Stephen Colbert and the Economics of Fake

When the Super PAC earnings were released at the end of January, the world learned that Stephen Colbert’s PAC, which he really has “nothing” to do with and is “run” by Jon Stewart, had raised enough cash to tip over into seven figures. Pause to ponder: a million dollars of real money raised for a fake political action committee.

I had to really consider the implications. As a true believer in the power of fiction to be more-real-than-real, particularly when reality becomes preposterous, this fiction felt big-sweater-cozy. And as a person with an interest in the history of American humor, particularly the use of satire to lampoon political stupidity, I am well-aware that Colbert’s efforts — though updated through the use of contemporary media — find their great-times-many-grandparentage in the likes of Irving, Lowell, and even Ben Franklin. And, certainly, it’s no surprise that discussions have raged about the impact of Colbert’s PAC, but it’s the money that struck me as significant.

In a toilet-bowl economy and election year — where people have less money to spend and more reason, in theory, to spend it on their political beliefs — people are investing in satire. Real money for a fake message.

But the message — clear as a bell, really — isn’t fake at all, and that’s why I find this investment to be so fascinating and brilliant. By funding this PAC, American voices have funded the role that satire plays in drawing attention to the ridiculous, like the Citizens United decision and the outright lies pedaled in “real” Super PAC ads. By purloining the medium, Colbert has, on multiple fronts and to great affect, influenced the message.

Of course there are questions about over-saturation or a joke-gone-too-far, but I’m not particularly worried about that. The political theater of last year and this is a joke-gone-too-far, and it’s only January. The more Colbert’s PAC rages on, the more fundamentally ridiculous it becomes, the more in line with the level of Theatre perpetrated by the “real” political army marching toward what promises to be the most Fox News-worthy election ever, the more historically significant Colbert’s scheme becomes.

Some suggest that the overall efforts of Colbert and Stewart, while significant in the grand historical context of American satire and humor, do not promote a change in the political discussion. In short, their viewers have already drank the Kool Aid, and these comedians’ shows merely become part of a discussion that is already happening — they are not a value-add. However, I am anecdotally unconvinced. If the Fox News heads and radio hawks are giving Colbert’s “political agenda” real time, and they are, we know he is onto something culturally significant in the now. He, like his friend Stewart, has tapped into that magical moment where the question is asked, “Should we take this guy seriously?” Once the question is asked, it’s clear that the answer is already “yes.”

So despite the reality that there are real people-serving organizations that could be served by the donations going to Colbert’s Super PAC, there is an alternate reality that is of perhaps headier importance: investment in Colbert’s PAC is an investment in a conversation that absolutely needs to happen. It’s a way of participating in a joke-that-is-deadly-serious. Our country is on a screwy path where the investments of a few cloud the conversation, and investment in this satire is well-placed: 100% of the proceeds go to keep the dominant rhetoricians in check, to force them to engage in the surreal in order to peel back the layers and expose what is real.

What Colbert Will Do With the Money

Ten Actors Whose Names You Should Know

10. Enver Gjokaj
Gjokaj is one of the many actors on Joss Whedon’s Dollhouse with an unpronounceable name. Dollhouse is a unique opportunity for the actors who get to play “dolls,” people who have their identities wiped clean and replaced with various personas, because they play a diverse stash of characters. Playing the doll Victor has been the perfect milieu for Gjokaj’s talents—a promising look at what this young actor can do.

9. Andrea Anders
I bet Anders hopes you don’t hold Joey against her. But now that she’s on Better off Ted, her comic chops really shine. She’s funny, odd, quirky, and adorably mid-western.

8. Aziz Ansari
You probably know him best from his angry Twitter message, but this young comedian has recently taken off as the resident asshole, Tom, on Parks and Recreation and as the unwatchable comedian Randy on Funny People. It’s hard to get a sense of where the comedy ends and the person who Ansari is begins—and that’s a good thing for funny.

