The Architecture of "Spectacle"

This is a timely new documentary from PBS FRONTLINE entitled Digital Nation. In a nutshell, it explores the vast breadth and depth of the human interaction with cutting-edge media technology and raises some pointed questions about the inevitable (but often elusive) social implications. Just to name a few, some points of interest include 1) the myth of media multi-tasking, 2) gaming and internet "rescue camps" in South Korea, 3) the erosion of memory & literacy 4) the bizarro "World of Warcraft", 5) telecommuting in "Second Life", and 6) the murky ethics of Predator drones and US Army recruitment "arcades".

If anything, the film is a sobering portrait of the present state of the hyperreal. As the speed of such technology is only accerlating, it is with extreme vigilance and introspection that we should engage such titanic, life-altering advances.
 

Jon Stewart v Bill O'Reilly

Once again, Stewart and O'Reilly sit down for a jovial and gentlemanly conversation. If there's anyone on the "left" who needs to teach a clinic on managing O'Reilly's on-camera persona, it's Jon Stewart. The only problem is that it's not really a talent one can impart to others. Without question, he is the undisputed master of sword-and-shield debate. In his case, exploiting the unique power of humor to placate and disarm an adversary before delivering shrewd points of argument. O'Reilly needs to feel in constant control of the conversation, and Stewart dances back-and-forth over this requirement like James Brown in a third encore.

As it is a favorite topic of this blog, I also love to see Stewart press the issue of narrative.

Here's the full, unedited interview which, of course, was only made available online:

Fork Stuck in Supreme Court

If you waited patiently until the 45th min of the President’s speech last night, you were privileged to catch a glimpse of the pathetically cavalier attitude with which Washington regards campaign finance reform. The paragraph of lip service Obama allotted to the Court’s recent landmark decision expressed the same sense of gravity and urgency one would exhibit in taking a late afternoon nap. Let’s just hit the snooze button and hope we don’t sleep through dinner. Personally, I think the occasion called for more William Jennings Bryan and less Rip Van Winkle.

But so it goes....the Supreme Court’s ruling is just another contentious round in the age-old grudge-match between Liberty & Equality. And once again, the all-seducing narcotic of "freedom" has foiled reasonable measures to ensure a semblance of fairness in the political process. Under the guise of protecting free speech, the majority opinion was an unmistakable victory for the well-financed establishment. My only question is: why the public outrage?? Shouldn’t the average citizen expect a windfall of "trickle-down" democratic justice? Isn't what's good for the plutocracy good for everyone? I’m pretty sure that Monsanto and Exxon will have my best interest in mind when they start planning their election season propaganda campaign. I’m also quite sure that progressive candidates don’t need to fear crippling media reprisals should they take policy stances in conflict with business.

In all seriousness, it was only a matter of time before corporate henchmen were able to dismantle the modest gains of campaign finance reformers. The ugly marriage between money and politics is far too co-dependent for any lasting partition. The principled few who are brave (or crazy) enough to stand in the way of this grotesque confluence risk suffering the following education of Network's Howard Beale:



The bottom line is that this trend is nothing new. This Court's ruling is just the most recent application of "laissez-faire" political philosophy- but it's clear the contagion is spreading beyond the sphere of economics. It's another manifestation of the epic quest to undo every rational constraint on the corrupting potential of highly concentrated wealth. According to our esteemed judiciary, multi-national corporations do not have enough political voice. Forget their legions of lobbyists. Forget the fact that their ad dollars underwrite (and therefore unduly influence) most outlets of mass communication. Let's tip the scales a bit more.

This is not to imply that the American business community is either monolithic or inherently evil in their political posture. Of course, they're not. However, they are all unified in at least one respect: their unending pursuit for profit. What's wrong with a tidy profit? Absolutely nothing, in and of itself. The problem begins when the institutional constructs that maintain a logical distance between commercial and social life are completely eroded; when quarterly earnings are exalted above all other social and democratic considerations; when behemoth conglomerates entirely removed from the long term welfare of citizen and country are allowed to penetrate and overwhelm every facet of human life. It is the moment where we forfeit our collective humanity and become faceless, interchangeable consumers conditioned to worship our wants over our needs. We become a culture awash in hollow, commodified diversions where the illusion of "freedom" and fulfillment are promised, but only a gilded poverty is delivered:

(This ad is brilliant.)



