The Abuse of the Soundbite

I recently read an article (or was it on NPR?...) stating that nowadays, the majority of political candidates really abuse the soundbite. Long gone are the days of in depth speeches that reach out to the masses; most modern political pundits are very guilty of relying on short, to the point, and succinct statements that can easily be bundled in a brief video, easily replayed on news stations or quoted within texts of newspapers, magazines, and web articles. These soundbites are chock full of emotion, intended to stir the viewer or reader into a heated frenzy either for or against the speaker in question. They also represent a certain clarity, a message that sums up the politician in question's views in a short, concise sentence. The report I referred to also stated that as technology has increased (i.e. the prevalence of the internet), the average length of the soundbite has decreased to almost half of what it was before. I believe it states that the average soundbite is now only 7 seconds in length. This also relates to current society's focus on immediacy of information.

Think of the buzzwords and phrases that McCain and Obama have been employing in their respective campaigns: "Change you can believe in", "Barack Obama: More empty words" (from a McCain attack video), etc. These soundbites are easily quotable, easy to remember, and easy on the ears. This goes along with the concept that rhetoric is employed as a means to persuade, a way to convince the masses that they are making the right choice by supporting this individual. While the soundbite isn't inherently evil or good, it certainly says something, at the very least, about current society's attention spans.