Hello Muddah, Hello Fuddah...what I've been up to

In lieu of doing something productive (the concept of which is horrifying), I'm going to copy/paste my clips from this year's Beacon into my blog. Yay. Go Sox!

-

10/4 Beyond Roe: progress on abortion

Of the many political issues obfuscated by language, the lexicon of the abortion debate is the most obfuscating of all. "If thought corrupts language," George Orwell wrote, "language can also corrupt thought." This is where the abortion issue has arrived.

The abortion factions have named themselves in the affirmative: "pro-life" and "pro-choice." The use of "anti" is avoided, lest people think proponents are negative or spiteful, or that they have no new ideas of their own. Yet this misuse of language has borne a gridlocked debate that is "anti" in every way: anti-progress, anti-collaboration and anti-common sense.

The absolution of pro-lifers and pro-choicers has turned discussion of abortion into a shouting match that accomplishes nothing and constantly moves in place. An obvious, common goal has been ignored: the reduction of the number of legal abortions (over 40 million of which have been carried out since 1973) not through overturning Roe v. Wade, but by creating a social environment in which women will freely choose to have their children.

This life-versus-choice dichotomy is a major litmus test for the two major political parties, which reject those who fall on the wrong side of the choice/life divide. As a result, the decision-making of politicians has been sabotaged, as they now focus on appeasing abortion-crazed constituents and lobbyists instead of viewing each piece of legislation independently.

In 2004, "Laci and Conner's Law" established the harm of an unborn child as a separate crime from assaulting a pregnant mother. Thirty-eight senators, including presidential candidates Joe Biden, Hilary Clinton, John Edwards and Chris Dodd voted against it.

The senators, displaying the infallible judgment for which they were elected, decided to deny the obvious: an unborn fetus is alive, and ergo, life. And the abortion lobby was pleased.

It is puzzling that bleeding heart liberals come down on this side of the issue. If abortion is not the death of a fetus, what is it?

In 2005, the newly pro-life Mitt Romney, then governor of Massachusetts, vetoed a bill that would have made emergency contraceptive pills more accessible to women, including rape victims staying in hospitals. Romney, in explaining the veto, said he is a "pro-life governor." Mitt must have been confounded-the bill was about contraceptives.

When Republicans-the "pro-life" base-discuss guns, the right to bear arms is the foremost topic, and concern for "life" is absent. In 1998, Republican senators Sam Brownback and Fred Thompson voted against an amendment to a bill that would have required manufacturers to affix trigger locks on handguns. Yet for their "pro-life" voting records they are praised.

According to the Children's Defense Fund and National Center for Health Statistics, gunfire killed 90,000 American children and teens from 1979-2001. Conservatives don't call this killing of innocents "genocide."

It is not possible for abortion to simply-poof-disappear. Besides, it isn't as if conservatives are on the cusp of overthrowing Roe. Even with President Bush's appointments of historically right-wing judges John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, years of precedent-setting decisions bolster the case and act to keep it in place.

A decision as monumental as Roe is not easily reversed, and with time running out on Bush's control of the Presidency, it should stand for a long time yet.

Prohibition made it clear that an absolute ban on any privelege does not work in America. If abortion were outlawed, a crime apparatus similar to that seen during Prohibition would take form, merely redirecting panicked mothers-not-to-be from Planned Parenthood to back-alley abortionists. The World Health Organization estimates that 20 million of the 46 million annual worldwide abortions are performed illegally under unsafe conditions.

In order to end abortion, attention must be paid to those who have them. The Guttmacher Institute found that 52 percent of U.S. women who receive abortions are under 25, and 64 percent have never been married. Hispanic women are twice as likely to have an abortion as white women, while black women are more than 3 times as likely.

Securing the safety of urban areas, properly funding public schools, toughening penalties against deadbeat, alimony-skipping dads and guaranteeing health care coverage for children-which Bush vetoed Wednesday-would better a child's world and could influence parents in deciding against abortion.

If only the two sides could begin come together on that, perhaps the abortion debate would become anti-unsolved.

B&N L-ooooooooosers

My piece in Thursday's The Berkeley Beacon:


Textbooks-a necessity that, in essence, are ink-covered paper sandwiched between plastic-coated card stock-cause students considerable grief.

Emerson's on-campus bookstore provides students the convenience of buying their class texbooks locally, but at a price.

In May 2006, Barnes & Noble College Booksellers agreed to a ten-year contract with Emerson on the operation of the school's bookstore.

The precedent set by the commercialization of Emerson property will prove damaging to the college's reputation and to the character of its neighborhood.

In an e-mail interview with The Beacon, Andrew Mahoney, director of business services for Emerson College, wrote that the store "strengthens Emerson's commitment to the city and surrounding community. It was determined Barnes & Noble was the only company that could deliver the type of store and level of service that the College was interested in providing its students."

Evidently, this is community development a la Emerson College-a corporate bookstore in the middle of campus.

Neighborhood redevelopment has scarcely meant better profit streams for big business.

It's fair to ask whether the new Barnes & Noble-run bookstore is the beginning of a series of commercial establishments on Emerson's expanding campus.

What else is to come? A McDonald's in the Paramount Center? A Store 24 in the Colonial Building?

The identity of Boston's neighborhoods is among the city's greatest assets, and disregard for that identity will only bring headaches and frustration.

For a college whose student body purports to be free-spirited and independent, Emerson's association with Barnes & Noble is incongruent at best.

Notice that the Emerson-frequented eatery on Tremont Street is not Subway, but New York Pizza.

Students don't look to hang out at the cafe in Borders on Boylston Street-they prefer the ambiance of the independent Trident Booksellers & Cafe on Newbury Street.

If money has to be spent on books, it should not be spent at a faceless corporation.

It is downright idiotic to buy a used book for $70 from Barnes & Noble when the student who sold the book to Barnes & Noble months before recieved far less for it.

There are a few notable alternatives to buying books at a corporation-controlled bookstore.

Google Product Search yields the best results, returning a list of copies of a book found at online stores.

Bargains on used or sale-priced books can be found on the Internet, and even after shipping, these prices regularly beat Barnes & Noble's.

Facebook.com supplies other options, like the user-run Emerson College Book Trade Group, which provides a forum for direct book exchange between students with no commercial intermediary to enact a drastic markup.

Also, the good karma of fostering a business relationship with an independent bookstore can pay dividends.

Owners will give discounts to regular customers.

A discount at Barnes & Noble? Don't even ask.

In this country, where many consider their right to vote meaningless, it must be noted-we vote every day.

In a capitalist system, the dollar is the vote, and a dollar spent at a large, personality-lacking store is a vote against what makes Boston a world-class city-its charming variety and old-world appeal.

At the least, picking up one's booklist at Barnes & Noble will not deter the advancing tide of the commercialization and standardization of Boston's personality.

Let Boston not fall to the fate of our suburbs, where retail chains bump elbows to score plots in strip malls or shopping centers, and where the "local" place to eat is T.G.I. Friday's or Applebee's.

The convenience of the school bookstore is tempting, but the consequences of its invasion of this campus are undeniable.

Vote for Boston: get your books elsewhere.

Goodbye for now

I know that I just got the blog up and running again, but for the time being, the Motley Spew will go into hibernation while I move my efforts over to the Berkeley Beacon Opinion Blog. I'm co-editor of the Beacon's opinion section this year, and am responsible for contributing to their blog. So please, follow me. Come along for the ride:

http://www.beaconopinion.blogspot.com/

Fred Thompson says get away from me i dont like fried snickers bars

Check this-the-hell-out: AP.

"Don't confuse the lawyer with the client." I'm sorry, but what? Virtuous, angelic Fred Thompson lobbies on behalf of a out-of-luck abortion-rights group. Does Mister Thompson consider his efforts to be on par with public defenders and pro bono publico attorneys? Surely no other lobbyist would have done the job in Thompson's stead. Washington is going through a lobbyist shortage, after all.

How about this, Fred Thompson: don't confuse the prostitute with the drunk guy nailing her in the backseat of his Cadillac.

"It has nothing to do with one's political views," Thompson said of his work for the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, "Lawyering is a profession and it's also a business."

So your conviction stop when you punch the time clock? I call shenanigans.

Also, what's up with the guy being so hesitant to rub elbows with potential supporters at the Iowa State Fair? He's six months (at least) behind the rest of the Republican field at this point. Move it, Fred! Time is running short.

I just can't take the guy seriously.

A couple weeks ago, upon my triumphant (?) return home from the Sunshine State, my Dad gave me a friendly suggestion for summer reading material: Culture Warrior, by the Bill O'Reilly. You know, the one with Mr. Bill standing up against a pristinely lighted Amercian flag in front of a scene of winter twilight while donning a stunning, highly reflective cerulean blue windbreaker?

I think the point Mr. O'Reilly is trying to make with the book is that winter is cold, and it is always prudent to bring along a couple extra layers.

Now, my dad is a conservative, and he's entitled to that. Conservatism has contributed immeasurably to the growth of these United States, and although I myself am probably more left than right, I have no problem with my Dad reading a righty book. Whatever. However, at this very moment, conservatism pisses me off, partly because its front men -- the Bush Administration and William Kristol -- are idiot assholes. Idiot. Assholes.

I told my dad I would be black-listed at Emerson for reading an O'Reilly book. He said it would be good to have a counterpoint for all the liberal indoctrination I've been subjected to: university, "the liberal media," and the stuffy, August New England air (I made that one up). I watch the Red Sox pretty much every day. Professional sports. That's pretty right-wing, isn't it?

I couldn't take this book seriously. I dismissed it before I even opened the cover (although I did eye-roll my way through the Introduction and the first chapter).

*This is where a transition would go if I cared enough tonight to write one.*

So anyways, Bill is always finding something to whine about, which is part of my problem with him. The man has a comically strong opinion about everything. It wears on you. Bill is always looking to blame something on someone because of some liberal or secular or elitist doohickey conspiracy. It hurts your head. Nothing can just be--it has to be someone's fault.

Enter Nas. On September 6, Virginia Tech will hold a memorial concert to commemorate the lives of the victims of the April campus shootings. Rap Artist Nas, John Mayer and Dave Matthews Band will perform at the event alongside local and campus artists.

