ABSTRACT
THE FIERCE URGENCY OF NOW: A VISUAL RHETORICAL ANALYSIS OF BARACK OBAMA
The purpose of this thesis was to conduct a visual rhetorical analysis of several images of Barack Obama crying. This study proposed four research questions intended to explicate the significance and meaning of the images: (1) What are the potential functions of the BBC images? (2) What were the reactions to Obama’s crying and how does that impact the understanding of the visual images? (3) How does a visual rhetorical analysis of these images help us understand the contemporary presidency? (4) How does a visual rhetorical analysis help us understand the implications of President Obama’s crying during public speeches and events? The images under examination were uploaded to a BBC article in 2017 and some of these images received more discussion and distribution across mass media. Part of this study’s intention is not only to create a greater understanding of presidential rhetoric and visual rhetoric but to help situate their places in communication studies as well. Limitations for this research and future research implications are also discussed.
Martin Ramirez December 2019
THE FIERCE URGENCY OF NOW: A VISUAL RHETORICAL ANALYSIS OF BARACK OBAMA
by Martin Ramirez
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Communication in the College of Arts and Humanities California State University, Fresno December 2019 APPROVED
For the Department of Communication:
We, the undersigned, certify that the thesis of the following student meets the required standards of scholarship, format, and style of the university and the student's graduate degree program for the awarding of the master's degree.
Martin Ramirez Thesis Author
Douglas Fraleigh (Chair) Communication
Diane Blair Communication
Kevin Macy-Ayotte Communication
For the University Graduate Committee:
Dean, Division of Graduate Studies AUTHORIZATION FOR REPRODUCTION
OF MASTER’S THESIS
X I grant permission for the reproduction of this thesis in part or in its entirety without further authorization from me, on the condition that the person or agency requesting reproduction absorbs the cost and provides proper acknowledgment of authorship.
Permission to reproduce this thesis in part or in its entirety must be obtained from me.
Signature of thesis author: ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would just like to thank my cohort consisting of Alyssa, Hannah, and Selina, I love you all very dearly. I would also like to thank my professors for helping shape who I am as a scholar and individual. I do not know what I did to deserve to be a part of this journey, but I do not intend on forgetting it anytime soon. Thank you all, for everything. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
LIST OF FIGURES ...... vii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ...... 1
Rationale ...... 4
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 9
Visual Rhetoric and Argument ...... 11
Visual Rhetoric of the Presidency ...... 15
Femininity of the Presidency ...... 18
Rhetoric of Crisis and Emergency Response ...... 20
Crying in Politics ...... 25
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND METHODOLOGY ...... 28
Method ...... 28
Artifacts of Examination ...... 30
The Seven Images ...... 31
Narrowing the Images ...... 36
Analysis ...... 37
The Loss of His Grandmother ...... 37
Farewell Address ...... 39
The Sandy Hook School Massacre ...... 41
Aretha Franklin ...... 43
The Introduction of New Gun Laws in the U.S...... 46
CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS ...... 50
Research Question 1: What are the potential functions of the BBC images? ...... 50
Research Question 2: What were the reactions to President Obama’s crying? ...... 63 vi vi Page
Discussion of Reactions ...... 71 Research Question 3: How does a visual rhetorical analysis of these images help us understand the contemporary presidency? ...... 75 Research Question 4: How does a visual rhetorical analysis help us understand the implications of President Obama’s crying during public speeches and events? ...... 82
CHAPTER 5: IMPLICATIONS, LIMITATIONS AND CONCLUSION ...... 90
President Trump and Images...... 90
Social Media Images ...... 91
Videos ...... 91
Implications for Communication ...... 94
Limitations ...... 102
Conclusion ...... 104
REFERENCES ...... 105
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1. President Obama at his farewell address...... 32
Figure 2. President Obama the night before his election ...... 32
Figure 3. President Obama at funeral of Dorothy Height ...... 33
Figure 4. President Obama following Sandy Hook shooting ...... 34
Figure 5. President Obama at funeral of Daniel Inouye ...... 34
Figure 6. President Obama at Kennedy Center Honors, 2015 ...... 35
Figure 7. President Obama on new gun legislation ...... 35
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
When I was 16 years old, I missed the election of Barack Obama. I was a teenager in high school having fun in my physical education class. Some students were inside classrooms as their teachers let them watch Obama’s inauguration. I was too young to appreciate what that moment meant at the time. I watched on television as people gathered with one another in jubilation and cried as they heard the news that Barack Obama would be the next President of the United States. Not everyone was excited at the news, but most recognized it as a historical moment in U.S history. It was not until I became much older that I recognized the large amount of literature that gave people a fascination with the presidency. Besides their politics we did not know much about a president’s daily life and schedule. We only knew how a president was supposed to conduct themselves publicly. This led to what Erickson (2000) referred to as a “romantic expectation” (p. 142). Today this is no longer the case. It seems today that the public has gained much more access to the executive branch through the mass media and other visual mediums. The President is followed around so much that some wonder if everything they do should be considered rhetorical (Stuckey, 2010). Whether that is true or not, it is certain that presidents have always been lauded for their speeches. McFarlane (2016) argued that this is not simply because of their enormous nature of influence, but because of the powerful and imaginative use of rhetoric in their speeches. What presidents say and how they say it matters to the audience. The presidency is a performance, and it is a performance that is expected to be illustrated in a certain manner (Erickson, 2000). For researchers of presidential rhetoric, such as myself, that performance consists of specific ways in which presidents are supposed to talk to an audience, act, and conduct themselves. Through the use of 2 2 technology, presidents have changed this performance. They not only use visual mediums to get their image out there, but also to connect to a much younger audience who does not prefer to solely listen to them speak (DeSilver, 2018). Barack Obama knew this and that is why he would have question-and-answer forums on different social media platforms in which he discussed important issues to audiences willing to ask him directly (DeSilver, 2018). Visuality has changed the way the presidency is enacted and performed. For myself, Barack Obama changed my view on this performance. This view was changed for me on December 14, 2012, and Obama’s reminiscing of this particular day 4 years later. On December 14, 2012 Adam Lanza opened fire on many students at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. This act of violence killed 20 children and several staff members. This violence caused outrage, but mostly sadness around the nation as people mourned the children who had been killed. Tragically, the United States is not new to school shootings. This tragedy shocked the nation and once again propelled the heated debate over gun control legislation here in the United States. Audiences around the world stood waiting for President Obama to make a statement on how he planned to respond to the tragedy that had taken the lives of many innocent children. Although one would argue that there is no set script for how a president responds to certain situations such as mass shootings, they are always expected to make a statement to the public with condolences and possible courses of action. This debate put a very heavy burden on the country, especially President Barack Obama. On January 2016, 4 years after the shooting in Newtown, President Obama gave a speech in which he introduced his hope for gun control legislation for the current year. Obama was surrounded in the room by media, photographers, and also the friends and family of mass shooting victims. As he gave his speech, he reminded everyone of the deaths in Newtown. He told of how fathers and mothers had to go on with their lives 3 3 never again being able to see their son or daughter. Obama quoted Martin Luther King Jr. as he stated that we as a country need to face this gun problem “with the fierce urgency of now” (PBS News Hour, 2016). Like many past presidents who have addressed tragedies, Obama’s rhetoric in this speech declared that those who died would want us to take action against the reason that they died. This is what Rood (2018) referred to as the “warrant of the dead” (p. 51). In other words, those who died would want us rise and take action instead of standing on the sidelines. Next, President Obama did what we rarely see presidents do in public, he began crying as he stated, “Every time I think about those kids it gets me mad” (BBC Newsbeat, 2017). Although Obama wiped his tears, he did not attempt to hide the fact that he was becoming emotional and beginning to cry. The friends and families of past victims applauded as they stood next to the President and watched him express his emotions while delivering his speech. Although the immediate reaction in the room was applause, there were several other reactions around the country that followed.
President Obama crying caused major reactions around the country and it stirred a controversy surrounding the emotions of the presidency, with Barack Obama being caught in the middle. The nation gathered in a discussion about what type of emotions were allowed from the President. Parry-Giles and Parry-Giles (1996) argued that the Oval Office is an extremely masculine construction not simply because it has been historically occupied by only men but also because of the masculine institutions that the President presides over, such as the military. Parry-Giles and Parry-Giles (1996) claimed that if a president acts outside of these masculine expectations, then it could lead to severe backlash such as questions over their leadership or temperament. Obama’s gun legislation speech in 2016 was not the first speech he delivered in which he was televised crying, nor would it be the last. 4 4
This paper seeks to employ a visual rhetoric analysis of Barack Obama. Specifically, this thesis seeks to show how these images of Obama crying function as visual rhetoric and how they impact the visual rhetoric of the presidency. This will be an examination of photographs of President Obama to emphasize his place as a visual rhetorical president. Specifically, I will analyze seven photographs that were displayed in a BBC article near the end of Obama’s tenure which displayed seven times in which he cried during a speech or event. These photographs appear more as a catalogue of Obama crying as they are situated next to captions that detail some context of the image. These photographs have yet to be analyzed by communication scholars and they can no longer go unnoticed as their creation and circulation into the public eye invites a rhetorical perspective. My findings suggest that these images humanize Obama, they help argue how some still perceive the presidency to be a masculine position, and they illustrate how the presidency has entered into our visual culture. The rhetorical implications for this study are great, and like all studies, there needs to be a rationale for endeavoring into this work. The following will be a rationale for this study and a few words about the reasoning for a study on Barack Obama.
Rationale The election of Barack Obama back in 2008 was important to many people and for several significant reasons that I would like to highlight. The first reason is that he was the first Black President in the history of the United States. This was a monumental moment for the United States as well as many other countries whose leaders commented on Obama’s election. The implications that his election had for racial progress spread worldwide. Electing a Black Senator to the highest office in the land sent shockwaves around the world and inspired many who saw this as a new day in the history of the 5 5
United States. Cobb (2011) and Watts (2017) examined how political commentators felt a strong sentiment that racism was officially over because we had elected the first Black
President. This sentiment of living in a postracial society was quickly dispelled by many critics, including Obama himself who felt that living in a postracial society was not quite feasible even though the people elected him as the President. Cobb (2011) argued that many felt that this postracial sentiment was dangerous because “such perspectives are used to negate the masses of African Americans who remain relegated to places of disadvantage” (p. 413). We do not live in a postracial society and thinking that we do can lead to ignoring the continued marginalization that many people of color still face. The second reason Obama’s election was important is that it came at a historic time for visual imagery, specifically visual imagery being used more often inside the political arena. Visual mediums were certainly rising during the beginning of Obama’s campaign for the Oval Office and this candidate was not shy about using the rising visual world to extend his message of hope and change. Graber and Dunaway (2015) argued that Obama became elected to office in large part because of his role as a “television-age recruit” (p. 314). These recruits are individuals with little political experience that garner much attention because of their notable performances as celebrities or speakers in the digital age. This camera time allows for the public to become more acquainted with that individual and allows that individual to create a lasting impression. Although he was an intelligent and viable candidate, Obama’s status as a television age recruit could not be ignored. Obama’s run for the presidency coincided with the rise of many visual mediums such as Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube, which still remain popular today. This is important because in today’s political world it is a must for candidates to make television appearances and take photographs with their constituents. No one took more advantage of the camera and television lenses than Barack Obama. These visual mediums made Obama a much more intimate president, and obviously a much more visual one. His 6 6 persona as a visual president as well as his promise of hope and change seemed to make him a likeable person (McFarlane, 2016). Audiences around the country became accustomed to seeing Obama’s face on their television screens, which only increased his notoriety and his viability as a candidate when he first began his campaign back in 2008. The visuality of the President allows an audience to further analyze concepts of the presidential rhetoric that one could not possibly garner with only text. These sets of images illustrate the performance of the presidency and allow for more avenues of critique for presidential rhetoric in both the visual and verbal aspects of it. Presidents try to be as careful as possible with their image because they know that any bad visual of them can lead audiences to reflect on them in a negative manner (Erickson, 2000). With the rise of a more visual presidency comes the realization that Communication studies has vastly focused on the discourse and verbal aspect of presidential rhetoric while placing less emphasis on the visual rhetoric of the president, specifically Obama. Focusing on text or discourse as the only form of knowing, learning or passing on knowledge is what Conquergood (2002) referred to as “textocentrism” (p. 43). Conquergood (2002) stressed that this particular point of view is dominant in Western culture. Studies on presidential rhetoric have vastly fallen under a textocentric line of thinking which has led to speech being the vast focus of how scholars are willing to study a president. Conquergood (2002) suggested that this view of knowledge sees text as the popular and preferred way of knowing in the academy and that “This is a view from above the object of inquiry: knowledge that is anchored in paradigm and secured in print” (p. 38). This is not to suggest that studies of presidential rhetoric such as public address have not contributed largely to our understanding of the presidency. Conquergood stated it best by claiming “I want to be very clear about this point: textocentrism – not texts – is the problem” (p. 43). Speech and imagery can work together and they both have expanded our knowledge on rhetoric and the President. Placing them against each other is 7 7 not a way to create fruition. Examination of a president’s verbal discourse sets the stage for an examination through a visual rhetorical analysis and as McFarlane (2016) suggested, it is important that we not completely separate the two from each other. Visual rhetoric can add much to the rhetoric of the presidency as it allows the audience to have more room for interpretation. The idea that we can expand what our definition of rhetorical discourse is only strengthens our discipline. Visual rhetoric can expand what Gronbeck (2004) referred to as the “electronic presidency” (p. 41). This was an expansion of what Tulis (1987) called the rhetorical president. This is what Tulis (1987) described the President addressing the public directly as opposed to speaking to Congress about important issues. Presidents continue to employ this tactic of speaking to the people directly in order to gain momentum or support (Gronbeck, 2004). With the fast development of mass media, politicians speaking directly to the public has become increasingly popular. This rhetorical strategy is not only practiced by the President, but by most figures in the political arena (Gronbeck, 2004).
With a vast number of visual mediums at their disposal, political figures are allowed constant air time, which they use to persuade or simply speak to the public. This is also a fast and popular way to increase their popularity with vast audiences. The electronic presidency situates the rhetorical presidency in an age where technology is expanding and creates a new avenue for them to communicate to the public. In an electronic presidency, the audience is able to see the President more vividly and they in turn are able to communicate to a larger audience much quicker than they have done in the past. This is often seen as an advantage for both the President and the audience. One final element of rationale concerns rhetoric itself. To consider rhetoric as only speech or words is far too dangerous. This is a simplistic view of rhetoric and one that does not go into depth about the act of communication (McFarlane, 2016). To reduce the complex nature of communication to only speech would be to create a disservice for 8 8 scholars and students. Communication is a complex practice that is difficult to teach and perhaps impossible to perfect. We should not pretend to completely understand what rhetoric is or have a single definition for it. For centuries, people have regarded rhetoric as the sole act of persuasion (Gronbeck, 2004). This has led to claims that rhetoric is a deceitful art and that only those who want to do harm practice rhetoric or study rhetoric. We should expand on what rhetoric can be constituted as because our current perspective on rhetoric is to narrow and strict (McFarlane, 2016). This paper intends to answer the call for scholarship regarding the visual rhetoric of the president, starting with who McFarlane (2016) regarded as probably the most visual and virtual president, Barack Obama.
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
Audiences have always been captivated with photos of the President. This image is one that mesmerizes audiences and has the ability to bring reassurance (Erickson, 2000). No matter how much presidents attempt to normalize themselves, they are not the average citizen. Since presidents have been televised, audiences have become captivated with what they do and say. Kraus (1996) studied who audiences thought won the Kennedy and Nixon television debate. Kraus examined how audiences considered image an important role in who they thought had won the debate between the two presidential candidates. People who saw Kennedy on television thought he appeared more presidential and confident as he stood tall and firm while confidently staring at the camera. On the other hand, Nixon appeared to be sweating and seemed uncomfortable while debating. The viewers at home lost confidence in candidate Nixon as they felt his demeanor was not what they wanted as the Commander in Chief, and it possibly hurt his chances of becoming president.
As can be seen from Kraus (1996), the presidential image has always been important. The visuality of the President came to be of significance to audiences in the 1960s because of television’s development. Kraus (1996) suggested that the physical appearance and demeanor of the President means a lot to the public. Perhaps it is troubling that viewers care more about a leader’s image rather than their policy talk. This was supported by Kraus (1996) who suggested “physical appearance dominates viewers’ attention” (p. 85). Visual appeal is an important tactic for a president to have in their arsenal. This is why they attempt to visualize themselves to the audience as being active and healthy (Erickson, 2000). Today, perhaps we take the presidential image for granted. Since audiences have much quicker access to a photograph of the President, they tend to forget how important this image is. The presidency is not solely about policy issues and 10 10 debates, it is also a performance. Presidents are expected to act “presidential” especially when they are in the eye of the media (Erickson, 2000). An image can leave a lasting impression and today they rarely evaporate. The President is not only a political figure, they are who we chose to lead the country in times of peace and turmoil. President Obama has been a staple in presidential rhetoric, which is why many scholars have covered his speeches. The literature on the rhetoric of President Obama is extensive. Authors have covered several aspects of many of his speeches over the years of his presidency and during the time that he spent campaigning. Many scholars have covered Obama’s speeches and illustrated the implications that his declamations have towards the study of communication. However, the literature that contains visual rhetorical examinations of President Obama is short and limited. I feel that we need to explore this further because it is important to expand on what we think communication is and what we think it has the ability to do.
This past and important visual literature on President Obama, such as Rossing (2011), examined his Black body as something to be feared in the President given the racial biases and anxieties that some continue to carry here in the United States. Through imagery, Rossing (2011) illustrated the importance of race during the Obama administration and the conversations that were taking place about him as a Black man in the Oval Office. Other works such as Gleason and Hansen (2017) examined his relationship with the people responsible for photographing him, such as the press. The relationship that the President has with the press is important for researching Obama’s visual rhetoric. It is part of their job to deliver images of the President. Overall, there is still more that can be done. There can be much more research that explores the visuality of Obama and its place of importance in academia. Although there has been great work done in the visual 11 11 rhetoric of the presidency, there has scarcely been any visual work that allows us to examine presidential emotions, specifically on Obama. Emotions such as crying can be a fruitful examination because of its stance as a nonverbal cue as opposed to the continued emphasis on literal speech. The visuality of Obama is important because, as McFarlane (2016) argued, Obama’s image is one the fundamental reasons he was successful in his 2008 campaign. His image was a large part of his popularity and was a fundamental component to a rising popularity. Obama and his presidential campaign team worked meticulously on his image as they helped popularize the idea of hope and change to the public. The following literature is the stepping-stone for my study and depicts authors and works from vast ranges. We will start with the most important aspect of this study, visual rhetoric and visual argument.
