Is image more important than the truth behind it?

30 minutes typing
Has creating an image become more important in our society than the reality or
truth behind the image? I agree that image has become a more central concern,
atleast where short-term business or political success is at stake. Nevertheless, I
think that in the longer term image ultimately yields to substance and fact.
The important role of image is particularly evident in the business world.
Consider, for example, today's automobile industry. American cars are becoming
essentially identical to competing Japanese cars in nearly every mechanical and
structural respect, as well as in price. Thus, to compete effectively auto companies
must now differentiate their products largely through image advertising, by
conjuring up certain illusory benefits- such as machismo, status, sensibility, or fun.
The increasing focus on image is also evident in book-publishing business.
Publishers are relying more and more on the power of their brands rather than the
content of their books. Today mass market books are supplanted within a year with
products that are essentially the same- except with fresh faces, titles and other
promotional angles. I find quite elling the fact that today more and more book
publishers are being acquired by large media companies. And the increasing
importance of image is evident in the music industry, where originally, artistic
interpretation, and technical proficiency yielded almost entirely to sex appeal.
The growing significance of image is also evident in the political realm,
particularly when it comes to presidential politics. Admittedly by its very nature
politicking has always emphasized rheotic and appearances above substance and
fact. Yet, since the invention of camera presidential politicians have become
increasingly concerned about their image. For example, Teddy Roosevelt was very
careful never to be photographed wearing a tennis outfit, for fear that such
photographs would serve to undermine his rough-rider image that won him his only
term in office. With the advent of television, image became even more central in
presidential politics. After all, it was television that electes J.F.K over Nixon. And our
only two term presidents in the television age were elected based largely on their
image. Query whether Presidents Lincoln, Taft, or even F>D>R would be elected
today if pitted against handsome leading man Reagan, or the suave and politically
correct Clinton. After all Lincoln was homely, Taft was obese, and F.D.R was crippled.
In the long run, however, the significance of image wanes considerably. The
image of Malboro man ultimately gave way to the truth about the health hazards of
cigarette smoking. Popular musical acts with nothing truly innovative to offer
musicaly eventually disappear from the music scene. And anyone who frequents
yard sales knows that today's best-selling books often become tomorrow's pulp.
Even in politics, I think history has a knack for peeling away image to focus on real
accomplishments. I think history will remember Teddy Roosevelt, for example,
primarily for building the panama canal and for establishing our National Park
System- and not for his high rough-and -ready wardrobe.
In the final analysis, it seems that every endeavor where success depends to
some degree on persuasion, marketing, or salesmanship, image has indeed become
the central concern of those who seek to pursuade. And as our lives become
busier,our attention spans briefer and our choices among products and services

reater, I expect this trand to continue unabated- for better or worse.