It sounds like an Orwellian farce, but is it that much further from the present? Just how far down the rabbit hole are we? We already live in a media-saturated world funded almost entirely through corporate patronage- where news is sold as entertainment and politics is presented as sport or scandal. Should we really expect progress when we're trapped in a perverse paradigm that breeds ignorance and compromises truth for the sake of ratings???..... Welcome to the Society of the Spectacle.

Politics..... Just Saying "No".

Given the rising tide of American political ennui, these videos should come in extremely handy. In fact, the wunderkinder over at "The Onion" placed this one in their "Most Vital" category. Genius, as always.

By the way, the male anchor in their "Today Now!" series is scary good.



...or if you MUST vote, you can always...

The Siren Call of False Narratives

I'd like to start off the new year by taking a moment to pause and reflect on one of the most powerful weapons in the media arsenal (and a prime obsession of mine): the notion of narrative. This entry is a bit longer than most, but I hope you'll indulge me because it's a rather important topic- and I hope you'll find it interesting. Please note: this treatment is FAR from exhaustive. Those interested in further reading should consult the work of Berkeley Professor George Lakoff particularly Metaphors We Live By and The Political Mind.

If media perform any principal task, it is the construction of narratives- or basic storytelling. The diversity of facts and details the world has to offer is boundless, but the amount of meaningful narratives is relatively finite. (Think why so many Hollywood films seem to utilize the same plotlines.) Without the framework of some type of narrative, the human mind sputters to extract any meaning from media messages. Without a perceived narrative context, information floats like an indiscernible morass of minutiae. This is so much the case that if message producers do not provide a credible narrative to frame the facts, our brains will instinctively scour our memory for the most salient, ready-made narratives to fill this critical void.

The point is that narratives are what provide meaning in our lives- they organize the chaos of sensory data into convenient frames of time and space so that we may better understand how to orient our lives in an incredibly complex world. In fact, we are conditioned to recognize the traditional catalogue of narratives from a very early age (Walt Disney created an empire on this fact). We learn the hero is inherently good and the villain is evil incarnate; we know the grammar of the hero's quest instinctually and we know how we will feel at any given point in the story whether it's a "rags-to-riches" or "boy meets girl" tale. These emotions are not arbitrary, but are organized to promote specific moral principles passed down from one generation to the next. From Homer's Odyssey to Lucas' Star Wars, we repeatedly encounter these "deep narratives" via media representation. As a result of this diligent indoctrination, most of us come to interpret our own lives through these essential epics- after all, what is our own life if not a story with us as the protagonist.

From a psychological perspective, narratives constitute a valuable cognitive expedient. There is no physical way our brains can digest and compute every single fluttering detail the lived world has to offer- we have to sacrifice a great deal of earthly complexity in order to make informed generalizations based on our "best" judgment. Therefore, we are often less attentive to isolated features than we are to patterns of features. This is to say that our brains think metaphorically because it provides the best economy in cognition. It's the patterns that provide us with the most meaning not the details. Details are important, but only in so far as they help us recognize a pattern. Similarly, facts are important, but only in so far as they help us construct a credible narrative.

The problem is that once we recognize and apply a given pattern/narrative in our thinking, we are more likely to try to apply this same pattern in other circumstances where there may only be a vague resemblance. It's been scientifically proven that narratives are self-reinforcing (in the cognitive sense)- our brains become biased towards seeing these old patterns versus seeing something new or "out of the ordinary". In our cognitive scramble for meaning, we tend to eschew or ignore the critical details that may render our favorite narratives obsolete or erroneous. (This phenomenon is the same for cultural stereotypes.) To put it another way, we tend to see what we are inclined to see. (Was Saddam Hussein really part of the "War on Terror" narrative?) Our deep narratives form the primary lens through which we try to see the world- we compartmentalize the facts into the finite set of frameworks that we can understand. Unfortunately, reality should not be treated as a pliable substance.

As far as media manipulation goes, the problem is threefold. The first is referenced above: our brains have evolved to over-rely on pattern recognition- we instinctually seek to apply a certain narrative whether the actual facts warrant this or not. In other words, narratives enable and encourage a certain degree of cognitive laziness. We love our narratives, and we want to employ them all the time. Rather than parse through the tedious facts and arrive at a truly enlightened picture, we want the "executive summary" so we can understand the gist of an event and quickly move on. Media producers (especially the unscrupulous vendors of partisan media) are highly aware of this and exploit it by framing the facts to fit a narrative that promotes their objectives. They don't so much provide the breadth of clinical facts as much as they sell a prepackaged narrative with a selection of facts couched to fit the framework. (Watch John Stewart nail this.)

