Research Paper

The History and Impact of Presidential Speeches

There are many examples of technology influencing culture in a big way, and one of the most obvious of these examples is the television. Television’s impact on many aspects of culture is huge, and its effect on oral history in its short life has also been large. It is obvious how the television changes aspects of culture such as entertainment and the economy, but it is less clear to see how much this technological medium has changed our political system. One of the major ways television has impacted our political system is through televised speeches and debates. The impact of television on the political world has been relatively short, but quickly changing as well as important.

The first presidential speech on television was in 1947 by Harry Truman. The speech asked Americans to cut back on grain to help starving Europeans because of the devastation of World War Two. Truman made this speech because the United States was already giving Europe a lot of money in aid; the president did not want to see that aid go to waste, and he knew widespread famine in Europe would hamper the continent’s economic recovery. Despite the fact that few Americans actually owned televisions at this point, as the number of households with televisions numbered in the thousands, all of Truman’s subsequent speeches were televised as well as on the radio.¹ The fact that this speech as well as later speeches by Truman were televised was largely insignificant with regards to the speech itself, but in a larger historical context this speech ushered in an era in which the president, both in campaigns and in his daily affairs, is affected to a great extent by television. It wasn’t until 1952, when Dwight Eisenhower first made his political campaign film, that television became an essential tool in national politics.² In the 21^st century, whenever the president wants to say anything to the nation, it is always on television, and many more people watch presidential speeches than listen to them on the radio. This brings the messages of politicians and candidates for political office to more people, and it results in a greater percentage of America being educated on the issues of this country, which allows people to vote for candidates based on their stance on the issues, not on their party ties.

The next evolution in the televised speech was Dwight Eisenhower’s spot series in 1952. This consisted of him answering questions from ordinary citizens. This was essentially political propaganda, as Eisenhower prerecorded what he wanted to say and played these answers back in response to the people’s questions.³ This is the beginning of the persuasive speech on television, as it is the first time on television that a political candidate has shown his views on television to garner more support. This served as the predecessor of the persuasive speech, and it also displays the form for the modern political advertisement. It is the first time a president had gone on television for the purpose of campaigning and persuading people to vote for him.

The first televised presidential debate was in 1960 between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon. It was the first of a series of four debates between the two, and it turned out to be a grave error for Nixon. Television played a very large role in this debate. The audience listening to the debate on the radio had a much different perspective on the debate than the television audience because “Nixon looked haggard, at least partly because he brushed aside advice and appeared before the cameras wearing no makeup… Nixon also fidgeted a lot, he was sweating, and his beady eyes darted around nervously.”⁴ Nixon’s body language cost him as these debates turned out to be a big factor in the election, which Kennedy won by slightly over one hundred thousand votes, one of the closest margins for a presidential election in history. This emphasizes the fact that the advent of debates on television makes the whole process of preparing for a debate much more complicated and time consuming. Now that the people can both see and hear what the candidate is saying, both appearance and content matter in a debate setting, whereas on the radio only content mattered. This allowed the people to get a better picture of the candidate, instead of just knowing the candidate’s position on the issues. This is important because it allows people to get a picture of the whole candidate, instead of just his position on the issues. Also, this allowed the speech to reach more people, resulting in more people being educated on the candidates.

The television is a huge influence on presidential politics today, especially with regards to his oral communication through speeches and debates. Not only does the original intent of the televised speech, to inform the people, still exist, but there are also many more objectives for the televised speech, due to this type of medium being more effective than the old medium, the radio. Some of these objectives include to convince the people on an issue and to convince people of the merits of a particular candidate for office. According to the article, “The Impact of Televised Speeches and Foreign Travel on Presidential Approval,” “Television provides the president, first of all, with a medium that is more direct and less resistible than alternative forms of communication.”⁵ This means more people are watching political speeches than before, when other mediums were in use. Now that these debates are on television, and taking up so many channels, many people can and will see what the president has to say, and many more people will be educated about the issues facing America today. This also facilitates each candidate getting his message out to the public the way he wants it to be seen because the

televised speech allows a candidate “to operate in a setting where he is unhindered by rival decision makers or aggressive reporters.”⁶ This is key in making sure each candidate gets his

specific message out, and that each person is able to hear this message. This allows for a more educated electorate, and therefore elections will be decided on the views of each candidate as opposed to the candidate’s party or reputation.