7. Carla Gallo
Judd Apatow has made stars of his in-group of boys from his television days; however, the women have struggled a bit more to break into his mega-hit comedies. Still, you can find Undeclared‘s Gallo getting kicked in the face by Steve Carell or crotch-bleeding on Jonah Hill in the Apatow oeuvre. Keep your eye on her as a young porn star on Californication. And maybe Apatow will write her a role that matches her promise.

6. Kat Dennings
Also a graduate of 40-Year Old Virgin, Dennings cut her teeth screeching about teen sex from behind a bathroom door. Equal parts adorable, quirky, and every-girl, Dennings also starred as Michael Cera’s romantic partner in Nick and Nora’s Infinite Playlist.

5. Demián Bichir
The Mexican actor who plays Esteban Reyes, the proud papa of Nancy Botwin’s newest progeny, can only be described as sexy/scary. He’s beyond handsome—the kind of guy who talks to thermostats just to turn up the heat. And he somehow pulls off being equal parts sympathetic and psychotic, a perfect match for a woman who is as repellent as she is irresistible.

4. Rosemarie DeWitt
DeWitt has had a big couple of years, playing the uber-enlightened Midge on Mad Men, the title character in Rachel Getting Married, and Charmaine, Toni Collette’s selfish sister on The United States of Tara. She has made a career of playing second fiddle to big, enigmatic characters, and she still manages to get noticed.

3. Aaron Paul
Now that Paul is nominated for an Emmy, maybe you’ll remember his name as much as you remember his characters. Causing viewer schizophrenia playing sweet-hearted, upstanding Scott on Big Love and beyond-fucked-up-meth-head Jesse on Breaking Bad, Paul has become a must-see element of some seriously must-see shows.

2. Chris Pratt
You’re going to laugh, but I first noticed Pratt when he played Everwood‘s affable dumb stud, Bright. Now he’s Andy on Parks and Recreation, and, seriously, every word this guy says is gold. He’s surrounded by some big-time comic talent, and he’s the funniest damn thing on the show. I could watch him deliver lines all day long.

1. Callum Keith Rennie
There’s always that one actor you would watch tie his shoes. Rennie is that guy right now. He spooked the crap out of me as BSG’s Leoben and then romanced me within an inch of my life as Californication’s Lew Ashby, may he rest in Best Character Ever peace. He should be in everything. Preferably wearing a kilt.

Controversy!

I like Dan Wetzel’s column about the Chinese gymnastics hubbub and how it needs to be handled.

And he takes the Karolyis to task, rightfully so, for their off-color commentary. Hey, I said I love Bela; I never declared him sane. Anyone who’s been watching gymnastics as long as I have knows Bela and Marta, the greatest coaches/coordinators in gymnastics history (who can forget Bela carrying Strug!?!), are a little nutty. But his mustache! It’s so delightful!

Narrating China

I admit it: Since Sydney, I’ve become an Olympics Lunatic. Sure, I used to watch many swimming and gymnastics events, but I pretty much caught what I could. Now I’m–no joke–DVRing the evening broadcast. This will taper off once the two aforementioned events as well as beach volleyball (Chereth and I fell in love with this during Athens–we are suckers for the media narrative of what’s exciting–because this sport is exciting!) come to an end. Unlike Chereth, I’m not a huge track and field fan and am unlikely to watch many events. But the point is, I’m watching a lot of sports this week. And between the sports, even during them, is a concerted effort on the part of NBC to, and I’ll steal a concept from Paul Farmer here, “Narrate China.” This narrative is so filtered through a corporate, capitalist eye that it has earned some response.

I’ll give you two Olympic moments:

A few days back (who can tell the days apart at this point?), Bob Costas was waxing poetical (dude, don’t dye the hair the day you need to be in China–give the ‘do some time to fade) about his previous trip to China in 1980. To paraphrase, he said that then there were bikes everywhere and his hotel was decidedly unfancy with no amenities. Now, he continued, he’s amazed to see cars everywhere and to be staying in a world class hotel! This observation was a way of showing how much improved China is in his eyes.

