> I have no idea why they went for this visual, but it's difficult to attribute it to any motivation that is at all desirable.
I think Hanlon's Razor is a better explanation. Look at a wider picture[1][2], and the start of the CBS video I linked above. The building was well-lit, including the doorway area. When Biden starts speaking, the doorway light is turned off, plunging the background into darkness. This was probably done because the lit doorway was brighter than Biden. After a couple minutes, the light comes back up, but dimly. The background is still too dark, but it looks like they only had that one light to work with. Clearly this was being done on the fly.
CNN's color shift at ~12:40, on the other hand, probably had nothing to do with the background. Compare Biden's face before and after the shift. Before the shift, he looks yellow. After the shift, he looks much more natural. The lighting was just bad. CNN decided to adjust for it; CBS didn't.
Meanwhile, photographers love contrast, and the dynamic range of a camera is much smaller than that of a human eye. So a scene that probably looked normal in person turns into something dramatic in photographs. (And I bet Photoshop was used to enhance that drama even more.)
The conclusion I draw from this is that bad lighting produces bad images, and that politicians are not hyper-competent when it comes to such things. The content of the speech reinforces this -- far from being an eliminationist screed, Biden's speech is yet another hand extended to moderate Republicans inviting them to leave the Trump coalition and reject fascism. (Much like Clinton's "Basket of Deplorables" speech, I expect this invitation to be ignored, but that's another matter.) Here are some representative quotes, none of which sound particularly fascist to me:
> Democrats, independents, mainstream Republicans: We must be stronger, more determined, and more committed to saving American democracy than MAGA Republicans are to — to destroying American democracy.
> So I want to say this plain and simple: There is no place for political violence in America. Period. None. Ever.
> On top of that, there are public figures — today, yesterday, and the day before — predicting and all but calling for mass violence and rioting in the streets. This is inflammatory. It’s dangerous. It’s against the rule of law. And we, the people, must say: This is not who we are. (Applause.)
> We’re a big, complicated country. But democracy endures only if we, the people, respect the guardrails of the republic. Only if we, the people, accept the results of free and fair elections. (Applause.) Only if we, the people, see politics not as total war but mediation of our differences.
> The soul of America is defined by the sacred proposition that all are created equal in the image of God. That all are entitled to be treated with decency, dignity, and respect. That all deserve justice and a shot at lives of prosperity and consequence. And that democracy — democracy must be defended, for democracy makes all these things possible.
This is bog-standard Americanism. The idea that it's some sort fascist rally speech simply doesn't hold water.
Anything can be made to seem something other than what it is from some angle or another - or some quote or another. The best of intentions can be turned into the worst, and the worst into the best. The question is one of intent. So I'll ask you. This [1] is the CSPAN coverage, which as close as one to get as definitive. And it is effectively identical to all other coverage as well.
Do you genuinely believe the long zoomed out and angled images that are required to make this scene look less creepy are what the scene was intended to be streamed as? Or it was it intended to be streamed like literally every other single 'serious speech', the sort of which Biden's team, a group absolutely obsessed with visuals and apperance, have decades of experience orchestrating - front and center, zoomed on speaker?
It didn't look particularly creepy to me to begin with. I linked to the wider-angle photos to show what the overall lighting of the building was designed to look like. The close-up video of Biden speaking is pretty standard, I agree.
I looked at the C-SPAN video and saw the same crappy background lighting and the same on-the-fly attempt to fix it, along with occasional crowd shots of people in folding chairs politely applauding.
I think you are overestimating both how much thought the people who prepared this scene put into the visuals and how much control they had over the setting. In order to believe that something sinister is going on, I would have to believe that:
1. The Biden team (or whoever did the lighting) was "obsessed" with the visuals and highly competent, but changed their minds about the lighting two minutes into the speech.
2. The Biden team intended to produce fascist-style visuals for the speech, but instead of having the audience be rows of soldiers they put a bunch of ordinary-looking people in lawn chairs around a circle.
3. CNN is in the tank for Biden, but decided to suddenly ignore his "clear intent" and "fix" the visuals twelve minutes into the speech.
4. Biden decided to use Nazi imagery in a speech opposing fascism and supporting pluralistic democracy, for... some reason?
5. Anyone, anywhere, could ever see Joe Biden (of all people) as a fascist Great Leader figure.
I think you are looking for conflict and complexity where there is none. The simplest and most plausible explanation for the visuals is that someone did a crappy job on the setup.
I'll close with one final note. Try to imagine this was otherwise identical setup, and even an identical speech. The only thing we'll change is that instead of the speaker invoking 1 day of riots in an effort to demonize his political opponents, it was instead a Republican speaker invoking the years of riots prior with the same motivation.
If you genuinely believe what you're saying here, then you would hold those exact same opinions in such a scenario.
I think Hanlon's Razor is a better explanation. Look at a wider picture[1][2], and the start of the CBS video I linked above. The building was well-lit, including the doorway area. When Biden starts speaking, the doorway light is turned off, plunging the background into darkness. This was probably done because the lit doorway was brighter than Biden. After a couple minutes, the light comes back up, but dimly. The background is still too dark, but it looks like they only had that one light to work with. Clearly this was being done on the fly.
CNN's color shift at ~12:40, on the other hand, probably had nothing to do with the background. Compare Biden's face before and after the shift. Before the shift, he looks yellow. After the shift, he looks much more natural. The lighting was just bad. CNN decided to adjust for it; CBS didn't.
Meanwhile, photographers love contrast, and the dynamic range of a camera is much smaller than that of a human eye. So a scene that probably looked normal in person turns into something dramatic in photographs. (And I bet Photoshop was used to enhance that drama even more.)
The conclusion I draw from this is that bad lighting produces bad images, and that politicians are not hyper-competent when it comes to such things. The content of the speech reinforces this -- far from being an eliminationist screed, Biden's speech is yet another hand extended to moderate Republicans inviting them to leave the Trump coalition and reject fascism. (Much like Clinton's "Basket of Deplorables" speech, I expect this invitation to be ignored, but that's another matter.) Here are some representative quotes, none of which sound particularly fascist to me:
> Democrats, independents, mainstream Republicans: We must be stronger, more determined, and more committed to saving American democracy than MAGA Republicans are to — to destroying American democracy.
> So I want to say this plain and simple: There is no place for political violence in America. Period. None. Ever.
> On top of that, there are public figures — today, yesterday, and the day before — predicting and all but calling for mass violence and rioting in the streets. This is inflammatory. It’s dangerous. It’s against the rule of law. And we, the people, must say: This is not who we are. (Applause.)
> We’re a big, complicated country. But democracy endures only if we, the people, respect the guardrails of the republic. Only if we, the people, accept the results of free and fair elections. (Applause.) Only if we, the people, see politics not as total war but mediation of our differences.
> The soul of America is defined by the sacred proposition that all are created equal in the image of God. That all are entitled to be treated with decency, dignity, and respect. That all deserve justice and a shot at lives of prosperity and consequence. And that democracy — democracy must be defended, for democracy makes all these things possible.
This is bog-standard Americanism. The idea that it's some sort fascist rally speech simply doesn't hold water.
[1] https://billypenn.com/2022/09/01/biden-philadelphia-speech-i...
[2] https://www.inquirer.com/news/philadelphia-joe-biden-picture...