief by not requiring any particular action from the audience. In
his view whether a person favors or opposes his ideas, or whether his ideas are
considered helpful, is completely beside the point. We are in the midst of electronic
circuitry where everything happens at once and the influences upon society are
inexorable. McLuhan’s concern was the description of electronic circuitry, not
its evaluation: and he described with considerable clairvoyance what is taking
place in our society at present.
The discussion
developed into a further explication of McLuhan’s ideas. He held the position
that in the electronic age no one is responsible and he used Truman Capote’s In Cold Blood as an example. This view
was disturbing to some in the audience, since its acceptance means that the
development of events in time must be denied and it would no longer be possible
to maintain a clear relationship between cause and effect in the fixing of
guilt.
McLuhan spoke of the
possible future of television in the world of electric circuitry. The
television would become a work force rather than consumers of programs as is
now the case. Problems of any kind could be presented to the audience and
possible answers obtained through the use of technology, which is even now in
experimental stage.
In response to a
question McLuhan described LSD as a dislocation from environment, in a sense a
medium. He did not, however, advocate its use.
To a question
concerning computers, McLuhan maintained that computers are really a method of
discovery. The use of computers to catalogue and categorize does not belong in
the world of electric circuitry, but rather to the world of clear relationships
of cause and effect of the nineteenth century. McLuhan also dismissed the
rating systems and the “numbers game” as belonging to nineteenth-century
cataloguing, and thus not truly relevant to television.
To another point
McLuhan answered that the only audience participation in television and movies
is fantasy. Reality in the old art sense of the term is meaningless in the
electric world. Reality of the outside as compared to inside fantasy has
disappeared, since the concept of outside and inside no longer exists.
Tuesday, February 23, 2016
Michael Phelps 2008 Olympics video... and Brian Williams revealed
Lately I've taken to going to the Dollar stores-- Family Dollar, Dollar Tree, etc.. These are the discount stores. Usually they offer inferior grade products at very low prices. But sometimes you find the same products as the supermarkets - Crest, Colgate-- at much cheaper prices. I was checking out at the cash register and noticed a 2008 Beijing Olympics video for $1.00. Yes, one dollar. Hence the name of the store. I took the plunge. And the ending had a nice surprise-- especially for media fans.
Arrived home and discovered the entire video was devoted to Michael Phelps. Phelps did the near impossible feat of winning 8 gold medals at a single Olympics. I'm not a huge swimming fan. I decided to watch it. Gotta get my money's worth, right?
Michael has a freakish body, so well-suited to swimming. He's 6'4" but has the torso of a 6'8" man--and broad shoulders. His lower body is the opposite-- compact, like a man only 6 feet tall. He's double jointed in the elbows. The guy has so much flex in his body-- his arms and legs move like a fish waving its fins to glide through the water. The underwater camera shows his flexibility as he powers through his races.
But now to the ending. Bob Costas did most of the interviews of Phelps after his Beijing achievements. Michael's mother appeared and spoke very well. Michael had the role model of a loving mother, a single mom determined to provide for her children, to inspire him.
But then came the surprise ending. Brian Williams appears and screen and does a final interview with Michael. Brian tries to employ youthful lingo. "Are you cool with that?" Brian Williams asks the question twice; likely he inquired about dealing with the crowds and the fame. Then Brian Williams asks what songs Michael has on his iPod.
"I had 'Lil Wayne" for the last song," says Michael.
"Oh, Weezy," adds Brian. He's clearly trying to keep up with the youth culture.
Maybe Williams catches the ridiculous turn things are taking. He smiles impishly and says something to the effect "who wouldn't be listening to Weezy before a race...." adding a slight ironic twist to the statement. Michael laughs, and the interview ends soon afterward.
Brian Williams gets revealed as something of a poser. Of course, he got caught years later for a bigger sin-- making stuff up about reporting under enemy fire. He's tried to add luster to his war reporting and the soldiers on the scene revealed the Brian Williams account as distorted and false.
Brian had ego problems got revealed by the Phelps interview, almost a premonition of later problems. He tried to present himself as hipper and younger when he interviewed Michael Phelps. Brian Williams' status as middle-aged man news reporter made him inadequate, perhaps overmatched by the glow of Michael Phelps-- full of youth, beauty and talent.
Of course, Brian William's 2008 Olympic interview mistake, a slight faux pas, has little or no consequence compared to what came later. The same insecurities, though, predicted the total fabrications to come a few years later. Those mistakes, not-quite-Walter Cronkite bragging, almost cost him his broadcast career. The war story lies did end his tenure as Evening News anchor at NBC.
Arrived home and discovered the entire video was devoted to Michael Phelps. Phelps did the near impossible feat of winning 8 gold medals at a single Olympics. I'm not a huge swimming fan. I decided to watch it. Gotta get my money's worth, right?
Michael has a freakish body, so well-suited to swimming. He's 6'4" but has the torso of a 6'8" man--and broad shoulders. His lower body is the opposite-- compact, like a man only 6 feet tall. He's double jointed in the elbows. The guy has so much flex in his body-- his arms and legs move like a fish waving its fins to glide through the water. The underwater camera shows his flexibility as he powers through his races.
But now to the ending. Bob Costas did most of the interviews of Phelps after his Beijing achievements. Michael's mother appeared and spoke very well. Michael had the role model of a loving mother, a single mom determined to provide for her children, to inspire him.
But then came the surprise ending. Brian Williams appears and screen and does a final interview with Michael. Brian tries to employ youthful lingo. "Are you cool with that?" Brian Williams asks the question twice; likely he inquired about dealing with the crowds and the fame. Then Brian Williams asks what songs Michael has on his iPod.
