Storied Spaces

David is a 20-something professional who, like many GenXers, supported Bernie Sanders in 2016.  He was bitterly disappointed when President Trump (“Orange Man” in his GenX parlance) was elected. 

To prepare for the  2020 election, David decided to research both major parties in order to get a more comprehensive understanding of their political goals and policies.  He sought out news and information from conflicting points of view - Morning Joe, CNN, Fox, and other media sources that represented a broad spectrum of political opinions. He studied republican-backed policies for economic growth, the advancement of low-income areas, and the financial assistance offered to HBCU’s during the Trump presidency.  He searched for videos of President Trump’s speeches and compared his actual words with the fragmented clips media outlets chose to comment on.  His conclusion was that some information sources were promoting “a carefully crafted narrative for the public that had nothing to do with the real message behind it all.”  He also identified media messaging that glossed over the anti-Trump side.  For example, “You look at CNN and you see the headline - fiery but mostly peaceful protest.  You look in the background and there is looting and they are setting cars on fire.”

But David’s willingness to give fair hearing to all sides drew harsh criticism from his friends. Why, after all, would someone who was ostensibly “woke” watch Fox News?  How could he think there was anything positive about Orange Man’s administration?  He came to realize that his peers could not carry on a conversation about politics with people who questioned their views.  “Instead of having everyone meet at the table and agree to disagree [their attitude is] we are not even going to agree or disagree - we are just going to call them out as evil…It is emotionally charged, and that is the problem - we throw logic out the window…facts no longer matter, when that should never be the case.” His one conservative friend told him he doesn’t even bring up politics, “not because I disagree with them but because they can’t handle the conversation.“

David lost some close friends because he didn’t follow what he calls the “woke mob mentality.” But he stands by his advice, “Don’t agree with the majority because there is a majority.  We live in the freest country in the world - where your opinion matters.  And so, no matter what your point of view is, do your own research.  And if your point of view changes, so be it.  But don’t let it be because it’s what other people think that point of view should be.”

Who did David vote for in the end?  He claims, “I have become more woke in the right sense, where I am questioning the beliefs from both sides…I started recognizing that I will more than likely vote for republicans because I believe in school choice, because I believe that abortion is murder, because I believe in a smaller government…where we can set tariffs for foreign countries so we can start exporting again.” 

“It’s not that I am voting for Trump - it’s that the Democrats lost my vote…because of what had happened with the riots, with the looting, with the fact that in the first stimulus bill they tried to pass Nancy Pelosi tried to put in airline carbon emissions laws.  What does that have to do with it?… and where democrats were mostly liberals - well, democrats are mostly leftists. Socialist.  This whole term progressive - I despise it.  There is nothing progressive about it. Call it what it is - socialism.” 

But he is not likely to broadcast his decision to vote red.  Not after a friend’s emotional outburst:  “anyone who votes for Trump is a f-ing idiot, a f-ing asshole and shouldn’t be voting in the first place.”  Not exactly reasoned political discourse…

At the risk of being canceled, I’d like to suggest that we - a thinking, educated, literate, reasonable and tolerant people - cancel the “cancel culture.”

This so-called “culture” is odious to anyone who wants to appreciate difference, debate ideas, understand history and fathom the complexity of the human person. It threatens the future of free speech in our society and, consequently, our common search for truth.

The founders of this nation were not afraid to proffer freedom of speech as a bedrock value. They knew that the freedom to speak one’s mind, whether with popular or unpopular ideas, would contribute to a more vibrant nation…a nation of individuals who would not be arbitrarily silenced by government or by each other.

John Milton, writing in the 17th century, envisioned a “marketplace of ideas” where Truth would battle Falsehood…and win. His marketplace requires the use of reason to engage with opposing views. It requires challenging what we see as “error” with the “truth” of which we are so certain.

But in the 21st century we’ve developed legions of like-opinioned thought assassins to surround and conquer the marketplace of ideas. Their role is to identify perspectives that might contradict “acceptable” opinions – and follow the order, “shoot to cancel”. This is bullying at its worst. Bullies make no attempt to change contradictory perspectives because civilized conversation would entail listening to opposing views, thus running the risk of learning what the hated persons actually think…and why they came to their conclusions. It might even lead to changing ones’ own mind, which the cancel culture does not allow.

Canceling a person means we don’t have to recognize complexity - we just vilify, ostracize and justify hate based solely on perspectives we don’t make the effort to understand. Let’s get back to using “cancel” for appointments, and for streaming services we join just to watch Hamilton a single movie, and for orders we place in haste (or under the influence) on Amazon. Cancel is not a verb that should ever apply to a human person. It’s tantamount to covering our eyes, plugging our ears, and turning off our brains so we don’t have to think about alternative viewpoints.
If a “truth” can’t stand up to disagreement, it is probably not true at all.

Like many of us, I've had a bit more time these past few months to check out TV series - I picked up a couple of new video subscriptions so I could watch, for example, Succession. I had heard and read so much about this show from students who really enjoyed it and from critics who recommended it.

Succession fits into a category that many academics and media professionals would call "Quality Television." The designation, which is applied to series like HBO's The Sopranos, prioritizes complicated narratives, outstanding production values and "realistic" depictions of life. It seems also to prioritize all kinds of foul language and evil actions, generously peppering dialogue with the "f word" and highlighting vice rather than virtue.

This version of "quality" is most likely not for everyone...not even for a majority of TV viewers. Certainly not for me.

Sure, production values are excellent, and some of the acting is top notch. But the themes, characters and plots are light years away from "quality entertainment" in my book. The show isn't inspiring...or thought-provoking...or edifying...or even informative.

Succession, and many series like it, feature themes of infidelity, rape, narcissism, and the abuse of power. "Good" is pretty much defined as "what works to advance one's goals," and evil isn't something to overcome...unless, of course, it doesn't work to one's benefit. Main characters are liars and opportunists whose primary traits include selfishness, acquisitiveness, thirst for power, and manipulativeness.

Perhaps this is a high bar for "quality" - but the stories we tell, listen to, and watch become part of our culture. And it is up to each one of us whether we create and choose content that enriches and ennobles that culture or impoverishes and degrades it.

This blog is about the video entertainment space.  Mostly television.  Some film.  I'll deal with entertainment media content, popular culture, Hollywood, and politics...and the myriad interactions among them.  I look forward to reading your ideas and reactions.  Thanks for being here!