camera, man

Boorstin, Mann, Chardonnay
Tonight, we're in Calgary and I'm sneaking in a little MACT reading while Shelagh sleeps.

On the desk is Daniel Boorstin's The Image: A Guide Top Pseudo-Events in America. I want to emerge from my time in the MACT program with a better understanding of what, when I was in the television news industry, I might have been too close to see.

And that is the effect of the very camera used to record the images and sound that are the raw material of traditional television news broadcasts.

MacArthur then
Boorstin recounts the image of cheering Chicagoans who lined up on April 26, 1951, for a parade honouring General Douglas MacArthur.

"On the television screen one received the impression of wildly cheering and enthusiastic crowds before, during, and after the parade. Of course the cameras were specially selecting 'action shots,' which showed a noisy, waving audience; yet in many cases the cheering, waving, and shouting were really a response not so much to the General as to the aiming of the camera."

Boorstin says say truth was that many were bored, apathetic and angry about the sight lines.

Me tonight 
Since the beginning of my attempts to think about the Duckett Cookie Incident, I have tried to keep an eye on the fact that there was a camera present. What was the significance of that camera? What is the significance of the fact that cameraman was more than prepared to maintain a white balance when he walked from inside the hotel to outside?

In I, 84 of my Moleskine Notes: "What happened to Duckett? TV happened to Duckett."

I don't know what all of this means. I just want to force myself to remember that the camera does have an effect. We'll see what develops from this thought.















Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Things I don't like ;)

Well red!

On the streets where we live