"I had 'Lil Wayne" for the last song," says Michael.
"Oh, Weezy," adds Brian. He's clearly trying to keep up with the youth culture.
Maybe Williams catches the ridiculous turn things are taking. He smiles impishly and says something to the effect "who wouldn't be listening to Weezy before a race...." adding a slight ironic twist to the statement. Michael laughs, and the interview ends soon afterward.
Brian Williams gets revealed as something of a poser. Of course, he got caught years later for a bigger sin-- making stuff up about reporting under enemy fire. He's tried to add luster to his war reporting and the soldiers on the scene revealed the Brian Williams account as distorted and false.
Brian had ego problems got revealed by the Phelps interview, almost a premonition of later problems. He tried to present himself as hipper and younger when he interviewed Michael Phelps. Brian Williams' status as middle-aged man news reporter made him inadequate, perhaps overmatched by the glow of Michael Phelps-- full of youth, beauty and talent.
Of course, Brian William's 2008 Olympic interview mistake, a slight faux pas, has little or no consequence compared to what came later. The same insecurities, though, predicted the total fabrications to come a few years later. Those mistakes, not-quite-Walter Cronkite bragging, almost cost him his broadcast career. The war story lies did end his tenure as Evening News anchor at NBC.
Sunday, February 7, 2016
Super Bowl Sunday: Is it just a fantasy?
Fan interest for football is at a phenomenally high level. Like most pro football fans, I never played the game. I never liked putting a helmet on my head. Never wanted to bang into people. Football attracts fans in ways they may not even understand.
Marshall McLuhan, my media guru, successfully predicted football would overtake baseball as the most popular sport. Modern media is all about engagement. Football, where players do different things simultaneously, works like magic for the television audience. Simultaneous events mean engagement of the viewer. The cameras cut from one event to another: quarterback dropping back, cut to wide receiver being defended by the cornerback, cut to linebacker closing in to tackle the quarterback, all within the space of a few seconds. All within the space of a single play.
McLuhan correctly recognized the importance of the "instant replay." Taped replay allows us to watch the play again and again, studying in great depth. Instant replay has been added to actual playing of the game itself. Coaches have been granted the power to request a play be reviewed by the referees. The referees can reverse the on-field decision based on replay. The fans study the replay and participate with the referees's decision.
Baseball, formerly the national pastime, moves forward in a logical, straight-line sequence. Batter hits ball and only then can he run. The ball gets fielded. The batter runs to first base. Football moves forward simultaneously-- occurs on many different levels in the same moment. Fans achieve more in-depth involvement in the football game.
Engagement! Engagement! Engagement! So said McLuhan when explaining the electronic media environment. Our new media life, life itself you might say, is all about electronic engagement. We stay engaged in our cellphone, on Facebook, on Twitter and on Instagram and things like Snapchat. I don't even know what Snapchat is! Guess that reveals my age...
Football wins. With fantasy football we get an deeper involvement. We actually own the team and the players, even if it's just a fantasy. Football wins the electronic competition by keeping us deeply engaged.
Marshall McLuhan, my media guru, successfully predicted football would overtake baseball as the most popular sport. Modern media is all about engagement. Football, where players do different things simultaneously, works like magic for the television audience. Simultaneous events mean engagement of the viewer. The cameras cut from one event to another: quarterback dropping back, cut to wide receiver being defended by the cornerback, cut to linebacker closing in to tackle the quarterback, all within the space of a few seconds. All within the space of a single play.
McLuhan correctly recognized the importance of the "instant replay." Taped replay allows us to watch the play again and again, studying in great depth. Instant replay has been added to actual playing of the game itself. Coaches have been granted the power to request a play be reviewed by the referees. The referees can reverse the on-field decision based on replay. The fans study the replay and participate with the referees's decision.
Baseball, formerly the national pastime, moves forward in a logical, straight-line sequence. Batter hits ball and only then can he run. The ball gets fielded. The batter runs to first base. Football moves forward simultaneously-- occurs on many different levels in the same moment. Fans achieve more in-depth involvement in the football game.
Engagement! Engagement! Engagement! So said McLuhan when explaining the electronic media environment. Our new media life, life itself you might say, is all about electronic engagement. We stay engaged in our cellphone, on Facebook, on Twitter and on Instagram and things like Snapchat. I don't even know what Snapchat is! Guess that reveals my age...
Football wins. With fantasy football we get an deeper involvement. We actually own the team and the players, even if it's just a fantasy. Football wins the electronic competition by keeping us deeply engaged.
Sunday, January 17, 2016
TV Candidates beware--earnestness is fatal
TV demands sophistication and insouciance.
Words of advice for Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and company...
Way back in 1968, Marshall McLuhan explained that TV candidates must understand "the contemporary interface of all cultures" and should not "be deluded into any earnest regard for any one of them."
The wise candidate shows insouciance (indifference) as a survival technique. Jeb Bush serves as a cautionary tale for wanting the job too much.
McLuhan warns against getting in a huff about the immorality of it all... "The new changes are not moral but technological."
Saturday Evening Post (August 10, 1968)All of the Candidates are Asleep
By: Marshall McLuhan
Why should TV demand sophistication and insouciance? Simply because it is a depth medium for which earnestness is fatal. Depth requires perception on many levels, and, therefore, an absence of single purpose or direction. An all-at-once world, fashioned by electric information, demands a candidate full of puns and expected nuances. Such a man is one who knows so much about the contemporary interface of all cultures that he cannot possibly be deluded into any earnest regard for any of them. The new changes are not moral but technological.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)