O'Reilly, apparently unable to stomach the inclusion of Nas, posted the following in his blog:

If you would like to express your outrage at the inclusion of a violent "gangsta" rapper in a memorial concert at Virginia Tech this September, feel free to contact the university's president:

Dr. Charles W. Steger
President, Virginia Tech

Office of the President
210 Burruss Hall
Blacksburg, VA 24061

president@vt.edu
(540) 231-6231

Because this is what Virginia Tech needs. A bunch of Bill O'Reilly fans calling up and expressing their "outrage" over hip-hop. These are college kids, Bill, not the American Legion. This music is very much the norm.

I agree with you in this respect, Bill: a lot of hip-hop is detestable. But pick your spots! 32 people died. I assure you, after all the VTech community has been through, there will be no "outrage" over Nas performing at a concert.

I'll prob post again (like, something substantive) later today

I really hate Mitt Romney. Did you know his first name is Willard? It is. I hate him so much. Check out the tshirt I made (clickity click). Lols.

French President comes to Maine, does not Throw Wine in Bush's Face

Newly elected French President Nicolas Sarkozy dined with President Bush yesterday at the Bush family compound in Kennebunkport, Maine. The visit was billed as a casual affair and was expected to serve as an extended introduction/meet and greet for the two world leaders. Lobster, atlantic salmon and steamers were absent from the lunchtime menu, as seasonal seafood fare was passed over in favor of good ole' cookout-style Americana:

The visiting French president got American picnic fare of hot dogs, hamburgers, baked beans and fresh dessert.

"If he feels like it, he can have him a piece of blueberry pie," Bush declared.

After indulging the media by fielding questions -- and then prodding the talkative Sarkozy to do the same -- Bush wrapped up their brief appearance on his own terms.

"Thank you," he said. "We've got to go eat a hamburger."

--The Plain Dealer, 8/12 (story)

Get your fill of cheap ground beef and refined carbs, Nicolas. They don't do cuisine like this in la France! With nothing at stake in the meeting, the less-than-elegant spread makes sense. If your country doesn't have a stake in the Iraq War, the Bushies aren't breaking out the shellfish.

Both Bush and Sarkozy stressed that their meeting was to involve eating and eating only. Not policy, not pressing world affairs. Eating. And for all involved, this is just as well. Sarkozy is a conservative (by French standards), but he has no interest (or means) of throwing shit (that has not been sticking, mind you) at the wall with Bush in Iraq. Realizing this, Bush labeled their get together as a "casual" meeting, meaning: "I'm not going to try to get anything done because I can't get anything done," or "We've got to go eat a hamburger."

Hey, I don't like drinking directly out of the can. Cold Sores. Can I borrow an IOWA STRAWPOLL?

Mitt Romney is poised to run away with today's Iowa Strawpoll - an early and informal checkpoint for Republican Presidential candidates. The results of today's strawpoll (I don't care to wait for the returns as the outcome is not in doubt) should be carefully interpreted, given the logistics of the voting event. There is only one polling station - Ames, in the center of the 300x200 mile state - in all of Iowa, and in order to cast a ballot, voters must pony up $35 to pay for a fundraising dinner (to benefit the GOP of Iowa). Romney's campaign is even going so far as to pay voters' poll fee in exchange for a vote.

Rudy Giuliani and John McCain's campaigns both bailed out of strawpoll contention (and for the moment, Iowa as a whole) as it became clear that Mitt Romney (and his endless bundles of personal cash) would be the clear-cut victor in today's nonbinding contest. A consultant on Fred Thompson's campaign cited fear of a poor showing in Ames as a contributing factor for Thompson not yet officially declaring his candidacy.

This may be Romney's biggest victory today: forcing the other top tier candidates to clear out of Iowa while his campaign digs in. Also significant is the media exposure Romney will experience in the days after the vote. Mitt has made it clear: his (personal) money is his campaign's money, and he's not hesitant to spend either.

Ron Paul (to the surprise of everyone who doesn't post in politics-related internet forums) is also expected to have a strong showing.

EDIT:

"The straw poll was held on the campus of Iowa State University and is viewed as a test of organizational strength in Iowa. In almost every case, the candidates paid the $35 per person fee charged to vote in the straw poll. It's a major fundraiser for the state Republican Party." --CNN

I implied that Romney's paying voters for their support is extrordinary. In fact, it is not.

Trojan in a child-proof bottle

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/325351_planb27.html

Two weeks ago (who said the Internet is the way to stay current?), a Washington State law mandated all pharmacies be able to prescribe the Plan B contraceptive to customers went into effect. A pharmacy owner and two other pharmacists sued the state, saying the law put them in a comprimised position, forcing them to "choos[e] between their livelihoods and their deeply held religious and moral beliefs." According to state legislators (who, of course, do not serve on the federal court reviewing the case) nothing is expected to come from the lawsuit.

In my opinion (prepare ye for a completely out of place football analogy), contraceptives equate to interceptions, not punts. In other words, the morning-after pill acts more like a condom than an abortion, not killing an embryo, but preventing it from coming to exist. However, the pro-abortion rights/anti-abortion rights battle is not what interests me with this story.

So these pharmacists say that Plan B is contrary to "deeply held religious and moral beliefs"? Ok. For the moment, let's accept that Plan B is morally objectionable.

What about selling Ambien to an 80-year-old woman whose only sources of income are social security and the 3% interest on the $46.34 in her checking account? Is that not immoral? What about suggesting a patron cut pills in half because they can't afford the proper dosage? Selling the Glaxo Smith Cline pill for $120 when a generic brand is sitting there on the shelf for $50 to get a fatter cut on your commission? That's not immoral?

Can I sue my government for the FDA turning a blind eye to inflated drug prices while people all around the world can buy the same drugs for a fraction of the cost?

Yet when we put a condom in a pill, everyone freaks the heck out.

BLOG post #1

Henceforth, this blog will be formatted like a blog, not a disjointed, intermittent hodge-podge of random writings. I've decided that (after beginning and abandoning four or five potential next entries) this format of more frequent, informal updates will hold my attention (and your attention) more readily.

Last night's AFL-CIO Democratic debate and Sunday's "This Week with George Stephanopolis" Republican debate had me wondering. What if instead of separating debates by party lines, we had debates split up by the alphabet?

The A-H Debate: Democrats Joe Biden, Hilary Clinton, Christopher Dodd, John Edwards and Mike Gravel. Republicans Sam Brownback, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee and Duncan Hunter.

The K-Z Debate: Republicans John McCain, Mitt Romney, Tom Tancredo, Fred Thompson, Tommy Thompson and Ron Paul. Democrats Dennis Kucinich, Barack Obama and Bill Richardson.

How cool would that be? I vote very cool. This way, when Democrats hate on Republicans (or vice versa), they'd be there. Candidates would be forced to defend what they say, and bolster claims with logic or fact-based argument, not by making partisan snipes across the aisle. Such a debate would have to be moderated quite closely to keep things from getting too unruly, but the overall result would be worth the trouble: a wider range of expressed opinions within each debate and a more revealing look at candidates and their policy views.

However, it is unlikely something like this would ever happen, as candidates have to agree to the format of debates. Kucinich would debate in a Rotary Club in Kansas at 3am, but as far as the top-tier candidates - Clinton, Giuliani, Obama, Romney - go, I doubt they would subject themselves to something so unorthodox and potentially damaging.

It would be cool though.

GOP oh my me! Debate log and commentary.

Live log/commentary, 6/05 Republican Debate

This is mostly a response-by-response synopsis of tonight’s Republican debate. I did not do this for the Democratic debate because I didn’t feel like it. But trust me, their answers were just as flawed. The quotations I selected, of course, were what I myself found interesting, eloquent, or contradictory. Frankly, much of the time, I was out to poke holes in the responses of the respective candidates. I typed “applause” or “cheers” towards the beginning of the log, but I got lazy and stopped after a little while.

By the way—and I do not hide this at all—Mitt Romney sucks balls. I thought he was rather lacking tonight. For the first time in the campaign, he seemed old (he is 60). He looked slick, but was nonsensical and scattered. He tried to answer three questions in every one asked of him, and ended up being all over the map. At times he reminded me of Mike Gravel on the Democratic side. He needs to be rehearsed more. Too much of the true Mitt came through for his own good.

Giuliani spent the night slamming Democrats, not challenging the other Republican candidates. Will this extend his lead? I don’t know. It was a very odd tactical shift, in my eyes. Slamming President Bush has worked for the dudes (and gal) on the Democratic side, yet Rudy seems to have left an opening tonight for McCain by attacking the other side this early.

CNN’s “approval dial” gimmick is flat out stupid. That works in marketing and focus groups for pilots of TV shows, but not for politics. Ugh.

Mike Huckabee had the answer of the night on a questing about evolution (which Huckabee denied in the last debate). I like him. He seems genuine, and is also an inspirational presence, having lost and kept off 100 pounds .

John McCain won tonight’s debate, in my estimation. He was candid, funny, and feisty and seemed to return to the “straight talk”-style of his 2000 campaign. I disagree with him on many issues (most of all, the war), but his defense of his immigration policy was blunt, counter-strike-minded, and in touch with reason and fact.

With the buzz Ron Paul has generated (especially online and amongst Democrats), I wouldn’t be surprised if he ended up being courted as the libertarian party nominee.

Fred Thompson did not participate in tonight’s debate, but was present in the audience. Thompson still has time and a very, very good shot at the nomination.

Arianna Huffington’s headline after the last Republican Debate: “10 middle-aged white guys standing on a stage.” Tonight was more of the same. Hopefully there will be half as many in debates from this point on.

7:12

McCain: “We must succeed in this conflict.” Draws applause. “We must give [the troop surge and Gen. Patreus’ strategy] a chance to succeed.” Is four years fair?

7:13

Thompson: Let Iraqi parliament vote on US presence.

7:14

Hunter: Displace American “heavy combat forces” with Iraqi battalions.

7:15

Paul: “It was a mistake to go, so it’s a mistake to stay.” Surprisingly, a smattering of applause. Is this guy at the right debate?

7:15

Huckabee: First (two) mentions of Ronald Reagan of the night.

