Why did Rep. Pelosi use a negative backdrop? [View All]

[0rganism]

(edited for the censors)
It's common sense. Shrub's handlers have this figured out. You make a positive, constructive message in whatever backdrop you choose to have behind you. Like "United in Victory" or "Wealth and Health" or "Mission Accomplished". Nothing complicated, just moderately competent PR.

But when Rep. Pelosi held that press briefing (I saw it on C-Span) about the Medicare bill, she had this sign behind her that said -- I s**t you not --
"Bad for Seniors . . . Bad for Medicare . . . Bad for Seniors . . . Bad for Medicare"
People watching that talk saw her head surrounded in a halo of "Bad". Now that's just not helpful, because the message the visual subconscious receives is "Nancy Pelosi is Bad, Bad for Medicare and Bad for Seniors, Bad Nancy."

Sure, it fit the topic of her speech, but that's not the point of a backdrop.

If Democrats are going to use backdrops at all, the message needs to present a positive interpretation of what they're doing. Like "Hold Out For A Real Plan" or "Saving Medicare" or even "Keep Quality Medicare". Then, the visual message is "Nancy Pelosi is Saving Medicare, she's Holding Out For A Real Plan, she's into Keeping Quality!"

Another thing, minor by comparison but I think it's significant, is the backdrop should be at least the size of the widest camera angle that will be used. That way it presents some sort of rudimentary ambience, even during zoom shots. When the shot opened up just a little from full zoom on the podium and her head, it was obvious that the backdrop was a dorky little sign stuck on an easel. Bad sign. Bad Nancy. Bad Democratic PR Guy.

Overall, her critique was right on, but Dems need to wise up to the way the brainwashed consumer mind works. Present a positive slogan like "We Have A Plan" on the backdrop, and it doesn't matter if all you do is rip on the other guy's plan; people will assume you have something better to offer whether you enunciate it or not. This is a subtle effect, but a very real one. Democrats are frequently pilloried as petulant naysayers, when they could be advertising an alternative vision even if they don't have one just by changing the scenery.

Yes, we humans really are that shallow. Try this experiment: turn off the sound on your TV and watch fast food commercials, or a bush* speech, and you will notice the visual message more. Flip the sound off and on a few times, compare the visual message to the aural. With or without the sound, the same images get across. Look for the things that impact your opinion, positively or negatively.

Personally, I think this is why bush* gets a free ride from a lot of moderates. He's horrible on the issues, he can't even put a coherent sentence together half the time. But he projects a visual image and ambience that many people find soothing and amiable. Sure, you probably don't, but try the sound on/off experiment, watch shrub with the sound off, and chances are he'll seem far less annoying than with the sound on.