And this says a lot. More cars (hello smog!) and better hotels equal, on some level, more freedom. We have so conflated the concepts of democracy and capitalism that we are able to, even subconsciously, sweep aside human rights violations in the interest of seeing a likeness between ourselves here in the U.S. and those formerly “all red” Chinese who now see green, just like us (and who, therefore, must be free, just like us).

Second moment:

The apparently drunk gymnastics commentators (they’re like the critics on the Muppet Show, but far less articulate) touched briefly on the scandal surrounding a few of the girls on the Chinese team. There is some question as to whether they are all/will be 16 during this olympic year. It’s an interesting question. Two of the girls look about 12. And when put in relief next to the extremely young-looking U.S. team, this seems to be a valid question. Tiny, young Shawn Johnson looks ready for the retirement home in comparison. Following the brief mention of the controversy, however, one of the commentators added: “But we’ve all been on a college campus and have seen a person who looks too young to be in college.”

Wha huh? It’s an interesting conundrum. It would be wrong to assume outwardly that China is lying about the age of these girls sans hard proof. However, this statement felt like a way of undermining a legitimate controversy. This situation is not without precedent in China. This is not a blind accusation. The commentator (wasn’t paying attention to which), however, found a way to both excuse the potential of abuse and flip off any concerns. It’s as if to say: the question of human rights abuses has no place here at the Olympics.

And that’s the problem as I see it. American commentators and corporations are bending over backwards to narrate China as “normal” to a western eye. And, indeed, this is becoming more and more accurate in certain, surface ways. For more on contemporary China, visit my friend Aleem’s Olympics blog; he is there right now and has been there a number of times over the last decade. However, “normal” in a capitalistic sense does not mean free, democratic. It means stuff, and this reveals so many troubling aspects of our own current state of affairs.

The truth is, GE, parent company of NBC/Universal, has a stake in painting China as “normal.” As one of the elite world’s largest corporations, they need China. They couldn’t exist in today’s global market without Chinese labor. Many huge American companies are the same: it is in their best interest to narrate China by conflating similarities with the U.S. in the way that is most central to our identity–through the things we consume. It is also in their best interest to downplay legitimate human rights concerns, particularly because they are as implicated as the Chinese government in the perpetration of these abuses.

It is in this way that the Chinese have been able to control the Olympic narrative–the western corporations have become so dependent upon China that they have helped to create a propaganda machine that wipes out legitimate questions with shiny images of Coke and the Golden Arches. Even if we are to momentarily ooh and ahh at the shiny thing and forget about the 1.3 billion Chinese people, we should not, perhaps, forget about the treatment of Olympians as mere medal machines. Or about the way the stunning (it is stunning) Olympic Village came to be.

I’m not likely to quit watching the games. As a total media whore, I find it impossible to turn away from both the athletes and the narrative. However, I think it’s worth breaking down the narrative to reveal who really has a stake in the way this story is told.

Writing the Narrative: A Visit to English 101 or, You Know, the Press

Today, Yahoo! (that bastion of reporting, I know) posted a story about how McCain’s narrative that Obama is no more than a celebrity is getting to voters.

My favorite part of this article that reports perception of Obama gives us this little gem:

“Following a nine-day, eight-country tour that carried the ambition and stagecraft of a presidential state visit, Obama has found himself in an unusual position: the butt of joke”

Let’s revisit: “ambition and stagecraft of a presidential visit.” Even as the news reports on the idea of reporting Obama’s celebrity (which is closely tied to the message that he is “presumptuous”) sets him up as a presumptuous celebrity.

Never mind the fact that, not only has McCain made his own overseas visit (over July 4th, no less), but so has every other major party nominee in recent history. So what pisses off the McCain camp is not the trip so much as the fact that people LIKE Obama.

He even tries to sell the idea that the press prefers Obama, even as his own inane statements go largely unreported while Obama is slammed for doing what every other nominee has done–behave like a winner.

