The Obama Rally, from Two Angles

[glockmail]

Reynolds Coliseum on N.C. State's campus seats 12,400 people. It did not seat that many tonight. Behold, the power of political staging:

The Obama rally, as seen on TV:
http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w311/mkhammer/coliseum2.jpg

The Obama rally as seen from the other end of Reynolds:
http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w311/mkhammer/coliseum1.jpg
http://townhall.com/blog/g/082ab837-a4f6-4a7d-bec3-2fff2d27a681

[PostmodernProphet]

Rofl....because there is so much room on the floor to roll in.......

[hjmick]

Looks as if there were about the same number in attendance for Barack's speech that night as there were for McCain's. The difference? The choice of camera angle and the commentary by the news media. Go figure.

[Hagbard Celine]

Reynolds Coliseum on N.C. State's campus seats 12,400 people. It did not seat that many tonight. Behold, the power of political staging:

The Obama rally, as seen on TV:
http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w311/mkhammer/coliseum2.jpg

The Obama rally as seen from the other end of Reynolds:
http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w311/mkhammer/coliseum1.jpg
http://townhall.com/blog/g/082ab837-a4f6-4a7d-bec3-2fff2d27a681

Do you not see the tables in the second picture? They never planned to fill the whole auditorium genius. If they had, they wouldn't have built the stands facing the other way and filled 3/4 of the auditorium with tables. :rolleyes: Oh but by all means keep pretending that nobody came out to support Obama.:laugh2:

[crin63]

The whole thing is setup for the view to look like a packed house. The bleachers and tables move quite quickly to allow for more or less people. My questions is why are the tables so empty?

They must've promised food to the homeless on the street if they came in to the rally to fill in the empty spaces. :laugh2:

[Hagbard Celine]

The whole thing is setup for the view to look like a packed house. The bleachers and tables move quite quickly to allow for more or less people. My questions is why are the tables so empty?

They must've promised food to the homeless on the street if they came in to the rally to fill in the empty spaces. :laugh2:

Most likely, they're workspace tables for press and of course for Obama's campaign people. I see quite a few laptops open on those tables.

[hjmick]

Do you not see the tables in the second picture? They never planned to fill the whole auditorium genius. If they had, they wouldn't have built the stands facing the other way and filled 3/4 of the auditorium with tables. :rolleyes: Oh but by all means keep pretending that nobody came out to support Obama.:laugh2:

What I think is interesting, as I stated in my previous post, is the way the media treated the two speeches, Obama and McCain. I watched both and the impression I got from the camera set-up for Obama's speech was that it was indeed a packed house. The commentators went so far as to mention just how Obama can draw a crowd, which I concede he can do. On the other hand, the same network shot McCain's speech the very same night in such a manner that it was obvious that the venue chosen was not filled to capacity and again they made comment to the disparity in numbers between the two candidates. The reality of the posted photos show me that the two crowds were comarable. I have also noticed that there is a tendency to shoot Obama from an "up" angle, making him appear taller, more imposing. They tend to shoot McCain straight on. I do not know if this is a choice made by the cameramen or if it is done on request of the handlers.

On another note, Obama's recent speech in Portland drew thousands, the photos of the crowd were amazing. Everyone was talking about the size, the excitement, the ability of Obama to draw such numbers. The one thing no-one mentioned was the fact that on of Portland's most popular indie bands gave a free concert prior to Obama's appearance.

[GW in Ohio]

Looks as if there were about the same number in attendance for Barack's speech that night as there were for McCain's. The difference? The choice of camera angle and the commentary by the news media. Go figure.

The news media hasn't even begun to screw McCain.

:dance::salute::dance:

[stephanie]

The news media hasn't even begun to screw McCain.

:dance::salute::dance:

So, you don't care that our Media is biased against it's readers and a certain segment of people of the United States.?
Figures.