The example of the televised speech is a perfect example in which technology is the driving force for culture. Without the technology of the television, the speech would not be nearly as effective as it is today. The main reason the speech is one of the most effective tools of both the president and the candidates for president is the dramatic rise in the popularity of the television. Because so many people are watching television, the politician’s message reaches many times more people than it would have in previous centuries, even if we adjust for the fact that there are more people in America today. This has driven a political culture which is dominated by television and the media, since the media is so closely linked to television. This is clearly a situation in which technology drives culture because the current political culture is defined by the technological medium in which it is presented.

With this being said, trends have shown that in recent years, the number of televised presidential speeches on the networks has gone down.⁷ This means that while more people are watching each speech, there are less of them. So while the people may be relying more on television to get their information from the president, the president is still making less speeches. This may seem contradictory to the point that television is being relied upon more and more by our political system, but in reality the people are relying on it more and more. The amount of speeches given by the president may be going down because of the increased effectiveness of the televised speech. With each speech being more effective, the president does not have to give as many speeches to reach the same audience. This makes each speech more effective, and still reaches a greater number of people.

Even though the presidential speech is an important and widely used tool, does it really affect the president’s approval rating? The simplest answer to this question is: sometimes. It has been shown that a president’s popularity in instances where an approval-enhancing event happens in the same time period as a speech is increased much more than it would if the approval-enhancing event has happened alone.⁸ This means that the speech played a role in the increase in the president’s popularity in some situations. On the other hand, in other situations the president’s approval rating is not changed at all. This data shows that while the speech may be an informative tool, and it may help a candidate win an election, it does not have a very widespread effect on popularity, once in office. This may explain the decline in the number of presidential speeches recently. In some cases, making a speech actually caused the popularity of the president to decline, but in general speeches have little to no effect on presidential popularity.⁹ This does not mean that speeches are not a necessary tool for a president because it is still necessary to inform citizens of the issues in this country.

There is no denying that television plays a major role in our political system. The role of the speech has changed from an informative to a more persuasive style since the first presidential speech in 1947. The role of the televised speech has also increased dramatically since the advent of the television, so much so that the president has relied on the television as the main medium for reaching the citizens of America. More recently, however, presidents have relied on the speech’s ability to reach people, and they have been giving fewer speeches. Another reason for the reduction in televised speeches in recent times is that the televised speeches have little effect on the president’s approval rating, except in specific situations

Bibliography

“First presidential speech on TV,” The History Channel website, http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/first-presidential-speech-on-tv (accessed Sep 30, 2011).

Long, Tony. “Sept. 26, 1960: JFK, Nixon Open the Era of TV Debates.” Wired. http://www.wired.com/thisdayintech/tag/soviet-union/ (accessed September 30, 2011).

Morreale, Joanne. A New Beginning: A Textual Frame Analysis of the Political Campaign Film. State University of New York Press, 1991. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost), EBSCOhost (Accessed September 30, 2011).

Simon, Dennis M. and Charles W. Ostrom Jr. “The Impact of Televised Speeches and Foreign Travel on Presidential Approval.” Oxford Journals. http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/content/53/1/58.short (accessed September 30, 2011).

Technology Autobiography

The technological medium I would use to tell the story of my life would be movies because they have played a big role in my life. They are a very popular and influential technological medium in this time, and they have influenced many people, including me. Many things have influenced what type of movies I watch and how many movies I watch, including both my age and the convenience of obtaining movies.

The medium of the film fits in very well with David Nye’s definition of technology in Technology Matters – Questions To Live With because it is an agent of social change. Many films have been used to influence society, most notably in the genre of documentaries. While this is not my favorite genre, I do have documentaries that I have watched and enjoyed, such as Food Inc., which deals with big food companies and their bad practices. Not only have movies been used for social evolution, but they have also been used as a signal for the social evolution that is happening at the time. Popular movies are a reflection of what the people are interested at the time, which means popular movies are a window in which to look through to understand the current social status at the time. Movies are a way to live out something that would normally not be plausible, so popular movies are a reflection on the types of lives people would like to live if this type of life is realistic.