7:16

Tancredo: Nice evoking of Franklin: “[We have given the Iraqis] ‘a republic if you can keep it.’” “It is now up to you to keep it.”

7:17

Brownback: Wins the neckwear-of-the-night award. “Work with labor union movement inside of Iran.” Unions in Iran: good. In US: bad.

7:20

Hunter knows his stuff on the history of national defense. His policies are another issue.

7:20

Giuliani: Slams Democrats again. “[The War on Terror] is not a bumper sticker; this war is a real war.” (In response to John Edward’s assertion in the Dem’s debate.) The war is not a bumper sticker. Ok, Goo Gone won’t bring the troops home. Got it.

7:21

Gilmore: Why is this guy on the stage? And Paul? And T. Thomson? And Hunter? And Tancredo? Room needs to be made for Fred Thompson in the next debate (I think he’ll be in), and these guys have to make a move in their campaigns or leave.

7:22

I fucking hate Romney. “We’re not arrogant, we have resolve.” “Help move Islam towards modernity.” Applause.

7:23

Tancredo on immigration: Consequences of McCain-Kennedy would be “incredible, disastrous.” “Whether of not we will actually survive as a nation.” “Split apart into a lot of balkanized nations…talking about the English language…we are becoming a bilingual nation.” Applause. Ignorant cheers. Foolishness.

7:25

Giuliani: “Typical Washington mess…four or five compromises, everyone compromises.” “Throw out the ones who are not in the database.” HOW DO YOU FIND AND THROW OUT THE ONES IF THEY ARE NOT IN THE DATABASE!?!?!?

7:26

Romney on McCain and immigration: “He’s my friend.” Z-visa a real problem. “Illegal aliens.” Applause.

7:27

McCain: Pokes finger in Giuliani’s eye. “National security issue.” “For us to do nothing is silent and de facto amnesty.” We have come together. “If someone else has a better idea, I’d love them to present it to us”…that can have enough support to pass as legislation. Talks right through Blitzer stop sign. Cheers.

7:29

Giuliani: “Doesn’t provide for a unified database. Many countries have it. Our country doesn’t have it.”

7:30

Romney: Cracks a smile. What a phony bastard.

7:31

Hunter: “This is a disastrous bill.” “If they get across my fence we sign ‘em up for the Olympics immediately.” “It’s a bad bill.”

7:32

Brownback: First utterance of “comprehensive.” Surprising it took so long. He’s McCain on the bill.

7:34

Thompson: “Securing the border will allow everything else to follow.” “This bill, no matter how you cover it, is an amnesty bill.”

7:35

Paul: Voted for 834 mile US-Mexico fence. “Because of our economic conditions, we need workers…[the illegal immigrants] have become a scapegoat.”

7:36

Mass question on English as an official language: McCain brings up the sovereignty of Native Americans. Says there is a provision in the bill for immigrants to learn English.

7:37

SHUT UP ROMNEY. IT’S NOT YOUR TURN.

7:38

Fridge run

7:40

Giuliani on abortion: Lightning strikes/sound cuts out before Giuliani answers question! Omen? Hand of God? Big belly laughs all around.

7:41

Freaking Romney on abortion: “We were debating cloning…embryo farming…I want to make it clear I am pro-life…traditional marriage…abstinence education.” So not the question. Not the question! He’s being too broad with his answers.

7:42

Huckabee on evolution (or lack thereof): “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth.” Very eloquent. “Six days or six days that represent a period of time.” I like him a lot. Outstanding response. Answer of the night.

7:45

Brownback: Why does he squint so much? “How He did it, I don’t know.” “Faith in science…aren’t at odds with each other…we should engage faith and reason like St. Anslem did.

7:46

McCain: Tips cap to Huckabee. Deservedly so. “All of our children in school can be taught different views on different issues…I leave that up to the school boards.”

7:47

Romney: That guy in New Hampshire said he would never vote for a Mormon. That I don’t care about. I’ll never vote for a total dick.

7:48

Paul: “We don’t have one case fit all.” Libertarian/local philosophy of politics.

7:49

Giuliani on global warming: “I think we have to accept the view that scientists have…and there is a way to deal with it and address it…also a matter of national security…we need a project similar to putting a man on the moon.

7:50

Romney on energy: “I’d like to see big oil invest in refineries.” “Biofuel...ethanol…more drilling in ANWR.”

7:52

McCain: Nuclear power. “Alternate energy sources…national security issue.”

7:54

Ron Paul’s eyebrows are too high for a Republican’s.

7:55

Ron Paul on don’t ask don’t tell: “I think this policy is a decent policy.” Homosexual and heterosexual activity in the military should be “dealt with” (meaning prohibited).

7:57

Giuliani on homosexual translators in the military: “This is not the time to deal with a disruptive issue like this…this would not be the right time to raise these issues.”

7:58

Romney flip flops on don’t ask don’t tell. For it in 1994, against it now. “I turned out to be wrong.” Please America; don’t elect this person who has been “wrong,” and has had “revelations,” on just about everything.

7:59
McCain: “Terrific mistake to even reopen this issue…it is working my friends.”

8:00

Mass question on don’t ask don’t tell. Complete inverse of Democrats (all support current policies).

How would you use George W. Bush?

8:00
Thompson: “I would certainly not send him to the United Nations.” Deafening silence! Awkward tension. Sweet. “I think he would help young people realize that public service is a very worthy cause.”

8:02

Brownback: “President Clinton…should defer himself to the person in the job.” (Meaning President Bush.)

8:03

Tancredo: “I’m afraid I would have to tell George W. Bush the same thing Karl Rove told me.” (Take a hike.)

8:04

Hunter turns question on hypothetical Scooter Libby pardon into a Ramos and Compeon question. Sly maneuver. Applause.

8:06

Giuliani and Romney refuse to abide by yes/no question on Libby. Brownback and Tancredo would pardon Libby. Applause? Really?

8:07

Reassembly of stage for “town hall”-style segment.

8:14

Back to debate.

8:14

Question from sister of soldier killed in Iraq War. What would you as commander-in-chief to bring this conflict to a point in which we can safely bring my troops home?

8:15

Duncan Hunter’s son is in Afghanistan right now! That I did not know. “Standing up the Iraqi Army.”

8:16

Brownback. Wasn’t listening. I’m getting tired.

8:17

McCain rises from seat, looks woman in eye to answer question. I dislike him less and less. “This is long and hard and tough. I believe we can succeed, and God bless you.” Wow, excellent, emotional, real life answer. Lump in my throat right now. Don’t count this guy out! He’s still a stand up guy.

8:19

Paul: “Just leave!” “Give them an incentive!” “We have a lot of goodness in this country, but never through the barrel of a gun…like the neo-cons say…it doesn’t work.”

8:21

Giuliani: “We didn’t take the second step…people can only live in democracy if they have an orderly existence.”

8:22

Do you believe a conservative platform can mesh with a conservationist agenda?

8:22

Gilmore: “I believe it can.”

8:24

Tancredo: “Teddy Roosevelt…” “Make conservation profitable.”

8:25

Prescription drug costs. US vs. rest of world?

8:25

Giuliani: “Major tax deduction so you can buy your own health insurance.” “Should become like homeowners insurance, like health insurance.” “We need a free market.” Slams Dems again. “When we make health insurance free, just wait and see how expensive it’ll become.” Great answer. I’m with him 100% on this.

8:28

Hunter: “We need to be able to buy our insurance policies across state lines, Wolf.” Another good point.

8:29

Single-payer system in which the government acts as the insurer?

8:29

Thompson: 7% of health care monies spent on prevention. 93% after they get sick. Wellness system. Educate on cardiovascular, obesity (he himself could learn a few things). Go paperless on healthcare, you’ll save 10%. Reps beating pants of Dems on answers on this issue!

8:31

Romney on Mass healthcare plan. “Personal responsibility.” “I’m the guy who actually tackled this issue.” “The market works.” Well-rehearsed response.

8:32

What is the most pressing moral issue facing the country today?

8:33
Huckabee is genuinely funny! Sanctity of every human life. “Beyond the gestation period, we have not demonstrated as demonstratively as we should”…caring for peoples in all stages of life.

8:34

Giuliani: “We have great gifts in this country that come to us from God.” “Are we able to share those gifts with the rest of the world?” “The way Ronald Reagan did with Communism.” “Not just American ideals, they come from God.”

8:36

Paul: Pre-emptive war not part of American tradition. “We have rejected the just war tradition of Christianity.” “We have to come to our senses about this issue.” “Not to think that we can change the world by force of arms.”

8:37

Brownback: “I am pro-life. I am whole life.” “We’ve been a party that has stood for a culture of life.” “Applies to someone in poverty, applies to someone in Darfur.”

8:38

Question for Romney: You’ve been accused of flip-flopping on immigration? Spanish speaking version of website! Spanish advertisements! You said ENGLISH SHOULLD BE OFFICIAL LANGUAGE! “Reach out to them in any language I can.” (What a tool.) Rambled. Came off as batty. Irrelevant musings.

8:41

Tancredo: “No I would not advertise in Spanish.” “Bilingual countries don’t work.” Hmm. Don’t tell Canada that.

8:42

McCain: “First of all, Governor, Muchas Gracias.” Laughs, applause, Tancredo pisses pants. (McCain still has some fight!) Go to Vietnam War Memorial: you’ll find a lot of Hispanic Names. Same in Iraq and Afghanistan. “These are God’s children…they have enriched our country and our culture”…as every population before them. He’s been spot-on tonight.

8:44

McCain on why Republicans were defeated: “Spending, spending, spending.” “We’ve got to stop the earmarks.” “I’ll veto every bill that has a pork barrel project on it.” (Impossible. Pipe dream. You’ll veto everything. But hey, he said it in his own accord, and this has been his stated position as far back as we can remember.)

8:45

What has been President Bush’s greatest mistake?

Giuliani: Establish accountability in Washington.

Romney: Going from large bore to small bore. Ronald Regan... (What the hell is he talking about?)

Brownback: Taking on and ending cancer within 10 years.

Thompson: We didn’t come up with new ideas. Make sure we really are conservatives.

Tancredo: “The President ran as a conservative and governed as a liberal.”

Paul: “No nation-building and no policing of the world.”

