The point of this blog is mostly to look at stuff I see posted around the internet, because the internet is the world's greatest source of mis-information. But the world being what it is, I also feel like I should branch out and address all the many other sources of misinformation and propaganda out there.

I actually only skimmed through the article in question, and the cover might misrepresent it. Not by much, but at least a little.

Do you know what the issue is here? There are several issues. One is the crippling lack of irony. The National Review is a right wing magazine, so the article is about how liberals tend to speak in, and believe in, clichés. Which is certainly true at times, but the cover seems to address the issue of clichés with...more clichés. I am sure there is some young radical with an ipod and a Che Gueverra t-shirt, but I haven't actually seen one. Actually, I haven't seen any Che Gueverra t-shirts for a while.

But there is a bigger issue than just a lack of irony or self-examination.

The real issue is propaganda, and how image and language intersect.

If we look at this image, we see a few things: the man is yelling, he is a consumer, he is trendy, he is holding a sign with an empty meaning, and he is manipulated by those above him. And this might be an obvious conclusion, but the image works by putting the ideas in the viewer's mind, without actually asserting them. When a statement is made in language, the reader has a chance to refute it or accept it. "Most liberal protesters are loud and vacuous, and manipulated by those above them." You can believe it, not believe it, or leave it undecided, but language kind of by definition involves conditional statements. Imagery, on the other hand, deals with universals, with universals here being another term for "clichés". The image is meant to be insinuated into the viewer's mind. And, in a world where we don't always have time to think about what we see, it often succeeds.