Romney, Obama and Putin in 2012 Megan Cornthwaite University Of
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Cornthwaite 1 The Image of a President: Romney, Obama and Putin in 2012 Megan Cornthwaite University of Florida Cornthwaite 2 The Image of a President: Romney, Obama and Putin in 2012 On September 3rd, 2012, CNN aired a documentary titled “Obama Revealed: The Man, the President” which was made by Jessica Yellin. This film was part of the official election campaign and was counterbalanced by another documentary made by Gloria Borger titled "Romney Revealed: Family, Faith, and the Road to Power," aired on August 26th, 2012, also by CNN. Now Obama is the president and it is interesting to compare the documentaries about the Democratic incumbent candidate and the Republican presidential nominee, with the documentary that was concurrently made about Vladimir Putin. Vladimir Putin turned sixty years old on October 7th, 2012 and there were no public celebrations in Putin’s honor with the exception of Vadim Takmenev’s documentary that was aired on NTV (Central TV) and has been available on YouTube ever since. This film is about an hour long and is titled “The Unknown Putin.”* All three films are comparable in length. At the time the films were made, both President Putin and Obama faced much criticism. The Russian film was aired several months after Putin's reelection to a third term as president, which had been a major contributing factor to the protests that took place in Moscow from May to June in 2012. The American films were aired less than fifty days prior to election day on November 6, 2012. Obama’s reelection was in question amidst his declining public approval ratings and increasing public disappointment. Romney was a somewhat unknown politician who rarely spoke about his personal life beyond politics, the most mysterious part of his life being his membership in the church of Latter-Day Saints. As the titles of the films suggest, the idea behind the films was to show something that had previously remained unknown about Obama, Romney and Putin and was worth telling about. In the case of President Putin, with a title like “The Unknown Putin” the viewers are told right away that they haven't seen the truth about the man even after twelve years as president. Surely, a man who has been president for such a long time * Originally titled in Russian: «Неизвестный Путин» Cornthwaite 3 cannot remain unknown to the public. Similarly, the title of the documentary about President Obama was also meant to reassure the audience in a political environment of public disappointment and uncertainty. In the case of Governor Romney, the viewers are given a short synopsis of Romney's life story in the midst of such a polarized political constituency. Romney, the most unknown of the three men, was the one whose film title gave the most information. What was this unknown information? What strategies did the teams of filmmakers use to produce an agreeable version of each president or candidate? Admittedly Putin was already president when the film about him was made, but the task of producing an image that most Russians could be content with was no less urgent and demanding than the one faced by Jessica Yellin or Gloria Borger and their teams. It can sometimes be questionable whether such journalists have the power to shape public opinion about the authorities in power, or whether it is the authorities in power that create and regulate their own public image on which the media simply report. This conundrum is particularly interesting when considering the relationship between media and the president of a nation, particularly when public approval is on the line. In my thesis I offer a close analysis of these films and compare my findings in the concluding section. I submit that these films were made with particular audiences in mind and with the purpose of improving the public image of each president, and in the case of Mitt Romney, with the purpose of providing a public image Americans could be excited about. The filmmakers catered to their respective audiences and therefore each film is indicative of the prevalent cultural and political stereotypes in each country. Part I: Expectations What have Americans come to expect of their presidents? In her article “Is America Looking for the Right Qualities in a President” from February 17th, 2012, Sydney Finkelstein reports that Americans “want someone who is open-minded and adaptable, who can make adjustments quickly and not be tied Cornthwaite 4 to past decisions that no longer work. Someone who is cool under fire, won't panic, but also won't be complacent.”1 On September 28, 2012 in the article “What Obama and Romney Must do to Win” for U.S. News, Finkelstein clarified further what Romney needed to do in order to win the election, saying that Americans will vote for the man who most engenders the confidence that he can “make the future better” and “this is especially true when the economy is struggling, as it is today. Trust and confidence are the essential fuel that drives the American economy [...] for Romney, the path must be via his competence as a manager, business leader, and turnaround expert.”2 Comparatively, according to Finkelstein's later article, Obama should give “people a reason to believe again,” for which he needed “all his famous charisma and the ‘likeability factor.”3 Finkelstein in this same article says, “There are data one can look at to see if competence is really there, but the charisma requires no such practical test. Obama's economy is not healthy, but we didn't hire him four years ago to do that; we elevated Obama to the Oval Office because of how he made us feel about the country and ourselves. He made us feel good, yes, he gave us confidence, and we trusted him to do the right thing.”4 Another opinion about what Americans expect in a president was discussed in a paper written by Martha Vater of Mount Holyoke College titled “Americans’ Perception of the President.” Vater makes an interesting point that “because Americans cannot realistically hope to agree with their president on every issue, the character of presidential candidates plays an integral role in American elections.”5 The latter might explain why in their documentaries Borger and Yellin chose to present their subjects as distinguished and remarkable individuals. Vater also mentions in her paper some specific characteristics necessary in a president, claiming, “American voters want consistent leaders of integrity and usually admire people with strong, unyielding convictions.”6 Part II: Romney The hour-long film “Romney Revealed: Family, Faith, and the Road to Power” was made by Cornthwaite 5 Gloria Borger, CNN's chief political analyst, as a way to begin CNN's television coverage of the Republican National Convention. In an interview on August 24th, 2012, Borger gave a synopsis of the documentary: “the Romney documentary is really a biography [...] an effort to take a step back and try to find out who Mitt Romney really is.”7 When interviewer Christopher Peleo-Lavar of National Journal asked whether or not the conventions really mattered since both Obama and Romney had been nominees for months, Borger discussed the possible impact of her documentary: “The outcome of the conventions is predetermined but the impression they'll leave of the candidate isn't. As the Republican convention showed, the events are still an opportunity for each campaign to tell its story to voters who are just tuning in.”8 Apparently, Borger thought that her film had the power of convincing the undecided voters to vote for Romney. In the same interview Borger elaborated on the main idea of the documentary: “[Romney] mainly discusses his long political family history as well has his devotion to his Mormon faith, both very important parts of who he is today.”9 To make Romney irresistible, Borger needed to introduce Romney as a likable human being. As a politician, Romney was expected to be guarded as well as being known as a candidate who has “been very reluctant to tell his own personal story beyond politics,”10 which only added to Borger's challenge. With these things in mind, I will now discuss how Borger emphasized certain qualities of Mitt Romney in her film. In the overview of the film, Borger highlights Romney's wealthy background, business prowess, faith, personal qualities, and qualities as a politician while playing serious sounding music, perhaps to emphasize the mysteriousness of the candidate because so much is unknown. The film then transitions into the first segment about Romney's personal characteristics, given literally in list form by his wife, Ann Romney, while she and Borger stand on the front lawn of one of their family's homes. Ann Romney describes her husband as “fun-loving, warm, spontaneous [...]; out of the public eye and he is as loose and spontaneous and funny as you'd ever want to see.”11 She then mentions that many people only see her husband through the “business lens” while that is “just one Cornthwaite 6 percent (1%) of who he is.”12 Then, the film turns to Romney's personal history. The fact that Mitt Romney is a Mormon was most likely the most controversial aspect of Romney's presidential campaign, and because of this, a very large portion of the film, at least thirty minutes worth, is devoted to his faith and how his faith is a large part of his life. True to the title, the segment about his faith is in the first part of the film. Around the middle of the film, Borger included a negative opinion of Romney in an attempt to make the documentary less one-sided.