This leads into the second vulnerability: narratives are never neutral, especially when it comes to news. Narratives are heavily-laden with rigid value judgments. The hero is always good; the villain is always despised. If you can believably frame the narrative in your favor, the desired effects are almost guaranteed. And finally, the third (and most important) vulnerability we have as media consumers is the instinctive and often unconscious nature of this cognitive process. We do not consciously decide to feel this way or that way about a certain narrative or representation of facts, it happens automatically. We may consciously feel the emotions attached to the narrative, but we have little control over whether they are elicited or not. Therefore, we may think we are making a "rational" political decision based on a certain objective set of facts, but in reality we are being manipulated at the subconcious level.

In sum: news media use narrative device to provide an essential degree of context in the presentation of world events. However, narrative is often used by less scrupulous actors as a mechanism to prey on the psychological vulnerabilities inherent in the cognitive process. We must be vigilant of this practice. Our narratives should only serve as rough guides to aid our understanding- especially when it comes to our domestic and foreign policy choices. They should be held loosely and abandoned readily. Whether you subscribe to the so-called "War on Terror" narrative or not, we should all be wary of those who seek to apply such frames dogmatically to every international event. Clearly, this is evidence of an agenda. The world is much too complex for such facile frameworks however tempting they are. We must resist the siren call of false narratives and strive for a genuine, impartial pursuit of truth.

The Tale of Tyger Woods

I've never really paid much attention to poetry (who does), but I've always had a strange affinity for William Blake. As an eccentric Romantic, his work is vivid with mythological imagery that speaks to mankind's unique psychological conflicts. In particular, his "Songs of Innocence" and "Songs of Experience" are two volumes of allegorical poetry that represent the opposing notions of the ideal and the real world. Some poems (like "The Lamb") in Innocence have antithetical poems (like "The Tyger") in Experience.

I suppose this appeals to me because, like Stevenson's The Strange Case of Dr. Jeykll and Mr. Hyde, the work explores the duality of man and our internal struggle with good and evil. For our purposes here, I find these inquiries exceptionally relevant as they relate to the dichotomy between public and private personas (whether mediated by a television screen, the lens of camera, or your skin). The tale of Tiger Woods is a sadly perfect example of this: the epic journey from his immaculate conception to an inevitable fall from grace. James Suroweicki's latest New Yorker article is a good encapsulation of his peculiar case. Like Blake's innocent Lamb, Woods has been revealed a depraved (and quite human) Tyger. - Bye, bye Accenture.

The Gospel According to Colbert

I take comfort in knowing that 3 out of the TOP 5 books on the New York Times bestseller list include Sarah Palin (#1), Glenn Beck (#4), Mike Huckabee (#5). Damn liberal media....

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
U.S. Army Chain of Command
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor U.S. Speedskating

And, just for kicks, here's a pretty funny Onion News clip with a cameo from the messiah himself:

Zombie Reagan Raised From Grave To Lead GOP

Preach this Evangel

Afghanistan: A "Defining Moment"

Over the last few days I've been reading a paperback from the Harvard Business Review entitled On Leadership. The book is just one publication in a long series "designed to bring today's managers and professionals the fundamental information they need to stay competitive in a fast-moving world"- according to the inside flap anyway. As someone relatively detached from the formal world of business and management, I've found most of the book's entries (written by various "esteemed" authors) pleasantly succinct and insightful. Most pieces are eminently digestible and quite relevant to the world at-large. In my reading, one in particular jumped out at me: "The Discipline of Building Character."

I usually skip over any literature that prominently features the word "discipline" or "character", but upon reading the ever-handy "executive summary", I found myself intrigued by the author's conception of a "defining moment." Written by a renowned Business Ethics professor at HBS, the article makes a fundamental distinction between an "ethical decision" and a "defining moment". In the former case, the decision typically involves choosing between two options, one we know to be right and the other to be wrong (in an ethical sense). The later, more interestingly, involves making critical decisions where there is no "right" answer, but rather a number of difficult alternatives with varying and often imperceptible degrees of "rightness". In such cases, the author explains: "no matter which option we choose, we feel like we've come up short." The author's argument is that these so-called defining moments, taken cumulatively over one's life, form the basis of an individual's character.

