Stewart v. Cramer: That's Entertainment!

A friend recently forwarded the 8-minute clip of Jon Stewart's "interview" with CNBC's Jim Cramer on The Daily Show. Although Viacom has since yanked the clip from YouTube distribution, you can view it in its entirety on The Huffington Post. Stewart assumed the role of the outraged American public, while Cramer sat as surrogate for the shamed financial industry.

Stewart's rage is absolutely justified, obviously. We The People continue to bear the brunt of Wall Street misdeeds. But the part I found interesting (beyond the question of why Jim Cramer rolls his shirt sleeves up... so... high) is Stewart's attack on the journalistic integrity of CNBC, and specifically, Jim Cramer himself. The implication was that the financial news network was "in bed" with Wall Street, and therefore its views were tainted and self-serving. That Cramer was an insider, expressing opinions that – while perhaps not benefiting him personally – demonstrated a vested interest in protecting the status quo of Wall Street.

Stewart seemed to take particular umbrage at Cramer's style of delivery on his show, "Mad Money": "I know you want to be entertaining. But it's not a fucking game."

There's an amusing irony here. Consider the following observation on the Stewart-Cramer bout, posted by Daniel Sinker, Journalism faculty member at Columbia College in Chicago on March 13, 2009 on The Huffington Post:
"You see, Stewart's real critique wasn't about Cramer, it was also only marginally about CNBC. Instead, Stewart's real rage comes from the role the modern media has created for itself: the role of cheerleader instead of watchdog, of favoring surface over depth, of respecting authority instead of questioning it."

Rightly so. And thinking back to the days before the election, and the considerable role entertainers and pundits (and sometimes comedians posing as journalists) had in shaping public opinion on candidates and issues, one might also note that political parody in the name of entertainment is no game, either. I know they want to "be entertaining" and all, but...

Those who live in glass houses may reconsider their own role in the collapse of trust in "modern media" before casting the first stone.

Jay Leno... David Letterman... Okay, Craig R. Smith Speaks Out

Perhaps I should start by saying I'm not a big Leno fan. Mostly because I can't stay awake that late. But there's a curious email thread working its way around the internet, which neatly reinforced the political power of a media personality – coincidently condemning the very media that created him. The subject line in the email I received: "A Perspective by Jay Leno." Jay Leno, huh? I opened it.

First of all: it's mis-attributed. Snopes.com has seen the story credited to David Letterman as well as Leno, but its author was actually Craig R. Smith, an author and political commentator of somewhat lesser renown. But who forwards an email from Craig Smith? Hell, it sounds like an alias. Although one might have had a clue that the famous rarely bite the hand that feeds them, or at least live to tell the tale.

Attaching celebrity gives the message exponential power. Think about Yahoo! Answers, and the questions posed by personalities from Bono to Stephen Hawking to Al Gore. They attracted tens of thousands into a conversation that, had the topic been posed by me, would have been as well-read as this blog.

The article by Craig Smith is long, but well worth a read, in consideration of both the cultural cachet of fame in the political arena, as well as a gentle reminder that we should be grateful every day for what we have.

Oh – and the article's actual title?: "Made in the USA: Spoiled Brats."

Shepard Fairey and the Art of Politics

In political discourse, which is more powerful, the idea or the image?

While art has always reflected (or rejected) the state of politics surrounding it, graphic art – technically, "commercial" art (remember that term, my fellow aging art directors?), that particular brand of art and commerce – actually intends to shape politics. Communist governments have long understood the power of iconography, and the nature of the singular, undebated, undiscussed, non-negotiable thought.

The Shepard Fairey "Hope" poster (note the candidate at right, looking wistfully left) is a really gorgeous piece of propaganda. But, truthfully, every time I come across one, it always leaves me vaguely... disturbed. I have enormous respect for the icon. Love those little humanoid figures in the skirts that tell me which restroom to use. Dig the peace sign. But can you capture something as complex as a political platform in a single word and a searching look into the middle distance? Are we also starving for icons that simplify our positions, allowing us to demonstrate the enormity of our thinking to each other in shorthand?

Or is the icon intellectually lazy? Does it subvert questions, rather than provoke them? Should our deepest beliefs fit on a t-shirt?

Maybe what bothers me is Jack Welch famously saying, "Hope is not a strategy." But here it is, saying everything, saying nothing. But man, it's beautiful.

Politics and Social Media

Been thinking a lot about the intersection of politics and culture these days.  I had the opportunity to go to Russia last fall, and as we watch the regressive Putin political agenda come into play this Spring, it's interesting to contemplate the role of culture in disseminating – or debunking – political propaganda.

Under Stalin's Soviet era, there was a single approved art form, Socialist Realism, which was mandated as the "national style."  All other forms of art, including Russia's rich history of abstraction and constructivism, were banned as "irrelevant" to the Communist ideal.  When Stalin died in 1953, the official aesthetic continued, although by the 1970s, dissident artists used the style ironically to criticize the communist system.

While I was in Moscow, I spent time with a woman from our local office, whose uncle was one of a well-known collective of protest artists in the mid-70s.  His work now hung in Moscow's Museum of Modern Art (a wildly decrepit post-modern wonder), and the last weekend I was there, the museum featured an exhibit of one of his fellow painter's work.  It was amazing to walk with her through the exhibit as she translated the text in the paintings – they were huge canvases in the Socialist Realist style, overlaid with bold red graphics, often common phrases from Russian life.  We stared at a painting of the Kremlin together, over which enormous red text was painted.  "I don't get it," she said.  "It's a sticker that's on all the windows on trains.  It says, 'Do not lean.'"  

I explained the double meaning to her.

Culture, in the form of art, has always had a role in social and political commentary.  Marat Guelman, Russia's first post-Soviet-era gallery owner, is also a political consultant.  Most of the art he supports is anti-Putin – although interestingly, Guelman once consulted with the president, before resigning.

"Putin is trying to create absolute, vertical power," Guelman says.  "Under such a structure there is no need for creative people.  And so there are three options.  You can obey him; an entire political class has decided to obey Putin.  There is no opposition.  Or you emigrate.  Or you can construct your own parallel social media, and exist in it."

Now that's "social media."

Politics and Culture My Ass

Thoughts from the Advertising 2.0 conference: Politics and Culture panel discussion

Y'know, panel discussions are hard enough (christ, you can't get a freaking' word in edgewise), without panelists having something to sell.  I'm good with an ax to grind, or a POV (educated or otherwise) to expound, but ignoring the topic in order to convince an audience that your 100-year-old media brand is suddenly relevant because you can serve it up on a mobile device is just irritating.

The saving grace was getting to sit next to Kurt Anderson, founder of Spy magazine, and kind of a personal hero to me, journalistically speaking.  He offered an interesting counterpoint to the assertion by one of the mainstream media channels that they were experiencing "explosive" growth in news consumption among a younger demographic.  Kurt pointed out that it might be the "Obama Factor" – people, and especially younger people – are consuming Obama news, not... news.

Obama is the first legitimate digital political brand.  (My apologies to Ron Paul.)  He's simultaneously being created online by his own brilliant strategists, and thousands of anonymous and famous denizens of the web.  Will.i.am's "Yes We Can" video is the most powerful piece of propaganda since Leni Riefenstahl.  And don't read anything into that.  Barack Obama is a magnificent orator on his own.  Combine him with music, celebrity and message, and that's some powerful shit.

But the question plagues me: can a digital political brand be built without substance behind it?  I bet it could....