Gilmore: Principles. Immigration, spending, taxes. Hilary Clinton is wrong (she also is not on the stage or President Bush).

Hunter: Pass policies constant with the American family.

Huckabee: Lack of communication with the people.

8:49

What does it mean to be American?

Tancredo: “If you come here as an immigrant: welcome.” “Let’s be serious about this, guys.” “Are we ready for a time out?” (How old is he? You guys? Time out?) “The process of assimilation is not going on.” “Until we have to press 1 for English, and 2 for any other language.” (and 3 to deport Tom Tancredo. That would be great irony.)

Huckabee: If you come here, you come here through the same process by which we would come to another country.

Giuliani: Abraham Lincoln, who fought the Know-Nothing movement, said “how much do you believe in freedom.” “If we lose that, we lose the genius of what”....America truly is.

McCain: To share a common principle of inalienable lights endowed by God. Still a beacon of hope and liberty. Invokes Reagan.

8:54

What would you do to bring back moderate Republicans and Republicans turned independents?

Gilmore: “I believe conservatism still stands for all people.” “We understand the value of every single person as a taxpayer.”

Hunter on Schwarzenegger: No. Romney has passed socialism in healthcare reform.

Romney: Ronald Reagan. Stool with three legs: strong military, strong economy, and strong family and strong family value. And optimism.

Giuliani: “The way to accomplish what you want is to nominate me.” Touché. “Fight this impulse to raise taxes, socialize medicine.”

McCain: “Protect our American family.” “Radical Islamic terrorism.” “Transcendent struggle between good and evil.”

Pretty much the most balls research paper you'll ever see in a "blogspot" blog. Ever.

Chris Girard

Honors Writing Symposium, MWF 2:30-3:45

Professors Dulgarian, Byrne

11 April, 2007

The Sound Bite, the Television Newscast and the Coverage of Politics

My opponent, my opponent won’t rule out raising taxes. But I will. And the Congress will push me to raise taxes and I’ll say no. And they’ll push, and I’ll say no, and they’ll push again, and I’ll say, to them, ‘Read my lips: no new taxes.’ (Bush)

When George Herbert Walker Bush spoke these now infamous words at the 1988 Republican National Convention, he had no idea how well they would catch on. Unfortunately for Bush, his words would not “catch on” in his favor. “Read my lips: no new taxes.” Punchy and bold. Grabbing and provocative. But above all: absolute and confining. A sound bite was born. Bush’s convention speech pledge, encapsulated in a short video clip, would be replayed throughout the television universe for years, especially after the Bush Administration raised taxes in 1990. Bush, failing to rectify the error of his words, lost his attempt at reelection in 1992.

—Introduction, Thesis, and Definitions—

Introduction

“Sound bites,” as they are commonly known, have deeply and profoundly changed the world of television journalism, particularly its coverage of politicals. In the sound bite era, all news stories, including factual and event-based reporting (fires or accidents, natural disasters, or human interest stories) experience significant structural and methodological changes, but coverage of stories in the political realm have changed most of all. Politics, the process by which groups make decisions, can be observed in all human interactions (albeit in differing forms), including those of the religious, familial, academic, corporate, and governmental spheres (“Politics”). In a democracy, political matters can be defined as those where one or more parties are attempting to win the loyalty or support of another party (or parties) or the public at large. Fires and car accidents are not political[1]. They are not in the business of persuasion, nor do they aim to pander or stage politicized stunts. Sound bites incorporated into a story on a dog show will not mislead a viewer in such a way that they will come away with erroneous interpretations of the event that took place. In such “factual” stories, the viewer will not have a political opinion requested of them. Most of the information construed in the report is matter-of-fact[2]. However, when it comes to politics, the use (or misuse) of sound bites in a news story can mean everything. Comprehensiveness and close analysis are crucial in the reporting of politics, as the meaning of politician’s[3] words is difficult to deconstruct when out of their original context (this, of course, can be a great boon to politicians). Upon critical analysis, political rhetoric often means the exact opposite of what a 10 second sound bite, haphazardly transplanted into a news report, appears to mean at first glance. A complex idea—political or non-political—cannot be comprehensively encapsulated in a 10-second clip. The sound bite has had a detrimental effect on the quality of news coverage, and impoverishes citizens of well-constructed reporting. David Scheuer, author of The Sound Bite Society, states:

The outward symptoms of that impoverishment are everywhere: mindless and manipulative political advertising, shallow political dialogue and equally shallow TV news programs; a wide (but not always informed) mistrust of both media and political figures and institutions; electoral turnout below half of all eligible voters. (Scheuer 3)

The sound bite, however, is too profitable a device to fall out of use simply because it cannot accurately represent context and meaning. Sound bites provide politicians with free, easy, timely publicity (provided they are not “gaffe bites”—sound bites of a politician’s mistake). For their part, networks[4] fill up space in their newscasts and bring themselves closer to the next set of commercials without inciting controversy and anger (against themselves, not the politicians) over the content of their stories. Sound bites can even help networks promote their own product when their clips are “bitten”[5] by other networks. The sound bite is a product of technological advances in the forming of television news, and namely, the switch from manual film editing to computer editing. This switch facilitated the use of the sound bite and transformed the conventional wisdom and methodology of political reporting.

Thesis

The sound bite is a weak journalistic tool, and contributes to the fragmentation of television newscasts. News can no longer be presented as analytical, pensive footage, but must be a rapidly-moving series of images, sound bites, and audio from correspondents that tells a story—the news narrative. Marshall McLuhan calls this fast-paced narrative the television “mosaic” form. The sound bite produces a news product that attracts viewers, and as television news is driven by ratings, not information, the sound bite has a strong allure. Sound bites decontextualize statements, and despite newsmen’s efforts to explain sound bites within news reports, a change in meaning is inevitable. Politicians have altered their rhetoric to fit within the world of sound bite news. Using snappy, punchy language, politicians speak in “the language of sound bites” to attempts to be quoted (in a sound bite) on news programs. Sound bites provide a means for politicians to communicate a message to the public wherever a camera is present. Whenever a politician’s words are recorded, they are being surveyed in the newsroom, which in turn could lead to the selection of bitable sections to be rebroadcast on the news. The sound bite exists within the symbiotic relationship of politicians and newsmen. In continuing the rhetorical strategies and journalistic practices within which the sound bite exists, these two groups follow a “sound bite contract” of sorts. Unless the practices of one or both of these parties changes, the sound bite will remain deeply entrenched in television news.

Layout of paper

Although the sound bite can be used on television outside of the journalism field, this paper will focus only on the applications of the sound bite in the journalistic context. Sound bites are one of the favorite devices of political strategists in composing political advertising, and in particular, “attack ads.”[6] Because of the importance of this use of the sound bite, this paper will not attempt to include it as subject matter, for fear of oversimplifying and not devoting proper effort for analysis and explanation.

The progression of this paper’s argument is topical, and begins with a definition of the sound bite and an explanation of the theories of Marshall McLuhan (namely, “the medium is the message”). Next, the paper will move onto a historical survey of the sound bite (tracking, in part, the trend of the shortening of the sound bite) and the television medium. From there, the paper will discuss the ramifications of the sound bite on the nature of political events and the formulation of rhetoric by politicians. The sound bite has turned what were at one time process-oriented governmental proceedings (such as those in Congress) into jockeying events in which politicians try to “score” top sound bites on the news. Also, politicians and political strategists have adapted masterfully to the sound bite, embracing the “punchiness” and rhetorical grandstanding of “the language of sound bites” and learning how to fill speeches and statements with “biteable” bursts of language. Then we will move into the newsroom to explore the technical elements of the sound bite and how the sound bite relates to the composition of the newscast. Here, it will be shown that the politician-newsman relationship is symbiotic, and that the sound bite fulfills urgent needs of both groups: time taken occupied on newscasts for newsmen and publicity for politicians. An analysis of the economic aspects of the sound bite will then occur, centering on news networks, ratings and self-promotion. It will be seen how the sound bite can act in boosting ratings for a newscast while giving a network visibility in the news universe when material from their programming is rebroadcast on other stations. After that the paper will explore “image politics” and the overwhelmingly superior role a politician’s personality (verses a politician’s policies) plays in voters’ decision-making processes. The paper will then move on to a case-study of Joe Biden’s recent comments on Barack Obama and the media-fed controversy that resulted. This will provide an explanation of the workings of the “gaffe bite” and how the television newscast swarms around politicians’ verbal mistakes, which can do them serious harm. The paper will then conclude with closing comments and final evaluation of the thesis. Headings and footnotes have been added to add to the ease of navigating the paper.

Definition

The exact definition of a sound bite is not standardized like a unit of measurement, but sound bites have common characteristics and are easily recognizable. The following is my personal definition of the sound bite, observed from my research and my personal study of the television medium:

1.) First and foremost, a sound bite is a relatively brief video and audio excerpt clip of a speaker making a statement. An attributed quotation or clips with voice-overs are not sound bites[7].

2.) Sound bites cannot stand alone. Newscasts must in some way preface or introduce a sound bite via verbal explanation, graphics, captions, or voiceovers. They are not self-sustaining.

3.) Sound bites are mono-topical. A proper sound bite will last long enough for a speaker to comment on one topic, and end when he/she moves on to something different.

4.) Sound bites are memorable. Newsmen and newswomen aim to select sections of statements that are catchy, emotional, or are repeated or stressed by the speaker.

5.) Although an audio clip with no video (as on radio) can be a sound bite, the visual component of television sound bites is crucial. The visual components are often as influential, or more influential, than the verbal element of the sound bite.

