guy shoots at White House

Dear political pundits and commentators (especially those of you on cable TV):

Just in case you did not notice, some guy shot an AK-47 at the White House the other day. He was arrested in Pennsylvania this afternoon. This post is a plea for sanity.

Please do not try to turn this into something is it not. This guy is not an individual representation of the tea party or Occupy Wall Street or the degradation of political discourse in America. He is probably just a crazy guy who shot an AK-47 at the White House.

He is also not a symbol that should be used to make the public afraid of itself. You know, you might be tempted to say, "not only is political discourse degrading, but it is getting totally out of control and violent revolution is just around the corner."

He is just a crazy guy. Nothing more, nothing less.

Thanks.

Your Friend,
Rob

Health care crowds

Talk of the crowd is all the rage these days. The word rage here is convenient for me, given that the word describes much of the imagery of the crowd currently being discussed. There are crowds at tea parties, with their subtle and sometimes overt racism; there are crowds at congressional town hall meetings, with their vague and seemingly, amazingly, misinformed anger over health care reform; the crowds that talk to pollsters that are harder to define and thus slowly eroding the credibility of those pollsters (more on that in a later post); shouting; throwing punches; and in all of the talk about these crowds we find a movement toward making the act of gathering problematic in itself.

One image keeps recurring in my mind, that of Kathleen Sebelius attempting to address an audience with Arlen Specter in Philadelphia recently. The key moment comes at about one minute into this video:



She doesn’t seem to understand the nature of the crowd she’s dealing with. As she throws her hands up in frustration, as if to say, “why won’t you listen to reason” she misses the point that the crowd is not there to have a reasonable discussion. It is there to yell. And herein lies the problem for me; the ideological challenge with which I am faced. Can I continue to hold on to the assumption that crowds/audiences, not to mention individuals, can be reasoned with?

I use the term crowd rather than audience because it is a better description. The people who are shouting at members of congress about health care appear to be “barking mad” for lack of a better phrase. I say this not because they have an opinion counter to my own, but because they literally, at points, look like they’re barking rather than speaking; and look mad, crazy-mad not angry-mad.

And here I reach the depressing point. Is the act of gathering in and of itself now damaged? Will pro-health care reform gatherings now be presented in a similar light by media? These “barking-mad crowds” are coming under scrutiny for the organizations behind them, calling into question the act of organization vis-à-vis astroturfing. Will all organization now be tarred as astroturfing?

All of this misses an important point; if the crowd is “inauthentic,” they are not necessarily there to debate the issue of health care, but rather to act as a communication jam; to stop the flow of communication between representatives and constituents who want to interact. Thus, what is presented by actants (the crowd) as authentic outrage and anger as a political act of participation is instead a political act of interruption, at least as it is described here: “If the event were a shouting match, the mob won. [Rep.] Kagen tried talking about the health-care bill, but the roaring chants deafened his attempts.” This textual description is reinforced by video shown on Rachel Maddow.

The word “mob” is becoming more common these days. I’m afraid it might be an accurate description. I don’t recall protests of the left ever substance-less anger. Maybe that’s because I am of the left and I am blinded by my own beliefs here; I think I’m more fair-minded than that, but who knows. We’ll see how today’s forum with Arlen Specter goes.

McLuhan on TV

“Do you really want to know what I think of that thing? If you want to save one shred of Hebrao-Greco-Roman-Medieval-Renaissance-Enlightenment-Modern-Western civilization you’d better get an ax and smash all the sets.”

Thought Bodies in Social Media

My Ph.D. work has just begun and I find myself reading some work that I had not expected to enjoy as much as I am. The work is in the field of Library and Information Science (LIS). While this field is largely new to me, it has not been difficult to find ways that it relates to the area of media studies. The first week of readings is filled with discussions on the arrangement of information, its classification, the defining of terms, the nature and purpose of historical narratives and, most interesting to me, what this all says about the dominant modes of thought of a given time; how power is attained and maintained.

In one of the readings Radford and Radford (2004) relate philosophical questions of post-structuralism to LIS. In their discussion of Foucault they state that he “notes that his statements have the potential to ‘land in unexpected places and form shapes that I had never thought of.’”

They are able to do this because statements are real; they have a material existence and, as such, have the potential to physically circulate among readers. The readers, in turn, have the capacity to ‘manipulate, use, transform, exchange, combine decompose and recompose, and possibly destroy’ those statements. (p. 71-72)

I can’t help but place this view in the context of the newer forms of media. Does it apply to the blogosphere; to Youtube; to Facebook? Does it apply to the realm of social media?

