So Many Dots To Connect
Welcome to Wayfinding(s)! Go here to learn more about the newsletter (and about me).
NOTE: I’ll see you next on August 10, 2025.
LOOKING AHEAD: July 31 is National Avocado Day. (Happy guacamole to you.) August 4 is Chocolate Chip Cookie Day. August 6 is National Root Beer Float Day. (For the dog days of summer!) August 9 is Book Lovers Day. August 10 is National Lazy Day! PLAN ACCORDINGLY!
I began my career in graphic design doing a great deal of corporate id (identity design), that is, designing logos. I have always been fascinated by semiotics. Google’s AI Assist (heaven forfend!) summarizes the definition of semiotics as:
“… the study of signs and symbols, focusing on how they create meaning and communicate information in various forms, including language, images, and gestures. It explores the relationship between sign, their meaning and how individuals and cultures interpret them.”
The homepage of my studio website displayed a quote by Edward Tufte – now professor emeritus of political science, statistics, and computer science; pioneer in the field of data visualization; and author of multiple highly-regarded books on information design. The quote read what I consider an apt description of logo design:
“Graphic excellence is that which gives to the viewer the greatest number of ideas in the shortest time…in the smallest space.”
The profession of graphic design, since I began, has reimagined itself in a dizzying fashion, and corporate id has evolved and morphed into “branding,” which has taken over as a more expansive expression of identity. The logo is just the beginning, the visual representation of an entire storyline to sell a product or idea. A few articles I’ve come across speak to the influential place of branding, particularly in our current moment.
In a special feature follow-up to a 2020 documentary, Steven Heller, art director, author, and critic specializing in graphic design topics, “discusses how symbols are interpreted by different actors for varied roles.” One of his focuses over a 50 year career has been on totalitarian branding, which is, unfortunately, relevant these days.
He first talks about the peace sign which he first saw in a 1961 movie, The Day the Earth Caught Fire. It was a sign of something to follow because of what it stood for. It was created for a nuclear disarmament march and was said to be the semaphore (flag) symbol for ND (nuclear disarmament). The image was, in its parts, a crow’s foot which is a symbol of death. Inverted, it becomes a tree, a symbol of life. Ultimately, as a whole, the image folded into the culture as a peace symbol.
All symbols are associated with a story. Heller then uses the swastika as an example of a symbol that morphed from one meaning into another. Heller tells us that symbol started in prehistory as a symbol of good fortune and good luck, and was displayed worldwide and in most religions. A German archeologist, Heinrich Schliemann, rediscovered the symbol in 1873 during an excavation of the city of ancient Troy. People began worshipping the symbol of early civilizations that they considered “super.” It was used by German occultist groups as they looked toward the Nordic race as superior and eventually, it was adopted by Hitler. By 1934 it became a national symbol for his reign.
Although some have tried to reclaim it, it’s unlikely that it can be returned to its roots when it was used by Buddhists, Hindus, Jains, Native Americans, et.al.
Finally, Heller touches on the fact that culture spreads differently based on technology. Symbols now move into the mainstream at a rapid rate due to social media, memes, and the like. In our current environment, branding captures and sways a culture at an alarming speed.
Unfortunately, Trump is a master at branding. By renaming things – something he loves to do – Trump asserts power. Beginning with plastering his name on buildings through his real estate business, he created MAGA with the ever-present red cap, moved on to creating the spin-off brands of MAHA (Make American Healthy Again) and MABA (Make American Beautiful Again), on to renaming the Gulf of Mexico, and on and on.
These are all stunts to get attention. But as Jennifer Mercieca, communications professor who has written on Trump’s rhetorical style, contends, “the power to rename things is the power to define reality.” Mercieca talks about the power of framing, much as George Lakoff, the linguist who discusses how framing shapes our understanding of political issues and, thus, influences public perception. Mercieca dubs it “frame warfare”:
“What you call a thing determines the contours of the debate around it — or precludes debate altogether. Did you borrow a car without permission, or did you steal it? Was the crush of migrants at the Mexican border an invasion or a humanitarian crisis?”
Finally, I was mildly amused, and appropriately disturbed, by a third article about giving the techbros (“the world’s biggest nerds”) a chance at branding, which is generally done by a branding agency these days. But, hey, if you’ve amassed billions of dollars, you know everything and can do anything, right?
So, we got “Grok,” Musk’s AI model, name drawn from the 1961 sci-fi novel Stranger in a Strange Land. Palmer Lucky’s defense company is called Anduril, the name of the sword wielded by Aragorn in Lord of the Rings. Peter Thiel’s Palantir, the surveillance analytics company now deeply embedded in the Trump regime, gets its name from the surveillance orbs in Lord of the Rings (now that’s appropriate branding!). Thiel’s intelligence product Gotham, built for the Department of Defense, happens to borrow its name from the city where Batman dwells.