The study of the sound bite must be understood within the framework of the critical study of the television medium. Television has distinctive qualities, and viewers consume television and are affected by television differently than any by other medium. Marshall McLuhan, estimable author of Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man, developed the revolutionary concept that “the medium is the message” (9). Writing “it is the medium that shapes and controls the scale and form of human association and action,” McLuhan argues that in the information process, media themselves are more important than the content they deliver. McLuhan illustrates this dramatically (and hyperbolically) when he claims that it would not matter whether television broadcasted all children’s shows or all violent programming—the effects of the extension of human consciousness, which television requires[8], and television consumption would be the same[9]. This is applicable in the study of the “content” of television sound bites. McLuhan marks two groundbreaking technological advances in modern human history: the use of movable type for printing in the mid-fifteenth century and the harnessing of electricity in the late nineteenth century. These advances, McLuhan says, greatly altered the media of their respective eras, and in doing so, greatly altered content as well. He writes “slow down type-setting and news gathering, and there occurs a change, not only in the physical appearance of the [newspaper] text, but in the prose style of those writing for it” (206). “The medium is the message”: the nature of the communicative device is more important than the communication itself. Inevitably, this creates favorable (and unfavorable) types of information for each medium. Television demands immediacy: “the introspective life of long, long thoughts and distant goals, to be pursued in lines of Siberian railroad kind, cannot coexist with the mosaic form of the TV image that commands immediate participation in depth and admits of no delays” (325). Sound bites help viewers indulge in this preference.

—History of Sound Bite and the Television Medium—

The sound bite is ever-present and ever-dominant in today’s television news program. The exact point in time where the sound bite began being used is a difficult to determine fact, but it came into prominence during the 1952 Presidential election, a time when televisions were becoming more and more common in the American home and when networks were in a fierce competition for viewers. Todd Gitlin writes “the term sound bite made the transition from backstage professional jargon to the public lexicon because sound bites became standard practice” by politicians and the newscasters who delivered them (Gitlin 96).

In 1968, the average “sound bite” was 42.8 seconds long[10] (Russomanno). The practical conditions of the editing process motivated the extended length of these clips. When putting together newsreels, newsmen performed the laborious and time-consuming task of physically cutting sections of film tape together. Naturally, due to the difficulty of editing, news broadcasts featured lengthened shots (Barnhurst and Steele 21). This was not just true for the length of sound bites, but for shots of anchors, correspondents, file footage, and scenic imagery as well.

Editing programs on computers have since replaced manual methods, and can splice digitally captured video and audio together with relative ease. While the bulkiness of manual editing mandated longer shots, video editing facilitates a new, more rapid pace for television news: “when previously they acted as news readers on the air, journalists now rejected the old structure based on radio-news-with-pictures and developed something unique to television: a chain of images overlaid onto a fast-paced narrative” (Barnhurst and Steele 21). The transformation was drastic. An age of “new television” was born. This is a prime example of change in a medium reflected in a change of the medium’s content message. As the technological capabilities of the news networks changed, the content of their newscasts evolved. One of the leading tools of developing this narrative structure is the sound bite, which “was born in the news room,” Sig Mickleson writes, “not in the fertile brain of the candidate handler” (167). By 1988, only 1% of sound bites were at least 40 seconds long, and the average sound bite length dropped to 9.8 seconds (Russomanno). The trend of sound bite shortening has continued, and in 2000, the average sound bite was 7.8 seconds long (Gitlin 96).

Critics of network newscasts reasoned that the brevity of sound bites used in news reports was manipulative and unfair to politicians. In response to these cries, CBS took what was to be a major transformative step in their journalistic practice, instituting an “edict during the summer of 1992 that all presidential candidate sound bites on evening newscasts would not be less than thirty seconds, except under unusual circumstances” (Russomanno). The events that ensued were disturbing. “CBS executive producer Erik Sorenson eventually scaled back the 30-second rule to twenty” seconds and even made exceptions for bite with lengths in the high teens or for “especially punchy quotes”. Sorensen said the decree “felt awkward,” that the time parameter was “arbitrary,” and that “producers who grind out four or five pieces a week are used to a certain kind of pace” (Russomanno). In two minute long reports, expectations of the inclusion of thirty second clips of both George Herbert Walker Bush and Bill Clinton (never even mind Ross Perot) was difficult, if not impossible. Reporters were given a decree that attempted to improve the level of their journalism, but were not given realistic time parameters to work with. As the length of the newscast did not change, and the number of segments in a program did not change, segment length could not be extended. “Time dictates almost everything in radio and television news,” Clarence Jones writes. Due to a lack of sufficient time, a change of rules did not result in a lasting change of content.

Recalling McLuhan’s theorem that “the medium is the message,” it follows that a change in the medium itself results in a change in message (or content). One major development in the television medium that has greatly impacted the presentation of TV’s message is the remote control. “Remotes,” as they are sometimes called, were first available on the commercial market in 1956[11] (“Remote”). Remotes give television viewers more sovereignty over what they choose to watch. If they are bored or offended by a particular program, or if a show goes to a commercial break, they can, without the obstacle of having to physically move to the television, change the channel. Television viewers, as a result of this immediacy and ease the remote brings to “channel flipping,” have become more discerning—or maybe just less patient—in what they watch. Some viewers may switch away from a newscast during a segment (entertainment, for example) that does not interest them. Viewers of sports games may even switch channels in between pitches (if watching baseball) or downs (if watching football). Television newscasts, as a result of a viewer’s expedited ability to change channels, have become very conscious of audience preference of nearly everything, including segment length, interaction between broadcast personalities (often called “banter”), news studio color scheme and layout[12], what stories are covered, and most significantly, how stories are presented. As has been stated, the sound bite helps networks present their newscasts as narratives by altering setting and keeping the viewer engaged. And of course, keeping the viewer engaged is paramount in keeping them from changing to another channel.

The C-SPAN (the Cable-Satellite Public Affairs Network) television networks are an interesting case of “anti-sound bite” political coverage: all raw, unedited material and little to no fragmentation of events for news reporting purposes. Founded in 1979, C-SPAN (along with sister station C-SPAN2) devotes itself to recording every moment of United States Congressional floor proceedings (and a significant portion of committee proceedings) for viewing by the public. C-SPAN, a non-profit organization, does not sell advertisements. Fees from cable and satellite television customers are C-SPAN’s primary source of funding, and contrary to popular belief, the network receives no money from the US government. Ironically, the presence of C-SPAN cameras in the chambers of Congress has facilitated the sound bite, providing an endless supply of stock footage for networks to choose from. C-SPAN has a small, devoted cache of viewers, and does not exist to compete with any of the major newscasts or news networks. Representatives of the largest cable companies make up C-SPAN’s board of directors, and these individuals surely do not want more competition for own their respective news networks (“C-SPAN”).

In 1982, three years after the launch of C-SPAN, two public affairs programs made their respective television debuts: The McLaughlin Group and Crossfire[13]. These shows contrasted old-style political affairs programming, moving at a faster rate to better fit the pace of “new television.” Gitlin writes that “the McGlaughlin Group sped up the pace of pundit gabfests, making glibness, quickness, loudness, and rudeness routes to pundit fortunes” (97). MSNBC pundit/anchor and former McGlaughlin Group panelist Chris Matthews believes this element of speed was essential: “John knew that speed was the missing element in public affairs television” (Gitlin 97). Crossfire (cancelled in 2005 by CNN) is another prime example of speed and loudness in political debate programming. Unlike the McLaughlin Group, Crossfire is broadcast live in front of a studio audience, which encourages pandering and grandstanding by panelists. Often times, panelists (James Carville especially) would completely ignore other members of the panel while speaking, facing out to “work the crowd”: speaking directly to the audience to try to get them to react (“Crossfire”). Crossfire panelists, compelled to draw rounds of applause from the audience, would work in punchy, emotional lines into their remarks to cue the audience. The goal was not defeating the opposite side of the panel (the show divided panelists into the left versus right dialectic to promote simplicity and clearness of narrative) through logic or reason, but to speak in the language of sound bites to drive the audience into a frenzy of cheers and applause, embarrassing the other side into conceding a point.

In 1983, 50 corporations controlled the vast majority of the news media in the United States. Twenty years later, in 2004, a mere five corporations—Time Warner, Disney, Rupert Murdoch-owned News Corporation, Bertelsmann of Germany, and Viacom—control the majority share of the United States’ news media (“Media”). Television networks find it virtually impossible to survive outside of these major companies. With so few companies owning the networks that make the news, conflicts of interest in the reporting of news are frequent. In addition to the tailoring of news’ subject matter to fit the expectations of the viewing audience (who look to be entertained), news must satisfy the corporate interest of whichever media company the newscast’s network belongs.

—Sound Bite Driving Political Presentation, Influencing Political Rhetoric—

The proliferation of the sound bite encourages and rewards superficial, slogan-heavy speaking with exposure on newscasts, encouraging politicians to fill their remarks with snappy, rhetorical quips. Jeffery Scheuer dubs this the “politics of zingers”: a content-light style of discourse that rewards rhetors for climbing onto their soapboxes and steering clear of in-depth discussions of issues. This is the primary reason why former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, for example, was not the subject of many sound bites. Although the implications of lowering/raising interest rates greatly affects the entire economy and is usually a top news story, it is not appropriate subject matter for a sound bite, as it is nearly entirely analytical, and lacks slogans or flashy images. A 15 second excerpt from a statement by Greenspan on the relation of monetary policy or economic outlook would not convey a complete idea. Sound bites cannot be used for items like these: intricate, technocratic issues that do not invoke strong emotion. Greenspan, who is no longer Chairman of the Federal Reserve, can create sound bites, however, when he says things like “when you get this far away from a recession invariably forces build up for the next recession, and indeed we are beginning to see that sign,” as he did on February 25 (“Greenspan”). Immediately, the sound bite potential of Greenspan’s statement was recognized, and networks across the country featured the statement in their newscasts. Sound bites translate into free press for a political figure, are vastly cheaper than producing political advertisements, and are more widely seen and immediate than appearances on television news programs.

Competition amongst politicians and news networks for the top sound bite turns closely watched proceedings—Supreme Court Justice nominee hearings, for example—into less of a governmental process than a political horserace. Genard sees this as a key skill for public officials: “the shrinking space for news rewards the speaker who can capture a key idea in a lively turn of phrase.” Genard also says to “speak in ways that create visual images in listeners’ minds, using simple, concrete language and, where possible, sim­­­iles, metaphors, and analogies.” With C-SPAN recording every moment of the action in Congress, politicians never definitively step out of the limelight. As Scheuer puts it, “virtually all political actions and communications—not just political ads but also floor speeches by legislators, news conferences, debates, and party conventions—are designed expressly for consumption as sound bites by a TV audience” (29). Because of this, the distinction between interview and non-interview situations is blurred—politicians can speak, via sound bite rhetoric, to newscasts (and ergo, viewers) in similar ways. Now, when politicians are speaking on the record in Congress, they are not speaking to their colleagues or even to C-SPAN viewers as much as they are to newsmen, who are searching for bite-able statements for their newscasts. As Genard explains, television and its viewers prefer “the pithy attack over substantive articulation of position or policy” (Genard). Nonetheless, such attacks cannot be overtly malicious, as “candidates must maintain a positive image and simultaneously engage in the confrontation that shapes public perceptions of leadership” (Whaley and Holloway 298). Candidates must stay “cool” in order to stay aligned with the “cool” television medium and not disenfranchise viewers.