I like this assertion. Over the course of all our lives, the crucible of character building is more often than not a catalogue of painstaking, introspective decisions. These moments challenge and reveal our core values, our integrity, and our identity. Fundamentally, they are a critical test of authenticity. Who am I? No facade, no bullshit. I think it's fair to say that Afghanistan presents Obama with such a moment writ large. I've followed the so-called AfPak policy making process very closely, and I still struggle haplessly with the search for a profoundly superior course of action. Of course, I'm not privy to the entire US national security apparatus, but I think most candid observers will acknowledge that our options are "not good", "bad", and "worse". I dismiss the knee-jerk capitulation of many politicians to McCrystal's troop request. It wreaks of typical party politics and unvirtuous expediency. In the end, this may be the "best" course of action, but the gravity of this decision demands intense, conscientious deliberation attended by all relevant parties. My hope is that this is what has occurred over the past few weeks.

The unfortunate reality is that we've painted ourselves in a corner in Afghanistan. Like the proverbial red-headed step child, we've ignored it, under-fed it, and starved it of any discipline. Our policy has been adrift for years without any clear sense of military vision or attainable objective. Is it really surprising that the situation has deteriorated drastically? The constellation of serviceable policy options that once existed has now shrunk to a handful of pathetically dour alternatives. I have absolutely no envy for the President's position, but a fine respect for his character. Solemnly, he will do what he thinks is right.

On a final note, it is my sense that the AfPak problem is virtually unmanageable as far as the US is concerned. However, when you are dealing with nuclear weapons (as we are in Pakistan), the risk of simple withdrawal is too high given the current level of instability. The question is, then, can we leave when things are "stable" (whenever this is), or will our leaving cause renewed instability? Are we in for a semi-permanent occupation? And if the long-term goal of this occupation is some sort of stability provided by pseudo-democratic governance and economic development (which is the real problem, along with education/literacy), can this be achieved with our presence. Maybe, but not at the barrel of a gun. Any sustainable solution will involve extraordinary cultural and economic changes that will take generations to occur and will require the involvement of a dedicated multinational coalition. Are we ready, as a global community, to commit trillions more dollars and hundreds more lives? Or will we lose our collective interest (again) once the issue has escaped the media spotlight?

Preach this Evangel

The Gospel According to Al

The prescient insights of UHF and the Great Monseigneur of Mock, "Weird" Al Yankovic:

Preach this Evangel

Paving Over Stalin's Grass

For those of us in the West, it was simply the Berlin Wall; for those to whom it mattered most, it was Antifaschistischer Schutzwall. To understand this distinction is to begin an authentic inquiry into the extraordinary and often subtle implications of 1989. It's hard to imagine that just over twenty years ago, this iconic, and seemingly indelible monument to the Cold War met its end at the hands of those it confined- both physically and psychologically. While recent media coverage has immortalized the event with all the tinsel of nostalgia and ceremony, deep and complex neuroses still cripple many residents of the "emancipated" East. Unfortunately, the explosive demise of East Germany and its festering psychological fallout cannot be sufficiently relayed by the spectacle of broadcast. A genuine pursuit of historical significance requires empathy. And real empathy is not virtual.

A faithful commemoration of “the fall” would entail nothing less than inhabiting the fragile lives of those who dwelt in its menacing shadow for so long. Any attempt to convey this plight in either words or images inevitably falls short. Our strenuous empathy requires the solemn physicality of place. In other words, you have to be there. However, sadly for Berlin, this monument of struggle is now almost totally gone. The notorious wall that interned a generation is quickly vanishing for good. While some may greet this summary extinction with joy or, worse, apathy, I think the complete lack of organized preservation is both harmful and wrong, and tragically represents a much larger social trend.

As its agitprop name suggests, the Antifaschistischer Schutzwall was foisted on the East German public as a prudent solution to keep the “fascist” West at bay lest the “capitalist cannibals” beset the happy collective. In reality, of course, the wall or “death strip” as it was known locally, was a penal rampart with unparalleled, methodical lethality. Stock media images of the relatively innocuous concrete slabs do not approach an accurate portrayal of the inhumanity. More than a barrier, the strip was a complex system of watchtowers, staggered fencing, anti-vehicle trenches, bunkers, and other cruel obstacles designed to kill or disable those daring to trespass (“Stalin’s grass” was the local nickname for the nail-spiked stretch of corridor intended to impale and trap victims’ feet). The soundtrack was equally unforgiving: the incessant, barking rasp of border dogs, the ghoulish crack of sniper fire, and the grinding wail of military vehicles. Taken together, the wall’s imposition on the human soul was immeasurable.

