My bun. The closest experience that I had
ever gotten to television was the local broadcast of my bun on Virginia Beach’s
Channel 3 News WTKR. It was the
homecoming of sailors, not my hair that was the local news beat, and I just
happened to be in the right arms at the right time.
Naturally, they cut off the part where I
turn my head up and point at the camera, and switch to a floating reporter head.
And in the quest for editing perfection, I think that news segment suffered. It
would seem to be a moment that you would want to linger on, the reunion of a
family. But undoubtedly due to some unspoken commandments of broadcast
journalism, it would be cut short.
This memory made becoming a live audience member
of the 13th Congressional Candidate Debate at the University of
Illinois, that much more exciting. In a congressional race that broke state history
for campaign expenditures, most of which funded negative television ads, it was
enlightening and entertaining to see the battle between Republican and Democrat,
and Independent.
With each jab that Rodney Davis (R) and
David Gill (D) took towards each other, a candidate became less composed; pink,
sweaty, and irritated. All the while John Hartman , the unusually lucky (yet
still unrewarded) independent candidate, stood at the end, receiving little
airtime and even less scrutiny from his rivals. And perhaps that’s where
Hartman went wrong. It was obvious that the man was inexperienced. From the
blandness of his suit, his sensible solutions, and his nonexistent “thoughts
and prayers” that went out to the Hurricane Sandy Victims (see Rodney Davis),
it seems to be that Hartman wasn’t thought to stand a chance.
In light of the Presidential Race, the 13th
Congressional Race of 2012 appeared to be miniscule, but with the uncut and raw
nature of a debate unfolding before one’s eyes, politics, even on a
Congressional Representatives’’ scale, gains a revitalized sense of tenor.
I definitely enjoyed the debate as well! What was more exciting for you (since you talk about two topics): seeing a piece of media produced before your eyes or listening to the candidates' debate? Why? Did the experience give you any insight into broadcast journalism and if so, how? What knowledge do you think you gained by seeing the debate live rather than if you had watched it on TV?
ReplyDeleteI would have to agree with Chrissy as well! I absolutely loved the debates! I liked how you described their reactions towards each other as well with the sweat and irritation.
ReplyDeleteOn the topic of Hartman, do you think that if he had more experience in politics that he could have made a dent in this race? Or were Hartman's views on issues the problem for voters?
Although I did not attend the congressional debate on campus, I did watch one of the presidential debates on tv for the first time this year. Like you, I was fascinated by the attempts of candidates to maintain their composure under pressure.
ReplyDeleteAs for Hartman, how do you think he could have improved his campaign in order to gain more support? Or was he doomed from the beginning, trapped in his role as a third-party candidate?
So many questions Chrissy! Seeing a piece of broadcast journalism produced was definitely more exciting, but by the end of the night I think I enjoyed actually watching the debate between the candidates more. There was much more entertainment value, and just to see the Gill and Davis go after each other was too funny. Almost like civilized arguing... almost. This experience definetely made me want to have an opportunity to obtain some broadcast journalism experience, if not in front of a teleprompter, maybe in productions.
ReplyDeleteIf I had watched the debate on TV I honestly don't think I would have known the objectives of the candidates as well as I did watching them live. Just because I saw what was being broadcast on television, and it was so dull! As opposed to having them right in front of me.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteKendall, I think more experience couldn't have hurt Hartman. To me it was obvious that he had a lack of experience, and I've only seen so many debates... just think of what older folks were noticing. Hartman's views on issues were bound to be a problem for someone. Personally I agreed with a good amount of them, but the fact that he didn't have that party affiliation and consequently those ingrained ideals of the party, that definitely hurt him more in regards to voters.
ReplyDeleteNina, ads could have been the extra boost that Hartman needed. The problem, I think, with Hartman's campaign was that not many knew who he was or what he was fighting for. Campaign ads, as shallow as they can be, could have at least helped him gain voter recognition. Hartman had potential as I see it, especially if he got that far. Alas, I am still conditioned to see him as a doomed third party candidate; can't blame the man for trying though.
I wasn't able to attend the debate, however you're descriptions are very vivid so i can almost imagine what it was like to be there. I'm not wholly surprised that the candidates were that nervous, given the high stakes of the election After attending the debate, who did you think had the overall best performance? Which of the journalists did you feel had the best questions?
ReplyDelete