I posted last week about on the power of rumors in this year’s presidential campaign — about how this old-fashioned tactic has taken on new meaning in the digital age. Two subsequent articles have done a great job of explaining the reasons why and how rumors work.

In a New York Times op-ed, Sam Wang and Sandra Aamodt, experts on how the brain processes memory, discuss how a false rumor — such as that Barack Obama, a Christian, is a Muslim — is very hard to get out of your mind, even after you have been presented with and recognize the truth. Scary stuff:

The brain does not simply gather and stockpile information as a computer’s hard drive does. Facts are stored first in the hippocampus, a structure deep in the brain about the size and shape of a fat man’s curled pinkie finger. But the information does not rest there. Every time we recall it, our brain writes it down again, and during this re-storage, it is also reprocessed. In time, the fact is gradually transferred to the cerebral cortex and is separated from the context in which it was originally. For example, you know that the capital of California is Sacramento, but you probably don’t remember how you learned it.

This phenomenon, known as source amnesia, can also lead people to forget whether a statement is true. Even when a lie is presented with a disclaimer, people often later remember it as true.

It’s a mind-opening read.

And from another angle, Matthew Mosk of the Washington Post discusses the latest work on political rumors by Danielle Allen at the Institute for Advanced Studies at Princeton (yeah, it’s the free-wheeling genius think tank that was once the research home of Albert Einstein). Allen, an expert in the “the way voters in a democracy gather their information and act on what they learn,” became obsessed with how the rumor of Obama being a Muslim — specifically, the chain e-mail about it that became viral — began and spread.

Continue reading "Following Up: More on Michelle Obama and the Power of Rumors"

Every summer, it seems, I go through my Liz-Phair-regret phase. It’s probably because on our near-annual roadtrips, Liz Phair’s first three albums — “Exile in Guyville,” “Whip-Smart” and “whitechocolatespaceegg” — are still, to this day, in heavy rotation in the car’s CD player.

Besides being full of fun, quirky and complex music, they are powerful and risky feminist statements. And that’s not because they explicitly promote some agenda of empowerment — but because Phair deftly picks at life’s complexities; she is full of desires and doubts, strengths and weaknesses.

My love of these albums made Phair’s sudden but deliberate and self-aware attempt at pop stardom (by eliminating the quirks and dumbing down the lyrics) all the more devastating. It’s been awhile since she made that transformation in her fourth album, “Liz Phair” (2003), and boggled the minds of fans and rock critics alike. If you want to revisit that cultural moment, see the vitriolic critiques by Mim Udovitch in Slate or, from one of her early advocates, Greg Kot in the Chicago Tribune.

What makes this summer’s regret phase particularly poignant is that Liz Phair seems to be going through it as well. Or at least that might be a pop psychologist’s take on her 15th-anniversary reissue of “Exile in Guyville” and the accompanying tour in which she plays the entire album. Greg Kot uses the opportunity to revisit the past himself, while Jim Derogatis of the Chicago Sun Times saw her kick-off concert at the Vic Theater and, well, didn’t like it.

While Phair might be trying to make up for some lost time, she still doesn’t seem to fully “get it” — to realize her own contradictions.

Continue reading "Female Singer-Songwriters: Crafting a Contradiction"

Greg Braxton writes in Sunday’s Los Angeles Times:

There’s a somewhat surprising consensus that admirable black fictional figures may have subtly conditioned the electorate to be receptive to a candidate like Obama, the presumptive Democratic standard-bearer.

“One wonders to what degree a scenario played out in a safe, contained, fictionalized context might have prepared people for the real thing,” said Darnell Hunt, a professor of sociology and director of the Ralph J. Bunche Center for African American Studies at UCLA. “Popular culture is more than mere entertainment. It gives us a dress rehearsal for the real thing. We can imagine who we are and who we would like to be.”

Make-believe black presidents occupy an odd little corner of pop culture, a territory that a few notable films and television programs have staked out.

The piece makes some unsubstantiated psychological leaps, but it is worth it simply for the history it provides of black presidents on the big and small screen. It sent me on a search, for example, to find more info about a short film, “Rufus Jones for President” (1933), starring a very young Sammy Davis Jr. as a black 7-year-old elected president (see it here) and about a a full-length film “The Man” (1972), starring James Earl Jones “that is largely credited with being the first serious treatment of a black man becoming president”:

Based on an Irving Wallace novel, the movie starred James Earl Jones as the Senate president pro tem who suddenly ascends to the Oval Office after the untimely deaths of the president and speaker of the House and the illness of the vice president.

In the poster for the film, Jones is pictured taking the oath of office at a ceremony populated by white politicians. The tag line for the movie reads “The first black president of the United States. First they swore him in. Then they swore to get him.”

Braxton interviews at length the minds behind two more recent representations of black presidents: the satirical film “Head of State,” in which Chris Rock plays May Gilliam, an ordinary man who ascends to the presidency, and the television series “24,” which began, maybe more radically, in the middle of the presidency of David Palmer (portrayed by Dennis Haysbert)., in which the qualifications of David Palmer (Dennis Haysbert) for the highest office were never questioned.

