Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 4 · column 3 of 6 · from the scan, no model involved
By EUGENE MCCARTHY
Rappahannock New* Contributing Writer
Public figures have been subjected by history, or by the press, to one word or phrase characterizations. There was Pepin “The Short,” and Charles "The Bald.” Henry was "The Confessor,” and Ivan "The Terrible.” In naming current public figures it may well be wise for the press to proceed carefully, to avoid and to reject any early or sweeping characterizations.
Senator Walter Mondale, as a candidate for President, for example, was put in jeopardy of such characterization when his press secretary announced that Walter intended to elucidate the American, people, thus opening the way to hia’ becoming known as “The Great Elu* delator.” Lyndon Johnson, had he been careless, might have become known as "The Great Manipulator,” Eisenhower as "The Great Procrastinator,” Richard Nixon "The Dissimulator,” and Jimmy Carter "The Great Vadllator.”
Taking their inspiration from the historical label of Abraham Lincoln as "The Great Emandpator,” the press, early in Ronald Reagan’s first term as President, began calling him “The Great Communicator.” What Ronald was communicating was never made very dear either by the President or the press, but both seemed sure that he was communicating. The President seemed pleased with his title.
Years ago, Marshall McLuhan, one of the first social philosophers to give serious thought to the impact of television on sodety, concluded that content in television communication was all but irrelevant, and that “The Media was the Message.” Ronald may well be the incarnation of the McLuhan observation; namely, the communicator who is the communication.
In antidpation of the President’s recent State of the Union message, political experts, communication specialists and commentators advised the public that the substance of the speech would not be important, but that they would respond to how the President looked and sounded. Graphics and sonics would be of more significance than the ideas that might be induded in the address.
The judgment of the experts after the speech, not quite a consensus but something like a general condusion, was that the President looked good but that he had not sounded good; that the overall experience was somewhat like watching a television news program and listening to it, or trying to, when the picture was good but the sound was not.
85.2%