This all comes down to two important factors, I think.

1. The Conservative Media has done such a good job of selling itself as the Liberal Media in recent years that its “reporters” and “pundits” now openly complain about the Liberal Media right there in the media. It’s baffling, really, that, despite alarming evidence that this liberal claim is bogus, the media gets to go right on pretending it’s something it’s not in the interest of being the thing that it is. And when some of us point out the facts, we are fringe progressives. It’s mind-boggling, and McCain owes his being in the race to this conundrum. In the past few weeks, he has said so many things that should have ended his campaign–the gorilla rape joke, the historical lie to Katie Couric (that was actually cut out of CBS’s broadcast), the give-the-Iranians-cancer thing–but that were downplayed by a popular media that was busy working for McCain’s larger goal–to paint Obama as a Paris Hilton. McCain’s recent ad comparing Obama to Paris and Britney was the last straw, not the first, and played off a host of stupid assumptions, the largest of which is stereotyping Obama as a “dumb blonde”–a female one, no less. As I’m watching Mad Men, I’m actually finding the overt misogyny to be almost refreshing.

2. McCain is charging that Obama used the race card (which is actually unclear, but, whatever–it’s the perception, not the truth, that matters); however, I think Paul Jenkins nails it in a HuffPo blog. It is not that Obama acts any more presumptuous than any other presidential candidate; he’s merely acting in a way that is perceived by some to still be inappropriate for a black man. For shame. However, when media-watchers point out this interesting trend, we are reading into things. This is not a racist country! It is ridiculous to even hint that, perhaps, race is on the mind of Obama’s old, white opponent.

Forget the fact that the claims of Obama’s celebrity often run hand-in-hand with images of him playing basketball or that Ronald Reagan who was an actual celebrity didn’t catch this much heat for it. The constant use of the word “presumptuous” both by the McCain camp and the media reads as an attempt to, as Jenkins posits, put him in his place. The entire conservative machine, and a good portion of the moderately liberal one, is trying to sell Obama, through a mixture of his age and popularity, as one thing: “boy.” As in: “Know your place, boy.” I just choked on my copy of Invisible Man. Luckily, Obama has been around politics too long to hop into the electrified ring to fight for coins, but the nefariousness of the media-machine’s blind willingness to further the rhetoric that Obama is a drop of black paint endangering all the white is disturbing–mostly because they have managed to completely bury any open discussion of race, leaving those of us who dare discuss it looking, again, like fringe lunatics.

Let’s be clear. Obama is the candidate I support in this election, but I’m not a blind follower. I’m personally tired of having to support candidates who are pro-civil union but anti-gay marriage. And, for all the Right’s insistence that Obama is some sort of socialist (again, I choke on Ellison), he’s honestly far too moderate for my taste. The man has never been a progressive, and perhaps this is simply because he’s a politician through and through. Still, I respect that he gets his facts straight. That he speaks to his constituents as thoughtful beings, not as drooling sponges. That, despite the seemingly successful attempts to paint him otherwise (largely through mere misquoting), he’s quite humble. I like that he goes after McCain on issues. I mean, he could compare him to Methusaleh, but he doesn’t. He has enough ammunition to go after scary McCain the old fashioned way.

But, sadly, this story is far less interesting to modern journalism.

Not the first…not the last

Another tale of journalism vs. media conglomerate-ism.

Foot. Mouth. Clinton.

Sen. Clinton’s downright retarded comments invoking the assassination of the great civil rights activist and presidential hopeful Bobby Kennedy a mere day after his brother’s grim cancer diagnosis have been fodder for much punditry in the last 24 hours. Huffington Post has included an interesting collection of some of these reactions. Most notable is Keith Olbermann’s 10-minute rant about not only the insensitivity of this remark but of the rhetoric of her entire campaign. The video is about 1/3 down the page, and it’s worth a watch. He soooo goes apeshit on Clintonian logic, which, as much as she tries to draw comparisons between the Clintons and the Kennedys, uses the kind of “logic” that is purely Bush-league.

