By Leon Hadar.
The Donald excels in “hot” media formats like his rally addresses, but loses it in the “cool” medium of TV debates where he looks and sounds angry and unsteady.
THE late communications scholar Marshall McLuhan was famous for his original theorising about the way the media, especially television, revolutionised society and politics.
The ideas advanced by the witty Canadian philosopher remain popular today; in particular, the distinction he made between “hot” and “cool” media.
According to McLuhan, a hot medium is one which extends the senses in high definition. A sharp photograph is highly defined since it’s densely filled with information and doesn’t require much effort by the viewer to deconstruct it. By contrast, a blurry photograph is a cool medium. It extends the senses in relatively low definition, demanding more interaction by the viewer who needs to figure out what he or she is seeing.
Applying his categories to the media of his time, McLuhan proposed that radio and film were hot. They engage one sense without forcing the viewer to try to fill the gaps in the content.
Television and speeches were cool. They not only engage several senses but they also demand more interaction on the part of the consumers who need to make sense of what they see and hear.
McLuhan was developing his ideas when television and politics were starting to interact. The first televised presidential debates took place in 1960, and he had some advice for the debaters.
Since television was by definition a cool medium, hot politicians were almost bound to fail selling themselves on it. A hot politician appearing on television is like a hot signal that stands out very noticeably from its background.
Imagine someone raising his voice in a gentlemen’s club. He draws your attention but irritates you. You feel more comfortable with the elderly man who is quietly smoking his pipe.
Analysing the 1960 presidential debates, McLuhan concluded that the Republican presidential candidate Richard Nixon lost the debate in the new cool medium, because he had a hot personality and television made him look unsteady and untrustworthy. The Democratic candidate, John F Kennedy, won the debates because he was cool, and exuded calmness and confidence. He almost became an integral part of the television screen, while Nixon stood out and made the viewers uneasy. Kennedy became the first television president.
Other cool presidential candidates and presidents included Ronald Reagan and most recently, Barack Obama, who has been nicknamed “No-Drama Obama”.
Watching the vice-presidential debate on Tuesday night, it didn’t take too long for viewers to figure out who was playing the role of the cool candidate.
The Republican vice-presidential nominee, Indiana Governor Mike Pence, projected strength and confidence without looking arrogant and disrespectful. Virginia Senator Tim Kaine, the Democratic candidate, looked nervous and sounded shrill, interrupting his opponent numerous times.
Ironically, if you’d listened to the debate on the radio or read the transcript, you would probably conclude that Mr Kaine made some good points, especially when directing his criticism against the Republican presidential nominee, Donald Trump, repeatedly challenging Mr Kaine to defend Mr Trump, in particular over his refusal to release his tax returns.
That Mr Pence refrained from responding to these attacks may not have changed the way many viewers saw him on television. They were less concerned with his message and may have paid more attention to his cool performance and contrasted it with the hot signals that the edgy Mr Kaine was sending.
Employing McLuhan’s typologies to examine the performances of Mr Trump and his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, in their first presidential debate, as the two prepare for their second televised encounter on Sunday night, we could probably imagine the reaction of the late media critic.
There is little doubt that the Donald is the hottest candidate in the race, excelling in hot media formats like the addresses he delivers in his political rallies, but losing it in the ultimate cool medium of television debates, where he looks and sounds angry, incoherent, unsteady and disrespectful. Contrast that with the performance of Hillary, a veteran politician, who has participated in many televised debates, and mastered the use of that cool medium, by appearing calm, coherent, steady and respectful.
But wait a minute; wasn’t Mr Trump the star of a television reality show? And didn’t he win the Republican presidential nomination following quite a few televised debates?
Indeed, it’s possible that McLuhan, who died in 1980, didn’t take into consideration that at one point, viewers would come to treat the televised debates as mostly entertainment, and not as a serious forum to debate policy issues.
In fact, there is nothing cool about television reality shows, where participants are expected to defy the conventions of the medium, to be hot by drawing your attention and irritating you, like Mr Trump did in The Apprentice and the Republican presidential debates.
Texas Senator Ted Cruz and former Florida governor Jeb Bush sounded more coherent and looked more cool than Mr Trump during debates, and may have “won” if we apply conventional standards.
But the former television reality show ended up winning the nomination by doing something that McLuhan would not have expected, transforming the television debate into a hot medium, like other forms of entertainment that don’t require the viewer to make a lot of sense of what he or she is watching. Just to have fun.
This sounds like bad news for those of us who are looking forward to a serious televised debate over policy issues on Sunday. Many US viewers will be watching it hoping to be entertained, and not necessarily to be educated about the two presidential candidates so as to make an informed choice. Most of them have already made up their minds, and those who haven’t will probably switch to another channel.
