Slate magazine has just published a fascinating article, calling into question the traditional wisdom that, in the 1960 televised debate, those who watched on TV thought Kennedy won, while those who listened on the radio gave the spoils to Nixon; and thus, so the wisdom goes, was born the modern televisual age, where visual aesthetics trump verbal content.

I point to the article not least because I have used the received wisdom on many occasions, in class and in print, to make precisely the point about the power of television.  The article questions the data on which this factoid is based, though does concede at the end that the cultural perception that TV had this power may have been significant in achieving what amounted to precisely the same end.

Regardless of the truth about the impact (or not) of seeing the haggard and ill Nixon next to the tanned and cool-looking Kennedy, the fact remains that TV demands simplistic soundbites, of a kind that require the destruction of nuance, complexity, and fine distinctions -- all of the the things that are required by a thoughtful position on pretty much anything political.   Compare the Bush-Gore debates in 2000.   Gore's inept attempts at argument made him sound like a windbag (not that that even required him to break sweat), while Bush's folksy cliches struck a chord with the viewers.  Neither man was able to indicate whether or not they had any real grasp of the issues; but Bush demonstrated in spades that he had a real grasp of the medium.    Folks, that's showbusiness -- I mean, "politics in the televisual age"!