Visual Rhetoric and Argument Foss (1994) argued what is now obviously true regarding visual rhetoric and communication. She argued that in Communication studies, what is considered rhetorical theory and practice is quickly expanding and now includes visuality and imagery. Foss (1994) argued that visuals are more about the function of the image and not the intent of the creator of the image. No matter the intent of the distributor of the image, the interpreter may not think alike. Foss (1994) emphasized the importance of the critic’s interpretation of the image at hand and the role that the interpreter plays in the describing the potential function. Sometimes it can be extremely difficult for audiences to truly know the intention of the creator of the image. Commenting on this impediment, Foss (1994) stated that “In part because of such difficulties, the anti-intentionalist stance, which undergirds my proposed schema, suggests that a work, once done, stands independent of its production and the intentions of artists and creators are irrelevant to critics’ responses to their works” (p. 215). This leaves a lot of responsibility on the critic 12 12 to cast aside the intentions of the creators and pull out the functions that they believe the image propels. Other authors such as McFarlane (2016) have argued that visual rhetoric works in several ways. McFarlane (2016) argued that the concept of visual rhetoric operates in two distinct manners. According to McFarlane (2016), visual rhetoric is both the visual image that one is examining, and a type of study in which one examines visual images within rhetoric. She distinguished the two because often people think of visual rhetoric as a method that can be employed on any given image. In McFarlane’s (2016) study, she examined the White House Situation Room photograph that was taken during the raid that killed Osama bin Laden. This image circulated widely and became synonymous with the day bin Laden was killed. According to McFarlane (2016), this image became popularized and serves as a photograph with many rhetorical implications. Many significant political figures were in the shot including President Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. McFarlane (2016) employed a visual rhetorical analysis and stated that “A visual rhetorical analysis takes an image that is considered visual rhetoric and analyzes it for its rhetorical significance and meaning” (p. 6). She thoroughly examined the photograph by highlighting her own interpretations, with context of the photograph. This helped propel her own argument that Obama was a strong Commander in Chief. McFarlane (2016) situated the context surrounding the image as an important aspect of her visual rhetorical analysis. Although she offered a great insight in what visual rhetoric is and how to employ a visual rhetorical analysis, she did not comment on Obama’s display of emotions that night. She only detailed how he could be perceived as weak in the photograph and how she would argue the contrary. Gleason and Hansen (2017) examined Obama’s image control tactics. Image control is the technique used by Obama of not of allowing certain photographers take his picture during events so as to create the image that he deemed preferable to the audience. 13 13
The authors discussed visual rhetoric as they illustrated how Obama refusing to let outside photojournalists take pictures of events that they normally would get to hinder the freedom of the press. Gleason and Hansen (2017) stated that “visual rhetoric is an analytical tool for interpreting a variety of forms of material culture, especially photographs, for the symbolic representations that promote and challenge existing structures” (p. 60). Gleason and Hansen (2017) emphasized that a visual rhetorical analysis is subjective and dependent upon the interpreter. The authors claimed that “Visual rhetoric allows for interpretation that may differ among researchers. The researcher determines the sampling based on the subject matter, rather than a one size fits all system” (p. 61). The authors provided a great example of visual rhetoric on President Obama, but it is clear that the authors and I are looking at two very different sets of photographs of President Obama. Gleason and Hansen (2017) examined a set of photographs that were mainly posted to the White House Flickr account and taken by the official White House photographer in the practice of controlling Obama’s image. Gleason and Hansen (2017) claimed that “In these photos the president is frequently appearing distant or impersonal, as if the intended representation is to reinforce a more classic view of masculine leadership” (p. 64). Pictures of a president crying may not be regarded by some as a classic view of typical presidential leadership. The authors also stressed that Obama and his staff approved of the photos and asked for them to be distributed, so it was their own rhetoric that they were advancing. The pictures the authors used also emphasized claims of authenticity in presidential photographs. Finnegan (2001) discussed authenticity and image practice in visual argument through the naturalistic enthymeme in her examination of the skull controversy back in the 1930s. Finnegan (2001) claimed that we see photographs as depicting or telling the truth. Finnegan (2001) stated “I call this process the ‘naturalistic enthymeme’: we assume 14 14 photographs to be ‘true’ or ‘real’ until we are given reason to doubt them” (p. 135). Refuting a visual image as inauthentic has become a common form of visual argument in the political realm. Many critics of the president often claim that the president is being phony or insincere if they think an image of them is inauthentic. This should be no surprise, seeing as how before photography even became popular, audiences have always attracted to images that seem natural or untouched (Finnegan, 2001). Finnegan (2001) emphasized on the visual culture of the 1930s claiming that in this time period it was thought that “Through a ‘magical’ chemical reaction, the photograph literally created itself and in doing so created the impression that the camera’s eye was merely a mechanical substitute for the human eye” (p. 142). Finnegan (2001) addressed the importance of distinguishing the concepts of a visual image and a visual culture. The visual culture of today propels many questions not only about the authenticity of the photographs, but also about the person in them. A president’s face is often a signal to the audience about that individual’s trustworthiness and capabilities of accomplishing their job duties (Finnegan, 2001). A president’s authenticity is considered important when they are dealing with heavy matters, such as responding to a tragedy. It is important that they seem sincere in their condolences and that they seem authentic to the public. Finnegan (2001) focused heavily on the history of visuality, specifically documentaries, and claims that the incoming digital media has not destroyed our knowledge or belief in the naturalistic enthymeme but has only made people believe it more. As Finnegan (2001) suggested, in the world of photoshop and presidential photo opportunities, photographic practices come into question as whether something is sincere or an attempted manipulation. It is important to realize that imagery can be used in the capacity of argumentation and that rhetoric has long been applied directly to the study of the presidency. 15 15 Visual Rhetoric of the Presidency Presidents are known for taking any chance to create a good photo opportunity.
These opportunities are chances for them to create a good impression of themselves to the public and the media. Presidents, through their own photographers, have the ability to distribute images of themselves that create positive rhetorical implications to the public. Erickson (2000) examined the visual rhetoric of the presidency by analyzing White House photo opportunities. These photo opportunities are common among presidents when they want to elicit a message of goodwill to the public at large or simply look good in front of the camera during an important event that they know many will be watching. In an era when today even the President of the United States has at his disposal a Facebook, Instagram and Twitter these documented photo opportunities are more common for presidents to do and more easily accessible for public consumption. The circulation of these photo opportunities is vast when considering the number of media platforms for political discussion. Erickson described the fragments of presidential performance as prudent and imprudent fragments. Prudent performance fragments are the photographs we have come to expect from the president. These images seem genuine and are regarded by audiences as being filled with good intentions. In regards to these types of images Erickson (2000) stated “Indeed, prudent performance fragments facilitate a president’s to realistically enact such roles as world leader, peacemaker, protector of the commonweal, guardian of cultural and political values, commander-in-chief, and chief executive” (p. 143). These are positive images that the President wants the public to see. On the other hand, there are imprudent performance fragments which are a violation of what we expect from the President. Imprudent fragments can make the president seem ingenuine, insensitive, and untrustworthy even if their actions in the fragment were misunderstood or taken out of context. This can lead to a decline in their popularity. Erickson (2000) furthered this assertion when he stated that “A dull or 16 16 embarrassing presidential performance, for example, can signal confusion, incompetence, or insensitivity” (p. 148). For instance, an example of a possible imprudent performance fragment is the image of Michael Dukakis riding in a tank in 1988. Many critics deemed this photograph as insensitive because it was so far removed from who Dukakis was; the fact he seemed to be enjoying himself in a dangerous military vehicle seemed insensitive to some people. The importance and rhetorical impact of presidential performance fragments is part of what marks a visual turn in presidential rhetoric. This sense of a visual turn in the presidency is now growing as more scholars see the important use of photographs, and the technology that produces the photographs, for analyzing presidential rhetorical discourse. Gronbeck (2004) also saw the coming of the visual turn for the presidency. Gronbeck (2004) extended the conversation on the rhetorical presidency by claiming that the evolution of technology is presenting audiences with the introduction of the electronic presidency. Gronbeck (2004) claimed that “We live in an era where access to the presidency – and, for the president, to his various constituencies – is controlled and conditioned by electronic channels” (p. 30). Visual mediums such as television and YouTube, as well as news outlets such as MSNBC and Fox News can be considered part of these electronic channels. Gronbeck (2004) stated that in our virtual age criticisms of the president should be no surprise because, “The leader’s actions are analyzed to death in terms of backgrounds and consequences, political uptake and political support, and their representativeness of good or bad leadership” (p. 39). A president’s actions are no longer private and 24-hour news channels are only increasing the visibility of the President and even his mundane practices get coverage. The notions of a visual turn and an electronic presidency are vitally important when analyzing the visual rhetoric of the presidency and presidential rhetoric, specifically in the age of Obama. Capturing images of the President and analyzing their rhetorical 17 17 impact did not start with Obama, but he is an essential figure of the electronic presidency. Discussing presidents through their imagery has not only applied to Obama but has been applied to past presidents whose image is considered mythical. Finnegan (2005) used the audience’s knowledge of images to analyze President Abraham Lincoln and the comments made by the public about Lincoln’s image. Finnegan’s work here is important for a visual rhetorical analysis for two major reasons. First, Finnegan argued that audiences do not simply approach photographs and analyze them, but they bring to visual images what she calls “image vernaculars” (p. 34). Finnegan defined image vernaculars by stating “Image vernaculars are the enthymematic modes of reasoning employed by audiences in the context of specific practices of reading and viewing in visual cultures” (p. 34). Image vernaculars are a skill set and general knowledge that one brings to an examination of a visual image. Image vernaculars are not only general knowledge about images but can also be knowledge about image practices and image context. The political analysts who comment on the images of a president in a video or photograph, whether it is a criticism or sympathizing, do so with their image vernaculars. These vernaculars could have been the context of the speech or their knowledge of this politician as a person and public servant. According to Finnegan (2005), since people did not know much about Lincoln during his early years they counted on their image vernaculars to claim what his image possibly said about the man himself. The second reason that Finnegan’s (2005) work is important here is because of the way she situates Abraham Lincoln’s mythical status even though he had an actual existence. Finnegan (2005) stated, “Photographs of Abraham Lincoln are particularly fascinating in this regard because of the staggering force of the Lincoln mythos” (p. 35). Obama’s presidency and post-presidency images created many myths about him and elevated him to the status of mythical figure as he gained popularity in his initial 18 18 campaign and throughout his presidency. His election gave credence, to some, about living in a postracial society. Cobb (2011) articulated how Obama’s presidency gave a green light to the myth of the United States living in a post racial society. Cobb (2011) illustrated that in the world where racism no longer exists, the image of the first Black president signified that we no longer see race because racism is now a controversial issue of the past. Images of the president propel them to the status of larger than life figures in the public eye. This is what Finnegan (2005) illustrated about Lincoln’s image. She explained how one single image of Lincoln created many myths about his character and aspirations. Focusing on any type of presidential rhetoric is likely to produce the conversation of the Oval Office being run by men and how many women have never been able to gain popularity in a presidential campaign without being subjected to certain criticisms that men are not subjected to. There has been much scholarship and articles of work based on women, politics, and the presidency.
Femininity of the Presidency The office of the President of the United States is a masculine position and is regarded as requiring masculine characteristics to get elected. The showing of emotions, such as crying, is seen as extremely feminine in an office such as the presidency. Authors suggest that any form of feminine traits or characteristics are often seen as validations for presidential candidate’s inefficiency to be president. Heldman, Carroll, and Olson (2005) claimed that, “There is perhaps no political position where gender stereotypes work more to women’s disadvantage than the highly masculinized office of the U.S presidency” (p. 316). Heldman et al. (2005) stipulated that when a woman receives media coverage this coverage tends to focus more on the woman’s personality, attire, and even their voice intonation. Heldman et al. (2005) not only illustrated how the media overwhelmingly 19 19 choose to cover female candidates but also the feminine characteristics that are expected of women when they are a candidate.
Holt (2012) found similar results when analyzing the competing campaigns of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in 2008. What Holt (2012) argued is that media not only have the ability to change the course of an election, but they can set an agenda for how the viewing audience can perceive a candidate. Holt (2012) determined that Clinton received more media recognition in the area of gender, implying that voters were simply astonished to even see a woman be competitive for the presidential ticket although it was against a man with little political experience. Parry-Giles and Parry-Giles (1996) stated that we should not be quick to celebrate what is known as “feminine style” (p. 339). Parry-Giles and Parry-Giles (1996) examined presidential campaign videos to show that political figures, such as George H.W. Bush, do show a more feminine style in their campaign videos but in fact this style potentially masks the hegemonic masculinity that still exists in the political world. The rhetorical impact of these videos is negative as they depict the wives as mere role players in their husband’s success. The authors exemplified how these campaign videos show women as loving wives and mothers. These videos perpetuated the troubled notion that women belong at home instead of pursuing political aspirations Although the media are quick to criticize women if they show any characteristics that are deemed too feminine, sometimes these characteristics can be even more hurtful to a politician’s potential if they are a man. Fahey (2007) examined how presidential candidate John Kerry was portrayed as a feminine politician shortly after the Iraq War and in the presidential race of 2004 against George W. Bush. The French were seen as the enemy after they did not support the United States in the beginning of the Iraq War. The French were then portrayed as weak, feminine and as individuals who were too fearful to fight for what they believed in. Kerry’s opponents criticized him for looking French, which can be related back to Kraus 20 20
(1996) who argued that the mere look of a presidential candidate can determine whether an audience perceives them as a viable candidate for president. John Kerry was portrayed as not only someone who looked French, but also associated himself with the French culture, therefore he was too feminine to be president. His opponents were quick to jump on this argument and attempted to damage his credibility as a person and political figure as well as his presidential campaign. Despite his military service, a masculine institution, the damage of feminine association was done. These works exemplify how being a woman or having characteristics that seem feminine can be used against a politician. Feminist rhetorical scholarship has shown how women are besieged with female stereotypes in the world of politics. However, the literature tends to focus on how the media portray women who display characteristics associated with femininity. For example, Parry-Giles and Parry-Giles (1996) illustrated that in the presidential films they examined, the wives were never their own individual person but instead they were their husband’s support system. It is not often discussed when Black male politicians display characteristics associated with femininity. Fahey (2007) examined John Kerry, but an examination of Barack Obama could lend itself to a discussion on Black male stereotypes that still exist in today’s world of politics. Presidents are not only supposed to be masculine in demeanor, but they are also supposed to be masculine in times of crisis and terror, such as the Sandy Hook School shooting. Crying is a sign of femininity that is stereotypically associated with women. Presidents crying in campaign speeches or during a speech that addresses times of current crisis is not something the public normally sees.
Rhetoric of Crisis and Emergency Response It is often seen as the job of the president to respond to the nation in a time of crisis. This is response is often expected to be filled with reassurance and guidance. 21 21
Landau and Keeley-Jonker (2018) referred to this job as the conductor of public feelings. The authors illustrated how to enact the role of conductor of public feelings when they illustrated how the president enacts the role of conductor of public feelings using Obama’s Tucson speech. This is a speech in which Obama responded to the tragic shooting that nearly took the life of Congressperson Gabby Giffords. Landau and Keeley- Jonker employed (2018) a rhetorical analysis to show how Obama used everything including his speech, voice intonation, and certain body movements to conduct the audience to feel a certain emotion towards the tragic event and towards his speech. Presidents and politicians do not only create emotional speeches but employ emotional words in their speech in order to amplify the rhetorical effect of their address (Landau & Keeley-Jonker, 2018). Rood (2018) examined how presidents, such as Obama often respond to tragedies with calls to action. After the Sandy Hook shooting, President Obama gave a speech in which he inferred pro-gun control rhetoric and said that we as a nation must take action because it is what the victims of the tragedy would want us to do. Rood (2018) referred to this as the “warrant of the dead” (p. 51). The warrant of the dead is a rhetorical choice in which the speaker chooses to prioritize certain ethics and morals. Rood argued that presidents often employ the warrant of the dead not out of guilt, but as a way to get the nation’s mind off the tragedy and onto something more positive, such as making sure something like this never happens again by taking action against what helped cause the tragedy. Jones, Zagacki, and Lewis (2007) also discussed the power of acknowledging the presence of the missing or dead in their study of missing person posters after the attack on September 11, 2001: “Rhetorically, they called forth the presence of the missing in a form that transcended the chaos of the moment and enlisted others to join the search -i.e., the posters ‘haunted’ the places where they were hung” (p. 108). The debate about gun 22 22 control in the United States seems to have gone on forever with no significant changes in recent years and is only propelled by the number of lives that the president has to read off a list. Sometimes the debates gone on so long that people eventually stop caring and their interest goes elsewhere. In this case, Obama responded in a rhetorical manner to an act of terror by telling the audience to take charge and take action in hopes that this would stop the hurt of a currently bleeding nation. Presidents often respond to times of terror and crisis by invoking myths to the audience that they think will wither help guide or sooth the audience in a time of turmoil. Gilmore, Sheets, and Rowling (2016) illustrated how presidents employ the myth of American exceptionalism in times of terror and crisis in order to bring peace and comfort. Gilmore et al. (2016) contended that American exceptionalism was used by Obama more so than any president before him because not only is it a popular presidential trope but because Obama faced several times of crisis in his presidency. American exceptionalism is the myth that the United States is a unique and special country with a specific purpose in the world. American exceptionalism is comforting in times of crisis because it is associated with religion. Gilmore et al. (2016) contended that presidents use God through American exceptionalism to comfort in times of crisis because God is exemplified as an all-knowing and all-seeing being who will be there for citizens of the United States in times of crisis and turmoil. Gilmore et al. (2016) claimed that American exceptionalism is most often used by presidents to comfort their citizens during times of war. Sometimes myths are most needed during times of war. Carney and Stuckey (2015) illustrated how presidents Bush and Obama responded to acts of terror, specifically war, during the early years of each of their presidencies. Carney and Stuckey (2015), as well as Cloud (2004), discussed how war-time presidents have racialized terrorists into animalistic savages who do not understand civility or freedom. Presidents often respond to times of crisis and terror by making the “enemy” 23 23 seem as if they have no morals and only use weapons for causing harm onto others. Carney and Stuckey (2015) stated, “Obama and Bush, in addition to portraying terrorists as immoral by the weapons they use (and how they use them) and sometimes depicting terrorists as weapons themselves, describe terrorists as animalistic prey” (p. 176). This rhetorical strategy is intended to justify certain war actions and to create a hierarchy between competing nations (Carney & Stuckey, 2015). This type of response is more associated with the act of blaming a group for the ills that fall onto the “innocent,” as opposed to simply comforting the innocent. This literature provides several examples of how past presidents, including Obama, tend to respond in times of crisis. These responses not only depict specific rhetorical strategies, but they have also become expected of a president. The literature focuses more on speeches and how presidents verbally respond. What makes television a fascinating medium is that it not only helps news, such as shootings or bombings, spread more quickly around the country, but it makes these news stories graphic. Images such as photographs are able to capture a person’s reaction in real time. It was not long ago that the Vietnam War was brought to the homes of many citizens of the United States and people were able to witness the carnage and sadness that war was able to create. It is safe to say that some did not like what they saw and were given a different story of what was really going on during the war. Television made the reality and graphicness of war a nightmare that one could no longer look away from. The images of caskets and soldiers crying were displayed around the country. The power of the image is that it can illuminate the gravity of a situation even if it is difficult for us to understand why a horrible tragedy happened in the first place. This past literature has discussed the visual rhetoric and communication of the presidency. What this literature lacks are what the potential functions of those images and the role visual communication plays in the climate and context of current events. 24 24
McFarlane (2016) stated that what a visual rhetorical analysis allows the researcher to do is that the researcher will be equipped to look at the image and point out its “potential functions” (p. 6). These potential functions are not set in stone and it is up to the researcher to interpret the functions and defend what they think is the images’ significance and meaning. It is of great importance to discover what the images potentially say about the speaker, Obama, and the current social context, as Cobb (2011) stated, a visual exploration of an image can help the reader understand the current “cultural climate” (p. 408). Not only can images suggest a lot about what is currently happening in society but the reactions to those images can say much as well. Past literature also does not exemplify reactions and interpretations from political analysts and pundits regarding Obama’s image. Obama’s visuality has situated him to be criticized for even his most mundane moves. With social media and partisan cable news programing there are more people with opinions everywhere one looks. McFarlane (2016) illustrated that the Situation Room photograph led to a large amount of interpretations from scholars and political analysts. News programs and popular culture are two vast entities that have come along with the quick development of technology. Graber and Dunaway (2015) argued that social and political commentary on images such as these is important because these commentaries, such as news programs, do not simply interpret images but they can push viewers into developing the same interpretation. Large news outlets tend to have large groups of followers who hang on their every word. Due to the lack of visual rhetoric scholarship on Obama there is little telling of what these BBC images can tell us about the presidency, crying in politics and about Obama himself. A visual rhetorical analysis can help us explain assumptions or expectations about the presidency that have been taken for granted. As stated before, much scholarship has been done on the verbal rhetoric of the presidency. A visual rhetorical analysis can help further our understanding of the presidency, specifically Obama. Finally, this review of literature 25 25 does not represent Obama’s emotions and the images of him being emotional. There needs to be more scholarship on the rhetorical implications of a leader’s emotions, specifically on Obama.
Crying in Politics Harp, Loke, and Bachmann (2013) examined the media coverage of Hillary Clinton becoming emotional during her testimony in the Benghazi hearings. Harp et al. (2013) discovered that women, such as Clinton in her Benghazi media coverage, were still subjected to stereotypical media coverage for being too emotional for political standards. The importance of nonverbal communicative acts is that since they are in fact nonverbal, they remain ambiguous gestures to the audience which leads to many interpretations as to what they signify (Harp et al., 2013). Clinton almost coming to tears, as some news outlets reported, made them question her competence and whether she was being genuine with her nonverbal communicative gestures. Manusov and Harvey (2011) examined the importance of nonverbal communication cues in the political arena. Through their examination of the “fist bump” between Michelle and Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton becoming teary eyed after receiving a question from another woman, Manusov and Harvey (2011) illustrated how the media portrayed the two nonverbal cues. One of their great implications was they illustrated how the media reactions to Hillary Clinton’s eyes welling up fell under what they referred to as different frames. The first frame is the interpretive, which is when the nonverbal cue is discussed as revealing something about the person that can be described as possibly their true selves, a public behind-the-scenes look. The second is the performative frame, which is when the nonverbal cue is discussed as being done for a manipulative and agenda setting purpose. This is mostly discussed as a negative frame in which the performer of the nonverbal cue knows that they are being manipulative 26 26
(Manusov & Harvey, 2011). Their implications also touch on media circulation and how the media can discuss the nonverbal cues and therefore set an interpretation for the audience. Manusov and Harvey (2011) explicated not only the communication implications for nonverbal cues but also for the role the media play in how nonverbal cues are discussed. According to Mansuov and Harvey (2011), the media play a vital role because they decipher what certain cues signify. They provide a platform to discuss these nonverbal acts and explain them to attentive audiences. The audiences who watch these programs can be convinced and think likewise. Hillary Clinton’s tears had rhetorical significance for several scholars. Falk (2009) examined Hillary Clinton’s tears after she was asked a question from another woman at a campaign stop in New Hampshire. Falk (2009) also illustrated how most of the media coverage for Hillary was due to the unusualness of her nonverbal cue (crying) in the political arena. Falk (2009) stated that “Traditional news norms suggest that stories high in emotion, human interest and unusualness are more likely to get press exposure and judging the Clinton moment at Portsmouth by these standards, it is not surprising that the moment was well covered” (p. 61). This falls in line with media phrases such as “if it bleeds it leads” which signifies that stories deemed violent, aggressive, or downright unusual will get more coverage than a typical news story that will not produce much excitement. Falk (2009) claimed that although crying is stereotypically associated with women, and expected of them, it was still seen as unusual by the media for a candidate of such a high office to do so. It violated communication expectations. Falk (2009) exemplified that crying as a nonverbal cue is vastly under researched as a communicative cue. The context of the Clinton’s tears and the reaction to her tears has important implications for communication research. After a comprehensive look into the past literature surrounding this subject matter, we see that many scholars 27 27 have added to the conversation on presidential rhetoric. This review helps go into my research questions for my present study.