Yes, all social media contain statements, mostly fitting the definition put forth by Foucault and Radford and Radford; statements that are oftentimes disparate parts, combining to make a “concrete” whole; there is most definitely a sense of arbitrary classification in social media, classification that comes from “the crowd” linking one thing to another based on little more commonality than their personal interest in the subject; statements that, however disparate, are subject to a system of rules that govern how discourse happens in a social network, how one conducts him/herself in respectful ways; statements that fit the post-structuralist character of being “fragile and open to subversion” (Radford and Radford, 2004, p. 61), the subversion that comes from a negative comment on a blog or the fragility resulting simply from the existence of the delete button on the keyboard.

At first pass, however, that fragility leads me to conclude that Foucault’s argument about the materiality is not wholly applicable to social media. I am forced to ask if materiality and disposability are absolutely contrary terms. Do these, to borrow Weinberger’s phrase, “small pieces, loosely joined” really have a material presence in any way? Is the monitor of my laptop the material presence of my Facebook profile? If I print out the text of this note does it lose its essence? Is the paper a dead, corporeal representation of the note (or any other artifact of social media)?

Part of the essence of the note (or the Youtube video, blog post, Digg link) is the comment function. Its fragility and openness to subversion (both to subverting and being subverted) is the fact that the page is ever changing or having the potential to change. The blog may have zero comments, but there is always the potential that the passerby may “StumbleUpon” it. When it takes on the materiality of the paper is ceases to exist as it was; it can no longer be linked to, commented upon, updated. More importantly, the links contained within the content are now deceased. Those elements of the page, which connect it to other bits of information, are no longer “live.” The content that is printed has shuffled off of its mortal (html) coil.

These connections, these links, are the essence of social media, of web 2.0. This discursive formation’s perceived materiality within the confines of a computer network stands in contrast to its true immateriality when it is given the same material form of the book on the library shelf: paper. Yet, the statements of the social network do have material effects. A negative comment on the blog has the same material affect as a negative comment in person; the anonymity of the comment may increase the affect on the psyche; the absence of comment, the silence, is equally affecting at times. The comment is affect “as stimulus…a state of relation…intensities between” (Seigworth, p. 1). As Greg Seigworth states, “thought is itself a body” (p. 2). But does that “body of thought” continue to exist as itself when it moves from mind to blog? Does Facebook contain the “intensities between” when I logout?

The answer is yes and no. Those “intensities between” are of our own creation. As Radford and Radford (2004) state “the world a person sees and experiences is one that is created by the relation of stimuli to other stimuli and not some ‘pure’ perception of the world as it really is” (p. 63). There is no “pure” existence of a Facebook page or a blog. I “author” the layout of my pages. I move, remove and re-move the elements, the stimuli, in relation to other stimuli. My virtual bookshelf is moved from bottom to top to show visitors what I am reading; my wall is shifted downward; I “poke” a friend; the Obama widget on my blog is featured at the top, beside the first post, the blogroll is deemphasized in favor of a tag cloud. But when all the work is done and the laptop is closed, does that content exist in the same way a book does?

Friends are another set of stimuli within the social network. There is randomization to who is at the front of my page when I login. When I receive a friend invitation I am always told who connects me to my “new” friend. We are all statements and the network of social media is contextualizing us for us. We are stimuli and Facebook "sees and experiences us" and tells us how we relate to other stimuli. But how material are our effects/affects? When my fingers are no longer tapping the keys and the bits of information are floating through the network they no longer have the material effects/existence that continue when I leave a book on a shelf. Do they really “continue to physically circulate among readers?” Or are they thoughts without bodies?

McCain's Youth and Obama as Mussolini

A good clip from Dan Abrams show, which I don't normally watch.



The Fox News footage of McCain is an amusing point. The second part is what really interests me. The meme of Obama as cult leader or fascist or his supporters as irrational is something I've written on (I currently have a paper in the works on the subject). In this we see the point repeated, laying out the double-edged sword of, to use Hoffer's term, the "religiofication" of the political. Support for Obama is very enthusiastic, polls show his supporters are significantly more excited than McCain's (see here and here). At times passion for a political figure can turn to zeal; emotion clouds judgment (see Reagan lovers).