Media’s Election Rhetoric Pissing Me Off

Today, one of the headlines on Yahoo! reads: “Clinton fans’ dream of female presidency begins to fade.”

And, might I editorialize and add: “Obama’s fans’ dream of black presidency becomes closer to a reality!”

I’m not going to pretend that race and gender don’t matter in this political year–in this life. They so clearly do. But I’m tired of their use as a way of undermining the real issues. This discussion creates a sense that both Clinton and Obama are curios; when we peel back the gender and race, is there anything left? Are these actual politicians or are they merely symbols?

I’m fucking sick of it. The truth is, Clinton has run a tough campaign, but she’s made a number of big mistakes. The biggest one, I think, has been an accidental alliance with conservatives due to her own racist rhetoric and the ridiculous assumption that “working class” and “blue collar” are not only terms that solely apply to white voters, but that these white “hard working Americans” are racists. Is there anyone she doesn’t offend with this crap? The irony is, aside from a handful of lefty pundits, this goes unnoticed, perhaps because this terminology is indicative of the subtly racist rhetoric that’s been used in this country for ages and ages.

Which leads us to Rev. Wright. Has he chosen the wrong moment to push his agenda? Probably. Though the original sermon snippets were taken from like 30 seconds of material over 30 years worth of speeches, the choice to push the issue further rather than allowing it to die (until at least mid-November) was perhaps politically ill-advised. That doesn’t mean that some of what he has said about race in America isn’t, well, kinda true.

The problem with all this race/gender stuff is that McCain, being a glowing symbol of hegemony, doesn’t have to wade through any of it. He’s synonymous with the American politician already, so he will spend no time defending his right to be in the position in which he finds himself. No one is going to ask: “How does it feel to be an old, white, conservative guy running for president?” He can actually tackle issues. And though the way he tackles them may be fully insane (seriously–infuckingsane), he has an undeniable edge as the white guy. And this isn’t solely due to racial or gender bias, it’s also due to the fact that the media can’t get passed its own assumption that a non-white candidate is the story, forcing the actual politics to take a back seat.

Boomer Fears Internet

And I’m not sure Barry Sonnenfeld’s comments, reported in the Hollywood Reporter, are entirely off base. Here’s what he has to say:

LAS VEGAS — The Internet has Barry Sonnenfeld freaked out.

“I fear the Internet for so many reasons,” the producer-director said Tuesday during his address at the National Association of Broadcasters Show here. “The medium is the message, and the medium has invaded our home and taken over our minds. … The really scary part is how hypnotic it is. The Net is so pervasive that kids are on it all day.”

The “Men in Black” helmer fears that children today will grow up with “no concept of the right to privacy and in fact not understand the need for it. Because the Facebook generation is not concerned with what people know about them … they will have no problem with additional governmental supervision, spying and intervention. They will be thrilled that the Internet will be able to follow their every move.

“I suspect,” he said, “we are probably looking at the last generation of Americans that exist in a democracy. Totalitarianism is not far in our future, and the next generation will go down that road happily.

“My only hope is the Bush administration has screwed things up so profoundly — socially, economically and environmentally — that perhaps they will be angered by how our generation has selfishly destroyed their future and will put down that computer,” he said.

But there’s a however.

First of all, the fact that director/writer/producer Sonnenfeld refers to the Internet as “the Net” and quotes a 40 year old Marshall McLuhan mantra betrays his “old guy who’s scared of new stuff” position. And there’s irony in the fact that Sonnenfeld, producer on Pushing Daisies, is a pot staring down a kettle. While his show is arguably one of television’s best, it is still a TV show, and TV, beyond any other medium, has learned the subtleties of penetrating Americans’ lives, challenging democracy with the illusion of choice-through-consumerism. It’s replaced history with nostalgia. And I LOVE TV. But in the discussion of threats to democracy, it’s a doozy.

