Mani-Pedi Media

I watched the Barbara Walter's Interview with Barack and Michelle Obama on You Tube Saturday night. I thought to myself, is this media? I mean I guess it is, but it's not as "serious" or "logical", from an audience point of view (because I have no idea what Barbara goes through to prepare for the interviews). Still, I rationalized, this is part of the media. It's a kind of reporting that goes on to give us, the public, information on a person, place or thing. Walters attempts to remain removed, though her views are thinly disguised, and this isn't necessarily a bad thing. It's very entertaining, involving and palpable (for women especially I would think) and so it communicates with audiences on different levels like emotional and psychological. Since I love to over analyze everything my brain jumped to the question "Is this right?" "Is this a fair kind of interview for a president and first lady to do" being that it hits the public at home, where they are most sensitive? My answer to my own question was in true Devil's Advocate spirit, "this interview is happening BECAUSE these people have ALREADY hit us at home, their history, their journey, has inspired people throughout this country and already worked it's way into our hearts." Oh, okay, so entertainment and journalism marry in this sort of situation. Where as traditional journalism utilizes drama to spiff up their "emotional" impact, they seek to keep it to a barely noticeable minimum (or at least they're supposed to). On the other hand most entertainment news seeks to keep fact, logic and morals at bay and survives almost entirely on its emotive qualities. Along comes Walters or Winfrey with their celebrity profiles and, especially when said celebrity is a world leader, they bridge the gap between news and entertainment, allowing them to co-exist quite neatly. It's a smart move from a politicians point of view, to endear themselves to the homes and hearts of the public. People are much more prone to listen and trust, thinking they are cooperating with their leader as opposed to obeying.
Trust does amazing things then. It allows the followers to believe they are in fact equals and have inalienable power, where maybe they do not. Once again I'm playing Devil's Advocate here, inspired by a conversation I had at the NY Public Library Skating Rink over the vacation. A young man I struck up a conversation with had voted for Obama, but decided remaining skeptical was essential to remaining vigil. I absolutely LOVE the idea of a trust worthy, sincerely GOOD human being as a president, but couldn't help but agree with him. He, an African American, pointed out how appealing and kind both Mussolini and Hitler must have first come across. I couldn't argue with him. Even though I feel that we both really believe in Obama's goodness some how I like the idea of remaining on my toes. We should rejoice at the prospect of change, but not settle of the prospect. We should continue to put our young and energetic president elect to the test, like a doubting Thomas, always showing up to the event, here if he needs us, but not close enough to get lassoed. It makes me feel, well, not so freakin' dorky and teen-bob, heart - throbbed in love with an ideal. I like the feeling of my legs beneath me.
So, getting back to the media, Obama has found his way into our hearts and into our homes. He connects regularly with us through our computers, podcasts and YouTube videos, and it's all very modern and clever. He's using the media to his EVERY advantage, and now, I'm wondering if maybe it isn't a bit much. Perhaps it isn't and he's just as clever and on the ball as I believe he is, but my doubtfulness makes me happy. It keeps me fully loaded and ready to rip in case I start to see things I don't like. He is not yet in power, so everything is still in theory at this point. He seems to be on the ball with picking out a cabinet for himself, there's a new update every day as to the rumors of new appointments or announcements of the appointments and yet, so many of these people were a part of the Clinton administration, and so, how much is really new? Or does it need to be new as long as the person in the helm is new and is pointing everybody in new directions? Everything is unclear and will remain unclear until, ohhh, four maybe eight years from now when we can look back and view everything from a distance and look at things from the arrogant safety of hind sight. So, right now all we can do is wait, and see, and remain vigil because that's what being a responsible citizen is about, always staying alert and INVOLVED, responsible for our own destinies and not expecting miracles. The only thing about our new president that is clear is that he is using the press in a way never seen before by other candidates and boy is it effective. He utilizes communications of all sorts to put himself right into our faces, our homes, our lives. Maybe it's to guide, not control, maybe... the future will tell. Still he's changing the game where political media is concerned, and right now, it's really very exciting.