In order to score a sound bite, a speaker usually abandons analysis and argument and pursues showy, slogan-based speech—a “language of sound bites,” if you will. This is reinforced in Gary Genard’s letter on communication strategy to business professionals, titled “The Four Secrets to Delivering the Right Sound Bites”. The four “secrets” are controlling the agenda; using stories, visual images, and personal examples; thinking [in] “headlines”; and being enthusiastic, composed, and confident (Genard). In order to score the headline news story, Genard tells communicators to compress “verbal expression by envisioning your words as a headline.” Scheuer writes that the structure of television news, “by weighing political discourse towards symbols, images, slogans, and sound bites, TV rewards simpler messages” (34). Rhetorical strategies have become more “hook-centric” than information-centric: “whether we are writing or speaking, the more “hooks” we get into our readers or audience members, the less likely they will drift away” (Struck). Sig Mickleson expresses how simply politicians adjusted their rhetorical strategies to accommodate the sound bite:

Candidates developed expertise in formulating colorful 15-second statements that they could drop into answers or questions. In some cases they even bought ‘bites’ from specialists who wrote them for a fee. Broadcast reporters became adept at looking for them. […]Campaign managers and candidates quickly adjusted to the new environment. (Mickleson 61-2)

Sound bites severely weaken genuine extemporaneous speaking in political settings. Improvisation is no longer advisable practice for political figures. Political advisors are hyper-aware of what can go wrong if a politician makes an inflammatory remark, and as a result, politicians and press secretaries are pre-rehearsed on desirable responses to questions that could potentially be posed by reporters or asked in Presidential debates: “Candidates have learned to recite memorized or scripted passages, to display appropriate emotion and act “presidential,” and artfully to avoid discussion of troublesome topics” (Whillock 44). Memos circulate “talking points” so that staffers will all speak in the same rhetorical language without revealing excess information or saying something foolish. Pre-engineered, sound bite-compatible language is less dangerous that speaking freely off the top of one’s head. That way, politicians are less likely to make gaffes or to appear incoherent or domineering. The security of a transcript comforts politicians, and is preferable over press conferences, when the field of questions is open, and a list of answers is not available.

—Technical Elements of the Sound Bite in the Newscast—

Sound Bite and the Interests of Newscasts and Politicians

Sound bites reward both politicians and news broadcasts, as politicians can deliver package-sized synopses of their claims to the public, and news programs can keep their broadcasts fresh, flashy, and visually entertaining. The relationship between politicians and television news (the dynamic within which the sound bite thrives) is symbiotic—both sides have profound needs fulfilled. Scheuer writes “television has granted politicians a conduit for reaching viewing audiences with little or no mediation by journalists” (29). The Reagan Administration, Scheuer writes, “perfected the use of political symbols, and the manipulation of the news media—and especially TV—in using them, in effect turning news stories into free political ads” (79). The cable news networks are very receptive to sound bites, as every bite X seconds long brings them X seconds closer to a commercial break (their source of revenue), and therefore, to the end of their program. These news networks do not wish to report 24 hours of news or produce 24 hours worth of segments each day—that would be far too risky, expensive and laborious. Instead, sound bites are “free time”: free (monetarily) for the politician and nearly free (labor-wise) for the journalist, who merely has to hit “record”.

Sound bites are one of the major reasons 24-hour news networks can exist. Such networks re-run their top programs two or three times in a day, which dramatically reduces the volume of news that needs to be produced. Nonetheless, with re-runs factored in, a given network still needs to produce 12-14 hours of news a day. Although sound bites have grown significantly shorter over time, they are used more frequently than in previous eras and take up a significant portion of newscasts. As has been stated, news stations do not wish to provoke or offend, but aim to provide the viewer with a sense of informativeness while not offending the viewer, other parts of the media, or outside entities, which would entail negative repercussions (possibly including loss of advertising sponsors) for the networks. Sound bites, which are self-proving and do not invoke ire (towards networks), are an essential vehicle for a network getting to 24 hours of news.

On the whole, sound bites are a “safe” form of journalism. One cannot be indicted for plagiarizing a sound bite. Sound bites (unless manipulated, taken severely out of context or embedded within a slanted report) cannot be accused of being unfair or slanderous[14]. The integration of sound bites requires minimal writing on the journalists’ part and can be edited very simply into a news sequence. When used within news reports, sound bites simply “are”: they do not frequently offend or incite anger[15], and if any anger is incited, if any emotion is generated, it is towards the speaker of the sound bite, not the program that delivers it. News programs are largely ratings-driven, and aim to attract the largest audience possible. In non-news settings (talk radio, punditry), the goal may be to gain market share by being overtly partisan, but most television news outlets either keep their agenda implicit or try to appear to be non-partisan and objective. The great dance of reporting is to tell your audience enough so they believe themselves to be “informed”, but not to tell them so much they accuse you of bias, defame you for being indecent, or change loyalties to a competitor. Sound bites are a great tool in achieving this goal.

Sound Bites as Image

The term “sound bite” is somewhat of a misnomer. Sound is only a fraction of the information sound bites have to offer. Images enter the picture as well, and play a large role in contextualizing the words of a rhetor and in giving visual clues to fill in logic or argument-based gaps a brief sound bite could not contain. Such “image bites” have grown increasingly prevalent in television news as sound bites have become shorter in length, becoming unable to speak (through verbal means) for themselves. In fact, “‘Image bites’ now far outnumber the sound bites that have received so much attention” (Barnhurst and Steele 2). Barnhurst and Steele argue that “in a society grown more visual and less verbal, the image takes on political force” (23). Slogans on banners or canvas backgrounds complement a politician’s words, and often stay with the viewer longer than words themselves, especially if the words are not particularly memorable. When George W. Bush declared an end to major combat operations in Iraq in May of 2003, it was the images of the occasion that endured, not the words. In the months after Bush’s speech, as it became apparent that the mission in Iraq was still unfinished, Bush was not criticized for any of the comments he made that day, but for the use of the large “Mission Accomplished” sign hung behind him on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln. Many people saw the banner as proof that the administration had been negligent in their approach to the war. In his speech, Bush said “the transition from dictator to democracy will take time” and “our coalition will stay until our work is done,” which suggests the Bush Administration was expecting and preparing for a long-term military operation. Yet these words did not save Bush from public outrage, as the press and public focused on the image and message of the “Mission Accomplished” sign (“Bush”). “Pictures overwhelm words,” Jeffery Scheuer writes in Sound Bite Society, “they have a superficial wholeness, an appearance of totality and credibility that makes them harder to erase, revise, or replace with images of the mind’s own conjuring” (111). Politicians must be careful in using images; the backlash against them can be great. On the other hand, the payoff favorable image bites can bring is just as powerful. Ronald Reagan displayed great adeptness at using images to further his personality and political message. One of the most famous images of Reagan is him light-heartedly smiling, dressed in rancher clothing wearing a slightly crooked cowboy hat. The image construed confidence, a sense of humor, “every man”-ness, personality, and fearlessness in leadership like few sound bites plucked out of speeches could.

Sound Bites and the Interview

In his article about the lifting of sound bites from interviews, Mats Nylund sheds light on the practice of turning an interview into a news report. Nylund calls the interview “‘the fundamental act’ of contemporary journalism” (Nylund). Although interviews are a series of questions and answers, they are seldom presented as such on newscasts: “instead, sound-bites from the interviews in combination with other material make up the news stories” (Nylund). A typical method of incorporating sound bites into a report “is by excluding the prior question to which the utterance was usually a reply”. This rearranging is not without consequences: “the practice of quoting can be described as a recontextualization” and, as “the meaning of any new utterance is dependant on the context where it is uttered or presented, a change in context implies also a change in meaning” (Nylund). Interviewees, in granting interviews and speaking on camera, cede control: “when you donate film clips, however, you donate control” (Gitlin 125).

The new meaning of these statements may reflect, in Nylund’s estimation, “the contours of the story narrative,” i.e. the reporters’ preliminary idea of what the news story could or should look like,” not what the interview or investigative fact-finding actually yielded (Nylund). Nylund writes that “the bottom line in news production is to make a narrative that looks like news reporting”. This presents a dilemma for reporters, as often times, “what you want to talk about isn’t there to see” (Barnhurst and Steele 25). In fact, this emphasis on a sense of “news narrative” is so pervasive that it has extended into the realm of personnel evaluation: “So the test of a good TV correspondent was not primarily whether he [sic] was a great political observer. It was whether he could deal with all the technical problems, guide his cameraman towards the right shots, and put the film together to form a coherent story” (25).

Sound bites have given politicians, in certain cases, an extra layer of protection from opponents that they did not have before. If politician A is trying to disprove a sound bite spoken by politician B, the burden of proof rests with politician A. Statements made behind a podium or on the floor of Congress are, in effect, truthful until proven otherwise. This is not so with written statements. It is much more difficult to refute or rebuke a sound bite than a press release or statement (in print). Sound bites are also more personal than written communication: a statement may be printed on John McCain’s letterhead, but it was not uttered by John McCain. When you rebuke a sound bite, you are calling a speaker’s very image and pathos into question. You are not just questioning their words, but also their voice and their credibility.

The use of sound bites has given politicians an easy way to dodge questions in interviews. Often, an interviewer will cue a sound bite and ask their interviewee to “react to” the comments made, or if they agreed with or disagreed with the comments. In these situations, an interviewee can easily shift the subject or avoid the question by saying something to the effect of, “well, earlier in the transcript…” or “a few sentences prior to that…” undermining the premise of the question with another part of the same speech. Politicians accuse newspeople of taking statements “out of context” in order to escape questioning that could do them harm. Of course, although it usually comes across as a sign of desperation, an interviewee can refuse to answer a question outright, and say nothing at all. Lowry and Shilder accurately observe that “interviewers can ask whatever questions they like—there simply isn’t any rule that says you are required to answer those questions” (Lowry and Shilder). This paralyzes an interviewer and leaves them with little choice but to move on to another topic. The fifth amendment of interviewing is alive and well.