As Walter Lippmann points out, there is a thin line between idolatry and demonizing. Lippmann argues in Public Opinion that the processes of demonizing and lionizing are in fact one and the same. And this is my final premise; media re-presentations of Barack Obama have been used to simultaneously deify him and make him appear dangerous. When the public sees Obama speak before a stadium full of enthusiastic supporters the RNC wants the public to see rabid/fascist/irrational Democrats. Whether you're creating a hero or a villain, it's the same process.

The Subversive Superhero

I should begin this post with a confession. I am a comic book nerd. It’s pathetic but true. I love comic books. That being said, I finally have an opportunity to write down some thoughts about the Iron Man movie after having seen it a week ago. One of the things I find most interesting about film is the way contemporary issues of American foreign policy make their way into cinema. Iron Man is no exception to this rule.

The Nazis have been perfect all-purpose villains for decades. There was no shortage of war movies throughout WWII, not to mention the Office of War Information and its influence on popular culture and public opinion. There is also no shortage of Vietnam and post-Vietnam movies, Rambo of course topping off that category. The cold war worked its way into the American psyche in subtle ways through UFO films; hostile aliens being stand-ins for the Communists. It also presented itself more overtly in one of my personal favorites, Red Dawn. WOLVERINES!

It has been especially interesting to see the “war on terror” play out on the big screen. That’s where we find ourselves with Iron Man. Our hero is a defense contractor. What makes him the protagonist of the story is the fact that, after being held captive by terrorists in Afghanistan, the main character is reformed. He announces to the American news media that indiscriminate bombing is not doing the trick and that we need to find more humane and effective ways to battle the terrorists.

The antagonist of the film compounds this critique of the American military industrial complex. The character played by Jeff Bridges (warning: spoiler) is also a high level executive in the same corporation as our hero, the soon to be Iron Man. As it turns out, Bridges is a war profiteer. And not just that, he is a war profiteer who has been selling American technology to the terrorists. The leftist in me instantly goes to Prescott Bush, collaborating with the Nazis (or so the rumors go).

There is an explicitly anti-corporate tone to the movie as a whole. At various points Robert Downey Jr. is portrayed as being aloof and withdrawn from his wealth and power. He is shallow, surrounded by unearned financial largess that he apparently does not appreciate. That is, until he goes through the requisite transformational experience that is necessary to all superhero narratives.

The exclamation point on all of this is what may have been a line of dialogue that most viewers may not find to be too significant but I thought summed up these anti-corporate themes. As the antagonist has our hero on the ropes and is about to leave him for dead, as all villains do in superhero stories, he says to Iron Man, “you think just because you have an idea it belongs to you?” And there it is. Throughout the film we see Iron Man labor over technology, his mechanical art, only to have the one character most symbolic of the corporation swoop in and appropriate it for his own means in one twist of the wrist. That line, worded and delivered perfectly, says so much about individual creativity and corporate appropriation of the work of the individual. It seems even more significant that Bridges delivers the line considering that he played Preston Tucker. Iron Man even featured a still from the film Tucker at one point; a movie whose themes are echoed in Iron Man.

Meanwhile, there are also underlying themes of the ability of an individual to outwit a corrupt bureaucracy and accomplish something for the greater good, the role of America as savior to the rest of the world, and the utility of advanced military technology (when it is under the control of that individual rather than the corrupt bureaucracy). In one scene four terrorists are holding innocent Afghani women and children at gunpoint. With a single push of a button Iron Man locks on target and simultaneously kills all four of them. He’s Uncle Sam in a shiny, metal, orange and crimson suit saving the Middle East.

While Iron Man was a surprisingly subversive critique of the military industrial complex and America’s exercising of its power abroad, at the end of the day there is no criticism for underlying assumptions of American military power. The solution is more exercising of that military might, just in more efficient ways and with a benevolent hand that helps people.

Image and Drudge

One of the more interesting things about the Drudge Report is his use of imagery. Drudge has never really contributed anything to the journalistic art of word craft. His masterful choice of images makes up for it, even if he didn’t take the photos himself. A few images in particular have stood out and require some commentary. So I have been saving screen shots at different points since the days leading up to Super Tuesday.

The first set of images that started it all for me is this combination of photos of Hillary and Obama. Not to heap too much praise on Drudge, but he chose two images that sum up the nature of the two campaigns. These images have a very different impact when examined side by side as opposed to individually.




