And TV is also one of the largest threats to Internet democracy. The truth is that the Internet is, potentially, an extremely democratic space. There’s room for free exchange of ideas beyond what is available in print media, which faces the challenges of cost and distribution. However, these “free” spaces so often come at a cost. Corporate influence (every day, “American Idol” is “news) is as pervasive on the Internet as it is on our bus benches. Advertising has, through the Internet, become interactive. To me, this ubiquitousness of corporate influence is the greatest challenge to democracy, as we become so wrapped in our roles as consumers that we “trust” brands with a loyalty that becomes ingrained. And then we trust countries as if they were brands, and we become gleeful loyalists to sound bites and images.

I’m not sure, however, if we’re that stupid. Moreso, I’m not sure the Internet is not making us more, not less, private. The truth is, kids learn much earlier to lie about their identity in order to protect themselves from Internet predators. And the Internet, while an open space into which we can toss endless kernels of information about ourselves, further separates us from public life. We have perhaps become less private in a media context, but we’ve become moreso in our everyday dealings with real humans. This further reinforces our “relationships” to brands, as they begin to eclipse our relationships to humans.

Through the social networking mentioned by Sonnenfeld, I’ve become far more imbedded in online life over the past year or so. And, mostly, my experience has been a positive one. I’ve caught up with old friends–even found common ground with people I was once merely acquainted with. It’s been surprisingly edifying for a person like me who, you know, doesn’t want to be a part of any club that will have me as a member. However, I am highly aware of the way corporate influence invades those “social” spaces–they have, in fact, become part of the social connections through applications. In such places as Facebook, we show affection for each other through advertisements. I send you a hug (this hug brought to you by ___.). As always, this won’t change regardless of how much fear the likes of Sonnenfeld feel.

So we must encourage “Internet literacy” to combat the concept that the medium has indeed become the message. Because, really, McLuhan nailed the concept but missed the point: while the medium is the message, it doesn’t necessarily have to be. We just have to learn how to read it and subvert it.

Why My Hillary Distaste Has Grown, and How It’s the Media’s Fault

I’m so over Hillary Clinton.  Okay, I was never really under her, but now I’m over her for real. 

First of all, the rhetoric is pathetic. Her convoluted reasoning–which has infected her friends and any talking head on the news–sounds distinctly Republican in nature. Keep hammering away at a lie and maybe it will get you what you want.

Like, for instance, the insistence that winning “key states” will give her an edge in the election. Because without her, the Dems are sure to lose such “on the bubble” states as California, New York, and Massachusetts. And with her, we may just take Texas. So the only state the really matters so far is Ohio. Because the Kerry-wild Ohio Dems really made a difference for him.

But most significantly, whether she can get a larger slice of the Democrat pie in any state is the most irrelevant thing I’ve ever heard. In raw numbers, she’s losing. The number of people who support her are fewer than those that support Obama. And the Republicans want her to win because she’s easier to attack and she has a very hard time getting people to like her once they actually see her. She knows all of this, and yet she trudges on like some whacked out robot, spewing the same garble of “me want president” and ignoring a constituency that would benefit if she just went away.

And the news media, those bastions of ethical journalism hell-bent on ratings at the expense of information, just keep spinning this rhetoric into the ground. Pundits talk day and night about whether this non-logic really matters, as if it’s actual logic (when, as non-logic, it should just be left to the crazy people). For them, the long road to the White House means a larger slice of the viewer pie.

And you may think I’m a conspiracy nut, but it also makes room for McCain, a guy likely to be supported by the boys upstairs at every one of the media companies.

What’s more, there’s room for conservatives to whine about McCain not getting enough attention, adding fuel to the “liberal media” fire, allowing room for the news to swing even further to the right, which is something a few of the big seven (ahem News Corp and GE’s NBC Universal, though they aren’t alone) are itching for.

So you go Hillary. Nora Ephron nailed it in a recent Huffington Post blog: now you’re a liar just like Bill. Problem is, he was a much more convincing and likable one (somehow, even the bloom has come off his rose during this campaign).