—The Economics of the Sound Bite—

Sound Bites and Network Profit

News broadcasts are now more commercialized than ever before, and networks are constantly trying to outdo their competition. Commercialization in newscasting can be defined as any graphics, audio effects, or imagery that does adds nothing to the informativeness of the news, and acts only to entertain the viewer and produce a more attractive product for the television market. The news is meant to entertain nearly as much as, if not as much as, it is meant to inform; and indeed viewers “tend to assume roles of entertainment consumers, rather than of citizens” (Whillock 26). CNN’s The Situation Room provides an example of commercialization and excess that does not improve the quality of information. The studio of The Situation Room features giant screens behind the anchor desk that arc around the room and can be made to display many small images or a few large images in panoramic style. The function of these monitors, according to anchor Wolf Blitzer, is to show viewers “new pictures and information [that] are arriving all the time,” like in the actual situation room in the White House (“Situation”). Unfortunately, and quite obviously, it would be impossible for viewers to take in the images laid out on the panorama of screens unless they were physically in “the situation room” itself. Viewers see not the “new pictures” themselves, but simply that “new pictures are arriving all the time”. The camera is a selective interpretation of events: it chooses what to record, and anything that is not recorded is left out of the final cut. The device of the screens is therefore primarily commercial: it adds nothing to reporting, but much to visual stimulation and entertainment value.

Sound bites, along with dramatic graphics and colorful, animated transitions do not improve the quality or informativeness of news, but act to humor and entertain the viewer: “rather than becoming tools to increase the level of understanding, new technologies are being used as devices for promotional stunts” (Mickleson 107). Sound bites contribute to the entertainment value of a show: they change the camera shot and alter the setting of the narrative, drawing viewers in and keeping them guessing as to what camera feed will come over their screen next. Scheuer writes that “modern television news relies so heavily on the visual nature of television that news reports are often incoherent without their visual elements” (71). Television news cannot settle for merely being radio news with added visuals, it has to titillate and humor like a movie would in order to engage the viewing audience, who is looking to be entertained. The news has become more ratings-centric than info-centric. It is difficult to imagine what our newscasts would be like if they divorced themselves from heavy reliance upon the sound bite. The age of a news anchor reading the news straight into a camera, merely citing (with their own voice) the quotations of others has long since passed:

A decade a two ago, before MTV, the Internet, and other visually rich, fast-moving media shortened everyone’s attention span, people in the news expressed themselves in long thoughts. Not anymore. Media edit like crazy now. (Genard)

Seventeen minutes does not seem like a large amount of content to piece together for a newscast, but newsmen devote significant amounts of airtime to pseudo-informational goings-on that pose as “news.” This raises the question of how newscasts decide what the news will be for that day. What is newsworthy? John B. Bogart once quipped “when a dog bites a man, that is not news, because it happens so often. But if a man bites a dog, that is news” (“New”). Today’s television newscasts, however, regularly highlight stories where dogs bite men. This is one of the television newscast’s greatest tricks: reporting the news by reporting “news”—regularly occurring spectacles and displays of mayhem. Car chases, car crashes, fires, murders, and robberies are chief examples of this. There is very little risk involved in assigning a crew to cover a car crash: roll the camera; get some footage of twisted, burning metal; “interview” (really, harvest sound bites from) a few upset bystanders and a police officer and voila—the lead story of your newscast: “Tremont Street Tragedy”. Events like these take place every day, and are completely normal and predictable (if regrettable) events. What place do these stories have in the news? Cars are still crashing—is the public now informed? In Soundbite Culture, Slayden Whillock writes that it is the culture of “immediacy and superficiality, in which the very notion of ‘news’ erodes in a tide of formulaic mass entertainment” (8). “News executives,” she observes, “have discovered the profitability of cheaply produced, sensational news” (58). It is the bad news—reports of sexual scandal, natural disaster and violent death,” McLuhan writes, “that sells the good news—that is, advertising” (xvi).

The reporting of poll results has overwhelmed short-to-begin-with newscasts, especially those on cable news networks. The reporting of “poll results has become a substitute for substantive coverage of the campaigns” (Whillock 43). As soon as an election is held, polls are immediately carried out so newscasts can report on who is “winning” the next election, which is to be held two years hence. This constant measuring of who is leading in polls takes away time from discussion and analysis-oriented political segments and, “by removing emphasis from issues and putting it squarely on the horse race[…]politics, as a result, becomes a game” (Mickleson 173). Poll results are not sound bites, but the reporting of poll results or discussion of poll results usually provokes language that can be packaged as a sound bite. For instance, if a candidate for the presidential primaries did poorly in a poll, they could respond by saying “The election is a year and a half away. I don’t look at polls. I spend my time and energy looking at solutions for the problems of the American people.” Now a newscast has filled up a significant amount of time: poll results have been reported and a sound bite, which could potentially be rebroadcast later in the day, has been created.

Sound Bite and Network Self-Promotion

Moreover, sound bites are an excellent promotion tool for news programs and news networks themselves. After Vice President Dick Cheney went on NBC’s Meet the Press in September of 2006 to defend the Bush Administration’s claim that there was evidence showing a link between al-Qaeda and Iraq (through Iraqi insurgent leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi), clips of his statements, were circulated and re-broadcast as a sound bite on newscasts across the globe. When the Cheney clip played (and it is still played, to this day), there was no question of where it came from—and NBC made sure of it. The NBC “peacock” logo sits assuredly in the lower corner, while three large Meet the Press logos grace the studio backdrop. CNN’s Larry King Live’s light bulb world map backdrop has been made famous because of the number of extraordinary “bite-able” statements made in front of it. Every appearance a politician makes on a news program is an opportunity for shows (and their networks) to make news as newsmakers; hence interviewers or anchors will try to coax sound bites out of guests. It is advantageous for networks to stage situations where prime sound bites may be delivered so that the bites may be “harvested” by a particular network and sent out into the news universe, giving a network invaluable visibility in the process. Television consumers, seeing a sound bite from network X, may begin to watch their newscast instead of network Y’s, because that is “where the action is, where the news is made.”

There are also gamesmanship strategies that television programs employ when it comes to this network insignia placement. Networks in the same market may work to put their logo in the same corner of the screen as their competitors, so that the original logo is blocked out by that of the rebroadcaster. Granted, a “courtesy of” announcement is usually placed in the upper part of the screen, but it represents stations with the four-letter identification system (i.e. WHDH), which does not have the same effect as the image of a network logo[16]. Also, the insignia is the universal symbol of the network while the four-letter code varies from market to market.

—Selling Selves, Not Ideas—

The nature of modern-era newscasts has altered the objectives of political campaigns. Studies have found that when choosing between candidates, “people rank the ‘personal qualities’ of political figures over ‘policy preferences’ by four to one” (Whillock 19). Now, instead of defining where candidates stand on the issues, campaigns concern themselves with defining a candidate’s personality. On television, these “personal qualities”—particularly appearance—are more apparent than they are on radio or in print. As a result, “more than ever before, politicians must sell themselves, not their ideas” (Scheuer 34). In the late 1950s and early 1960s, when television began to overtake radio as the preferred source of information and news, there were many “casualties of TV,” including the first Presidential campaign of Richard Nixon and the anti-communist crusades of Joseph McCarthy.

The Nixon-Kennedy debates of the 1960 Presidential campaign are a quintessential example of the importance of the political implications of visual appearance and likeability. People who listened to the debate on radio thought Nixon defeated Kennedy, while the majority of the 70 million television viewers of the debate thought Kennedy had won (Allen). This discrepancy can be attributed to the visual appearance of the two candidates. Kennedy was freshly tanned[17] and allowed his aides to apply light makeup to hide imperfections on his visage, and while Kennedy’s performance in the debate was not convincingly presidential, his appearance, “fit as I’ve ever seen him,” as Nixon put it, was. For his part, Nixon had spent two weeks in the hospital in August after injuring his knee and looked wrinkled, clammy, and pale. Nixon refused makeup, which left his perpetual “five o’clock shadow” exposed under the debate’s lighting (Allen). Post-debate polls concluded that voters (most of whom consumed the debate on TV) believed Kennedy won, and he went on to win the election.

Marshall McLuhan characterizes television as a “cool medium.” As such, when consuming television, viewers require feeling as though they are participating interactively in the information process. “In closed-circuit instruction of surgery,” McLuhan writes, “medical students from the first reported a strange effect—that they seemed not to be watching an operation, but performing it. They felt that they were holding the scalpel” (328). McLuhan continues to say that “the cool TV medium cannot abide the typical because it leaves the viewer frustrated of his job of ‘closure’ or completion of image” (331). Nixon’s demeanor, “typical” and easily classifiable, deprived TV viewers of this chance: “when the person presented looks classifiable, as Nixon did, the TV viewer has nothing to fill in. [The viewer] feels uncomfortable with his TV image. He says uneasily, ‘There’s something about the guy that isn’t right’” (330). McLuhan concludes that Nixon would have decisively won the election if television had not been such a major factor, and that “TV would inevitably be a disaster for a sharp intense image like Nixon’s, and a boon for the blurry, shaggy texture of Kennedy” (329). Writing on Senator McCarthy, McLuhan observes “it was no accident that [he] lasted such a very short time when he switched to TV […] TV is a cool medium. It rejects hot figures and hot issues and people from the hot press media” (299). Television, in its very nature, rejects the “hot”, thus shaping the content that is shown on the airwaves. Although his fall from grace had already begun, television accelerated Joseph McCarthy’s demise. When depicted on TV, McCarthy was no longer a story.