It begs the question: why would anyone want to preserve any vestige of such obscenity? Because it’s history? Yes- but most importantly because it’s ugly and you could never replicate its aura of depravity. No documentary, no blog, no research paper could ever record or evoke the stark drama of place. If we lose our tangible connection to the past, we forfeit a vital piece of our collective identity, and we resign ourselves to a fate where our only relationship with history is through media-sponsored simulation. We enter a frenzied hyperreality that is devoid of authenticity or originality; where the priceless topography of meaning is constantly razed and repurposed at the careless whim of society; where representation totally supplants reality. We become aliens in our own land, the characteristics of which are unrecognizable and always fleeting. We become passengers of a rudderless vessel at the mercy of a mercurial sea. Unanchored to the past in any meaningful way, we drown in the present. Defeated and demoralized we passively submit to the will of the Spectacle. In a very real sense, we ARE all Berliners.

I recognize the irony, but here is a....

...poignant documentary on the Fall:

...and a BRILLIANT fictional film I HIGHLY suggest renting:

SHIG

Charlie and the Tree of Knowledge

If we accept the notion that Sean Hannity is God in the grotesquely metaphorical sense (described in prior post), Charlie Rose might just be the proverbial Tree of Knowledge.

I was watching an episode a few nights back and something peculiar caught my attention. I couldn't articulate it at the time, but after several days, it finally came to me (like Doc Brown and the Flux Capacitor): Charlie Rose was, indeed, the "answer" to the Spectacle of Hannity. I've had great affection for Charlie and the show for some time, but this cosmic revelation was a refreshingly new, visceral sense of enlightenment. It seems the molecules for this "Eureka!" had always been present in mind but, until this morning, had lingered deep under the surface, twinkling quietly in my subconscious like stars in a distant galaxy. As with any revelatory episode, I wanted to examine the causes and excavate for any truth- could I deconstruct the glow of the light bulb? Let us explore.

It so happened that the interviews featured on the particular program in question were with Steven Levitt, of Freakonomics fame, and Malcolm Gladwell, of Blink, Tipping Point, et cetera. Both gentleman are highly celebrated for their uncanny ability to refine fascinating insights from seemingly banal human activity. They've carved out a wonderfully lucrative niche as venerable princes of pop-sociology. However, what struck me about their interviews (and what precipitated my epiphany) was that both men emphasized a central theme: the latent splendor of life. Levitt put it more inductively: "It's about asking the right questions." Gladwell put it succinctly: "you have to train yourself that everything is interesting". Then it hit me: this is the unspoken mantra of Charlie Rose- in precious few words, this is why I love the show.

Charlie Rose is a shining affirmation of this terribly unsung dictum. Everything is interesting, but only if you look closely and honestly, without pride or prejudice. As Charlie so effortlessly demonstrates, exploring the exceptional complexity of the world requires two critical assets: an open mind and the ability to listen- this is the Charlie Rose calling card. Not simply listening as in absorbing and processing sound waves, but listening in the much broader, more active sense: hearing, thinking, feeling, assessing, evaluating, studying, exploring and reacting in kind. The art and science of listening.

Similarly, Charlie is the embodiment of the open mind- but not simply an open mind in the sense of impartiality, but rather a governing ethos guided by a childlike curiosity for everything- an intellectual wanderlust. An insatiable appetite for all knowledge. Whether he's interviewing Warren Buffet, Charles Manson, LeBron James, or Jay Z, Charlie has an unmatched ability to elicit extraordinary stories from subjects of all stripes. The viewer doesn't need to avidly follow politics, sports, economics, film, or what-have-you in order to become engrossed in the program because, fundamentally, all people are interesting in some way- it only needs to be drawn out of them artfully. This is what Charlie does better than anyone else, but more still, he does it on every show, every night, across the breadth of the human stage. No agenda. Knowledge for its own sake.