[glockmail]

Do you not see the tables in the second picture? They never planned to fill the whole auditorium genius. If they had, they wouldn't have built the stands facing the other way and filled 3/4 of the auditorium with tables. :rolleyes: Oh but by all means keep pretending that nobody came out to support Obama.:laugh2:The tables are for the press, who didn't bother showing up either. If they never planned on filling the arena why wouldn't they rent out a smaller, less expensive venue, like an auditorium? Surely the campaign doesn't have money to burn.

[glockmail]

So, you don't care that our Media is biased against it's readers and a certain segment of people of the United States.?
Figures.
Oops. Looks like Gay Way leaked the truth out by mistake again. Just like "sexual preference", hey GayWay? :laugh2:

[Hagbard Celine]

What I think is interesting, as I stated in my previous post, is the way the media treated the two speeches, Obama and McCain. I watched both and the impression I got from the camera set-up for Obama's speech was that it was indeed a packed house. The commentators went so far as to mention just how Obama can draw a crowd, which I concede he can do. On the other hand, the same network shot McCain's speech the very same night in such a manner that it was obvious that the venue chosen was not filled to capacity and again they made comment to the disparity in numbers between the two candidates. The reality of the posted photos show me that the two crowds were comarable. I have also noticed that there is a tendency to shoot Obama from an "up" angle, making him appear taller, more imposing. They tend to shoot McCain straight on. I do not know if this is a choice made by the cameramen or if it is done on request of the handlers.

On another note, Obama's recent speech in Portland drew thousands, the photos of the crowd were amazing. Everyone was talking about the size, the excitement, the ability of Obama to draw such numbers. The one thing no-one mentioned was the fact that on of Portland's most popular indie bands gave a free concert prior to Obama's appearance.

I don't know about that. I've seen plenty of photos of McCain from that "looking up from the bottom" viewpoint. I think it's just how the press was seated at the two events. At the Obama event, Obama was up on a tall stage and the press were seated below him. At the McCain event, they were seated directly in front of him. It could also be the PR people for each respective candidates. I'm sure they consider things like that when they reserve seating for the press.

[hjmick]

I don't know about that. I've seen plenty of photos of McCain from that "looking up from the bottom" viewpoint. I think it's just how the press was seated at the two events. At the Obama event, Obama was up on a tall stage and the press were seated below him. At the McCain event, they were seated directly in front of him. It could also be the PR people for each respective candidates. I'm sure they consider things like that when they reserve seating for the press.

I freely admit that I don't know either way. I would hope that the PR folks are smart enough to set that stage in such a manner as to have their respective candidate photographed in the most flattering light, that's what they get paid for. Fire them if they don't.

On the other hand, my jaded perspective of the press, all press, gives me pause. I sometimes wonder if they are making the conscious (perhaps subconscious?) decision to photograph their preferred candidate in such a way that it sends the masses a subliminal message. I don't think too many consider the influence a picture has on the way we percieve things.

[Trigg]

What I think is interesting, as I stated in my previous post, is the way the media treated the two speeches, Obama and McCain. I watched both and the impression I got from the camera set-up for Obama's speech was that it was indeed a packed house. The commentators went so far as to mention just how Obama can draw a crowd, which I concede he can do. On the other hand, the same network shot McCain's speech the very same night in such a manner that it was obvious that the venue chosen was not filled to capacity and again they made comment to the disparity in numbers between the two candidates. The reality of the posted photos show me that the two crowds were comarable. I have also noticed that there is a tendency to shoot Obama from an "up" angle, making him appear taller, more imposing. They tend to shoot McCain straight on. I do not know if this is a choice made by the cameramen or if it is done on request of the handlers.

On another note, Obama's recent speech in Portland drew thousands, the photos of the crowd were amazing. Everyone was talking about the size, the excitement, the ability of Obama to draw such numbers. The one thing no-one mentioned was the fact that on of Portland's most popular indie bands gave a free concert prior to Obama's appearance.

I'm glad you mentioned this part. The media didn't mention there was a concert and I didn't realize it until I started reading the comments section and a reader mentioned the band performance.

The media loves to talk about how Obama draws such large crouds and McCain just doesn't encourage such devotion. I am sick to death of how the media is covering this campaign.