Worthwhile photo galleries accompany the article.

The only issue I have with the article — and this is true for much coverage of pop culture in the mainstream media — is it focuses too heavily on how “life imitates art,” how pop culture is a progressive, forward-thinking force.

While I wouldn’t deny the power of pop culture to change minds, I think it is equally important that we put pop culture in its own historical context — and see it reflecting the anxieties and prejudices of its day, even as it imagines such a “progressive” scenario as a black presidency.

With the exception of David Palmer on “24″ — where a black presidency was accepted as matter-of-fact — all the other representations that Braxton notes can be seen as actually regressive.

It’s telling that on the DVD commentary to “Head of State” Chris Rock says, “I don’t know if I’ll see a black president in my lifetime.” While Braxton sees this as a laughable “misunderstanding,” he ignores that fact that the intention of the Rock’s film was not to lay the groundwork for a future black presidency — it was to express how much racism is an almost impenetrable obstacle to black leadership.

This election year, instead of dreaded “swiftboating,” the chief Republican campaign tactic is rather old-fashioned: rumors. Granted, rumors take on a whole new meaning in the digital age, but they work by the same word-of-mouth method they always have.

I was heartened by the fact that the Obama campaign saw this new/old reality and decided to enter the fray, instead of hoping it all goes away. They created a website — Fight the Smears — that attempts to counter every “smear” with “the truth.”

Unfortunately, the site is rather lame. It should be a daily blog that acts as a watchdog of the media coverage, but instead, its static feel and lack of updated content gives interested readers no reason to return.

Better to rely on independent sources such as Michelle Obama Watch — which has the grassroots type of energy that the Obama campaign has, until now, displayed itself.

Or, maybe take the satirical advice of Christopher Beam at Slate, who lists a series of alternative rumors that he thinks the Obama campaign should actively encourage. Here’s some of my favorites from the fairly long list:

Barack Obama goes to church every morning. He goes to church every afternoon. He goes to church every evening. He is IN CHURCH RIGHT NOW [...]

Barack Obama’s skin is the color of AMERICAN SOIL.

Barack Obama buys AMERICAN STUFF. He owns a FORD, a BASEBALL TEAM, and a COMPUTER HE BUILT HIMSELF FROM AMERICAN PARTS. He travels mostly by FORKLIFT.

Barack Obama says that Americans cling to GUNS and RELIGION because they are AWESOME.

So two Muslims in headscarves were barred from appearing on camera at an Obama event in Michigan. Obama’s spokesperson promptly apologized and said this was the decision of individual volunteers, not indicative of campaign policy. The women asked for a personal apology from Obama himself.

I’ve been wondering when this was going to become an issue.

After seven years of being treated as the greatest threat to America since Joseph Stalin, few Muslims have the energy to muster outrage over a botched photo-op. But the incident speaks to the mutual
ambivalence between Obama and Muslim Americans. As one
editor at Islamica Magazine noted, “Muslim support for Obama is akin to George Bush’s support for democracy in the Middle East. The mere association with the former will undercut the credibility of the latter.”

The Muslim-American demographic, traditionally divided between Republicans and Democrats, has moved to the left by a comfortable margin since the passing of the PATRIOT Act, the war in Iraq, and other assorted failures of this administration. Supporting Obama, however, has proved to be tricky territory. As the candidate continues to face down the Is-Obama-Muslim? question, those who actually are Muslim wish that he would, just once in a while, take a page out of Seinfeld and add “…not that there’s anything wrong with that!” Until then, they don’t see themselves welcomed en masse at his campaign headquarters.

Continue reading "Muslims For Obama — But Don’t Tell Anyone"

The coverage — truly, the celebration — of Tim Russert’s life and legacy has been, surprisingly, very engaging. Sure, I got a bit tired of the non-stop eulogizing, but the affection and dignity with which everyone has remembered Russert feels like a oasis of humanity amidst the manufactured narratives that dominate TV news.

In particular, the bits of the memorial service I was able to see yesterday — especially Luke Russert’s rousing eulogy and Bruce Springsteen’s comments and performance of “Thunder Road” — were undeniably moving.

Having said all that, I can’t help but agree with Hal Boedeker’s scathing critique of the coverage — which he calls “one of the most embarrassing chapters in television journalism history” and “outright merchandising of his death for ratings.”

It really is a must-read in its entirety — but to give you a sense of it, here are excerpts from the first three of the six major “lessons” from the coverage that “should be taught in journalism schools”:

Continue reading "Meet the Press … And Forget About the News?"

The following is a new article by Steve Schwartz, published in the “sights” section of PopPolitics magazine. Schwartz reviews and contextualizes the “John Adams” miniseries, which has just been released on DVD:

In one of the final scenes of HBO’s seven-part miniseries “John Adams” (available now on DVD), the former president, nearing 80 years old and grieving after the passing of his wife Abigail, visits Boston’s Faneuil Hall to view John Trumbull’s iconic painting of the Founding Fathers signing the Declaration of Independence.