The research questions here intend to address the gaps in the literature review and illustrate why a visual rhetorical analysis of these BBC images of Obama is important and fruitful for presidential rhetoric. Instead of attempting to provide one general question to explicate the rhetorical significance and meaning of these Obama images, the author thought it more appropriate to provide several questions so as to gather a greater understanding of the images and underlying messages of the images. Answering what these images signify provides more thought than one question can provide. Each question was thought out carefully in order to assess different aspects of the images including Obama, crying and interpretations of the images. These questions attempt to help identify the rhetorical significance and meaning of these Obama images.
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND METHODOLOGY
In my analysis of these seven photographs of President Obama there will be several questions that I will be asking in order to gain a greater understanding of what is happening in these images and to fully appreciate their significance and meaning. The questions are as follows: RQ1: What are the potential functions of the BBC images? RQ2: What were the reactions to Obama’s crying and how does that impact the understanding of the visual images? RQ3: How does a visual rhetorical analysis of these images help us understand the contemporary presidency? RQ4: How does a visual rhetorical analysis help us understand the implications of President Obama’s crying during public speeches and events?
Method The method to interpret these images will be through a visual rhetorical analysis. My main source of guidance for a visual rhetorical analysis will be from the aforementioned argument from McFarlane (2016) who illustrated how she conducted her visual rhetorical analysis in her examination of Obama’s Situation Room photo. She addressed the importance of context and interpretations of images in this type of method. In her examination of the Situation Room photograph she took the caption that was implemented in the photo into consideration, so any text that accompanies an image is important as well. For McFarlane (2016), context includes what is happening at the time the image was produced. Also, what other people said about the image itself is of importance. Interpretations allow the researcher to see how others view the image. McFarlane (2016) claimed that a visual rhetorical analysis is not simply looking at an image and telling people what you see, but it is also arguing what the photograph 29 29 suggests through knowledge of the image’s context and the researcher’s visual literacy. Visual literacy is the researcher’s knowledge of technologies that produce images as well as the researcher’s acknowledgement that images have rhetorical impact and persuasive power. This can involve detailing the historical context of the image as well as the surroundings of the image such as describing who is in the image, who is left out and how does the room and background appear in the image (McFarlane, 2016). What the photograph suggests is up to the researcher to decide and defend. McFarlane (2016) argued that visual rhetoric refers to both the image that the author is examining and the form of analysis that the author employs onto the image. According to Gleason and Hansen (2017), one of the powers of visual rhetoric is that it helps challenge structures that we have believed for so long. In a visual rhetorical analysis, it is up to the critic to examine the context of the image in order to determine the functions that the image produces. Images do not happen in a vacuum. Images are part of a much bigger picture and they require a determined examination in order to explicate the message, importance and meaning of the image. To explicate these aspects, I will also be using Gleason and Hansen’s (2017) argument where they claimed that it is important for the interpreter to realize that when they are looking at an image, that “Meanings are made through exploration in social cultural, political, and economic contexts, as well as knowledge of how the image was made” (p. 60). According to Gleason and Hansen (2017) the interpreter must be willing to look within themselves to find out the true message of an image, arguing that “Messages are ‘decoded’ by people with their preexisting beliefs and values, which impact the reading of the images” (p. 62). Although a visual rhetorical analysis has been detailed by several other authors as being an important part of communication methodology, it is important to address possible criticisms of this type of method. 30 30
Although a visual rhetorical analysis is a suitable and just, authors have proposed cautions when approaching data with this type of method. Gleason and Hansen (2017) employed a visual rhetorical analysis but they posed some cautions for this method as well when they stated, “It is the obligation of the scholars to defend their arguments because the methodology is scholar-centric” (p. 60). In other words, there is no one author or blueprint that details how to exactly enact a visual rhetorical analysis. The duty of defending the claims of an images’ interpretation falls solely on the researcher. Since an image can be packed with so much meaning and possible interpretation, there is a chance that researchers may never agree on what an image suggests (Gleason & Hansen, 2017). The importance of an image is also part of what the researcher needs to defend. As consumers of images, such as watching television, we are witnesses to several images in a single day. However, this does not mean that every image we see is important. Gleason and Hansen (2017) claimed that some researchers often present studies without necessarily arguing why the image or images where important enough to need interpretation. In other words, the researcher must do a good job of detailing why the image is important enough to need studying and interpretation in the first place. With the method of analysis in mind, we will now look at the images that I will be examining for this study.
Artifacts of Examination There are seven images that I began studying for my analysis. The images are photographs from a news article from the BBC, which contained seven photographs of President Obama crying during public speeches and events (“Seven Times,” 2017). The article was distributed through BBC Newsbeat, which discusses popular culture, entertainment, and political news stories. The article was released on January 11, 2017 31 31 which was only one day after Obama had delivered his farewell address to the nation in his hometown of Chicago. This news article is significant because through my research I found no other president with several images of them crying or under emotional distress and then had those images magnified over the internet in a detailed catalogue. The images of Obama crying come from different events including a funeral, campaign speeches, and responses after moments of crisis. The images on the BBC article are also followed by small captions and excerpts that help the viewer understand a little of the context in the image. Most of the images are close-ups of Obama and in other images you can see him being accompanied by other people at the event. At times, the other figures in the images of Obama are blurred out.
The Seven Images The first image is of Obama giving his farewell address (Figure 1). This speech was in Chicago and was given almost a week before Donald Trump took office. The speech was well televised as most farewell speeches are. Presidents tend to take the farewell address as a ceremonial opportunity to thank the citizens of the United States for electing them as their leader. A farewell address is also a time to reminisce and offer a few pieces of advice for the next president. Obama’s farewell address was over an hour long and it addressed many of the key points mentioned above (Dovere, 2017). The second image is of Obama during his 2008 presidential campaign (Figure 2). This image was taken the night before the presidential election shortly after his grandmother had passed away. Obama had gone through many debates and televised appearances to promote himself and his agenda. Night had fallen, and it was cold, but he gave the speech to try to energize the audience after a long campaign for the presidency. The speech was in North Carolina in front of a large audience. Among the attendees were many University of North Carolina students.
32 32
Figure 1. President Obama at his farewell address.
Figure 2. President Obama the night before his election
33 33
The third image is of Obama attending the funeral services for civil right activist Dorothy Height (Figure 3), who was an enormous inspiration for President Obama and many other people of color who fought for equality during the civil rights movement. Height maintained a close relationship with Obama and was even invited to be a guest at his inauguration after he was elected. Obama was one of the people chosen to give a eulogy in remembrance of Height. The image was taken in 2010 shortly after his election.
Figure 3. President Obama at funeral of Dorothy Height
The fourth image is of Obama making consoling remarks following the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School (Figure 4). The tragic shooting resulted in the death of 20 children and several adults who worked at the school. The speech was given on the day of the shooting, shortly after many news reports had spread to the public. The date of the speech was December 14, 2012, shortly after his reelection. The fifth image was taken during the funeral services of Daniel Inouye (Figure 5). Inouye was a Senator from the state of Hawaii which is the state in which Obama was born. The eulogy was given in late December and was attended by other notable political figures such as Vice President Joe Biden. The speech was almost a week after he gave his 34 34 address following the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. Inouye was known to have been an enormous inspiration on Obama.
Figure 4. President Obama following Sandy Hook shooting
Figure 5. President Obama at funeral of Daniel Inouye
The sixth image took place during the Kennedy Center Honors in 2015 (Figure 6). These honors are reserved for celebrities, activists and other prominent figures who have made significant contributions to the world. The Kennedy Center Honors were devoted to many guests that night. Obama was there with the First Lady as Aretha Franklin came to the stage to perform. The convention was packed with people listening to Aretha singing as they eventually rose to their feet to give her a standing ovation. 35 35
Figure 6. President Obama at Kennedy Center Honors, 2015
Finally, the seventh image was taken in 2016 in a speech where Obama was addressing new gun legislation and the importance of putting politics aside because the victims demand that we change our ways immediately when it comes to safety (Figure 7). As stated in the beginning of this paper, this speech was given 4 years after the shooting in Newtown. The climate in the gun control conversation was high and Obama felt that he needed to address the nation about this issue as his final year as president was on its way. These seven photographs were my initial images that I was going to be examining. After a thorough search I found that not all the images were as popular.
Figure 7. President Obama on new gun legislation 36 36 Narrowing the Images After researching the images on certain search engines, I discovered that many of the seven images on the BBC article were more popular than others. Some of the images clearly circulated well while others were not prominent on the web and were barely discussed. The search engines that I used to look up the images were Google and eBizMBA.com. Google is one of the most powerful and popular search engines today. Its status has grown not only in popular culture but in academic use as well. The other search engine that I used to find which images were popular was eBizMBA. eBizMBA is a search engine that details for the researcher the websites that get the most amount of web traffic. Harp, Loke, and Bachmann (2016) illustrated the usefulness of eBizMBA.com in their study of articles that discussed Hillary Clinton tearing up during her testimony in the Benghazi hearings. The authors discovered that this website was a powerful and popular search engine which gave them a large amount of data for which to work with in their study of Hillary Clinton. These two search engines helped determine which images of Obama crying were the most often discussed in the big news media.
The images of Obama crying that were found to be the most popular during the data retrieval were: Obama crying in his farewell address, after his grandmother died, responding directly after the Newtown shooting in 2012, during Aretha Franklin’s performance, and in his 2016 gun legislation address. These five images appeared often on several websites including CNN and Fox News. These images not only circulated well, but they also created different topics of discussion for political commentators. The other two images, Obama crying during the funerals of Daniel Inouye and Dorothy Height, did not show up directly in the search engines and the researcher had two put several more words in the search engine box in order for those images to finally show up. These two images were not as popular and did not get much circulation or commentary from political figures. The words that were used in the search engines were 37 37
“Obama crying” and “Obama tears.” The reasoning for these words is that I wanted to be as clear as possible as to what type of emotion I was looking for. The term “emotion” is ambiguous and could bring up results such as Obama being angry or frustrated. These words used in the search engine box were more than enough and brought up the five prominent images as they were featured in several online news outlets.
Analysis This is my detailed analysis of the five prominent images of Obama crying. These descriptions helped with answering my research questions. I separated the analysis of the images into two sections. The first section is the context of the image. The second part is a detailed analysis of the image itself.
The Loss of His Grandmother
Context Obama’s grandmother died on the day before the 2008 election. She had helped raise him and put him through school. She would not be there to watch him become the first Black President of the United States. The caption below the image read, “Barack Obama paid an emotional tribute to his grandmother in the finals days of his presidential campaign in 2008” (“Seven Times,” 2017). The other captions below the image also quoted Obama reminiscing and telling the audience about his grandmother who had taken care of him as a youth growing up. Obama was known as person who was great at keeping his cool in stressful and emotional situations. Obama gave this speech at the University of North Carolina where 5 months prior he had given a victory speech in Raleigh after winning the primary. This state was perhaps a sentimental place for him and his campaign specifically. What was not mentioned in the captions is that his opponent, Senator John McCain, had sent Obama and his family condolences during this time of 38 38 tragedy. Obama spoke in the speech about how his grandmother’s death was difficult to process. This sentiment makes Obama seem vulnerable and emotional like anybody else would be following the death of a loved one.
Analysis In the image, Obama is wearing very casual attire. He is not wearing his typical suit that he and many other male politicians typically wear. Obama is seen wearing a relaxed jacket and button up shirt. Obama’s relaxed and casual attire reinforces the fact that this was not a professional or political talk. This was more of a personal and emotional one. Many noted how in this speech on the eve of election night, Obama had “toned down the political rhetoric” (Bohan, 2008). He used this moment as more of an opportunity to encourage his political supporters on the eve of election day. Throughout the speech he also gave stories about his grandmother that he wanted people to know. Obama referred to his grandmother as one of the heroes that went about their day making the country a better place to be without getting the proper recognition for what they do.
As far as Obama’s facial and body expressions, one long tear can be seen running down the right side of his cheek. His mouth is open as if he is about to say something important. His hand is raised with a finger pointing up as if he is giving a sign to the crowd to really listen. In this picture, Obama has a much younger complexion than he does in the later years of his term. We do not see any grey hairs, but instead extremely black hair as opposed to the image of him during his farewell address in which he had mostly grey hair and an aged face. Even though he is crying he looks focused, strong and determined. The tear on his face does not speak to the weakness of the presidential candidate, but it does speak to how much he is opening himself up through talking about his grandmother. His eyes are 39 39 looking towards the crowd in an effort to show that he is not hiding his tears or his sadness from the audience.
Obama’s dark complexion is brightened by the literal light that is on him. There were many spotlights in the crowd that night because the speech was outside in the open space, and at nighttime. One could see this as a metaphor. This was the last day before the election and the spotlight was literally on him. This was Obama’s time to rise and everybody knew it. The background behind Obama is completely black. There is only the image of the night sky behind him. There is also no one else in the picture with him. He looks all alone as the shot is zoomed in and you cannot see the audience in front or behind him. Besides Obama, the only thing else pictured in the image is the microphone in front of him. He is the one speaking as Obama is the one that everybody came to see. There is no doubt that Obama is the one that the image focuses on.
Farewell Address
Context Barack Obama gave his farewell address on January 10, 2017. This was only days before Donald Trump would take office as the new Commander in Chief. By this time during his presidency, it might have been pretty clear that Obama was not afraid to show his emotions on the public national stage. He gave his farewell address in his hometown of Chicago and chose to not give his speech inside the White House as most presidents have done before. For Obama, Chicago is where it all started. He became emotional in this address when he started thanking the many people who have helped him throughout his journey. Obama began crying as he mentioned his wife, Michelle, and thanked her and his daughters for everything they had done for the country. Here Obama is letting his guard down and remains unafraid to show that he is vulnerable when it comes to talking 40 40 about the love he has for his family. This is typical of a farewell address in which presidents reminisce over the past years.
Farewell addresses tend to be emotional and heartfelt speeches for most exiting presidents. The farewell speech has become a tradition in U.S politics and the outgoing presidents mainly use this moment to discuss all they have accomplished, talk about the past 8 (or 4) years, and thank those that have helped them along the way. Barack Obama got to be the President of the United States for 8 years and now this was the final time that he would speak to the nation while having that title. The captions quoted Obama in his farewell address. They quoted him when he stated, “You made the White House a place that belongs to everybody” when speaking to his wife Michelle (“Seven Times,” 2017). One could argue that the entire Obama family made the White House a place that belongs to everybody. Before the Obama family moved in, the White House belonged to one type of family: white families. Never before had there been a family of color in the White House. This set hopes high that in the future many more people of different races and ethnicities can step into the White House. In his inauguration, Obama became the first Black President of the United States. This inspired many people to believe that racism was an issue of the past. When speaking to his daughters he stated that “Of all that I’ve done I am most proud to be your dad” (“Seven Times,” 2017). The Oval Office has always been regarded as a masculine place. Obama was not only the father of Sasha and Malia, but in a sense the presidential role is also a role of father figure to the entire country.
Analysis In the image Obama is wearing a nice suit. Although, the suit cannot be seen very well in the image itself. His facial and body expressions look somber. Obama’s eyes are closed as his head is bowed down. You can see how much the pressure of this job has 41 41 aged him. His grey hairs are clearly more visible than they are in all the previous pictures. In this image, the camera is so zoomed in on Obama’s face that the entire background is blurred out and all you can see is mainly a blue backdrop. Obama has a handkerchief in his hand and is wiping away the tears from his eyes. In this image he is only wiping his right eye as he looks down so that he does not have to look directly at the camera or the audience. This makes it seem as if the President was prepared and had something in hand just in case he were to get emotional. In the other photographs, Obama simply uses his finger or a part of his hand to wipe away the tears. In this photo you cannot see the tears exactly. If one looks closely you can see the bags under his eyes. One can only imagine how tiering the job of President of the United States is on the person. No one else is pictured in the image except Obama. He is once again the center of the image and the only person that the camera lets the viewer focus on.
The Sandy Hook School Massacre
Context In this image, Obama is delivering his response to the school massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary in 2012. This response was delivered on the same day that the shooting happened. The world was anticipating what Obama would say following the tragedy. At this time not all the facts of the shooting had been delivered to the world. Audiences at home mainly knew that those murdered had been over 20 children in an elementary school. Obama is a father of two daughters who were still very young in 2012. The caption below the image read “After the Sandy Hook Massacre, Obama campaigned for a change in US gun laws” (“Seven Times,” 2017). Back in 2008, Obama campaigned on a promise and platform of hope and change. The reading of the caption reminds us that despite his best effort to change U.S gun laws it was not one of the significant changes he was able to deliver on. Many were surprised by his display of emotion during his 42 42 response. After his speech, some noted that, “It was a rare emotional display by Obama, known more for stoicism in such situations, and he referred to other recent U.S mass shootings in calling for a national response” (Cohen, 2012). Before crying in his response, Obama claimed that whenever he heard of another school shooting that had taken place, he tended to respond, “not as a president, but as anybody else in the country would, as a parent” (Cohen, 2012). The context of this statement and the image of Obama wiping away a tear reminds us all that the President is not solely the leader of a country. Obama and Michelle are also leaders of a household. He has children that he takes care of just like the average parent watching him give the response. The context and the nature of Obama’s response helps in examining the image. When community tragedies strike, Obama tends to give what people might deem as personal responses. For example, following the death of Trayvon Martin in Florida, Obama stated that Trayvon could have been his son. Obama followed that statement by proclaiming, “Another way of saying that is Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago” (Memmott, 2013). Obama responded to Trayvon’s death not as the President but as a Black man who has had to endure the racism and hatred that people of color receive on a daily basis here in the United States. He even went on to describe daily racist scenarios that he and many others have gone through. One of the scenarios included being followed around a shopping mall by security (Memmott, 2013). The image of Obama wiping away his tears in the response became such a national symbol for the school shooting that the White House even put the image up on their own web page along with the full transcript of his response.
Analysis In the image, Obama is wiping away a tear from his right eye. The tears are not clearly visible in the photograph. The camera is extremely zoomed in so that you cannot 43 43 see Obama’s entire face. The image seems to be trying hard to focus on his eyes so that the viewer can see the tears falling down. Obama is looking down and away from the camera as well as from the press that were there that day. What stands out the most in the image is not Obama wiping away his tears but in fact it is his wedding ring. The wedding ring can clearly be seen in the image. The gold ring stands out in the image when it is compared to the white and black of his suit and the darkness of his skin. The ring stands in the image as a reminder that he is married with two children and is in fact not responding to the school massacre as a president but as a parent. He is a father of two children who is responding to many parents in Connecticut who do not get to see their children as a result of the school shooting. Here we see a person who is tired of reading the names of students off a list. Obama is once again put in the position of having to console the nation.
Aretha Franklin
Context Barack and Michelle Obama were at the Kennedy Center Honors. They were in attendance for a tribute to Carole King. Aretha Franklin made a surprise appearance and sang “Natural Woman”. This is not the first time that Franklin had performed in honor of President Obama. Back in 2009, Franklin sang for President Obama at his inauguration (Brown, 2018). It is safe to say that Franklin and Obama have a special relationship as she has been present to sing at several important events in his life. Before Franklin came to sing for the audience, actress Rita Moreno told the story of how she came to the U.S in search of a new and better life with her mother. Moreno was moved to tears and the audience was moved as well. Aretha Franklin has a history with past presidents. It has been noted that, “She sang at President Jimmy Carter’s Inaugural Gala in 1977 and performed at former President Bill Clinton’s inaugural ceremonies as well” (Shamus, 44 44
2018). Franklin was not new to this type of spotlight and had been in this position before. This time performing for the President was different. This time it was different because
Obama was the first Black President in the history of the United States. There was mutual respect and love between the two iconic figures. In an interview for the New Yorker, Obama reminisced about the night that Franklin sang at the Kennedy Honors. Obama explained why he became so emotional when he stated that, “American history wells up when Aretha sings. That’s why when she sits down at the piano and sings ‘Natural Woman’ she can move me to tears” (Remnick, 2016). Later in the interview, Obama claimed that her singing can make anybody emotional. He argued that this was, “because it captures the fullness of the American experience, the view from the bottom as well as the top, the good and the bad, and the possibility of synthesis, reconciliations, transcendence” (Remnick, 2016).
