Category Archives: Problem Practices

Communication behavior or analysis that is often counter-productive

The Menace of Meta-Coverage of the President

Donald Trump has degraded the secular-civic style of traditional political discourse with self-aggrandizing memes.

Journalists are trained to be careful observers and students of the institutions they report on. But we now have a new wrinkle in presidential journalism where the actual substance of an event is nonsense or so thin that its the press is forced to assess the theatrics. Exhibit A is Donald Trump’s post of himself in an A.I. image as a healing Jesus. The absurdity of the image can’t really be explained with the usual and traditional news frames that might include the discussion of administrative or policy considerations. A journalist has no choice but to “read” the items like these in visual terms. Clearly, the visual orientation of Trump’s mind favors expressive content that owes more to the theatrical rather than analytical, adjusting brief statements and images to valorize himself in the garb and scenery of the Pope, a freedom fighter, a king, and so on.  With these images he is not solving problems of governance as much as laying out pathetic examples of self-promotion.

Trump rambo flag

One solution is to treat these attention-getting posts as pure pop art displays, forcing any story about them into a form of meta-journalism, which is reporting about what others are seeing and observing. In the formal language of the Encylopedia of Political Communication, “metacoverage is news about the news media itself or about publicity processes, some of which . . . are covered in terms of how well they succeed at garnering favorable news coverage.”

Thinking broadly, alternate frames of analysis of visual memes might include the perspectives of

-Politics as theater

-Art criticism

-Symbol analysis

-Evidence of Trump’s state of mind

-The traditions of political cartooning

All are possible, but usually beyond what daily journalism is comfortable “reporting.” And all require interpretation, assessment and critical analysis: not what staffers at the AP, or a local television or newspaper operation are accustomed to doing.

short black line

Arguably, Donald Trump has changed the vernacular for political discourse with his self-aggrandizing memes. “Dress Up” is usually a thing that might be seen in kindergarten or adult daycare. Obviously, fantasy role-taking is not a good option for a grounded national leader. It’s narcissim has infantilized his Presidency even more.

Political cartooning from journalists and activists has long been a part of our political discourse, but it is rare to see a leader portray themselves as models of righteousness and adoration, without a hint of irony. Trump’s memes that carry this function are grotesque miscues far removed from conventional forms of presidential leadership. It suggests what we  know: prior to winning office the first time he had no administrative experience, little interest in the details of government, and an aversion to understanding the norms and traditions of national leadership.

Is this a trend?  Political rhetoric used to carry the imprimatur of thoughtful deliberation for the benefit of all. Presidents were once quotable. We can hope he is just an example of one.

Many remember the famous Solidarity poster originally made for the August 1980 Lenin shipyard strike which took place in the Polish town of Gdansk. The lone image of a defiant Gary Cooper from the film western film High Noon was meant to suggest the resolve of the workers to win their fight against the anti-union government. It was rare and eloquent: very different from the overuse of the sloppy imagery now, which resembles a Marvel Comic more than a call to meaningful action.  For sure, this kind of imagery has always been scaled up by activist groups. But a functioning civil society requires so much more.

Listening for Nuance

Moderate levels of uncluttered sound reveal harmonics and timbres that are missed when we push a room and our ears beyond their limits.

We are lucky if we survive childhood with most of our hearing intact. Sporting events, concerts, cranked up earbuds and other explosions of sound all do a number on our fragile ears. On average, Americans listen to music on headphones at rates that can drift into a red zone of 94 to 105 dB At bustling New York restaurants it is common for a food reviewer to report that they cannot hear what their server is saying. These sound levels are akin to standing near the end of the runway of an American airport. Our current problem is that original equipment we were born with evolved to detect sound typical of a conversation than the roar inside a modern sports arena. Teens are especially attracted to the energy of noise, which I suspect stands in as a kind of token of independence.

Like other mammals, we were meant to aurally detect whispers, or the sounds of leaves underfoot, or the snap of a peapod when it is ready to yield the seeds inside. Nature decidedly did not evolve our hearing for the mayhem of a modern ballpark on a Saturday afternoon, or the output of a Fender 435-watt amplifier.

As as been said many times here, sonic overload in modern life is a problem. So is the assumption that listening is a throwaway skill. We don’t think we need to learn to listen, or to take steps to preserve our hearing. But most older adults who have clocked more than a few decades might tell you that an owner’s manual would have been a good idea. A life of listening at fortissimo involuntarily withers to pianissimo in later years, usually requiring electronic assists in middle age in order to still function in the culture.

                       Middle ear bones

Not only is hearing easily damaged by loud sounds, but the bones and tissues of the middle and inner ear typically don’t self-repair. In the face of a sound onslaught the best our hearing organs can do is slightly retard the bones of the middle, allowing for just a bit of protection from a sonic assault. Muscles connected to those tiny bones–the smallest in the body–can stretch to dampen loud noises to protect the fragile half-centimeter hair cells of the inner ear. But they are also easily overmatched by modern electrical and mechanical racket.

I started my brief stab as a school and college musician as a drummer, learning to use the musical artillery of a percussionist. But as I have aged, I’ve come to appreciate musical nuance, where moderate listening levels reveal inner sounds like timbres and recording room characteristics that are missed when we push hearing to its outer limits.  A good recording played at a moderate level will let you hear the wood of a string instrument, the three-octave spread of singer like Karen Carpenter, or the mellow warmth of Gary Burton’s vibraphone. We were meant to hear the quiet Westminster chimes of Big Ben quietly embedded in Ralph Vaughn William’s London Symphony, as well as the richness of Nathan East’s acoustic bass. Listen live to a pianist on a good piano and you may hear what recordings seldom catch. Even a single note triggers a range of audible overtones on the same instrument.

Overtones or “partials” give all acoustic instruments a wonderful complexity that the ear detects if not overwhelmed by other sounds.  Listen to the instruments in this clip: full and rich on their own, but also clearly in a space that functions as another instrument. There is some complex physics going on here that yields beautiful sounds.

It is also a plus to be able to sense the sound of a room. But it is heresy for most recording engineers. They want a “dry” space: acoustically the equivalent of listening to an unamplified solid-body electric guitar. No wonder musicians love the acoustic richness of most performance spaces with natural reverberation.

To be sure, very low listening levels can strip music of details and both ends of the sound spectrum. Unlike good audio equipment, our hearing is not stable and flat across all sound frequencies: a pattern sometimes known as the Fletcher-Munson effect. A listener has to find the sweet spot for hearing everything. The best experience is attained when auditory levels are less than Phil Spector’s “wall of sound,” but more than the ubiquitous background music in a public space. At some point in the middle (75 dB, or what a voice or piano in a modest-sized room might produce) quieter overtones emerge, revealing a feast of detail at levels that the ear can handle.