<doc.id=5035.a3>
<title> The gestures behind the words </title>
Different media, as has often been said, have different ways of conveying messages. Although some forms of media are better at presenting certain kind of information than others, it would be somewhat simple-minded, perhaps even slightly naïve, to think that television could be used for junk exclusively. This, however, is one of the main arguments in Neil Postman's book Amusing Ourselves to Death (1985), in which he even goes as far as to claim that "[w]e would all be better off if television got worse, not better." There is, one could argue, a considerable lack of nuance in Postman's critique of the television medium. Even though it is quite obvious that junk is what television excells at, there are many aspects of television which Postman, in his at times brilliant exposition of the epistemology of the television medium, leaves unexplored. One of the most interesting of these is perhaps the ability of the medium to be an invaluable complement to written discourse with messages that are, because of their non-verbal nature, left out of all forms of writing.
The democratic nature of the televison medium, that is, its ability to reach many people with the same message for quite a small effort (which has for a long time been put to use in public service channels, where broadcasting of quality movies and language training for children is nowadays commonplace), lends itself to showing politicians and other people in important positions in live broadcasts. By watching live broadcasts, almost every single citizen is offered the chance to get a peek at the people behind the ideas and, more importantly, at the body language they use.
The participants portrayed in televised, live broadcasts, albeit sitting in highly artificial studio environments and wearing make-up, are prone to react impulsively on unexpected questions or accusations, no matter how well prepared they are for the occasion. When watching television programmes that are broadcast live, especially political debates and other kinds of social discourse programmes, one is frequently amazed by the amount and the nature of the body language the participants, often inadvertently, show. Not seldom is it striking that the rhetorical phrases suggest a wholly different opinion when compared to the tics and gestures (or lack thereof) being shown. In some cases, as with the Swedish minister Björn Rosengren during the negotiations for a proposed merge between Telia and Telenor, one can occasionally even notice how certain politicians act when they think that the news cameras have been turned off, in this instance by saying something very inappropriate. This discrepancy between the private and the public role, or between intentions and impulses, can serve to expose the private, unscrupulous personalities of some of our elected and trusted political representatives.
One must not, however, forget that many politicians are well trained for public appearances, and that some gestures of frankness, as for instance the current Swedish Prime Minister frequently taking his glasses off and changing his tone to a bad imitation of some fairy tale father figure, are primarily aimed at television audiences. Even so, these faked gestures of sincerity can often reveal important facts that written discourse would have hidden from its readers. It also goes without saying that the live aspect of live broadcasting is critical to the audience's apprehension of the debate, and it follows that edited, cut or too carefully planned televised debates - or, indeed, political commercials - would be short of meaningless due to their unreliable, highly visceral nature.
Lastly, one major problem with televised political and social discourse, which Postman in fact does address, is the inability of the average television viewer to ignore the speaker's looks. It probably takes lot of practice and experience to spot a handsome liar, but without the complementation of a visual discourse in the form of a televised debate, it would be impossible altogether. This being a very complex issue abroad, especially in countries such as the United States, where people run for office on simple slogans and wide smiles, in Sweden the words and policies have so far, as is suggested by the looks of most Swedish politicians, luckily been of primary importance.
In conclusion, although writing is the medium of choice in conveying carefully formulated and nuanced debates, it suffers from a severe disadvantage when it comes to the audience getting a chance to spot and analyze the body language of the participants. This is why television has a very important role to play in complementing written discourse with quick takes of faces exchanging smiles and grins, offering the audience a look behind the words being spoken. Even though, and Postman stresses this relentlessly in his book, junk is what television excells at, it would probably be a severe loss to political and social discourse if television was to be degraded to a role where merely showing junk would be its primary aim.
</doc>