Posted on 06/11/2004 1:44:16 PM PDT by Dont Mention the War
ON THE MEDIA
Missing A Beat
By William Powers, National Journal
© National Journal Group Inc.
Friday, June 11, 2004
Reagan Week is finally drawing to a close, and at first blush it seems the media have told us everything we'd ever want to know about the ex-president, plus a lot we didn't want to know. I personally could have pressed on happily without the Bela Lugosi headline I saw in the online edition of the Times of London: "Reagan Rose From Coma for Last Look at Nancy." (Though it's headed straight for my ever-expanding So-Awful-It's-Excellent collection and so was not completely without value.)
 For all the excess, there was a missing piece, a crucial element of the Reagan story that has never been well explained, and perhaps never will be -- his charisma. |
|
|
|
Indeed, the week was barely a few days old, and Reagan's body was still in California, when rueful complaints about the saturation coverage started appearing. Dan Rather even lamented to the Philadelphia Inquirer's television columnist, Gail Shister, that the funeral events would be "over-covered," and he did so several days before those events, featuring Dan Rather himself, actually occurred. Amazing prescience! How fitting that the nation's first truly post-modern president, the master of the scripted unscripted moment, should be the subject of a pre-emptively regretted media binge.
Yet for all the excess, there was a missing piece, a crucial element of the Reagan story that has never been well explained, and perhaps never will be. In fact, I think one of the reasons we went so over-the-top at Reagan's death is that there's a part of him that few in the media have ever understood well, and fewer still knew how to cover, though it drove him to the presidency and was responsible for the immense popularity we witnessed this week. So we go to these somewhat ridiculous lengths, spilling millions of words, woo-wooing over every remotely "iconic" Reagan image we can lay our hands on, trying to make up for our inadequacy.
I'm talking about Reagan's charisma. Yes, it's the most obvious part of him, and yes, it was mentioned, referenced, alluded to, chatted about, and glossed upon countless times this week. It seems simple enough -- the man was magnetic, charming, soothing, likeable. But try to really get your arms around this part of Reagan, beyond these thin adjectives. Try to describe the precise transaction that occurred in the '80s between Reagan and the American public, and continues today, years after he left public life and even now after he's gone.
Charisma has a bad name in the media. It's squishy and suspect, part of the Character Journalism category that various media prudes feel journalists should avoid like a bad infection, especially when it comes to politicians. Charisma is inextricably linked in our minds to entertainment, the dreaded industry all self-respecting political hacks want no part of (unless they get a chance to sell an article or a book to the movies, in which case entertainment suddenly becomes temporarily rather OK).
It's fine to talk about the charisma of a Brad Pitt or a Julia Roberts. They're just movie stars, and the journalists who cover them are, in the media's own rigid hierarchical reckoning, barely journalists at all. Charisma is cheesy. It's very Elvis, very Princess Diana. It's for people who read the supermarket tabs and believe in astrology.
Political reporters are above all that. Political reporters are supposed to care about concrete real-world stuff like polls, war chests, swing states, and, of course, the issues. What political reporters are definitely not supposed to care about, not too much anyway, is the charisma of political figures -- the strange personal magnetism that allows certain rare people like Ronald Reagan to capture the public's imagination and affection -- even though this magnetism wins more votes than any policy position ever could, and even though it can, as Reagan showed and we saw all over again this week, change history.
That Reagan was a Hollywood celebrity, and had the charisma that goes with that trade, caused a lot of media people to deeply underestimate him, when he was running for president and afterwards. That old movie star -- what could he do? Oh, the endless jokes about Bedtime for Bonzo.
Few people in the media do charisma at all, and fewer still do it well. Washington Post columnist Tom Shales is one of the exceptions. He turned in a Reagan appreciation this week with several nice turns on the charisma theme, though he never used the word. "Reagan had good speechwriters, for sure," Shales wrote, "but the delivery always glorified the material rather than the other way around." Later, discussing the current President Bush, Shales observed: "The gap between him and Ronald Reagan -- in terms of stature, speaking ability, and overall presidentiality -- is gargantuan."