Analysis In the image, Obama is wiping tears from his left eye. The tears are not visible as this picture is not as zoomed in as some of the other images are. Other people are visible in the image, including Michelle Obama. Both the President and the First Lady are elegantly dressed. The President is wearing a suit with a black bow tie and the First Lady is wearing a beautiful blue dress. The caption below the image read, “Barack was moved to tears by a surprise performance of Natural Woman by Aretha Franklin” (“Seven Times,” 2017). A small U.S flag pin can be seen on the left side of Obama’s suit. His face is mainly covered by his hand which is wiping away the tear. Michelle’s face can be seen clearly as she is smiling and clearly enjoying herself during the performance. Michelle looks confident and is in a more powerful posture than Barack. Both the President and the First Lady are looking down at the performance. For the Kennedy Center Honors, the President and other notable guests are seated on the balcony looking down at the stage. 45 45
This position makes Obama seem powerful even though he is in tears. He is at the top of the balcony because he is the most powerful person in the room. Forged gender stereotypes have been flipped in this image. Barack, the man, is seen here being extremely vulnerable and emotional even to the point where he is crying. Michelle, the woman, on the other hand seems very relaxed and happy. The only emotion on Michelle’s face is pure joy. Michelle seems to be the confident one in this photograph. She is sitting up straight and smiling happily while Barack is somewhat sitting behind her in a more relaxed posture wiping tears from his eye. Obama looks passive in this image. The Obama’s are the clear key players in this image. There is nobody else involved in the image except for one person to Michelle’s right side who is somewhat blurred out and cutoff from the image. Even though Franklin is not visible in the image she is still a powerful presence because it is her performance that moves the President to tears. Barack and Michelle almost appear as royalty with the attire they are in. Even when they are both in front of the camera they do not dress this elegantly.
What really speaks in this image is the power and movement of the Black community. Here in this image we have the First Lady sitting next to arguably the most powerful man in the world as they are looking down and watching the performance of another powerful Black figure. This image shows that even though we still have a long way to go, communities of color have worked hard to obtain their status and positions of power. Franklin is not simply a performer at the Kennedy Center Honors that night. She is a symbol of Black resilience and growth of many people of color who have worked hard and fought for where they currently are in the world. Obama claimed that hearing Aretha sing reminded him of the nation’s history. Perhaps the history he was speaking of was the one that no one likes to talk about. The part of U.S history where black men, women and children were taken as slaves and forced to work under horrible conditions or else be killed. In the context of U.S history and the treatment of its people of color, this 46 46 image is undeniably powerful. With U.S history in mind, I think many people would cry listening to Aretha Franklin sing.
The Introduction of New Gun Laws in the U.S.
Context Obama gave this address to make a statement on new gun legislation that was being passed for the incoming years and for the hopes of convincing his colleagues to pass even tougher gun legislation. Obama gave this address in January of 2016. According to statistics, the year 2015 had been a very deadly year in regard to mass shootings in the United States (Willingham & Ahmed, 2017). The Obama administration failed to accomplish its goals of passing stricter gun legislation so as to prevent these tragedies from happening in the first place. Obama claimed that not being able to pass gun laws that can protect children and all other citizens in the U.S was “the greatest frustration of his presidency” (“Seven Times,” 2017). This being the greatest frustration of his presidency said a lot. When Obama came into office, the U.S was in several wars and in the midst of an economic recession. He faced many critics who said that his administration would not be able to get passed this and perhaps the job would be too much for a young aspiring politician. Despite these many situations weighing on his shoulders, not passing gun laws was still the greatest frustration in his mind. The caption below the image read, “Barack Obama recalled the Sandy Hook shooting when he introduced new gun laws in early 2016” (“Seven Times, 2017). Obama began crying when he recalled the other school shootings that have happened under his administration and some that happened before he took office. The captions also stated that, “His attempts to change the laws have always been blocked by the Republicans” (“Seven Times,” 2017). 47 47 Analysis In the image, we see that it is a close up of President Obama. In this photograph the tears from his eyes are clearly visible. He seems to be attempting to look towards the side as he peers out into the audience. The grey hairs on his head are slightly visible. Both of Obama’s eyes look red and watery. This image shows Obama’s emotion and tears more so than the other images in this catalogue. The tears running down his face and the way his eyebrows are arched downward only make him look more sorrowful. What also makes this picture unique is who is standing behind Obama. Although they are barely visible, there is one person who is blurred out and to the left-hand side of him. Not pictured in the image are the parents and family members who are standing behind the President during his address. In his new year’s response to gun control, Obama chose to have the families of shooting victims stand behind him as an image of strength and the need for Congress to pass stricter gun laws. Those families are not pictured in the image. The photograph centers on Obama. The fact that the families were not pictured in the image only reinforces how much these families have been forgotten.
The U.S has so many school shootings that when we mourn one shooting, we tend to forget the one that happened last week. The Obama administration’s failure to pass strict gun laws hurts the families of the victims the most. It is the families after all that have to continue without their lost loved one. Congress tends to forget these families when they refuse to pass any legislation or refuse to work together to find resolutions that can work. Obama said it himself that his administration had not passed any strict gun legislation and that was his greatest frustration. Also not pictured in the image is Vice President Joe Biden. Biden is actually standing right next to Obama during this response. This reinforces the fact that these types of consoling speeches and the ability to pass safer gun laws ultimately fall on President Obama. No matter if it is a success or a failure, either 48 48 way it falls on the shoulders of the President. He is the Commander in Chief and the main focus when it comes to these issues.
While closely examining these images there occurred several themes that helped me in answering my research questions. These themes helped me exemplify the significance and meaning of the images. These observations guided me into some of the larger answers that I get into through my research questions. The first is the look of Obama’s vulnerability: 1) Obama consistently looked somber in the images. Obama’s facial expressions and posture made him look emotional in these photographs. For example, in the image with Michelle he looked relaxed and passive as he sat next to her leaning back and wiping away his tears. This is not the typical image we think of when we think of the power of the President. These are unlike any images we have ever seen displayed for a Commander in Chief. Obama does not look mean or aggressive and at times is looking down at the floor. His consistent emotional state pits him against the image of being unemotional the way others have constantly described him. 2) The captions were on all the images posted by the BBC. The captions not only illustrated what was happening at the time that the image was taken but also why Obama was crying in the image. In the five photographs, the captions were more descriptive of the reasons that he was crying as opposed to mentioning him crying. There is one immediate caption right beneath the images and then a little descriptive excerpt that detailed what was happening. There are also quotes from the speech if that is what Obama was doing in the image. The captions work with the photographs of Obama and emphasize how text can be helpful in a visual rhetorical analysis. 3) Mostly all the images consisted of an extreme close up of Obama. He was the central figure in these images and the zoomed in photographs of Obama make him seem larger than life. For the most part, only Obama was discernable in the images. The only 49 49 time that any of the photographs featured somebody else clearly in the frame was in the image with Michelle at the Kennedy Center Honors during Aretha Franklin’s performance. Anybody who was near him while the photo was being taken was either cropped out or blurred from the image. 4) Obama’s race is also recalled several times in the analysis of these images as well. It is difficult to look at the images of this President and not address the color of his skin. That is after all one of the many reasons that made his election monumental. The photographs where Obama’s skin color is focused on are the images of him during the Sandy Hook response, his farewell address and when he speaks about his grandmother the night before the election of 2008. The only time Obama is sharing the spotlight in any of the images is when he is pictured with Michelle Obama. These themes and commentaries helped me open up the larger conversations that my research questions address and that I will elaborate on in the next sections. These themes can be thought of as the preliminary details for constructing the potential functions or meanings of the images. They guided me in identifying what the photographs could possibly signify. Some of these detailed statements here speak to Obama’s performance of masculinity and his symbolism as the President.
CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS
Research Question 1: What are the potential functions of the BBC images? In my visual rhetorical analysis of these Obama images I discovered four potential meanings that the photographs create. The first potential function is that they work to humanize President Obama. These shots of Obama crying function as a way in which to humanize him. Even though he is a larger than life figure. We see him here being vulnerable and shedding tears. His tears and expressions of emotion in these photographs make him seem more “real” and give us a glimpse into what these separate moments where like for him. Obama’s display of character and emotion in these moments humanize him even in mundane situations (Gleason & Hansen, 2017). The images of Obama create a sense of intimacy with him. We no longer see a person who is putting up their guard but instead one who is willing to let the world see their distress or overwhelming joy in certain situations. For example, we see this in the image of Obama crying during his farewell address. In this particular moment it seems as though we are witnessing what would normally be a private moment between husband and wife. In the photograph of his farewell address response, he is crying during the time that he is thanking Michelle. He is acknowledging her not only for being a great example to the country but also for being a great mother and wife. This sense of humanization can also be seen in the moment during Aretha Franklin’s performance. Often, many of us have had a performance move us deeply. The image of Obama crying during Franklin’s performance humanizes Obama and tells the audience that the President can be moved this deeply as well. It may be difficult to imagine ourselves sitting at the Kennedy Center Honors, but this is still an intimate moment that we are sharing with Obama. McFarlane (2016) argued that the Situation Room image of Obama is so compelling that it allowed the audience to feel as if they were there with the President the 51 51 night of the raid. The audience is given a secret look at what it was like for Obama that night. These images of Obama crying work that way as well. This goes especially for the images of him crying during speeches surrounding gun violence. The images of Obama crying in 2012 and 2016 both involve gun violence. These glimpses create a sense of intimacy with the President not only because of his tears but because of the issue of gun violence as well. This issue does not solely affect President Obama but the citizens of this nation specifically. The photographs convey intimacy because we not only see Obama crying but we understand why he is crying as well. Through both the 2012 and 2016 images we can feel ourselves next to Obama as he cries for the children and their families. Even though his title of President of the United States gives him power, his tears make him seem vulnerable. Obama seems as if he does not know what else to do with the issue of gun violence. The President crying makes the viewing audience feel restless as well because there is not much else they can do except watch and mourn. The second potential meaning is that the images create an image of Obama as a
“real American” and dispute the beliefs and fears created by those who had anxiety towards Obama being a Black man in the Oval Office. These glimpses work as a rebuttal to the myths about Obama not being a “real American” and not being born in this country. In order to understand why these images function as a dispute of the myths and fears that individuals in the U.S had towards Obama, it is important that we understand the context of his election back in 2008. In Obama’s early years as President of the United States and during his time as a candidate he faced a lot of anger and hatred from his own citizens. Much of that anger and hatred was racially motivated by those that did not want a Black man governing the country. In the book White Rage, Anderson (2017) described how one of the reasons that Obama received special security after announcing his candidacy was because he had received many racially inspired death threats. These threats were not always 52 52 communicated privately as can be seen from those that threatened Obama’s life through his Twitter account and consistently harassed him on his other social media accounts
(Anderson, 2017). Even before he rose to prominence, many people did not like the idea of a Black President. His power as an orator did not do much to convince those that wanted to kill him because of the color of his skin. Anderson (2017) stated that, “In Obama’s first year in office alone there was a 400 percent increase in death threats, as compared to those received by one of the least popular presidents in American history, George W. Bush” (p. 156). Anderson (2017) illustrated how during the campaign trail Obama was mocked for his ethnicity and appearance. People’s fear and anxiety towards Obama’s demeanor and race is nothing new. He has long received critics who were against him because of the color of his skin. Rossing (2011) discussed fearful and anxious conversations about the beginning of the Obama administration when he examined the New Yorker’s “Politics of Fear” cover. Rossing (2011) illustrated that racial fears about Barack and Michelle Obama grew because they were thought of as angry Muslim terrorists. People thought that the Obama’s would burn the country to the ground with their radical ideas and beliefs about how to properly run a country. These fears about what this family was going to do once they were in power were rooted in racism. In the United States, race has long played a role in the discussion of who is in or out of acceptance. Rossing (2011) argued this when he stated that, “Race has long served as an exclusionary marker for U.S. citizenship, dictating who belongs and who becomes an outsider” (p. 426). When you look at the pictures of Obama shedding tears for children who were murdered or for a powerful performance by Aretha Franklin, you do not see an outsider. The images of Obama crying show a person reacting how almost anyone would react if they were moved by performance or by tragedy. Through comedy, the “Politics of Fear” cover helped illustrate what people were perhaps too afraid to admit. They were afraid of Obama 53 53 becoming the President simply because he was Black. These pictures of him crying show that there is nothing to be afraid of when it comes to him. It is Obama who looks afraid at times during these moments. These anxieties surrounding President Obama and his candidacy where not only about him being Black. These fears were also about him possibly not being a citizen of this country. The birther myths that surrounded the President did much to stir up anti-Obama groups. Even though there is no such thing as a “real American,” people still argued for the myth of Obama not being born in the United States. Watts (2017) illustrated these birther anxieties when detailing the gruesome enjoyment that many people derived from hurting and killing the “Zombie Obama” mannequin. This human like figure was created by Zombie Industries. People would love to hurt this mannequin Obama in order to take out their aggression on somebody who even resembled the President. Much of that aggression came from believing the myths about Obama not being from this country. People believed that by hurting this mannequin they were somehow avenging the “real
Americans” of this country. As Watts (2017) noted, this fear was propelled from the threat of the Black body being imposed on to the nation and possibly threatening the perceived racial hierarchy. Ostracizing people who are deemed different because of the color of their skin or where they might be from is nothing new. Racial formation has long been a popular way to separate those we deem valuable from those we despise (Watts, 2017). Establishing a person as intellectually inferior or as someone to be feared used to be thought of as a valid statement backed by science (Watts, 2017). These images of Obama in the BBC article dispel these anxieties and fears that people had about Obama. In these BBC images of Obama crying during public speeches and events, the angry Muslim terrorist that has come to destroy this country is not visible. There is no contaminated Black body arriving to hurt us. The myth of the outsider who is not a citizen of this country is replaced by someone who grieves just like any of us would when 54 54 we hear that children have been killed. These images give us a non-threatening Obama who is much more human than these previous mentioned anxieties and fears would have us believe. The images give us a virtually intimate look at a somber and caring president. In these photographs, Obama is reacting how the average person would react if they found out their son or daughter had been killed in a school shooting. These images are undoubtedly filled with much sentiment. These images are packed with so much raw emotion and they elicit somber responses from the audience. This is what Kjeldsen (2016) referred to as, “emotional condensation” (p. 268). You cannot look at these images of the President crying and have any fear or anxiety towards him. Not when he seems so powerless at times during these speeches and events. For example, in the image of Obama crying after his grandmother had passed away the night before the election, he looks unaggressive. He also appears vulnerable because of the tears and his attire. In this image, Obama is not wearing a powerful suit. He instead looks mundane wearing a jacket and button up shirt. Gleason and Hansen (2017) argued that the suit has always been a sign of power among political figures. The suit is not simply a piece of attire for presidents but rather a gesture of authority that often goes unnoticed due to its constant appearance (Gleason &Hansen, 2017). The tears streaming down his face make you empathize with him. Obama’s sorrowful appearance perhaps even makes you pity him for having to have cameras in his face constantly when he is simply expressing how he feels towards a situation or event. In the images of Obama crying while responding to a school shooting or detailing new gun legislation it is apparent to me that this is a person who has a disdain for violence. This is not someone who supposedly wants to create violence. These photographs do much to silence those who had fears and anxieties about Obama becoming a king and doing whatever he so pleased. When you see the President of the United States crying on many occasions, it is very difficult to believe that he is a dictator who plans to rule with an iron 55 55 fist. Obama’s tears also diminish the racist stereotypes about Black men. The stereotypical Black man in the U.S is violent, aggressive and out of touch with their emotions. The fear of Obama being a power-hungry politician is silenced when you see how passive he looks in some of the images. For example, this can be seen in the photograph of him with Michelle at the Kennedy Center Honors. Obama is the one who looks to be in a powerless posture in this particular moment. He is seated back and wiping his tears while watching a great performer. He is essentially in the exact opposite stance of the First Lady. First Lady Michelle Obama looks rather powerful in this image. She is sitting up firm and smiling, unlike her husband. Her attire makes her seem even more powerful, as they are both dressed elegantly. The fact that she is in a more powerful stance than her husband shows that she is not afraid to step up into the leadership role of First Lady. The image of Michelle here shows a powerful woman. We do not see the overbearing mother she was criticized as being. As Hayden (2017) argued, Michelle Obama was often criticized during the early years of Barack’s candidacy. She was condemned for situating her mother role as her primary focus as First Lady instead of any professional concerns or aspirations. She would be the one telling Sasha and Malia what to do and completely took responsibility for the girls finishing any work or activity they had scheduled (Hayden, 2017). Judging by Obama’s passive posture and Michelle’s powerful one we can definitely see someone who is not afraid to take charge. The third potential meaning of the BBC images is that they clearly mark Obama as a visual rhetorical president. Barack Obama became noticed in the political arena because of his skills as an orator. His keynote speech at 2004 Democratic National Convention is often noted as a powerful moment that began his rise of attention in the media. With his rhetorical savvy came much scholarship that focused on his speeches. This scholarship tends to focus on his ability to persuade or tactics that he has used in his 56 56 declamations in order to captivate the audience. Visuality is often credited as being a large part of Obama’s 2008 campaign as well as a large reason why he won the election.