—Sound bites beyond the script: gaffes—

Many sound bites capture mistakes made by politicians, and spread against their desires. Such sound bites start genuine controversies or, just as often, controversies conjured up and driven by the media. Senator Joe Biden’s recent remarks about fellow Senator and Presidential Candidate Barack Obama illustrate this. Biden called Obama “articulate and bright and clean” and the first black candidate to be running from the mainstream of his/her political party. Senator Obama did not draw attention to Biden’s remarks, and quietly dismissed them as being foolish, but not racist (“Biden’s”). Biden has a history of such ill-advised slips. As Michael Kinsley of Time Magazine quipped, Biden “is pathologically loquacious. And he babbles. That means his unintended comments about black presidential candidates deserve less weight, not more” (Kinsley). Despite this, the television media swarmed on the story, staging days of coverage during which they brought in multiple social commentators to speak on race relations in America and to ask if Senator Biden was a racist (“Biden’s”). Many demanded Biden withdraw his Presidential bid (which he launched the same day he made the Obama remarks). The sound bite of Biden’s words was played ad nauseam throughout the entire ordeal. When commenting on Biden’s chances of winning the Democratic Nomination, analysts still evoke the Obama comments, calling the comments a large obstacle to Biden’s chances.

—Conclusion—

Lengthier sound bites cannot be seen as a magic bullet to reverse the troubled state of television news, but they are a large step in the right direction, and a step away from the fragmented, rapid-fire nature of narrative-centered news. A return to 43-second-long excerpts will not magically produce an informed electorate. Russomanno wrote that “assumptions that the political process is better served by unfiltered, unedited, lengthy sound bites may be erroneous”. Longer sound bites will, however, give viewers a chance to rediscover their abilities to consume and analyze larger portions of political rhetoric. News will always be a reduced, compacted reproduction of real events: “TV, like other media, does not deliver experience itself. Rather, it provides an encoded simulacrum that we generically call information” (Scheuer 63). Regrettably, news stations must run advertisements, and they must compete with their peers, which results in a ratings obsession that deprives the content quality of news. In a half-hour news program, the challenge of fitting in the actual news is always at the forefront: “after you subtract commercials, weather, sports, good evening and good-bye, a 30-minute local TV newscast is only about 17 minutes of news” (Jones). Can the world be reduced to 17 minutes? No. But newsmen try, and viewers buy into it: “having naturalized television, we routinely ignore the differences between direct and viewed experience despite their obvious dissimilarities (Scheuer 102).

Sound biting in some form is necessary and essential. In a perfect world, consumers would to go back to a speech or statement itself to gain information, but expecting consumers to re-view the entirety of a State of The Union Address over their morning coffee is irrational and unrealistic. Nonetheless, networks must make the effort to augment their short “bited” clips into longer excerpts from which a viewing audience can observe and interpret political rhetoric first-hand. The public’s ability to interpret political rhetoric has weakened not because they are incapable of doing do, but because their interpretation abilities have atrophied after being deprived of the chance. Television—including news—is not the real. Degrees of separation will always exist between what is happening, what is observed, what is reported and what is received on the other side of the screen. The goal of television news should not be to eliminate these degrees of separation (such would be impossible), but to diminish them as much as they can. Sound bites exacerbate these degrees of separation, and have greatly influenced political rhetoric and audience perception as well. Enough is enough. It is now time for sound bites, like flash bulb cameras and the carbon microphone, to retire into obsolescence.

---

[1] Such stories may be used as segues to discuss funding for firefighters or laws involving auto insurance, but the events—the fires and the crashes—were accidental and were not borne of political motivation.

[2] As far as the medium of television (or any medium) can represent “fact.”

[3] Used loosely in this paper, meaning not just public officials but also those aiming to persuade.

[4] Networks, when not qualified by another term, refers to all television news outlets. In this paper, “cable stations” will refer to CNN, CNN Headline News, Fox News Channel, and MSNBC. “Broadcast networks” will refer to ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox National.

[5] Selected to be rebroadcast as part of a newscast.

[6] While sound bites are used in television newscasts despite the inevitable loss of surrounding situational context, they are used in political advertising because of their loss of context. For all intents and purposes, the shorter the bite, and the weaker the context, the more readily a politician’s words can be manipulated. This is why sound bites in political advertising may only be a few seconds long.

[7] This brings up the question of if sound bites can be spoken in a foreign language. For example, if a Japanese diplomat made a statement that fulfilled the other sound bite parameters, would the clip be considered a voiceover or a sound bite? If the person delivering the translated words is not the main reporter of the piece, the clip is a sound bite, as the change of voice shifts the setting of the narrative and draws in the viewer. If the same reporter reads the translation, however, it is not a sound bite, as the setting of the narrative is shifted in the visual dimension only.

[8] “With the arrival of electric technology, man extended, or set outside himself, a live model of the central nervous system itself” (McLuhan 43).

[9] The presentation of this concept in this paper is not meant to belittle the importance of content compared to medium, but to acknowledge that television, as a medium, creates a starting point from which all analyses must begin.

[10] These clips were often multi-topical, which violates the parameters of our sound bite definition. Also, these lengthier clips were not memorable (in the sense that the length of the clips made it extremely difficult for viewers to sing-songedly regurgitate their wording) like the shorter bites of today. These were a step above sound bites—and were sound courses and sound meals. For our purposes, they will be called excerpts.

[11] Although original technology was bulky, expensive, and inconvenient. In the 1970s and 80s cheaper and more practical models were developed, and 99% of today’s televisions are sold with a remote control.

[12] An employee for WHDH-TV (Boston’s NBC affiliate) explains that the colors of their newsroom are designed to appeal to a younger audience, while the colors of WCVB (Boston’s ABC affiliate) are meant to attract older viewers.

[13] It should be noted that these shows are not presented as news per sé, but as debate programs. The shows, however, share subject matter with the news, and many viewers use shows like these as their news source.

[14] There have been many accusations that the television media does not give “equal time” to negative and positive bites made by politicians and of “biting” some politicians more than others. There have also been allegations of favoritism between the political parties because of the frequency or favorability of bites that represent their members. This can be controversial and offensive to the networks’ interests and must be kept in mind.

[15] When sound bites are used in political advertising, their very function is to incite anger or outrage against a politician. This is also evident in partisan punditry and The Daily Show-style programs where people are trying to catch a politician at their worst.

[16] Such is equivalent to seeing the word “Nike” instead of the iconic “swoosh” logo.

[17] Kennedy had been campaigning in California in early September. It has been theorized John Kerry tried to re-capture JFK’s tanned look during the Presidential campaign of 2004. At the end of September, before the first Presidential debate, Kerry evidently used a self-tanning agent, which gave his skin an overwhelmingly unnatural orange-hue (Catton). Kerry’s skin tone was most widely discussed as fodder for conservative pundits like Rush Limbaugh and was not focused on by the news media, but surely Kerry’s appearance did not slip past viewers.

Works Cited

Allen, Erika. “Kennedy-Nixon Presidential Debates, 1960, The.” The Museum of

Broadcast Communications. 9 Apr 2007.

.

Barnhurst, Kevin and Catherine Steele. “Image Bite News: The Visual Coverage of

Elections on U.S. Television, 1968-1992.” Harvard International Journal on Press/Politics. 2.1 (1997): 40-58

“Biden’s Description of Obama Draws Scrutiny.” CNN.com. 9 Feb 2007. 18 Mar 2007.

.

Bush, George Herbert Walker. “1988 Republican National Convention Keynote

Address.” Republican National Convention. Louisiana Superdome, New Orleans. 18 August 1988.

“Bush Makes Historic Speech Aboard Warship.” CNN.com. 1 May 2003. 21 Feb 2007

.

Catton, Pia. “Orange Alert: A Fake Tan is on the Campaign Trail.” New York

Sun. 29 Sep 2004. 9 Apr 2007. .

“C-SPAN.” Wikipedia.org. 19 April 2007. .

“Cheney Ignores Senate Intel Report, Cites Zarqawi As Evidence of Iraq/Al

Qaeda Connection.” Thinkprogress.org. 9 Sep 2006. 18 Mar 2007. <>.

“Crossfire (TV Series).” Wikipedia.org. 23 April 2007.

.

Genard, Gary. “The Four Secrets to Delivering the Right Sound Bites.” Harvard

Management Communication Letter. 6.7 (2003): 3-5.

Gitlin, Todd. Media Unlimited: How the Torrent of Images and Sounds Overwhelms Our

Lives. Metropolitan Books: New York, 2002.

“Greenspan Warns of U.S. Recession Risk.” MSNBC.com. Associated Press. 26 Feb

2007. 9 Apr 2007. .

Jones, Clarence. “Newscast: For the End of the World, Two Minutes.” 2005.

Kinsley, Michael. “Gaffes to the Rescue.” Time. 19 Feb 2007.

Lowry, Dennis T., and Jon A. Shilder. “The sound bite, the biters, and the bitten:

A two-campaign test of the anti-incumbent bias hypothesis in network TV news.” Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly. 75.4 (1998): 719-729.

McLuhan, Marshall and Lewis H. Lapham. Understanding Media: The Extensions of

Man. The MIT Press: Cambridge, 1994.

“Media Reform Information Center.” Corporations.org. 31 Jan 2007. 23 April 2007.

.

Mickleson, Sig. From Whistle Stop to Sound Bite. Praeger: New York, 1989.

“New York Sun.” Wikipedia.org. 9 April 2007.

.

Nylund, Mats. “Asking questions, making sound-bites: research reports, interviews and

television news.” Discourse Studies. 5.4 (2003): 517-533.

“Politics.” Wikipedia.org. 19 Mar 2007. .

“Remote Control.” Wikipedia.org. 25 April 2007.

.

Russomanno, Joseph A., and Stephen E. Everett. “Candidate sound bites:

Too much concern over length?” Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media. 39.3 (1995): 408-415.

Scheuer, Jeffery. The Sound Bite Society. New York: Four Walls Eight Windows, 1999.

“Situation Room, The.” CNN.com. 23 Mar 2006. 19 Mar 2007.

.

Struck, Kevin. “Communicating in a Sound Bite World.” Communication World.

19.1 (2001): 24-27.

Whaley, Bryan B., and Holloway, Rachel L. (1997). Rebuttal analogy in political

communication: Argument and attack in sound bite. Political Communication. 14 (3), 293-305.

Whillock, Rita Kirk and David Slayden, eds. Soundbite Culture. Thousand Oaks: SAGE

Publications, 1999.