Video Power

   Once upon a time, the President's State of the Union message to Congress was a written formality, a routine mandated by the Constitution. Then, for a time, a President would deliver it in person, and maybe -- just maybe -- it would be broadcast on radio.
   Also once upon a time, members of Congress gathered in the House or Senate chambers and actually talked to each other, often vigorously, hashing out their differences and occasionally getting something done.
   Then came television, and the opportunity to present an image directly to the public and voters. Now, the State of the Union message is a highly choreographed exercise in image management, with the President claiming, Willy Loman-like, that everything is wonderful, even while acknowledging that things could be better, and here's how it can be done. This televised image-burnishing is immediately followed by a rebuttal speech by a member of the opposition party. This year, moreover, the American public ear will be bombarded by no fewer than three -- count 'em, three -- spokesmen for opposing political factions.

   What happened? Politicians discovered the power of media, especially video media. This gives them the opportunity to deliver their message directly to voters, without -- to them -- the nuisance factor of reporters and editors filtering the dross and forwarding the important, relevant information to the public.

   And have you noticed how often TV news shows speeches in the House or Senate delivered to empty chairs? Political colleagues and opponents aren't even in the building. But no matter. The important thing is that the cameras are running and the image can be given to TV news editors, saving them the effort of assigning a reporter to actually attend Congressional sessions.

   Video is a wonder technology, in that it can give the public more information about what government officials are doing. And, as always, politicians want to control the message, while news reporters and editors strive to avoid being controlled.

   In a broader analysis, the conflict of efforts can be a good thing, especially as journalists work hard not to be manipulated. Unfortunately, some politicians can be master manipulators, and far too many journalists are lax in their efforts to avoid being manipulated.

   So in the final analysis, it falls to the viewing and reading public to decide when, whether and how politicians are attempting to manipulate their image, and journalists are unwittingly complicit in the manipulation.