I grew up in an era where Disney cartoons were huge, especially for younger children. I remember when I was young that I used to sit down at least once every weekend and watch a Disney movie. My favorites were The Fox and The Hound and Bambi. Despite the fact that many people assert that these movies subliminally teach bad lessons, such as anti-Semitism, to children, the movies taught me many good values. This is what I think was the main point in the Disney cartoons, to both provide entertainment to children and to teach lessons such as: the importance of family, empathy, hard work, and many more. I did not even realize the bad reputation of the movies until many years after this period in my life, and I do not think this has changed my understanding of the films very much, in large part because I do not really believe Walt Disney intentionally taught anti-Semitism to children using these films, and this is more of a conspiracy theory. I believe that these movies have set a good example for me, and they served to entertain me for many hours as a kid; in fact, I probably spent too much time watching these and other similar movies as a kid, but I enjoyed them very much.

As I grew up, I began to progress to more “mature” movies. I still love the old cartoons, but I have transitioned to watch non g-rated movies, or, in other words, more inappropriate movies. I began watching violent action movies. My favorite movie in this genre during this period in my life was SWAT. This perfectly displays the type of movie that I watched at this time. This is most likely due to the fact that I thought the action in these types of movies was really cool, and watching movies with this type of action was the best way to experience it, since it is not realistic to experience this type of action in my life. These movies served as a sort of vicarious thrill in that sense.

Most recently, my tastes in movies have changed from action movies to more mature comedies. My favorite movie in this genre is Super Troopers, a comedy about state troopers in Vermont that bust a drug ring. The trend from action movies to comedies seems to be a pretty popular one in males, and it is reflected in the movie industry’s practice of making many comedies geared towards the young adult generation. This is one example of how the movie industry is a reflection on culture. This definitely points to movies being predictable. In some sense movies are predictable, in that the general trends of the industry match social change. This may be true, but specific movies are not predictable, so the movie industry is not completely predictable, but it is mostly predictable. Directors still have influence over what they want people to see, and they can block people from seeing certain things, not to mention movies can also influence culture in some ways. One area in which the movie industry has a big influence is in fashion. I do not think it is appropriate to say the industry is deterministic, but it is appropriate to say it is partially determined by culture and partially determined by the directors and the big production companies in the industry. One can determine what the popular movies are going to be in the near future because the popular movies will be about subjects in which people are interested, but there are some surprisingly popular movies that initiate social and cultural changes, so not all of the aspects of this industry are predictable.

David Nye’s article addresses an interesting point: if technology controls our lives. This begs the question: have movies controlled my life, at least thus far? Certainly directors assert a large amount of control over their viewers, controlling exactly what content and, perhaps more importantly, viewpoints they see. This can have a large effect on many of our views, such as political, economic and, social views. I would say that movies do not control me personally, as my movie viewing has been more a reflection of my interests prior to watching the movies than watching movies to learn new information and apply it in my life. Movies can be powerful, and documentaries can certainly change people’s views and even control many people’s opinions, but in my case, watching movies primarily for entertainment, not primarily for education, movies have not exerted enough influence on my political or social views to control them.

The other thing that changed about movies in my lifetime that has affected their influence on me is the way they are displayed. When I was a little kid movies were played at home with a VCR and a tape. These tapes were cumbersome, large and not so easy to obtain. With the advent of DVDs and Netflix, movies are now much easier to obtain and watch, not to mention the quality is much better. This has led me to watch more movies, and this has become one of my go to activities to do with people when we are bored, since it is much more convenient and cheaper to look on Netflix than to go out and buy a movie. The emergence of Netflix has also influenced the types of movies I watch. Now I tend to watch movies that have been out of theatres for longer periods of time since these are the movies that Netflix usually has online. This has led me to be somewhat behind the time in this respect, but it has also led me to appreciate slightly older, classic movies. I still keep up with the newest movies by going out to a theatre with my friends, but I don’t do this quite as much as I used to.

Movies are a very influential technological medium in my life, as in the lives of many others. They have influenced me, teaching me many things and providing me with a lot of entertainment, but they have not changed my fundamental views on society, like they have for other people. My age and the ways of obtaining movies at that particular time have been the primary factors in the kinds of movies I watch, and in how much I watch them. Therefore, these two factors have been the most influential in determining the effect movies have had on me throughout my life. In some respects the movie industry is deterministic, as it is a reflection of culture, but in some ways the industry actually helps to shape culture, both in good ways and in bad ways. In this case, the answer to the question “does culture shape technology, or does technology shape culture?” is not so clear, and in fact both answers to this question would prove to be right.