According to Seidman (2010), the use of visuals in the Obama campaign was unlike any other in U.S political history. Of course, it helped that the technology at his disposal was perhaps far more advanced than it was for any past candidate. Obama’s staff made sure to get his face on everything from billboards, newspapers and social media outlets they could upload. As suggested by Seidman (2010), Obama was marketed so well visually that the candidate himself actually become a sort of logo or brand. The now infamous Obama “hope” poster became a large part of popular culture. The poster eventually became designed for walls, car bumper stickers and murals that one could see by simply walking down the street. What also speaks to Obama’s visual rhetoric in the images is his own prominence in the photos despite other figures being in the shot. In the BBC images of Obama crying during different speeches and events, it is mainly close ups of Obama and the tears in his eyes. He is clearly the main focus in all of the images, including the image where he is sitting next to the First Lady. The image focuses on Obama and nobody else even though there are other people in the shot. The fact that the image centers solely on Obama despite there being other people next to him during these events says much about his visuality as the President. The close-up shots on Obama in these photographs of him crying work as a reminder that the cameras were in his face more so than any other president (McFarlane, 2016). Everything that Obama did was captured on some sort of visual medium and displayed for the whole world to see. For example, there was the “incident” that happened while he was walking out of Marine One. As Obama walked out of the aircraft, he greeted two service members while he had a cup of coffee in his hand. This infamously became known as the “Latte Salute” and caught fire with those that opposed him (Gehrisch, 2015). An action as simple as saluting someone with a cup of coffee 57 57 became a symbol for the Obama administration that year. Pundits criticized Obama for lacking any patriotic morality when saluting a service member. His critics argued that next time he should show more respect to those that put their lives on the line. This speaks to how news outlets took the time and care to capture Obama’s every move. The BBC has never taken the time to create a catalogue for the moments that other presidents have shown emotion while they were in office. With Obama, it is so simple because the camera seems to follow him everywhere he goes. These images speak to how Obama has become our most visual president. In the upcoming years the visual rhetoric of the President will only get larger due to technologies advancing and presidents being more willing to use them. Obama branded himself to the people during his initial campaign and made sure that his face was visible to the media. In his campaign beginnings and during his time as the President, Obama was often criticized for caring too much about being a celebrity. Commentators often condemned him for being in the spotlight rather than focus on policy issues. This notion of the Commander in Chief as a celebrity adds to the argument that he is a visual rhetorical president. Obama’s constant appearance in front of the camera made him seem like a larger than life celebrity (Gleason & Hansen, 2017). Even though being in the spotlight was not his main focus as President of the United States. Many scholars have noted how Obama has been pictured in several photographs that they argue should be considered iconic. For example, McFarlane (2016) illustrated how the Situation Room photograph on the night that Osama bin Laden was killed is an iconic photograph. Gehrisch (2015) discussed her interpretation of the Obama latte salute photograph and why it should be considered historic. These five images of Obama crying in the BBC article are warranted to be iconic photographs as interpreted by Hariman and Lucaites (2002). The authors stated, “We define iconic photographs as images produced in print, electronic or digital media that are widely recognized, are understood to be 58 58 representations of historically significant events, activate strong emotional response, and are reproduced across a range of media, genres or topics” (p. 366). These images of
Obama crying were produced and distributed on different forms of electronic and digital media. For example, this can be seen in the very BBC article displaying the images. The article shows the glimpse of Obama crying during Aretha Franklin’s performance and the photograph is also accompanied by a video from YouTube that displays the entire performance. This moment of Obama crying is also displayed in digital news articles such as BBC Newsbeat, Washington Post and The Guardian. The shot of Obama crying during his response on issuing new gun legislation in 2016 was distributed on digital media sources such as CNN and Washington Post. It was also discussed on different types of media genres. The Fox News program, The Five, discussed Obama crying and what it means for him and the political arena. Each analyst on the program got their turn to discuss why this moment was so significant and whether or not they liked the President being pictured crying on a national stage. On the other hand, the picture of him crying during this response was shown and discussed by satire news program The Daily Show with Trevor Noah. Trevor Noah’s discussion was more comical than the discussion by The Five. These images were displayed and discussed under different topics and on news outlets which follow different forms of explaining the news of the world. These outlets ranged from “hard news” programs like The Five and satire news television like The Daily Show. The fact that the shot of Obama crying was discussed everywhere from large news outlets to popular culture programming such as The Daily Show, supports Stuckey’s (2010) argument on Obama and his status in today’s culture. Stuckey (2010) stated, “The president is an icon; and the current president is resonating throughout popular culture in ways that may be unprecedented” (p. 49). The appearance of Obama’s image on popular culture programming is enhancing his status as a monumental figure. 59 59
These images are also iconic because of Obama simply being in them. His presence as a national symbol and as the first Black President adds more to an image. A perfect example of this would be McFarlane’s (2016) discussion of the Situation Room photograph the night Osama bin Laden was killed. McFarlane (2016) displayed the different views of the Situation Room photograph. It is extremely difficult not to notice that Obama is the only person of color in that image. If you take him out of the photograph, the only person of color would be gone from the picture. In the BBC images, the only people that the shots are focused on are people of color. Anytime there is another person in the image they are either cropped out or blurred. The only people discernable in the pictures, in addition to Obama, are people of color. The only time someone else is discernable is when he is sitting next to Michelle, a woman of color. Race being a central part to these images of Obama crying speaks to race being of extreme importance during his presidential campaign. Holt (2012) illustrated how race was a main focus of the media coverage Obama received when he was campaigning against Hillary Clinton in 2008. The articles that came out during his campaign were overwhelmingly focused on Obama as a Black candidate rather than where he stood on certain issues (Holt, 2012). Race was at many times the focal point of attack against Obama from those who feared that his skin color gave him different ideologies that were not suitable for the job (Rossing, 2011). This is nothing new for candidates of color who have attempted to enter the Oval Office. Black candidates have always had their race garner more media attention than their politics. Holt (2012) suggested that this has happened throughout history when he stated that, “The salience of race has played a critical role in the political success and failure of African American candidates” (p. 277). These BBC images make race a salient component of Obama’s political journey. The BBC photographs focus on race and they leave those who are not of color out of the shot. 60 60
The fourth potential meaning of these images is that they illustrated Obama as a person who challenges the hegemonic notions of leadership associated with the Oval
Office. Parry-Giles and Parry-Giles (1996) noted how being the President is an occupation steeped in masculinity. Femininity is a sign of weakness in politics and could possibly derail a person’s career if they are seen getting in touch with their emotions in public. A political leader must always appear to be in command of their emotions and must never show vulnerability. Parry-Giles and Parry-Giles (1996) asserted that there are certain characteristics that are associated with the presidency which symbolize their ability to lead the country. If they fail to properly show these characteristics in public, there are consequences that will be both social and political. Political in the sense that it could hurt their chances for a possible reelection bid. The social consequence is that in today’s media driven society, they could be subject to social ridicule. Showing emotion has always been regarded as a sign of poor leadership and evidence that the Commander in Chief has an inability to keep themselves composed in a proper manner. In today’s political culture, emotions in the political arena are mostly talked about in a few distinct fashions. The first manner is that the figures in the political arena who begin showing emotion is often seen as a sign that the individual is unable to control themselves and therefore not suitable for political office. If a politician shows emotion, they might be seen as weak and unable to make good judgements without letting their feelings get involved. This is more a criticism of leadership than of the person themselves. The second manner is that if the politician shows no emotion then they are considered too distant and not connected to the problems of the people. This is often used as an attack on a person to make them seem like an outsider who cannot connect to the common folks. Gleason and Hansen (2017) stated that this inability to show emotion by the President leads to criticisms of them being too distant, stiff and robotic. Gleason and Hansen (2017) 61 61 illustrated how during his presidency Obama was often, “being criticized as too stoic and unemotional” (p. 64). Throughout his tenure, Obama has always been criticized for not showing enough emotion. While some have defended him by claiming that not being overdramatic is a part of the job, the stiffness in his emotional abilities has always been a point of discussion from opponents. Obama’s criticisms of not showing any emotion even became the subject of humorous portrayal by the President himself. This was the case at the 2015 White House Correspondents Dinner. During this event, comedian Keegan Michael Key reprised his role as Obama’s “Anger translator”. In this bit, Obama would say a statement in a cool and calm manner. The anger translator would then come out from behind him and “translate” what Obama just said but in a much angrier and aggressive performance. The whole concept of the joke is that Obama is so unemotional and unable to show any form of frustration that he needs an anger translator to be upset on his behalf (USA Today, 2015). These images of him crying say otherwise. The photographs speak to a president not afraid to show his emotions even if the world sees.
Holt (2012) argued that media often portray African-American leaders as aggressive, pushy and only caring about what they personally want to achieve. African- American leaders are portrayed by the media as self-serving politicians and leaders who only want to help those that have helped them (Holt, 2012). Cobb (2011) agreed with this sentiment but added that many times throughout history when a Black individual rises to a leadership position, they are ridiculed for thinking they are of equal power. Cobb (2011) stated that through racist cartoon imagery, “Popular print media showed white audiences how to see people of African descent as noticeably unlike ‘normal’ U.S Americans, despite gaining freedom, education, and a modicum of economic stability” (p. 410). These images show Obama as a president that challenges notions of hegemonic leadership as it pertains to the Oval Office. They illustrate a president who is not aggressive or self-centered. Instead it is a leader who weeps for the nation during times of 62 62 violence. In some of these images he is crying because of the news that many children have been murdered in a horrific act of violence. Also, this is not the first time he has had to respond to a tragic situation like this. This perpetrates the notion by some of his critics that he cried simply to get an agenda across through political performance and to get the audience on his side of the argument. Images of his farewell address and of him crying while talking about his recently deceased grandmother have also fallen under these criticisms. When he cried for his grandmother it was the night before the 2008 election. When Obama teared up in his farewell address it was only days away before the transition of power. The argument of political performance does not quite make sense in the image of him wiping away tears during Aretha Franklin’s performance. Although the Kennedy Center Honors is attended by presidents, it is mostly a performance night not a political one. There seems to be no political endgame for why Obama would cry during a musical performance. In fact, shedding tears during something such as a musical performance was risky for the him. It might incite the criticism that perhaps he had become so emotionally unstable that he now cries anytime something makes him feel sad or over the top. There is also the fact that he was crying in front of his wife. The societal stereotype is that men should not shed any tears in front of women. Imbedded gender norms suggest that it should be the other way around no matter the case. Gleason and Hansen (2017) addressed how there is often a portrayal of a cold Obama that does not interact and appears to be unattached to any event or person. As can be seen from the BBC images this is not the case. In these images, Obama is clearly interacting with others. A lot of passion and conviction can be seen when Obama is giving a declamation in front of an audience in some of the images. The events and speeches in which he is pictured are of great importance. In most of the photographs, he is addressing an audience and telling them a story or in the middle of a thoughtful political discussion. These discussions range from gun legislation to 63 63 addressing the past eight years of his presidency. They also involve where the country can now go from here in his farewell address. In the image of him discussing the death of his grandmother he is extremely interactive with the crowd not only by talking to them but by discussing the death of a family member that was close to his heart. The context of what exactly he was addressing only enhances the image plus its significance and meaning. In the 2012 picture of him wiping away tears after the news of the school children being murdered in Newtown, he is reaching the audience by discussing how he can relate to them on an emotional level. He connected with them not only because he is the President, but most importantly because he is a father with children of his own that he takes care of.
Research Question 2: What were the reactions to President Obama’s crying? As many of these BBC images of Obama crying circulated, there were many different reactions from particular news analysts and personalities. They commented on watching the President shed tears under some unique circumstances in his presidency. News analysts and political figures have a significant influence on how an audience perceives anything the President does. The choice to select their comments on Obama crying as the reactions for this paper is a matter of influence. Political figures and analysts are a significantly influential part of the media. Coe and Chapp (2017) argued that since media and technology have expanded throughout time, politicians are expected to consistently voice their opinion on many matters they deem important to the public. What they say matters as these figured have a strong base of supporters and viewers. Obama’s tears gathered much commentary from people on blogs, YouTube, Facebook and other types of social media. Although these comments can be important, Manusov and Harvey (2011) argued that social commentary such as blogs and other types of posts are not necessarily a large or influential part of the news media. This is because those 64 64 commentators do not hold much influence or have a large following. Although, it is true that some social media commentators have large followings, figures such as Sean
Hannity and Laura Ingraham who are a part of big news media garner more authority. Gehrisch (2015) stated, “Big news media possess narrative authority. Distance stands between the public and access to knowledge of events, the media closes this gap” (p. 95). The reactions of prominent political analysts and personalities are important because they encourage their supporters to possibly feel the same way towards what they are witnessing. Based on my research, most of the comments about Obama’s tears were critical. Some of the reactions from news outlets such as CNN and The Washington Post were supportive of Obama crying during speeches and events. For the most part there seemed to be different types of criticisms towards the President crying on the national stage. The reactions to the images of Obama crying in these different settings fell under these three distinct categories: 1) crying for the wrong reasons, 2) Crocodile tears/Political performance and 3) Boys Don’t Cry. I will discuss these three reactions and what they signify for crying/emotions in politics and how these reactions change the way we view these images.
Crying for the Wrong Reasons One of the most popular photographs of Obama crying was when he shed tears during his January 2016 speech on the introduction of new gun legislation for the current year. Obama began weeping while recalling the 20 children that had been murdered during the school shooting at Newtown. Many political analysts and important political figures had strong reactions to Obama’s tears during his response. One of those figures was former Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan. Ryan has a long connection to Obama as Ryan went head to head with Obama in the 2012 presidential campaign. Ryan was Mitt Romney’s Vice-Presidential candidate. In an interview with Katie Couric, Ryan was 65 65 asked what he thought about President Obama crying during his introduction of gun legislation. Ryan responded, “I was affected by it, but I thought we should’ve had the same kind reaction when James Foley was beheaded, when San Bernardino and Paris occurred” (White, 2016). Here, Ryan is criticizing Obama for crying for the wrong reasons. Ryan claims that he too was distraught when the shooting at Newtown occurred but that there were other events that should have made the President weep as well. What Ryan is implicating is that Obama is crying for the 20 children who were murdered but not drawing the same reaction when non-gun related issues (such as the death of James Foley) occurred. The criticism seems to say that the President’s tears were political, not that they were faked. Ryan ended his sentiment by arguing that Obama should focus more on terrorists that are trying to do the U.S harm rather than take away gun rights from people who have done nothing wrong (White, 2016). Sarah Palin echoed the sentiments of Paul Ryan in her statement to Breitbart responding to Obama’s 2016 tearful response. Palin is a former Vice-Presidential candidate that went up against Obama in the 2008 presidential campaign. She was the Vice-Presidential candidate of Senator John McCain. Palin responded to Obama’s tears when she proclaimed, “The whole world weeps waiting for American leadership in these troubled times as Islamic savages commit genocide against the Christians of the Middle East and terrorize innocent people in the cities across the globe” (Wright, 2016). Here, Palin follows Ryan’s example of suggesting the President is focused on the wrong acts of terror and instead should be crying about the terrorists that are killing the innocent around the world. Palin proceeds to intensify her rhetoric by depicting the enemy as a savage. This is a popular war rhetoric technique that Carney and Stuckey (2015) suggested became prominent after George W. Bush’s proclamation of the War on Terror. Politicians are fully aware of how terms such as “savages” work to justify an argument and acts of violence on to certain types of bodies (Carney & Stuckey, 2015). Palin ended her 66 66 statement to Breitbart by proclaiming that instead of shedding tears and taking away guns from proud U.S citizens who want the ability to have control of their own weaponry,
Obama should focus on being a better example (Wright, 2016). Megan McCain also suggested that President Obama should cry for other horrific acts and needed to put more attention on the efforts of violence that are happening in his hometown. On Fox News’ Outnumbered, McCain and other analysts were discussing the images shown of Obama crying during his 2016 response. In her statement McCain suggested, “Go to your hometown of Chicago instead of talking about God-fearing Americans when ISIS is coming to their hometown” (Gauthier, 2016). McCain here is suggesting that Obama is upset over not being able to take away guns but should be upset about his own hometown which is known for acts of violence. Once again, we see terrorism and terrorist groups being specifically mentioned to justify the argument against Obama’s tears. McCain also makes a note to invoke God in her criticism of Obama’s tearful reaction. The term “God” always draws a reaction when invoked in a political argument and is often seen as a strategy to persuade certain audiences to the left or right (Coe & Chapp, 2017). Religious rhetoric and terms have not always been so openly stated in the political arena. This has clearly changed because in today’s political culture they are now used in politics to speak to specific audiences or target opponents (Coe & Chapp, 2017). Donald Trump both supported and criticized Obama for crying in his 2016 gun legislation address. In a phone interview with Fox & Friends he discussed the speech with the hosts of the program. Trump stated, “I actually think he was sincere; I’ll probably go down by 5 points in the polls by saying that, but I think he was sincere” (Kopan, 2016). Here, Trump does not exactly mock Obama for crying. Trump goes on to state, “His idea is just taking chunks and chunks out of the Second Amendment until we don’t have a Second Amendment anymore, and people need protection” (Kopan, 2016). 67 67
Trump indirectly criticizes Obama for crying by suggesting that the legislation that he is crying for is actually detrimental to the nation’s Second Amendment. Trump suggests that Obama’s tears are real and sincere but that it should be the nation getting upset because they are getting their rights taken away by the President of the United States. Kim Guilfoyle on Fox News’ The Five, was asked by host Eric Bolling what she thought of Obama becoming emotional during his 2016 address. Guilfoyle stated, “I don’t begrudge him showing the emotion, he’s a father” (Media Matters Staff, 2016). She begins her statement by suggesting that Obama crying is not a big deal because he is a father so the idea of 20 children being murdered is naturally getting him upset. In her discussion with the rest of the analysts she went on to state, “But I also think about the children and Christians being murdered and beheaded, executed, disabled children being executed by ISIS and I want to see our President show that level of emotion” (Media Matters Staff, 2016). Guilfoyle is criticizing Obama for crying for one event but not another. Much like the past critiques of Obama shown here, Guilfoyle addresses terrorist acts that she believes Obama should have been more emotional in addressing when they occurred. In defense of Obama against criticisms from Fox News was talk show host Larry Wilmore. Wilmore tends to lean politically to the left in support of Obama. He even went as far as “embracingly” calling Obama the N word as a sign of support and friendship during his White House Correspondents Dinner speech. Wilmore supported Obama’s tears when he argued, “If, Obama cried over everything, Fox News wouldn’t even call itself Fox News anymore, they’d call it ‘The Obama is a Weeping Queer Channel” (Christopher, 2016).
Crocodile Tears/Political Performance The term crocodile tears implies that the person who is crying is extremely insincere, a phony or is possibly being a hypocrite by crying. Fox News analyst Laura 68 68
Ingraham was asked by Hannity show host Sean Hannity what she thought of Obama crying during his farewell address. This is the address in which he cried while thanking his wife and family members. Ingraham implied that they were crocodile tears when she suggested that, “There’s some good acting involved, I am sure he’s wistful” (Warren, 2017). Here, Ingraham is suggesting that Obama is performing the tears and that his emotional state was simply a performance for the audience. She went on to state, “The man is not dumb, he is very savvy” (Warren, 2017). This notion of being “savvy” implies that Obama is very good at performing the act of crying. In this case, crying or showing emotion for political performance in front of an audience. Ingraham believed that Obama was perhaps emotional because he was nostalgic as it was his farewell address. This was his last time addressing the nation as President. Ingraham did not believe that the tears were real or sincere. Both she and host Sean Hannity were laughing as they seemed flabbergasted that the President would openly cry even if he was talking about how his wife and daughters have helped him out during his time in the White House.
John Nolte of Breitbart suggested that the President not only performed crocodile tears but that he also did something to make himself cry. Nolte tweeted, “Obama touching his eyes JUST BEFORE the tears came. He’s putting something in his eyes to create the fascist tears” (Bruenig, 2016). Nolte accuses Obama of not only putting on a performance to get people on his side but that he was extremely manipulative in his performance. The notion that the President of the United States would touch his eyes with any substance or materials to make themselves cry appears to be more of a conspiracy theory. Oddly enough, calling Obama a crocodile tear performer seems to be the least offensive part of Nolte’s tweet. The notion of fascist tears suggests that Obama is a sort of dictator in chief. Calling the President a fascist for crying implies that he is an enemy of the country. This suggests that he wants to do us harm and is willing to do anything to get his way. This includes fake crying at the death of 20 murdered children. Referring to 69 69
Obama as a fascist speaks to the anxieties and fears that many had about him becoming the President to begin with. According to these theories, he was going to be a dictator out for himself. The fear that Obama is a fascist who is out for our guns and wants to destroy the Constitution is clearly still alive and well among commentators such as Nolte. The addition of commenting that Obama is a fascist goes beyond crocodile tears by implying that the tears were displayed for performance. According to Nolte, these were political and evil reasons from the President. Andrea Tantaros of Fox News also contributed to the possible conspiracy theories that surrounded Obama’s tears. On Outnumbered she claimed that Obama’s tears were not sincere and that he did it as part of his grand performance of seeming to care about dead children. When contributing to the conversation about Obama’s 2016 address Tantaros commented that she, “would check the podium for like a raw onion or some No More Tears” (Gauthier, 2016). Her “joke” implied that Obama made himself cry during his address by standing next to a raw onion which is known to make people well up.
Tantaros went on to add, “we are in awards season” (Gauthier, 2016). The notion of being in awards season suggests that Obama deserves an award for his acting, such as an Academy Award. Megan McCain was on the program as well. She supported Tantaros by adding, “it feels like bad political theater” (Gauthier, 2016). Both analysts suggested that Obama is an actor that does not seem to care about the children who were murdered. According to both of them, he is only doing this to push his gun control agenda on the public. The comments claim that his tears were not only staged but that they were insincere. The comments suggest that Obama does not really care about what he is saying. In Obama’s defense, Daily Show host Trevor Noah responded to Tantaros’ comments about Obama being next to a raw onion. Noah began his defense when he stated, “Shedding tears when you think of murdered children is not really believable? You know what, there is something here that’s not really believable: the fact that the rest 70 70 of us have to share the title of human being with you” (Miller, 2016). Noah is not only critical of Tantaros but also suggests that her criticism of Obama’s tears signifies her lack of human decency.