Amid the intolerable din and tawdry bunting that comprise the phantasmagoria of modern television, Charlie Rose has somehow managed to preserve the fleeting virtues of nobility, integrity, and grace. The narcotic allure of Eden, with its Glenn Beck and its Girls Next Door, is strong but not absolute. His Tree of Knowledge continues to promise emancipation from the confining logic of the Spectacle and an escape from a captivity of diversion and exploitation. Those who partake in the forbidden fruit must submit to a new awareness and risk the retribution of God.

SHIG

Join the Flock

In Nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti

Hello and welcome to Sean Hannity is God.

Please join me as we partake in His Holy Sacrament, the Body and Blood of Hannity, the Bread of Heaven. Kneel in penitence at the alter of His Spectacle... for we are all humble supplicants.

To say the least, this venture is highly overdue. As a concerned, but contentedly aloof critic of media politics, I had long been self-satisfied to grumble quietly and derisively to myself and to a fairly intimate group of friends- part of me still is. However, as conditions clearly began to deteriorate, and the unmistakable contours of the tempest started to writhe and whirl in unison, I found myself wanting to broaden my audience- even though my voice would most likely prove little challenge to the marauding media vortex. Nonetheless, it is the principle that counts. In a more romantic sense, this blog is my stone hurling towards the forehead of the great Philistine warrior. And may Goliath fall.

Fortunately, Sean Hannity is not God (though he might argue with that). But my title is not simply a callous blasphemy attempting to incite the indignation of those I protest. Rather, I selected this mantra conscientiously for two reasons. Firstly, it's a seductively juvenile lampoon, and the sport of mocking from a distance is just something I relish. Secondly, and much more importantly, I see Sean Hannity as a fitting caricature of what is fundamentally wrong with 90% of modern media practice. If you pull back the curtain, the primary psychological appeal of most television programming shares some or all of the characteristics of Hannity's show on Fox News- of course, it is extremely rare to find all of these qualities present to the extent that they are on "Hannity". In that sense, Sean Hannity is the exemplar...the righteous epitome.... he is, in effect, the Supreme Being that permeates all space and time. He is pure Spectacle- but what do I mean by Spectacle???

Within media criticism circles (primarily academia), the notion of "spectacle" is much more than a facile description of something that appears "visually striking"- though that is certainly part of it. It is, rather, a theoretical philosophy that encompasses the comprehensive media experience and interprets the social implications. In his book (and film) called The Society of Spectacle, Guy Debord describes the theory in much detail- but I won't bore you with the relatively esoteric post-Marxist theory. I would, however, encourage you to watch the brief (9 min) documentary I made that attempts to distill the theory's core tenets into images and sound that all viewers can digest (see below). The point is, I will be using the concept of "Spectacle" as a framework from which to engage and critique media messages, particularly as they relate to politics and journalism.

Do I believe that there is some massive, Matrix-like cabal trying to subvert and enslave the human psyche?- of course not. Do I think that the majority of media today is Bread & Circus Brand opium for the masses?- surely. I think it's abundantly clear that while the profit logic of the system works for entertainment, too often we have seen this force invade and devour the journalistic function of media. Whether it's Keith Olbermann or Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly or Ed Schultz, infotainment is the cheap fashion of modern media. The prudent firewall that had once separated the two distinct provinces has been irrevocably breached- and we are witnessing the impact in errant foreign and domestic policies grounded in sensationalism and fear rather than rational thought and intelligent debate. It's not necessarily that quality information is not out there (it is), it's that the majority of the voting public doesn't want or care to consume it. They'd rather submit to the throbbing, simian performances on cable news where an incredibly complex world is impossibly refined into snarky soundbytes that reinforce nakedly insular worldviews. I hope to combat this trend and hope you will join me on this quest (subscribe to SHIG on the right).

This is not to say that this blog is by any means the antidote to the poison, rather it is my attempt to bear public witness and provide sound insights into the media miasma. I think many people (myself included) often approach communication with a certain casual innocence rather than the critical awareness that is necessary to manage and appropriate messages without being subliminally coerced. So in writing this blog, I will examine and critique the public sphere, offer my own thoughts on the issues, and also direct the reader to outside information that I believe to be of good value. At the very least, I hope you find my words thought-provoking.

As I mentioned, I will leave you with my short doc on the notion of "Spectacle" as espoused by Guy Debord in his seminal work "The Society of the Spectacle". It's an amateurish filmic exposition of his compelling but underappreciated theory.

Hannity is God.