"[Television advertising] Shows It to You. And It Shows It to You, and Shows It to You, and Shows..."

Shelley Berman on television advertising, 50 years ago.  I wouldn't expect anyone younger to get the gags.

Zandar Versus The Stupid's Sunday Long Read (misspelled in the title, and I so itched to correct it) excerpts the article by Rebecca Traister in New York Magazine on Hillary Clinton's campaign.  (Read the whole article, by the way; it's full of interesting detail.)  Zandar's conclusion:

[...]Clinton looks like a terrible, weak candidate on TV, when in person she's not. What bothers me is that Democrats have been running folks like that for years: Dukakis, Bentsen, John Kerry, Walter Mondale[;] the two guys who were different, Obama and Bill Clinton, won because they looked good on TV as well.

Trump is the opposite: if you see the guy at a rally he looks like a lunatic (and is) but on TV the guy comes across as less insane, if not "exciting" compared to "dull" Hillary Clinton (and to an extent, Sanders is the same way.)

How Clinton can start coming across as the reasonable choice in this media environment that constantly rewards Donald Trump and makes excuses for him daily because he's good ratings?

Yes, my mind floated directly to "The Girl Who Was Plugged In," why do you ask?

There is what's telegenic, or what looks good on TV, and some things that look good on TV are off-putting in real life.


[ETA:  Wrote this back at the beginning of June and either forgot about it or needed another piece of research.  Who knows?]