Boys Don’t Cry The least common criticisms ascribed to Obama’s tears were comments related to gender stereotypes. Few political analysts or personalities commented on the President being a man who was crying. Laura Ingraham claimed that it was odd for her to see a man cry because it was unlike anything she had ever seen before. Ingraham appeared on Hannity to discuss Obama’s tearful farewell address. Responding to Sean Hannity’s notion of possible crocodile tears she added, “I’ve never seen a man, and I’m not a young person, grab a tissue and dab” (Warren, 2017). She proceeded to grab an actual tissue and mimic Obama crying. She also mocked the manner in which he chose to wipe the tears away from his eyes. Ingraham followed her impression by arguing that a normal man would not act like this. According to her, a man would just try to wipe away his tears so that no one could ever see them. Ingraham argued that, “A man would just be like, oh whatever” (Warren, 2017). Her rhetoric is steeped in stereotypical gender characteristics. These stereotypes suggest that it is unusual for a man to cry and when they do so they should be ashamed. These beliefs are further entrenched in our society when they are followed by the common phrases, “act like a man” or “boys don’t cry”. Ingraham mimicking Obama’s crying by pulling out a tissue and suggesting that it was odd to see a man cry while dabbing his eyes supports Manusov and Harvey’s (2011) claim of nonverbal cues. The authors argued that in politics, certain nonverbal gestures come with “social rules” (p. 297). In Ingraham’s case, the social rule for men showing emotion is that a man does not cry and then dab his eyes one time with a tissue. Ingraham argued that this is not the proper way for a man to cry. 71 71 Discussion of Reactions In the critiques of Obama crying for the wrong reasons we see that there were two common topoi among this type of criticism. People who criticized Obama for this reason seemed to use rhetoric that insisted he was stripping the Second Amendment away from country loving patriots who have done no harm to anybody. They also brought up acts of terror that occurred in the country and around the world from specific terrorist groups such as ISIS. Sarah Palin, Donald Trump and Kim Guilfoyle specifically mentioned how Obama is hurting the Second Amendment and should leave it alone. In their critiques they are positioning themselves as God-fearing gun rights advocates. They are situating themselves as the victims in all of this. This is argued by Collins (2014) in her illustration of the “demanding subject” (p. 743). According to Collins (2014), gun rights advocates tend to see Constitutional rights as a marker of liberty. The Second Amendment is their sole source of freedom. The demanding subject sees a possible restructuring of their rights through legislation as a complete denial and eventual stripping of that liberty. As Collins (2014) argued, “thereby inscribing and reinscribing victimization and vulnerability, the demanding subject is able to figure herself in opposition to the hegemonic order in question” (p. 743). Here, the television hosts do not necessarily care that Obama is crying as much as they seem to care that he is crying for the wrong reasons. They believe that he might eventually take their rights away. Donald Trump specifically insists that Obama’s plan is to take pieces out of the Second Amendment until that law no longer exists. To these figures, the image of Obama crying is a sign that he is frustrated with himself. This fear of the President crying at guns hurting children is also a belief that their rights are being completely taken from them. This rhetorical strategy of replying to Obama’s tears by bringing up past events in which people have died is consistent among his opponents. By bringing up beheadings and attacks by ISIS you seem to forget that the President was crying. This also distracts from the fact that 20 72 72 children were murdered. Surely there is a way to talk about tragic events in which our own people are hurt without suggesting that one tragic event is more or less horrific than another. Those who responded to Obama’s tears by referring to them as crocodile tears suggested that watching him cry did not seem realistic or sincere. The images of the President crying were unrealistic to them. This argument falls in line with Finnegan’s (2001) argument of the “naturalistic enthymeme” (p. 135). As stated before, the naturalistic enthymeme is when “we assume photographs to be ‘true’ or ‘real’ until we are given reason to doubt them” (p. 135). The image of the President crying was given doubt as to its sincerity because of past tragic events that had occurred. Some of the analysts referred to Obama’s not so somber reaction to other tragic events that had taken the lives of innocent people as proof that his tears were not naturalistic. The naturalistic enthymeme opens the conversation on the believability and possible manipulation of an event or image. For these political analysts, “seeing is believing” was not enough. They questioned whether the tears where staged or whether Obama somehow made himself cry by putting something in his eyes. Tantaros went as far as to say she believed it was a raw onion. Finnegan (2001) argued that the naturalistic enthymeme is not only about an image but also about photography practice. This can include where was the image taken, how the image was taken and who took the image. Analysts like Laura Ingraham believed that there was good acting involved in Obama’s tears. She implied that he knew there be cameras present at the event. Since Obama knew there was going to be cameras there watching him, the tears were not realistic and therefore the moment of him crying lost its naturalness. Regarding Obama’s tears as part of a performance is also what Manusov and Harvey (2011) examined in their illustration of the performative frame. According to Manusov and Harvey (2011), the performative frame is when a nonverbal cue is discussed by an audience as having been done for a manipulative or deceitful 73 73 purpose. As can be seen, much of the analysts discussed here commented on Obama’s tears with anger and confusion. They judged his tears as having been part of a political performance. Surprisingly, not many people made comments referring to gender stereotypes. The Oval Office is a very masculine one and typically when a politician is seen being overwhelmed with emotion there is usually commentary related to beliefs about gender. Very few political analysts judged Obama for not behaving “like a man”. Even his most vociferous conservative critics did not demean the President by imposing gender stereotypes upon him. This helps illustrate that men and women are judged differently for crying or showing emotion in the political arena. This was seen in the examination of how the media covered Hillary Clinton’s display of emotions during the Benghazi hearings by Harp, Loke, and Bachmann (2016). Here, the authors argued that men and women are covered differently by the media even if they work together. For example, Harp et al. illustrated how Hillary Clinton was condemned when she displayed the slightest bit of frustration during her Benghazi testimony. The headlines depicted her as irrational and out of order. Even though Hillary Clinton was never a president like Obama was, it can still be stated as fact that they both worked in the masculine world of politics. Here, Obama was covered differently by these media personalities. He was not depicted as irrational or unfit for office the way most women are described as when they show emotion in politics. Obama was mainly described as distracted for crying in certain situations but not others. He was also described as someone who could possibly fake his tears. This is not to say that the criticisms for Obama and Hillary were completely different. There were some similarities including some critics who suggested that they were putting on a political performance or became emotional for some manipulative reason. 74 74
The reactions to Obama crying also showed the masculinity of the Oval Office. Harp, Loke, and Bachmann (2016) illustrated how Speaker of the House John Boehner was mocked for crying. Many people chose to specifically mock him by making his tearful episodes seem humorous. On several occasions Speaker Boehner teared up before the cameras. Examples include him crying while watching the Pope give a speech before Congress. When people mocked and criticized Obama for crying not many prominent figures laughed. Besides Laura Ingraham, not many others chose to laugh or make it humorous. This speaks to the power and masculine position of the Oval Office. Critics have a different standard for how presidents should conduct themselves. Why people chose to humorously ridicule Boehner but not so much Obama illustrates different masculine expectations that people have for those offices. What is also illustrated here is that the criticisms about Obama crying were drawn across party lines. The critique of crocodile tears, crying for the wrong reasons and boys don’t cry came from mostly conservative political analysts. Those whose political leanings tend to go to the left supported Obama crying, such as Trevor Noah. This is because no matter what a president is doing in a photo, it is now political. That image will somehow be used in the political arena. Gehrisch (2015) argued, “An image of the president by its very nature is a political text” (p. 94). In her examination of Obama’s latte salute controversy Gehrisch (2015) proclaimed, “Given the audience for the latte salute image and history of argumentation among divided political parties, the image is in line to become a catalyst for further division among political party supporters or opponents of President Obama” (p. 94). That is precisely what occurred in the events in which Obama cried. It drove a divide between two already fragmented parties and began a debate about when is it permissible for a president to cry and where is it permissible for a them to cry. Not all of the events in which Obama shed tears gathered scrutiny from critics. Obama crying after his grandmother passed away and during Aretha Franklin’s 75 75 performance did not receive any backlash even from his conservative opponents. This ties into Manusov and Harvey’s (2011) conversation of what times it is deemed socially acceptable for a politician to cry. At times politicians are “allowed” to be overcome by emotion if the audience deems it for an acceptable reason. Perhaps these are two moments that were deemed too powerful or moving to mock.
Research Question 3: How does a visual rhetorical analysis of these images help us understand the contemporary presidency? There are several ways in which this visual rhetorical analysis can help us understand the contemporary presidency. First, it helps us understand that being the President is still an extremely masculine position. To this day we have never had any woman as a president. This is not because we have never had women that were qualified. The presidency is still a male dominated office. Politics is still a masculine arena despite the political gains of women. Crying is stereotypically feminine and therefore it is unusual for a president to do so. Even though many women are gaining political power, there are still characteristics stereotypically assigned to women that are deemed undesirable in the Oval Office. The fact that the five prominent photos of Obama crying circulated so well could be said was because it is deemed so unusual and monumental to see a president cry. The U.S has a troubled fascination with seeing politicians become overwhelmed with emotion. This coincides with Manusov and Harvey (2011) who stated that one of the reasons that Hillary Clinton crying garnered so much media attention was because when it comes to crying in the political arena, we still have an “uncomfortable relationship” (p. 300). According to Harp, Loke, and Bachmann (2016) this display of emotion for men is different because the stereotype is that, “For women, being emotional is a part of who they are, but for men it is a trait that is demonstrated only sporadically, a peculiarity that is not a part of being male” (p. 200). Throughout his presidency, Obama 76 76 made many jokes and appeared on several talk shows. According to my research for this writing, there were no online news articles that dedicated entire catalogues to talking about those situations. The very fact that the BBC decided to create a catalogue filled with seven times Obama cried speaks to the uncomfortable relationship we have with political emotions. The article came with helpful captions and stories. This only reinforces how society deems it extremely peculiar and unusual for a president to show emotion, specifically sadness or crying. In all of these BBC images the camera is centered and zoomed in on Obama, sometimes to a ridiculous extent. The pictures want you to focus on Obama and nobody else. Despite of what else may be going on in the image, the President is the center of attention. The BBC is a prominent news outlet and they decided to make these photos a headline story which says a lot about presidential expectations. In the 2018 midterm elections there were a record number of women elected into Congress. Even though this is a historic achievement we should not mistake this as the marginalization of women or femininity being taken down. In her discussion on the inclusion of women in the history of rhetoric, Biesecker (1992) argued that women’s writings were possibly falling prey to female tokenism. She asked, “Doesn’t the mere inclusion of women’s texts in the rhetorical canon make a difference – by destabilizing the subject of rhetorical history that up to this point has been exclusively male” (p. 142). I would like to caution our view of women being overwhelmingly voted into Congress on the same premise of this question. Does the mere inclusion of women no longer make the government a masculine institution? There are believers in our politics that believe that more women will not make a difference or have an impact on our country. This is according to a recent Pew Research survey. DeSilver (2018) claimed that, “46 % of women said Congress would do a better job of dealing with the country’s problems if more women were elected, but only 30% of men said so” (p. 1). We must look at how 77 77 women are being included into the political arena. What these images illustrated by the BBC show is that the presidency and the political arena are still buried in masculinity.
This means that we still have a lot of work to do. Secondly, the images of Obama crying help to illustrate that the contemporary presidency is as much visual as it is text or speech driven. Although Obama was not the first visual President, his tenure did coincide with the popularity of social media and the rise of 24-hour news channels. These images help illustrate what happened at these events and the captions help illustrate the context of the pictures. McFarlane (2016) emphasized that one of the most important components to consider in a visual rhetorical analysis is the context of the image. What is happening in that time period is just as important as what is happening in the photograph itself. It is powerful when you see images of the first Black President and First Lady sitting on a balcony at the Kennedy Center Honors. You also have to consider that they are looking down at an amazing Black performer. This picture takes you back to that historic moment that made the
President of the United States shed tears. Seeing Obama as he cries for the loss of his grandmother on the eve of election night makes you consider the context of that historic election that will be in the U.S history books. The images are glimpses into those moments. They are also visual glimpses into the Obama presidency. Cameras followed President Obama everywhere he went. This BBC article is a clear example of how visually documented the contemporary presidency is. It is well known that mass media continues to play a large role in documenting the presidency as well as how we view the position. Through a reading of the captions below the Obama images, it is easy to decipher just how the BBC wants to frame the photos to the audience. In the picture of Obama crying during his farewell address the captions below quote him in his address. They also add statements to follow the quotes such as, “During his time in office he introduced affordable healthcare to the US and legalized 78 78 gay marriage, but said his daughters were his greatest achievement” (“Seven Times,” 2017). It was shortly thereafter that Obama began to cry. This caption does not necessarily address his tears but tells of the accomplishments that Obama achieved during his time in the White House. Underneath the image of Obama and the First Lady watching Aretha Franklin the captions read, “When it comes to surprise guests, it doesn’t get much bigger than the queen of soul herself, Aretha Franklin” (“Seven Times,” 2017). Telling the audience that the performance from Franklin was a surprise makes Obama’s tears seem more genuine. The image can also elicit an emotional response from the viewer knowing that Franklin dies not too long after the performance at the Kennedy Center Honors. The captions underneath the photographs paint an empathetic look towards Obama and they do not criticize his tears. The illustrated captions do not mock him for crying but instead they tell the audience the context of his tears. The captions underneath the shot of Obama crying for his grandmother also paint an empathetic look at a man who just lost a woman who had raised him. This can also be seen in the picture of
Obama delivering a response directly after the 2012 shooting in Newtown. The direct caption under the image reads, “After the Sandy Hook massacre, Obama campaigned for a change in US gun laws” (“Seven Times,” 2017). This caption, along with the image, implies that this campaign was arduous and often unsuccessful due to people who feared their Second Amendment would be taken away. The picture itself argues for the stress and pressure that was put on Obama’s shoulders during his campaign for gun laws. Under the glimpse of him tearing up during his 2016 gun legislation speech the captions read, “In 2015 he told BBC that his failure to pass ‘common sense gun laws’ in the US was the greatest frustration of his presidency” (Seven Times,” 2017). The caption also went on to say, “His attempts to change the laws have always been blocked by the Republicans” (“Seven Times,” 2017). These words help the audience understand why Obama became emotional. They also give a historic account of that specific time during his presidency. A 79 79 moment where once again the gun debate had risen to a new high following another tragic shooting in a small town. The captions elaborate on the strict Republican opposition that he faced when attempting to create safer gun laws in the country. His fights for safer gun legislation were met with denial from many of the same people who criticized the sight of him crying. The words combined with the image of Obama crying help to elicit an emotional response from the audience not just because he is crying, but why he is crying. They also humanize a president who is considered stiff and stoic. The worded description on the images help the audience understand the photos. They tell the story behind image. It can be argued that the captions are also political given that the BBC is often thought to lean to the left politically (Wilkinson, 2017). Even though the captions are pieces of text, they still help in visualizing the contemporary presidency. Many large news outlets distribute images with their own explicit or implicit captions about what is going in the image at that moment in time. Kjeldsen (2016) argued that premises and arguments can be put together when you combine text and visual. This can be even if the premises and arguments are not outright explicit to the audience. The captions are not always explicit and at times they will be vague. They can only give a few subtle descriptions about what is happening in the image. When one looks at a photograph they come in with their own rules, beliefs and subjectivities about things or people in those images (Gehrisch, 2015). Captions may provide suggestions to the audience on how to feel about what they are seeing by inserting their opinion despite the beliefs that the audience comes in with. It is up to the audience to attempt to read the image objectively. Gehrisch (2015) stated, “The image and caption exist separately from one another. The weight the caption and photograph bear alone is different than their combined effect. An image which is captioned for us is a terministic screen. This screen acts to cover the individuals own interpretation with an opinion” (p. 95). What this opinion is depends on what the developer of the image wants 80 80 the audience to think. This is what they possibly want the audience to know about what is happening in that moment. In the case of the BBC images, their opinion is also joined by direct quotes from Obama himself as well as small stories about what was currently happening in that historical context. Captions are pieces of text that help elaborate on an image. They help to deconstruct, but they should be read carefully. Even though they are text, they can still be an important part of visual imagery. Finally, a visual rhetorical analysis of these images helps us understand that the presidency is now part of our visual culture. Finnegan (2005) stated that at the heart of a visual culture is the acknowledgment that, “visuality frames our experience” (p. 33). Looking at the images in their context helps illustrate how the presidency is now framed through images as much as speech. The pictures of Obama crying help give the audience an experience of what it was possibly like for the President that day. Listening to the speech the Obama gave that day or hearing from a friend about how he cried during Franklin’s performance would not be enough. It would be a different experience to see an image as opposed to just listening to Obama make a speech in which he cries. The picture can increase the significance and influence of a declamation. McFarlane (2016) echoed this sentiment when detailing Obama’s speech the night of Osama bin Laden’s death. She stated, “While Obama’s speech that night of bin Laden’s death was no doubt important by itself, it also gave context to the visual rhetoric of the Situation Room photograph, contributing to the image’s persuasive power within various public spheres” (p. 3). It is difficult to go through an entire day without seeing an image of the President. We often see a picture of the President even if we are not looking for one. Visuality helps frame our experience of these significant moments in Obama’s presidency. Even if we were not there with him. Thanks in large part to the mass media and social media, the presidency is constantly in a lens being viewed by millions of people. Some people feel closer to Obama because they see him every day on the news or social media. Visuality has 81 81 definitely given us a sense, whether false or not, of being closer to the president (Stuckey, 2010). It did not always used to be this way of course. Stuckey (2010) argued that,
“Presidents used to communicate with an undifferentiated audience. If they wanted to speak to a local audience, or an audience based on a narrowly understood interest (women, steel workers, etc.), they appeared before that audience” (p. 45). The development of technology expanded the audience of a president and helped visualize the presidency for those who could not be able to be there in person to hear them speak. This is something that we often take for granted because of how visually accessible our political leaders are today. The visualization of the Oval Office allows for the President to gather a greater audience. This happens whether they like the president or not. This level of accessibility also builds an expectation of seeing the Commander in Chief (Stuckey, 2010). Today our visual experience of the presidency is an expectancy. Whether it is on social media or the news, we come to have an expectation of visibility. A lot can be learned from a president’s speech, but an image can communicate to an audience in different manners (Finnegan, 2005). This type of visual communication can break down myths about a president. It is powerful when these larger than life figures come onto our television sets. These images can break down structures that we thought to be true (Gleason & Hansen, 2017). For example, these images of Obama crying can break down masculine structures of the way in which we once thought the presidency should be performed. This structure is in place because we have a general assumption of what this job entails and what it means to be the President. Stuckey (2010) stated, “We generally assume that to be ‘president’ means being white, male, and heterosexual” (p. 48). I would add masculine to this list. Visuality also helps frame our experience of the presidency by taking away the power of image control away from the President and their administration. Image control is a powerful way for presidents to conduct and distribute images of themselves that they think will be seen favorably by the public (Gleason & 82 82
Hansen, 2017). At times, the President or people in their administration engage in image control. This happens because they know how important the presidential image is to the public and the mass media. These shots from the BBC were not selected by Obama to be shown to a mass audience. This was the BBC’s rhetoric. Whether or not these images made Obama look good was not up to him. This was the manner in which the BBC helped visualize certain parts of his presidency. In this case, the times and contexts in which he cried. This can be seen in opposition to the example put forth by Gleason and Hansen (2017) in which they illustrated how Obama practiced image control through only allowing his photographers to take pictures of him during certain events. This allowed Obama to only put forth the visual rhetoric that he thought would represent him in a positive light. In this case, Obama and his staff were in charge of the circulation. It can be argued that certain media outlets have obvious political leanings but still, the President does not have control over what images these outlets decide to release.
Research Question 4: How does a visual rhetorical analysis help us understand the implications of President Obama’s crying during public speeches and events? First, what a visual rhetorical analysis helps us understand about Obama’s crying during these moments is that Landau and Keeley-Jonker (2018) where correct in their argument that our contemporary president takes on the role of “conductor of public feelings” (p. 166). The conductor of public feelings is a leader who conducts their audience to move towards a specific emotion through their speech (Landau & Keeley- Jonker, 2018). The authors specifically analyzed Obama’s Tucson speech in which he responded to the tragic shooting that killed six people and almost took the life of Congressperson Gabby Giffords. With the BBC images in hand, this is a different take on the conductor of public feelings. Landau and Keeley-Jonker (2018) discussed the role of 83 83 conductor of public feelings through speech, speech movement, and sound. In the case of these BBC images, Obama is playing the role of conductor through nonverbal cues.
Speech movement can be thought of not only as the acts of Obama’s body during the speech but also the way he moves from one emotion in his speech to another. Landau and Keeley-Jonker (2018) proclaimed these three concepts to be important because the President’s body can be a source of energy for the audience to be transformed and persuaded through. I would like to add crying and displays of emotion in the definition of how a president enacts the conductor of public feelings. Through crying, Obama indirectly plays the role of conductor of public feelings in these events. For example, we can see this in the image of him crying during his farewell address. This is the speech in which he mentions his family. Here, he is conducting the audience to move towards a nostalgic feeling of family and love that he hoped his administration had given them the past eight years. The tears from Obama show the audience that it is perfectly fine to show emotion about concepts such as family and love.