The truculent old man offers his verdict directly to the artist: “It is very bad history.” Adams proceeds to explain that there was no single moment where the delegates ceremoniously affixed their signatures to the document; instead, they were doing so throughout the summer of 1776, while scurrying in and out of Philadelphia.

“You would not deny the artist a certain … license?” Trumball pleads with Adams, to no avail.

“Don’t let our posterity be deluded with fictions under the guise of poetical or graphical license,” admonishes Adams.

Of course, the writers and producers took their own creative license with this memorable moment. As David McCullough wrote in his Pulitzer-prize winning biography that inspired this miniseries, “What Adams thought as he looked at this painting will never be known.”

I focus on this scene not to criticize the fabrication but to use it as a handy reference point to illustrate the virtues of this series. It serves to remind us that good history can be presented in all of its complexities based on its own merits.

Continue reading “Making History: HBO Brilliantly Captures John Adams’ Complex Life.”

Watching Michelle Obama on “The View” (watch it yourself while it lasts), you see all her very admirable strengths — and you see a predictable campaign strategy emerging. As Jodi Kantor and Michael Powell over at The Caucus put it:

The virtue of a show like this is clear — not only is there a fair dollop of politics, it’s a very useful forum for a candidate, as they can talk about Third Rail topics such as race in a chatty, just between us fashion… . A smart place to roll out the non-makeover makeover.

That’s not to say the discussion isn’t full of shopping tips, a pantyhose debate, motherhood, etc — all the post-Hillary-”standing by my man” safe stuff that allows us to know that Michelle is, first and foremost, a woman.

And of course, not a dreaded feminist. That was made clear long ago, in an early 2007 interview with the Washington Post: “You know, I’m not that into labels. So probably, if you laid out a feminist agenda, I would probably agree with a large portion of it [...] I wouldn’t identify as a feminist just like I probably wouldn’t identify as a liberal or a progressive.”

“The View” appearance, though, certainly reveals that, when she wants to/is allowed, Michelle can be a great, measured spokesperson for the Obama campaign on a variety of substantive issues. Like her husband, she has an uncanny ability to seem like she is never breaking a sweat, no matter what she is asked. And she absorbs other viewpoints with a friendly smile and talk of diversity and a transcendence of party politics.

Basically, she’s really cool — someone, as I’ve said before, with whom everyone (black and white, woman and man) wants to hang.

Let’s just hope she isn’t confined in this new/old role — and she’s able to makes some enemies.

Yes, make enemies — a great indulgence in a campaign season but a potentially profound way to show leadership and demonstrate that true “change” will requires sacrifice and will inevitably be, at times, unpopular. That sense of non-negotiable values is what made John and Robert Kennedy moral touchstones for a generation.

So if someone calls her out on her supposed lack of patriotism or her supposed racial antagonism or if someone turns her intelligence and self-confidence into negative “manly” qualities, she shouldn’t just say they are “lies,” which they are. She herself should use the opportunity to lead us into needed conversations about the power of dissent and the complicated history of race and gender in America.

Now that would be really, really cool.

As the Boston Celtics celebrate a long-awaited championship, we shouldn’t let their present victory suppress the disturbing questions that still linger from Finals past. Once again, the issue of the integrity of the NBA is in question. This should not be particularly surprising to anyone who watches much basketball, and especially NBA basketball.

Tim Donaghy, the former referee who has admitted gambling on games — including games in which he was involved — has shaken the league with his accusations of misconduct by NBA officials. Among the charges made is that NBA officials instructed referees to extend playoff series to seven games to boost ticket sales and TV ratings. He cited several examples of the practice, including the infamous 2002 Lakers/Kings series.

Several reviews have been done of the tape of this game, and the consensus is that the refereeing was extremely bad. The question is — was it intentionally bad, or simply three refs having an off night? How can one tell which it is?

You can’t. It is simply a matter of faith.

Commissioner Stern and several current and past NBA referees have dismissed Donaghy’s charges. Even the highly critical Mark Cuban, who has no love for referees, said that he did not believe the charges. Now the Sacramento Kings owners have added their names to the list of those who make the distinction between dishonesty and incompetence. No one connected in any way with the NBA or television can say otherwise.

What is interesting is that while the NBA officials and referees have circled the wagons, Donaghy’s charges seem to have a great deal of traction in NBA fandom. This is not difficult to understand.

Continue reading "Gambling With Its Legacy: NBA Ignores Fans’ Cynicism at Its Own Peril"

Via Daily Kos, a must-watch. And just in case you have any doubts, there really is a Sen. John Cornyn from Texas and he used this video to introduce himself at the Republican state convention:

Yes, it’s just plain silly. But it’s also a hyperbolic presentation of a very real masculinity narrative that the Republicans have capitalized on in the last few election cycles.

I’ve already talked a bit about how defying this narrative might be Barack Obama’s most revolutionary act.