"Presidentiality" -- an awkward, interesting word. It should be a staple of presidential coverage, the way polls and fundraising are staples. There should be a charisma beat, on which reporters would delve into presidentiality, perform deep readings of each candidate's television presence, public aura, and personal likeability, and tell the public how these things work. It's one thing to swoon over a charismatic politician; it's another to know why you're swooning, and to keep this in mind when you vote.
In Grace and Power, the penetrating new book on the Kennedy White House by biographer (and former New York Times media reporter) Sally Bedell Smith, there's a memorable charisma moment. Chuck Spalding, one of John Kennedy's friends -- and a former Hollywood screenwriter -- recalls Kennedy asking him, "Why did [Gary] Cooper draw a crowd?" Kennedy, Spalding continues, "was always interested in seeing whether he had it -- the magnetism -- or didn't have it."
Reagan certainly had it. Won't someone please tell us what it was?
Sheeeyit. Ron Brown had a funeral a week for about six months and I don't remember Dan Blather or the National Urinal getting their lacy panties all wadded up over that.
Nice shot!
While I fervently wish George W. Bush were more like Reagan in many ways, I think charisma plays a large part in W's political life, too. It's not Reagan's blazing personality, but a sort of quirky likableness. It drives the media insane to realize people sort of like it when Bush accidentally makes up nutty words during soundbites, or gives people goofy nicknames on the spot. A man who has the courage to name his dog Spot suits me just fine.
Now, John Kerry...
The left is so filled with black hatred of anything conservative that they refuse to acknowledge ANY positive traits therein.
MM
I couldn't disagree more. Ronald Reagan was attacked viciously for many of the very lines the media plays over and over this week. He was not considered to have the stature, intelligence or grip on presidentiality required by the times. He was thought to be a relic of another era.
History has proved his critics wrong, the love and affection displayed this week by average Americans has proved them wrong. I will not take their bait and allow those that attacked Reagan to reluctantly celebrate him only to create a political wedge between him and Bush.
Tom Shales never spoke a kind word about Reagan while he was alive. He's a bitter, small man. His talk about a "gargantuan" hole between Reagan and Bush is laughable. Shales'cup of tea was always Clinton, just like the rest of these lying pigs in the media. Talk about gaps between integrity and leadership...
I think W has his own kind of charisma. He's more like the boy next door. I have his picture on the wall right in front of my desk along with photos of my husband and kids. I can't help but smile when I see the President's confident grin smiling back at me.
<< I think W has his own kind of charisma. He's more like the boy next door. I have his pictures [All over the place] ... [And] can't help but smile when I see the President's confident grin smiling back at me. >>
Me too.
I'm a [Formerly Alan Keyes supporting] late-year-2000-campaign] convert to the side of United states of America's President and Armed-Forces Commander-In-Chief, George Walker Bush -- but there is not the the slightest doubt both that he is an incredibly attractive [Humble and anonymous] American Man who does the office proud -- and is headed for Greatness!
Goes back a long time.
Editorial in the newspaper Aurora by Benjamin Franklin Bache on the retirement of George Washington from the Presidency.
"If ever a nation was debauched by a man...if ever a nation has suffered from the improper influance of a man...if ever a nation was deceived by a man...(it was) the American nation by George Washington...Let the history of the Federal Government instruct mankind that the mark of patriotism may be worn to conceal the foulest designs against the liberties of the people"
I agree 100% ! I see parallels between the two that goes beyond their both being misunderestimated while serving their country as President. They are both men of vision, etc., etc., etc. .....
A media shenanigans & media schadenfreude ping.
WOW. Very interesting quote. Thanks, Swiss.
MM
Congressman Billybob
Latest column, "Three Americans: Ronald Reagan, George Soros, Aurel deHollan."
If you haven't already joined the anti-CFR effort, please click here.
I recall them often speaking of the charisma of Bill Clinton. ( I call it sleaze factor, they called it charisma.) They don't want to see the real thing, which Ronald Reagan oozed with.
bump
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