He is showing the audience that it is perfectly fine to cry. Obama further exemplifies this by pulling out the handkerchief which is clearly visible in the image. The President is not attempting to be discrete about his tears but instead openly showing them. In the image of him crying for his grandmother, the BBC quoted him as saying that his grandmother’s death was “hard to talk about” (“Seven Times,” 2017). This allows the audience to think of the deaths that they have faced in their lives and to imagine how hard it is to talk about those moments. This is the way Obama is imagining it at that moment. The picture of him shedding tears for his grandmother is along the same lines as his farewell address. This was a time of reminiscing someone who had helped raise him almost his entire life. The tears in this picture also conducts towards a sense of excitement, passion and enthusiasm. Even though he has tears in his eyes, he does not look frightened or distraught. His hand is raised near his face. He appears as if to be fighting through the pain. The tears signified 84 84 that although he was going through a tough loss, it would be fine. Tomorrow would be a better day because it was a time that would signify change for a better future. This election would make history and he wanted everyone to feel the passion and enthusiasm that he felt despite the loss of a loved one. In both images in which Obama was crying for the students of Newtown, the images show that Obama is conducting the audience away from feelings of partisan politics. He instead attempts to move the audience towards empathy for murdered children as well as common sense gun laws that can benefit everybody. The somber look on his face in both of the images in which he discusses Newtown shows how sorrowful he feels. Obama’s somber appearance is accompanied by his tears or the wiping of the tears. This shows that his tears are not a partisan or political argument but in fact a true display of emotion. In the picture of Obama crying in his 2016 gun legislation address Trevor Noah commented, “No matter how opposed to Obama’s policies some people may be, or how cynical their politics, they have to at least acknowledge and respect the raw authenticity of that emotion” (Esquire, 2016). The images elicit a picture of Obama as a tired father imagining that his own children were taken from him in a tragic shooting event. The nonverbal cue of crying and wiping away tears tells people that it is fine to be human and cry about situations such as these. Watching and crying for Aretha Franklin shows that it is natural to cry when you are incredibly moved by a grand gesture or performance. Landau and Keeley-Jonker (2018) illustrated how Obama explicitly and implicitly showed forms of love in his Tucson speech. They argued that this love is not the one we normally think of that is strictly for family members and those we hold closely. The authors stated that instead, “Rather, this love is social and civic in a non- partisan sense; it is wide in scope because it extends to a group of strangers and is directed not just toward individuals in society but also toward the polis itself” (p. 179). Obama implies this love with his tears. This is a kind that is not political but instead 85 85 based on love of peers and performance. In the image his tears extend to strangers who have also been moved by performance and to those that agree that it is perfectly fine to cry in these types of situations. The position of conductor is a not a simple one. It requires the speaker to be masterful of their word choices and to be knowledgeable about their audience. Just because they conduct people in an indirect attempt to move them towards a certain emotion does not mean the audience will follow. At times people will oppose the conductor and move towards a different emotion. Landau and Keeley-Jonker (2018) compared this to a band when, “a musical conductor of a pep band or group sing-along attempts to direct often-rambunctious ensembles and is sometimes ineffective in spurring people to action together. The idea that rhetorical energy can and cannot be controlled by a president demonstrates that conducting public feelings can be interrupted” (p. 170). The conductor being interrupted in this case is the criticisms Obama faced about his crying. Those that questioned whether his crying was authentic and that he was distracted by crying for certain events but not others served as interruptions. They disrupted his indirect attempt to conduct the audience towards a certain emotion. Obama’s attempt as conductor of public feelings here was not always successful and in fact faced much opposition from political figures or large news outlets. The second way in which a visual rhetorical analysis helps us understand the implications of Obama crying in public speeches and events is that the President of the United States is a symbol. The visual image is strongly attached to how a president is seen as a symbol not only to the citizens of the country but to people around the world (McFarlane, 2016). A president is not just a person elected to a job. They are a symbol of what the country looks like and stands for. The President is a symbol that stands for what we represent at that moment in time. This person stands in as a beacon of national identity and strength (Strachan & Kendall, 2004). To many, Obama was also a symbol of 86 86 the great strides that this country has made in regard to race relations (Cobb, 2012). Here, a visual rhetorical analysis of the BBC images helps us understand that the President is a symbol through two distinct ways. One way is in the manner which people talked about Obama’s crying. The second is through the BBC’s construction of the images themselves. First, the pictures of Obama crying help emphasize that the President of the United States is a symbol. This is done through the way in which he is discussed crying. Fox News contributor Eric Bolling discussed Obama crying in his 2016 gun legislation address. Bolling posed a question to President Obama when he asked, “Mr. President, do you think ISIS sees your tears as emotional strength or weakness? I am just asking” (Media Matters Staff, 2016). What Eric Bolling is really asking here is how does the President appear as a symbol to our most dangerous enemies. According to Bolling, Obama is never supposed to have our enemies question his or the country’s toughness because the President is a symbol of strength and power. Bolling is worried that the way President Obama looks in front of our enemies might be a bad reflection on the citizens of this country. Obama is also the person in charge of our armed forces. The Commander in Chief is therefore here to symbolize out military. As can be seen by Bolling’s comment, there is an importance in how the President looks in front of the country as our representative. For both Ingraham and Bolling, Obama crying seems to be diminishing or somehow tarnishing the presidency as a symbol. Both analysts are suggesting that the presidential symbol is possibly being tarnished because of Obama’s crying. This can lead to questions from enemies and our own citizens about who we are and how strong the nation is. Apparently, strength can be questioned if the President weeps during public speeches and events. Obama as a symbol has only been further emphasized in light of media development. Images might be stronger than literal text at representing the President as a symbol because images are not only easier to memorize but they also have 87 87 a certain aestheticism. This makes them a constant in the public eye and in the daily media conversations (McFarlane, 2016).
Secondly, the images help us understand that the President is a symbol through the way in which the BBC constructed the pictures of Obama crying. These photographs circulated and gained much attention because they were pictures of the President. This was not the average citizen. In the BBC article, they constructed the images of Obama not solely through the image placing itself but also through the use of captions. The text helped in building this symbolic interpretation. The way the BBC placed Obama in the images was as the center of attention. Showing him wiping away tears during these speeches and events is what the audience is supposed to be looking at. The close shots on Obama’s face make clear that he is the symbol of our country. They seem to state that this is the person we have chosen to lead us, and this is what he is doing in this image. The pictures here in the BBC article construct Obama as a larger than life figure. This is what many presidential images look like (Strachan & Kendall, 2004). With the images and the captions, the BBC constructs a different presidential symbol than the one we are accustomed to. For example, the shot of Obama crying directly after the Newtown shooting illustrates this point. The image of 2012 shooting quotes Obama when he stated, “We have wept with you, we’ve pulled our children tight” (“Seven Times,” 2017). From this quote we can see that this is not the fierce unwavering presidential symbol we are accustomed to. This is one in which the President is willing to empathize and admit that as a father he was personally affected by the shooting. Often, presidents construct images of themselves to appear as the positive symbol they think the public wants them to be. Since early U.S history, presidents have used visuality as a cue to symbolize that they carry the look of a president and attempt to create a powerful impression for the audience (Strachan & Kendall, 2004). Presidents Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan were masters of visual communication. They both helped 88 88 construct the presidential symbol for the ones that would come after them (Erickson, 2000). In visual imagery, the President of the United States has always been an emblem of a tough and masculine political fighter who is brave and can conquer any fear or task (Strachan & Kendall, 2004). This is how the President is symbolized therefore this is how the nation should see themselves. The popular BBC images which circulated are attempting to construct a different symbol for President of the United States. Looking at the images of Obama crying, you do not see the typical presidential signal of a tough and masculine political fighter. Instead, you see a president who symbolizes that it is acceptable to let your guard down and be human. The captions help emphasize this point as they do not criticize Obama for crying but illustrate why he became emotional and help the audience empathize with him. This can be seen in the image of Obama crying for his grandmother. In this picture, the captions do not mention him crying. The descriptions for this image only mention that he gave an emotional speech and that his grandmother had been battling cancer. This is also in the 2012 image of Obama crying after the Newtown shooting. The caption in this picture states the reason why Obama became emotional and cried was because “Twenty children, aged between six and seven years old, and six teachers were shot dead by Adam Lanza in 2012 at Sandy Hook Elementary School” (“Seven Times,” 2017). In the 2016 image of Obama crying, the captions only tell of how he had battled for new gun legislation while facing severe Republican opposition. As can be seen from these captions, they do not mock or criticize Obama’s tears. The words accompanying the images help build this new interpretation of the President as a symbol. This illustration of Obama by the BBC is a different construction of the President of the United States as a symbol than we have normally seen before. As can be viewed from the previous reactions to Obama’s crying, this symbol was not necessarily greeted with enthusiasm from 89 89 everybody. This visual rhetorical strategy from the BBC places the President as a symbol at the opposite end of the masculine and Western view.
CHAPTER 5: IMPLICATIONS, LIMITATIONS AND CONCLUSION
One of the most important aspects of any study is that it should create fruition. Scholars learning from one another is an important part of teaching and research. Gathering information is much more than a literature review. Researching is also seeing what others have said and using that to build your own argument that tells others your point of view on a subject matter. Scholars can often disagree and be competitive with each other about who is right and who is wrong. However, it is important to understand that we can build on each other’s works to create powerful implications. Future researchers should be inspired and should have the ability to respectfully add to the conversation through another researcher’s findings. In the section that follows I will be presenting future areas of scholarship that I deem important. These can be thought of as interesting and respectful ideas for future scholars to endeavor upon.
President Trump and Images Possible future research can explore the current administration under President Trump. This president is a frequent user of social medias that involve imagery. He is a frequent user of Twitter and Instagram. These accounts allow presidents to communicate differently with their respective audiences through other channels. You do not have to be a scholar to understand that President Trump is different in many ways than President Obama. This can be seen in both their ideologies and rhetoric Nevertheless, both presidents were in power during a heightened technological time period. A future research study on the visual rhetoric of President Trump can help analyze what he signifies for the presidency and for the visual rhetoric of the presidency. Scholars can examine how differently Trump used visuality to connect with his audience and what these images say about his current administration. This would be interesting to see because technology is only further developing. Future presidents will have more image 91 91 tools at their disposal. Since pictures of past presidents are now becoming more available to the public, we can now study their images even though technology was not as well developed back then as it is now.
Social Media Images One other area of future research that can be worked on is analyzing social media images. Presidents and politicians are now steadily using social media to not only market themselves but their agendas as well. Both President Obama and Trump were leaders under the epoch of Instagram and Facebook. They used these social media sites to get messages out to the world. There were many times when those messages were visual. Today, both Instagram and Facebook have a “live” feature in which an individual can stream themselves live to the audience. Congressperson, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, often uses Instagram live to answer questions from the viewing audience at home. This is one example of how incoming politicians are using the pervasiveness of social media to their advantage the way Obama did. People such as Obama knew that the use of relevant media to promote an image was only useful. This was also a strategic move as it enabled them to talk to a larger audience as well as a younger one. A look into the images on social media accounts of politicians and presidents can be an interesting area of study that future scholars can look to for an endeavor into the area of presidential rhetoric. Different features on social media open the door for expanding visual rhetoric.
Videos What future scholarship can show is the importance of multimodal arguments. Multimodal includes the use of videos and caption descriptions. It is the combination of two or more forms of analysis to make a case. This includes combining textual and visual. Kjeldsen (2016) used a multimodal analysis as he examined a video that also used captions. Kjeldsen (2016) argued for acknowledging the importance of using videos and 92 92 illustrated that visual analysis does not have to be restricted to only photographs. An example of this can be seen from an Obama interview in 2009. The President was asked what he thought about Kanye West interrupting Taylor Swift’s acceptance speech at the 2009 VMA Music Awards. In the video Obama is clearly heard referring to West in an expletive manner. This video went viral because it was seen as humorous but as an imprudent performance fragment as well. Hearing the President curse is not a moment we see or hear every day. This video was taken at the beginning of Obama’s term and helped mark a new way in which the President was going to be visualized. Multimodal forms of analysis should be regarded as important in the study of visual rhetoric. They should not be seen as simply between text and visuality. Videos have undoubtedly become an important form in which visuality is consumed. Groarke, Palczewski, and Godden (2016) suggested that unfortunately when one thinks of a multimodal analysis they simply think of the combination of text and photographs. This restriction needs to be addressed, in support of visual argumentation, Groarke et al.
(2016) stated, This is an odd restriction given that pictures, especially those that function argumentatively, rarely occur in isolation given that arguers combine verbal and visual (and many other kinds of elements) in whatever ways they think most effectively establish their conclusions in particular situations. (p. 218) Today, videos are one of those other kinds of elements. They expand the conversation in ways that perhaps a still image cannot. What is constituted as visual rhetoric and visual argumentation has become much broader over the years. Blair (2015) argued that including videos into visual rhetoric should not be seen as making visual rhetoric more complex. This should instead be seen as making visual rhetoric dynamic. Blair (2015) argued that, “A visual argument expressed by film or video, such as a tv commercial, is also dynamic, but containing movement and sound, 93 93 employ multiple modes than just images and words” (p. 219). There are now many other elements that go into visual rhetoric and argument, as Groarke et al. (2016) suggested
“These elements may include, but are not limited to, illustrations, diagrams, maps, photographs, moving images, virtual realities, monuments and bodies” (p. 218). It certainly may be difficult to keep up with technological advances. However, videos have massively contributed to the context of photographs and it would be irresponsible to not include them in visual rhetoric. Within the past decade, video sites such as YouTube have allowed for videos to coincide with visual rhetoric. Many politicians and presidential hopefuls upload videos onto YouTube including announcements for office and press conferences that they wish the public to see. Videos are now being used to speak differently to audiences on political websites. Graber and Dunaway (2015) stated that when it comes to presidential websites we need to consider, “It is an electronic portal to the images and videos of the president, his family, and the official mansion and to messages prepared for public display by the incumbent and the presidential staff” (p. 186). Much like captions that accompany photographs, videos allow for context on these pictures of President Obama. They can also allow for context on the visuality of future presidents. Videos allow for a much richer understanding of the context that surrounds a speech. They provide a richer understanding of the person in the image themselves. Videos allow the audience to hear the event and the speaker’s tone. Videos include many other things that could possibly be missed if one were looking at a still frame. Videos are a communicative avenue that future researchers should endeavor upon. This can be used not only to expand the idea of visual rhetoric but also to expand our knowledge of presidential rhetoric. 94 94 Implications for Communication The examination of these Obama images and of his nonverbal cues can be fruitful for this discipline. I hope this can spur several implications for our understanding of communication. The first implication is that I hope the study of President Obama crying can create interest for nonverbal communication in politics. Recently, an incident involving Vice President Joe Biden sparked a controversy around the country. Politician Lucy Flowers accused Joe Biden of what she deemed inappropriate touching and an invasion of her personal space. This quickly started a conversation, propelled by those who felt Biden’s proximity was inappropriate, around what is considered inappropriate forms of touch. This conversation included forms of haptics for politicians such as hugging, handshakes and other nonverbal gestures. Joe Biden proceeded to defend himself by stating that this is common in the political arena for politicians like himself. He argued that it is common to hug and perform other gestures of touching. Biden’s comments were then discussed on different news outlets and they brought up a conversation about politicians and their forms of embrace. For example, CNN discussed the inappropriate touching from Biden and quoted Lucy Flores as saying that many years ago this would have been tolerated and a woman like her would have been told to be quiet (Krieg, 2019). The article also quoted Biden when he stated, “In my many years on the campaign trail and in public life, I have offered countless handshakes, hugs, expressions of affection, support and comfort” (Krieg, 2019). As can be seen from Biden’s comments these nonverbal touching gestures are often seen as normal in political life for people like himself. Nonverbal communication cues are often more remembered and discussed than a person’s speech (Gehrisch, 2015). This can open a new avenue for nonverbal communication scholars to discuss haptics and to study the way these nonverbal gestures are explained in mass media. 95 95
Haptics would be an interesting subject matter to discuss in politics seeing as how touching is often seen as a Western gesture. In Asian cultures, standing in close proximity to someone can be deemed unprofessional and inappropriate (Heo & Park, 2016). Asian leaders often see public appeals and long public speeches as unnecessary (Heo & Park, 2016). Here in the United States we often embrace others with a hug or handshake as a sign of respect and friendship. President Trump himself has often been criticized for his handshake because it is seen by many as too forceful. He is known to grab the other person’s hand very forcefully and then pull them in towards himself. It has been discussed by news outlets; how unusual his handshake is. An article in Time magazine from 2018 was devoted to examining the handshake controversies that President Trump has had with other U.S politicians and world leaders. (Vesoulis, 2018). The French President, Emmanuel Macron, even discussed with the media about how important and unusual it was to conduct a strong handshake with Trump (Vesoulis, 2018). These nonverbal cues seem to be important to people here in the U.S and unusual to those outside of the country. We can also explore how technology is changing the performance of the presidency. As Erickson (2000) noted, the presidency is a performance and at times, photographers can catch presidents during prudent and imprudent times during those performances. The current state of social media is changing the way in which we have access to the President and other political figures. If this researcher wanted to contact the President, it would not be a difficult task to accomplish these days. I could simply tag them in a Twitter post and make sure they see it. Even though there is no certainty that they will acknowledge my tag or respond to it, there is an instant connection that I have with them. This is changing the way in which the presidency is performed. Today, the President has the ability to post images on social media and retweet comments or images on social media. The press and mass media then have the ability to discuss these images 96 96 and retweets with their own interpretation to the viewing audience. This illustrates not only how the performance of the presidency is changing but also, the way in which it is discussed. Obama’s attempt to promote Obamacare appeared on the YouTube program Between Two Ferns with host Zach Galifinakis. In this video he was asked several humorous questions and eventually promoted his website which was heavily criticized for previously not working. Through a humorous approach on a YouTube video series, Obama was able to discuss an important concept such as healthcare to an audience who perhaps would not normally be interested in hearing the him discuss something as political as healthcare. Presidents appearing on shows like Between Two Ferns speaks to the increase of visuality in the political arena and of technologies’ advancement. Technology has allowed the President to become more of a popular culture figure through their image constantly being put on a screen in different scenarios and platforms. Stuckey (2010) also argued that we should further research how technology is creating the President into a popular culture figure and adds, “It may well be the case that presidential communication is about to undergo one of those sea changes associated with technological change” (p. 49). As we can see during the time that she wrote the article in the year 2010, presidential communication has gone through a sea of change. Perhaps appearances on television and YouTube shows can be thought of as a performance fragment as described by Erickson (2000). Presidents can appear on popular culture programming in attempts to make themselves likeable to a wider audience. They know that these types of shows will be watched by a certain demographic. Ever since presidential candidate Richard Nixon appeared on the television series Laugh In, more political hopefuls are finding it beneficial to appear on television screens on this kind of platform. Obama made an appearance on Saturday Night Live back in 2007 when he was a presidential candidate. The same goes for Donald Trump back in 2015. Future researchers should expand on the 97 97 discussion of how television appearances such as these are changing the way we situate public address.
Implications from this work can also look into other ways that images can function. Pictures are powerful and they can often provide influence for the viewer of the shot. Future scholarship can research into how images can influence social change. Gehrisch (2015) argued that Stirring people to question long held beliefs, in a contemporary era, image events are weapons for social change. Due to a higher frequency of use of images in such a way onlookers become accustomed to images functioning as rhetorical devices. (p. 94) Images are rhetorical devices. They are not simply things we look upon and examine. Different forms of visuality can also be devices we use in argument. Images are incredibly powerful, and they have the ability to remain significant in the mind as well as inspire people to action (Gehrisch, 2015).
An example of an image such as this is a picture of Obama back in 2015. In this photograph is Obama, his family, and several other notable figures. They were captured in an image in which they recreated the march in Selma, Alabama on the day known as “Bloody Sunday.” Many others joined Obama and his family as they walked hand in hand the way many others did when they fought in the civil rights movement many years ago. The crowd behind Obama stretched for blocks and blocks. Some of the figures in the image were somber while others had smiles on their faces. This photograph became extremely popular and possibly served as inspiration for many people. Obama also gave a speech that day to help in commemorating the 50th anniversary of the march. Desmond- Harris (2015) wrote an article on this image and titled the article, “This photo of Obama with Selma marchers will join the great images of civil rights history.” Much was said about this image through the media. There were other discussions about the recreation of 98 98 the march and its possible implications. Future researchers should explore images such as this one of Obama and his family with Selma marchers. They can examine how images have the ability to function as a catalyst for social change. This can also help with the move away from textocentrism. Scholars have long explored the way in which speeches produce social change. Perhaps this can be done with images as well. Analyzing the Situation Room photograph McFarlane (2016) noted, “Obama is communicating that the ‘change’ he advocated on the campaign trail did not stop once he entered the White House. He is changing the presidency in more ways than just being the first Black president of the United States of America.” (p. 10). When we look upon an image, we cannot help but be moved by the emotion that the picture brings out of us (Kjeldsen, 2016). Images and videos, such as commercials, can inspire movements. People listen when a president speaks and they might also be inspired through their very image (Gehrisch, 2015). Photographs have the power to motivate people (Gehrisch, 2015). This is what Gehrisch (2015) referred to as
“motivated viewership” (p. 94). The cliché notion of “an image says a thousand words” rings more true today than ever before. Today, political pictures are so prevalent due to many of them possibly being iconic. Images depict an event at a certain moment in time but that does not mean that the significance or influence of that images stops on that day. To further this point Gehrisch (2015) argued, “The events of the image are stuck in time but the future recourse they inspire does not have to be” (p. 94). These images of Obama occurred at different times during his presidency but the legacy and influence that they carry will live long after his tenure is done. Future scholars can examine how images produce social change and it would be worthwhile as it is an underrepresented research area. Enhanced pictures such as “memes” can get people to think differently. This can bring about humor to an event or situation. Memes can propel change by complicating the way we think about social 99 99 issues. Huntington (2016) stated, “Much of memes’ appeal is their intertextual nature by which they take images from dominant media structures, juxtaposing and remixing them to create new layers of meaning” (p. 78). For example, there were several memes that came up while conducting a Google search for Obama crying. The first one that came up was a picture of Obama shedding tears during his 2016 address in the beginning of the new year. There were also captions on the image itself. These are humorous takes on a sad, emotional and mundane Obama. Memes have the ability to recreate meaning for audiences and that is part of what gives memes their rhetorical power (Huntington, 2016). Enhanced images such as these have undoubtedly been made about presidents and political figures. These visual should be examined in the future. This thesis should also spur implications of visuality in the classroom. Throughout the academic career of most university students, we have been trained how to read and deliver a speech. This is an important part of communication and one that students of all disciplines should learn to do effectively. Perhaps we can apply this type of emphasis on images. Gleason and Hansen (2017) argued that a visual rhetorical analysis is scholar centric. This means that people will get different interpretations from a single image. Not everybody will derive the same meaning and significance from a picture. However, this does not mean that we cannot teach students what to take into consideration. This can include context, circulation, captions and the people in the image as well. Students are constantly looking at images. This occurs whether they are watching their favorite program or the news. Students are constantly on their phones scanning through their social media accounts. Political images have also become a part of students’ daily lives. During my last semester I embarked upon taking a political science course to gain further information on this topic for my thesis. The course I chose was about the nature and history of political parties. We discussed important political figures that pioneered 100 100 the parties we see today. In class we asked each other questions about the true meanings of the labels “conservative” and “liberal.” Every day before class began, we would discuss hot issues at the time and watch videos to catch up on all the relevant topics going on in politics. Students would get a chance to bring up any topic they wanted to discuss as a way in which to warm up our minds before lecture started. One of the prominent issues at the time of the semester were the Brett Kavanaugh hearings that were being streamed live on YouTube. The stream displayed live coverage of the judge being questioned on sexual assault allegations that had been placed against him by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford. The instructor for the course not only illustrated the hearings live on YouTube for the whole class to see but she also illustrated to the class how to go on the website and upload the stream for ourselves when we were at home. This was highly educational, and all the students benefited from learning more about this visual medium. Students explored how it can bring a new dynamic to public address. This illustration not only demonstrated how to upload live streams of political events, but it also demonstrated how events such as political hearings circulate around the internet. This course opened my mind to how much visuality is used inside other classrooms. Here at Fresno State we have had courses that deal with visual rhetoric. For example, the Communication department had a Rhetoric and Visual Culture lecture. This is a wonderful step in the right direction and thoughts like this should continue to be implemented. Communication is often thought of as being face to face or standing in front of people delivering a speech. It would be dangerous to give students this simplistic view of communication during a time when many forms of communication are in their daily lives. It would be fruitful to see more college courses incorporate visual communication. This would be beneficial to this discipline, but it does not have to be specifically for communication courses. Visual communication seems to be 101 101 underrepresented and it is time we incorporate this more in our classrooms. Students should have more tools to guide them through communication studies, and in life. This would be a great service to students as they are going down the academic path into the area of communication. Future students could attempt to situate a project around how to implement a visual communication course and how it can help students in this area of study. For example, creating a syllabus to use in a classroom would not only be helpful in figuring out how the class would be structured, it would also guide the instructor as to what literature to use in the class. It would be fruitful for both the students and the faculty that embark on this idea. Ideas such as this can illustrate how visuality can function as argument and how images have rhetorical power. This can expand on the literature that students are able to receive as well as the knowledge about authors they might not be too familiar with. Before adventuring on this thesis there were several authors that I implemented here who I have not heard of before I started writing. Now as I reach the conclusion of my thesis, I have no idea where I would be without them. Lastly, I want other scholars to look at these images and examine them. These pictures of Obama crying are of great significance and I want others to write about them. They can examine them with their own eyes. As Gleason and Hansen (2017) argued, a visual rhetorical analysis is about the scholar themselves. I want future researchers to study these important images and see what they derive from them. It could be possible that future researchers explicate a different significance and meaning from the Obama pictures than this author did. Coming to an agreement on what images or speeches “mean” is not necessarily the point or beauty of studying communication. Often scholars who examine the same photograph or speech tend to derive different outcomes that can be beneficial to them and to future researchers. Each person arguing for what they believe 102 102 something signifies is not a failure. This is one of the things that makes what we study here beautiful.