First there is Hillary, standing alone. The emptiness of this photo is a strong contrast to the overcrowded Obama photo. Where Hillary stands alone, the leader of a machine working behind the curtain, Obama blends into a crowd. You almost have to search the photo to find him, a commentary on the nature of mass movements and how their leaders often cease to be individuals but symbolic faces lost in the sea of the movement they lead, almost ceasing to exist. Equally important is the difference in size of the two subjects. Obama is small, in front of a large, mainly anonymous crowd. Hillary, again, is the bigger than life figurehead of a political machine. She doesn’t need individuals to support her.

Hot and Cool

McLuhan classified media as being either “hot” or “cool.” Hot media were those that were “high definition” or gave us all of the information leaving little room for participation on the part of the receiver. Cool media were “low definition” making it necessary for the receiver to fill in the holes, so to speak. In these stark, contrasting photos we find Obama and Hillary personifying McLuhan’s classifications.



There is a repeated pattern of the news media using photographs of Hillary Clinton that are very unflattering. In this particular shot Hillary’s most distinct feature is the redness of her cheeks. The viewer’s eyes are drawn to them. More importantly Hillary is the hot medium of the race. The information is all there for us to consume. We know everything about her. There is little room for participation.

This is contrasted by the angular coolness of the Obamas. Much criticism has been leveled at Obama for the vague platitudes of his performances (as if the other candidates use their stump speeches to present position papers). The vagueness is part of the appeal and why he has been successful. He is “cool” in the McLuhanian sense of the word. The outline is there, the receiver gets to fill in the holes. Obama reflects what the viewer wants him to reflect.

These two photos have so much more to say beyond “cool” and “hot” media. There is also a subtle statement about marriage, that I’m sure was unintentional on Drudge’s part. The Obamas have a young, fresh and happy marriage. Hillary stands alone, in the glare of the media. A glare that was, at least in part, caused by a downward spiral resulting from her husband’s outbursts against Obama. The Hillary photo is also very reminiscent of the "big brother" ad that made its way through the media.

Recurring Themes

Hillary and Obama have recurring themes for the photos that Drudge uses. For Hillary it is the machinations of power coupled with femininity. Here she is being prepped by makeup artists on a TV set, an image that recalls the opening to Fahrenheit 9/11 with Wolfowitz licking his comb or John Edwards coifing his hair before a talk show appearance.

















In another Drudge draws a connection to the Iron Lady.






Finally, we have the little girl sleeping under the Hillary signs. Suddenly, in defeat, Hillary is transformed into that little girl. Power eludes her.

Obama’s recurring imagery is the mass audience, usually contrasted with an opponent who stands alone. Above I discussed this with Hillary. Here we find the same contrast with McCain. On top of the implications about level of support from the public are issues of age. McCain seems to be struggling to walk, Obama is moving with ease, smooth and cool. McCain’s photo is slow, Obama’s is fast.




















Just today the Obama crowd photo resurfaced on Drudge. In this case the mass nature and disappearance of Obama was emphasized by the absence of his face. Obama stands with his back to the viewer, faceless and merging into the crowd. Again, he is the cool medium waiting to be filled in by the viewer.

Image is always a driving force in politics. Obama has largely missed the critical eye of the camera. This is even more noticeable when considering the negative photographic representations of Hillary, not to mention George W. Bush, both of whom are not friends of the photojournalist. But photos say things through more than just the candidates’ facial expressions and postures. Sometimes their surroundings are just as, if not more important. Obama is the “cool” with mass support. Hillary stands alone, larger than life and struggling to balance femininity and power. McCain is just plain angry.

Montel Williams gets it right

I'm not a big fan of Montel Williams but he makes an excellent point here. This is something that students in my media and press classes bring up. Why is it that the media spent so much time on celebrity news and not enough time on more serious issues? That is not to diminish the tragedy of Heath Ledger's death. It's very sad. It's probably a safe bet that the reason the folks on Fox News don't want to discuss the tragedy of a soldier's death is because it reminds the public of why it is they've been questioning the Iraq war and the administration's handling of it.

It's funny to me how these right wing people accuses anyone who questions the war of not supporting the troops but when someone tries to recognize the tragedy of an American soldier being killed those same right wingers don't want to hear it. The Fox people in the above video go down a list of excuses for why there is a paucity of media coverage on casualties. And we can't forget Sinclair broadcasting refusing to broadcast the Nightline episode eulogizing members of the military killed in Iraq. You would think that episode would be something they would support. Then again, "support the troops" is just a political slogan to some people.

(h/t reddit user zewar)