Limitations Every good piece of work needs to be self-reflexive. Self-reflection allows you as a scholar to take a step back and look at your work for what it is. Scholars need to take a good look and acknowledge areas of their research that they feel future scholars could work on or add more depth to. Do not think of limitations as admissions of failure but rather as a helping hand to those that will take the same footsteps that you just did. I have spent months, days and hours spent writing and researching for this thesis. It is easy to say that writing a limitations section was the hardest part of this process. Although it was the most difficult, it was definitely the healthiest. Acknowledged limitations of a paper is not only good for the writer of the paper but for those that want to discuss areas of academia pertaining to the writer’s work. There are a couple of ideas that I would like to mention in this section.
Obama as the conductor of public feelings helped me explicate meanings from the images but I feel there is more that future writers can do in this area. Future writers could add more depth towards how exactly presidents are able to enact the role of conductor of public feelings through nonverbal cues. It is difficult to discuss how successful Obama was through the nonverbal cue of crying. Landau and Keeley-Jonker (2018) stated, “While no concept is perfect, this double-sided metaphor provokes scholarly consideration of new politics and publics” (p. 170). The images of Obama crying undoubtedly helped illustrate how presidents are in fact the conductor of public feelings. It should be noted however, that this is a complex metaphor which deserves further discussion beyond this thesis. Future researchers can explicate how exactly the President enacts the role of conductor of public feelings through crying and other nonverbal cues. 103 103
Future researchers can explain further whether or not this would be considered a successful enactment.
Another possible limitation of this paper is the use of political figures and personalities to show the reactions to Obama crying. These are people that have influential voices that which audiences view certain events and situations. The use of political figures as prominent voices was a method used by Gehrisch (2015) who illustrated the importance of people such as these when discussing the latte salute. She noted how the importance of this image came from the picture being discussed by the likes of “Sarah Palin, Hannity and Colmes, Bill O’Reilly and Rosie O’Donnell” (p. 91). People of this magnitude of stardom serve as gatekeepers to the news information that we see and hear on our television screens. Not using news articles from news outlets such as the New York Times or the Washington Post as part of the reactions to Obama’s tears could be seen as a possible limitation in this study. Future scholars can look into these news articles and perhaps other forms of commentaries. This can include blogs and social media posts to see if they contribute more findings from these images. Adding these commentaries could ignite more heuristic value to this area of scholarship that this paper only briefly added to. This should be strongly considered when other scholars come across these images. A possible third limitation is that there were images in the BBC article about Obama that were not analyzed as these pictures were not deemed significant because of their lack of circulation in the big news media. The first image was of Obama shedding tears during the funeral of Dorothy Height in 2010. The second was of Obama crying during the funeral of Daniel Inouye in 2012. These did not create much discussion throughout the media circles and where not going to add much depth to this paper. However, that does not mean that these two images are worthless and cannot be a viable subject to discuss for other scholars. If other researchers want to analyze these, then I 104 104 invite them to do so. I want other scholars to use these images as part of their own work if they feel like they can contribute to parts of an academic discussion.
Conclusion The goal of this study was to answer the call for visualizing presidential rhetoric. To conclude, my findings suggest that these images humanize Obama, help argue how some still perceive the presidency to be a masculine position and they illustrate how the presidency has entered in our visual culture. Images have become a large and significant part of our lives that we encounter every day. The rhetoric of members inside the political arena is significant as these are people who are in charge of many aspects in our lives. Changes in what we consider rhetoric should be welcomed as a new exploration into academia and not turned away as frivolous pursuits. This avenue of presidential studies has been largely under explored and these images of President Obama can allow for a richer understanding and an interesting exploration of the Oval Office. Graber and Dunaway (2015), from a political science perspective, helped illustrate how a visual analysis of the presidency is being used frequently outside of Communication studies. We need to further use this method inside the discipline because it can help our teachers, students and scholars. The affect that visual rhetoric will have on the study of rhetoric is still yet to be determined. Hopefully the rhetorical impact of imagery will continue to grow. My hope is that this study will also inspire possible future research.
REFERENCES
Anderson, C. (2017). White rage: The unspoken truth of our racial divide. New York, NY: Bloomsbury.
BBC Newsbeat (2017, January 11). Seven times Barack Obama cried during an emotional eight years. The BBC. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/ article/38582921/seven-times-barack-obama-cried-during-an-emotional-eight-years
Biesecker, B. (1992). Coming to terms with recent attempts to write women into the history of rhetoric. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 25, 140-161.
Blair, J. A. (2015). Probative norms for multimodal visual arguments. Argumentation, 29, 217-233. DOI 10.1007/s10503-014-9333-3
Bohan, C. (2008, November 3). Obama mourns grandmother on election eve. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-politics-grandmother/obama-mourns- grandmother-on-election-eve-idUSTRE4A26GV20081104
Brown, L. D. (2018, August 16). The night Aretha Franklin brought the nation’s first black president to tears. Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2018/08/16/the-night-aretha- franklin-brought-the-nations-first-black-president-to- tears/?utm_term=.01c20bc890ae
Bruenig, E. (2016, January 5). Conservatives claim Obama fake-cried about Sandy Hook while announcing executive order on guns. Retrieved from https://newrepublic.com/minutes/127075/conservatives-claim-obama-fake-cried- sandy-hook-announcing-executive-order-guns
Carney, Z. H., & Stuckey, M. E. (2015). The world as the American frontier: Racialized presidential war rhetoric. Southern Communication Journal, 80, 163-188. DOI: 10.1080/1041794X.2015.1043139
Christopher, T. (2016, January 7). Larry Wilmore slams Fox: Obama ‘cries about dead children and you’ve got notes?’. Mediaite. Retrieved from https://www.mediaite.com/tv/larry-wilmore-slams-fox-obama-cries-about-dead- children-and-youve-got-notes/
Cloud, D. L. (2004). “To veil the threat of terror”: Afghan women and the
Cobb, J.N. (2011). No we can’t!: Postracialism and the popular appearance of a rhetorical fiction . Communication Studies, 62, 406-421. DOI: 10.1080/ 10510974.2011.588075 1 06 106 Coe, K., & Chapp, B. C. (2017) Religious rhetoric meets the target audience: Narrowcasting faith in presidential elections. Communication Monographs, 84, 110-127. DOI: 10.1080/03637751.2016.1250932
Cohen, T. (2012, December 15). Wiping away tears, Obama mourns children killed in school shooting. CNN. Retrieved from https://www.cnn.com/2012/12/14/us/obama- school-shooting/index.html
Collins, J. L. (2014). The second amendment as demanding subject: Figuring the marginalized subject in demands for an unbridled second amendment. Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 17, 737-756. DOI: 10.14321/rhetpublaffa.17.4.0737
Conquergood, D. (2002). Performance studies: Interventions and radical research. In H. Bial & S. Brady (Eds.), The performance studies reader (pp. 37-47). New York, NY: Routledge.
DeSilver, D. (2018, December 18). A record number of women will be serving in the new congress. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/ fact-tank/2018/12/18/record-number-women-in-congress/
Desmond-Harris, J. (2015, March 8). This photo of Obama with Selma marchers will join the great images of civil rights history. Vox. Retrieved from https://www.vox.com/2015/3/8/8170283/obama-selmaa-bloody-sunday-photo
Dovere, I. E. (2017, January 10). Obama’s bittersweet goodbye: ‘Yes we can. Yes we did.’ Politico. Retrieved from https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/barack- obama-farewell-speech-233457
Erickson, K. V. (2000). Presidential rhetoric’s visual turn: Performance fragments and the politics of illusionism. Communication Monographs, 67, 138-157. DOI: 10.1080/03637750009376501
Fahey, A.C. (2007). French and feminine: Hegemonic masculinity and the emasculation of John Kerry in the 2004 presidential race. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 24, 132-150. DOI: 10.1080/07393180701262743
Falk, E. (2009). Press, passion and Portsmouth: Narratives about “crying” on the campaign trail. Argumentation and Advocacy, 46, 51-63. DOI: 10.1080/00028533.2009.11821716
Finnegan, A.C. (2001). The naturalistic enthymeme and visual argument: Photographic representation in the “skull controversy.” Argumentation and Advocacy, 37, 133- 149.
Finnegan, A. C. (2005). Recognizing Lincoln: Image vernaculars in nineteenth-century visual culture. Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 8, 31-58. DOI: 10.1353/rap.2005.0037 107 107 Foss, S. K. (1994). A rhetorical schema for the evaluation of visual imagery. Communication Studies, 45, 213-224. DOI: 10.1080/10510979409368425
Gauthier, B. (2016, January 6). Fox News hosts mocks Obama’s tears over Sandy Hook: “Check the podium for a raw onion”. Salon. Retrieved from https://www.salon.com/2016/01/05/fox_news_host_mocks_obamas_tears_over_san dy_hook_check_the_podium_for_a_raw_onion/
Gehrisch, A. J. (2015). Are you cup of joking?: The “latte salute,” American president Barack Obama’s visual rhetoric. Journal of Media Critiques, 1, 91-101. DOI: 10.17349/jmc115204
Gilmore, J., Sheets, P., & Rowling, C. (2016). Make no exception, save one: American exceptionalism, the American presidency, and the age of Obama. Communication Monographs, 83, 505-520. DOI: 10.1080/03637751.2016.1182638
Gleason, T. R. & Hansen, S. S. (2017). Image control: The visual rhetoric of President Obama. Howard Journal of Communications, 28, 55-71. DOI: 10.1080/ 10646175.2016.1235518
Graber, D. A., & Dunaway, J. (2015). Mass media and American politics. Thousand Oaks, CA. Sage.
Groarke, L., Palczewski, C. H., & Godden, D. (2016). Navigating the visual turn in argument. Argumentation and Advocacy, 52, 217-235. DOI: 10.1080/ 00028533.2016.11821871
Gronbeck, B. E. (2004). Dimensions of presidential character. In M.J. Medhurts (Ed.), Beyond the rhetorical presidency (pp. 30-49). College Station, TX. Texas A&M University Press.
Harp, D., Loke, J. & Bachmann, I. (2016). Hillary Clinton’s Benghazi hearing coverage: Political competence, authenticity, and the persistence of the double bind. Women’s Studies in Communication, 39, 193-210. DOI: 10.1080/07491409.2016.1171267
Hayden, S. (2017). Michelle Obama, mom-in-chief: The racialized rhetorical contexts of maternity. Women’s Studies in Communication, 40, 11-28. DOI: 10.1080/07491409.2016.1182095
Heldman, C., Carroll, S. J., & Olson, S. (2005). “She brought only a skirt”: Print media coverage of Elizabeth Dole’s bid for the republican presidential nomination. Political Communication, 22, 315-335. DOI: 10.1080/10584600591006564
Heo, M. & Park, J. (2016). Presidential rhetoric of South Korea and the United States: The case of Lee and Obama. Asian Journal of Communication, 26, 301-318. DOI: 10.1080/01292986.2016.1157616 108 108 Holt, L.F. (2012). Hillary and Barack: Will atypical candidates lead to atypical coverage? The Howard Journal of Communications, 23, 272-287. DOI: 10.1080/ 10646175.2012.695629
Huntington, E. H. (2010). Pepper spray cop and the American dream: Using synecdoche and metaphor to unlock internet memes’ visual political rhetoric. Communication Studies, 67, 77-93. DOI: 10.1080/10510974.2015.1087414
Jones, K. T., Zagacki, K. S., & Lewis, T. V. (2007). Communication, liminality and hope: The September 11 missing persons posters. Communication Studies, 58, 105- 121. DOI: 10.1080/10510970601168780
Kjeldsen, J. E. (2016). Symbolic condensation and thick representation in visual and multimodal communication. Argumentation and Advocacy, 52, 265-280. DOI: 10.1080/00028533.2016.11821874
Kopan, T. (2016, January 6). Donald Trump: Obama tears ‘sincere’. CNN. Retrieved from https://www.cnn.com/2016/01/06/politics/donald-trump-obama-tears-sincere- executive-action/index.html
Kraus, S. (1996). Winners of the first 1960 televised presidential debate between Kennedy and Nixon. Journal of Communication, 46, 78-96. DOI: 10.1111/j.1460- 2466.1996.tb01507.x
Krieg, G. (2019, April 1). Who is Lucy Flores? Biden accuser has challenged political power structure before. CNN. Retrieved from https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/01/ politics/who-is-lucy-flores-biden-accuser-former-nevada-lawmaker/index.html
Landau, J. & Keeley-Jonker, B. (2018). Conductor of public feelings: An affective- emotional rhetorical analysis of Obama’s national eulogy in Tucson. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 104, 166-188. DOI: 10.1080/00335630.2018.1447138
Manusov, V. & Harvey, J. (2011). Bumps and tears on the road to the presidency: Media framing of key nonverbal events in the 2008 democratic election. Western Journal of Communication, 75, 282-303. DOI: 10.1080/10570314.2011.571650
Media Matters Staff. (2016, January 5). Fox host: Mr. president do you think ISIS sees your tears as emotional weakness? Media Matters for America. Retrieved from https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2016/01/05/fox-host-mr-president-do-you- think-isis-sees-yo/207781
Memmott, M. (2013, July 19). Obama: ‘Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago’. NPR. Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/07/19/ 203660128/obama-trayvon-martin-could-have-been-me-35-years-ago 109 109 McFarlane, M. D. (2016). Visualizing the rhetorical presidency: Barack Obama in the situation room. Visual Communication Quarterly, 23, 3-13. DOI: 10.1080/ 15551393.2015.1105105
Miller, M. (2016, January 7). Trevor Noah’s segment on Obama and gun control is a turning point in his Daily Show career. Retrieved from https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/tv/videos/a41024/trevor-noah-obama-tears- guns/
PBS News Hour (2016). Watch president Obama announce gun control initiatives at White House [Video]. Available from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IUVJCRfNS8
Parry-Giles, S. J., & Parry-Giles, T. (1996). Gendered politics and presidential image construction a reassessment of the “feminine style.” Communication Monographs, 63, 337-354. DOI: 10.1080/03637759609376398
Remnick, D. (2016, March 28). Soul survivor: The revival and hidden treasure of Aretha Franklin. The New Yorker. Retrieved from https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/ 2016/04/04/aretha-franklins-american-soul
Rood (2018). “Our tears are not enough”: The warrant of the dead in the rhetoric of gun control. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 104, 47-70. DOI: 10.1080/ 00335630.2017.1401223
Rossing, R. P. (2011). Comic provocations in racial culture: Barack Obama and the “politics of fear.” Communication Studies, 62, 422-438. DOI: 10.1080/ 10510974.2011.588077
Seidman, A. S. (2010). Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign for the U.S presidency and visual design. Journal of Visual Literacy, 29, 1-27. DOI: 10.1080/23796529.2010.11674671
Shamus, J. K. (2018, August 29). President Obama won’t be at Aretha Franklin’s funeral, but he sent a letter. USA Today. Retrieved from https://www.usatoday.com/story/ life/music/2018/08/29/barack-obama-aretha-franklin/1138609002/
Strachan, J. C., & Kendall, K. E. (2004). Political candidates’ convention films: Finding the perfect image – An overview of political image making. In C. A Hill & M. Helmers (Eds.), Defining visual rhetorics (pp. 135-154). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Stuckey, E. M (2010). Rethinking the rhetorical presidency and presidential rhetoric. The Review of Communication, 10, 38-52. DOI: 10.1080/15358590903248744
Tulis, J. K. (1987). The rhetorical presidency. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 110 110 Vesoulis, A. (2018, July 2). How president Trump turned handshakes into a high-stakes showdown. Time. Retrieved from http://time.com/5325922/donald-trump- handshakes-showdown/
Warren, J. (2017, January 11). Crocodile tears? Barack Obama ridiculed for weepy theatrics during final speech. Express. Retrieved from https://www.express.co.uk/ news/world/752792/Barack-Obama-tears-Laura-Ingraham-Fox-News
Watts, E.K. (2017). Postracial fantasies, blackness and zombies. Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, 14, 317-33. DOI: 10.1080/147911420.2017.1338742
White, D. (2016, January 7). Paul Ryan wonders why Obama didn’t cry over ISIS attacks. Time. Retrieved from http://time.com/4171492/paul-ryan-barack-obama- tears-isis/
Willingham, A., & Ahmed, S. (2017, November 6). Mass shooting in America are a serious problem – and these 9 charts show just why. CNN. Retrieved from https://www.cnn.com/2016/06/13/health/mass-shootings-in-america-in-charts-and- graphs-trnd/index.html
Wright, D. (2016, January 6). Sarah Palin hits Obama crying: ‘The whole world weeps’. CNN. Retrieved from https://www.cnn.com/2016/01/06/politics/sarah-palin-gun- control-op-ed/index.html Fresno State Non-exclusive Distribution License (Keep for your records) (to archive your thesis/dissertation electronically via the Fresno State Digital Repository)
By submitting this license, you (the author or copyright holder) grant to the Fresno State Digital Repository the non-exclusive right to reproduce, translate (as defined in the next paragraph), and/or distribute your submission (including the abstract) worldwide in print and electronic format and in any medium, including but not limited to audio or video.
You agree that Fresno State may, without changing the content, translate the submission to any medium or format for the purpose of preservation.
You also agree that the submission is your original work, and that you have the right to grant the rights contained in this license. You also represent that your submission does not, to the best of your knowledge, infringe upon anyone’s copyright.
If the submission reproduces material for which you do not hold copyright and that would not be considered fair use outside the copyright law, you represent that you have obtained the unrestricted permission of the copyright owner to grant Fresno State the rights required by this license, and that such third-party material is clearly identified and acknowledged within the text or content of the submission.
If the submission is based upon work that has been sponsored or supported by an agency or organization other than Fresno State, you represent that you have fulfilled any right of review or other obligations required by such contract or agreement.
Fresno State will clearly identify your name as the author or owner of the submission and will not make any alteration, other than as allowed by this license, to your submission. By typing your name and date in the fields below, you indicate your agreement to the terms of this use. Publish/embargo options (type X in one of the boxes).
Make my thesis or dissertation available to the Fresno State Digital Repository immediately upon submission.
Embargo my thesis or dissertation for a period of 2 years from date of graduation. After 2 years, I understand that my work will automatically become part of the university’s public institutional repository unless I choose to renew this embargo here: [email protected]
Embargo my thesis or dissertation for a period of 5 years from date of graduation. After 5 years, I understand that my work will automatically become part of the university’s public institutional repository unless I choose to renew this embargo here: [email protected]
Type full name as it appears on submission
Date