And perhaps the most grandiose are the names of the two recently-announced data centers in Ohio and Louisiana announced by Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta. They will be Prometheus and Hyperion. Prometheus, the Greek god of fire, is said to have stolen the resource from the gods and given it to humans. [Just an aside about the data centers to power Meta’s AI development…Zuckerberg has said, “just one of these covers a significant part of the footprint of Manhattan.” While both will cost “hundreds of billions.” And I might add, contribute greatly to environmental devastation with voracious demands for water and electricity.]
Dalton Runberg, a naming consultant who has worked with tech, says Silicon Valley tends to think of itself as smarter than the average person, so “the names they choose tend to reflect that perspective.” They also have an eye toward the perception of credibility. Runberg adds,
“Classical, mythological, or historical names tend to sound and feel powerful—often being associated with mighty empires or omnipotent gods.”
While for a young industry these names have a feeling of legacy, and thus, a sense of authority or reliability, another branding expert doesn’t think these are necessarily good for the industry. “Good names should have something familiar to you, and these could be a little too “insider-y.”
The Morning: What’s in a name? | The New York Times | July 24, 2025
Pepe, a Frog That Was Wronged by the Right | Print (The Daily Heller) | July 24, 2025 (no paywall)
This is what happens when you give the world’s biggest nerds a chance at branding | Fast Company | July 21, 2025 (no paywall)
THE UNDER TOAD
The title character in “The World According to Garp,” whose son mistakenly hears someone referring to an undertow at the beach, “subsequently use[s] the phrase ‘under toad’ to refer to the omnipresent threat of disaster that lies beneath the surface of everyday life.” (as described in Wordsense)
Paul Farhi, in his essay in The Atlantic this past week, forcefully argues that Trump is on a campaign to crush the media. And Farhi contends that, so far, he is winning. He calls it “the slow motion demolition of the fourth estate.” That is the umbrella over so many dots to connect.
A week ago, July 18, Congress voted to cancel $1.1 billion in subsidies for the public broadcasting stations PBS and NPR. The previous day, July 17, Paramount announced that it was cancelling Stephen Colbert and The Late Show franchise at the end of his contract in 2026. Those will go down as two very, very dark days. But, I’m delighted to see how much ink has been spilled over Steven Colbert’s cancellation. It is significant in so many ways.
First, I will argue that those controlling and buying media entities are not “bending the knee” so much as serving their own interests — gaining money and power. Free speech is for show only. As Aaron Rupar, journalist at Public Notice, has said:
“many of [the media oligarchs] have clearly decided that multi-million-dollar bribes and abandoning any form of journalistic integrity are a small price to pay for gutting regulatory oversight and lower taxes.”
And he continues:
“Palliating Trump is really just palliating themselves, since Trump stands for the inalienable truth that rich white guys should be allowed to do whatever they want without any accountability whatsoever.”
So, there is a concerning rightward turning. Elon Musk bought Twitter and turned it into a hate-filled right-wing platform. Jeff Bezos bought The Washington Post. While he was hands off for some time, he now is in the final stages of destroying that institution, with much of the highly-regarded journalistic staff exiting.
This week Paramount has been given the green light by the FCC (and it’s new rabidly pro-Trump Chair, Brendan Carr) to complete the buyout of Paramount by Skydance Media. David Ellison is the founder and CEO of Skydance Media. David Ellison just happens to be the baby boy of Larry Ellison, co-founder and now Executive Chair of the Oracle Corporation and the second-richest man in America. Having provided most of the cash to close the deal for the purchase of Paramount, Larry will have significant control over the new company. Let it also be noted that David Ellison has been courting Bari Weiss with rumors of buying her “Free Press” and/or having her as a consultant to the news division at CBS. Right-wing, here we come.
And, if that’s not enough, we now may be closing in on the sale of TikTok. Trump has vowed to close it down in America, unless the Chinese agree to sell a controlling portion of the company to an American consortium. According to reporting by Reuters, that consortium includes, among others, Mark Andreessen (ally of Peter Thiel). Nothing good will come of what they do to that platform if the sale goes through.
So, what does this mean for the public and for democracy?
Megan McArdle, columnist at The Washington Post, worries about our public commons. She notes that whereas 5 years ago 79 percent of Americans watched “linear television” (broadcast, cable, or satellite programming), over the past year that has dropped to 59 percent. There is a further eroding of our commons. For McArdle, it is “a sign of the unbundling of the American public.” She contends that to have a unifying force in America,
“[we] need some way to hear the same stories, laugh at the same jokes and gather around the collective water cooler to talk about what they mean.”
Which brings us back to the defunding of PBS and NPR. Stephanie Martin, in a piece reprinted by the Nieman Lab at Harvard, takes McArdle’s argument even further by arguing for the importance of “public media,” specifically, for democracy. Martin asserts:
“In many ways, public media remains the last broadly shared civic commons. It is both commercial-free and independently edited.”
Public media is crucial for democracy. Martin quotes a 2021 report from the European Broadcasting Union that “links public broadcasting with higher voter turnout, better factual knowledge, and lower susceptibility to extremist rhetoric.” The public-private partnership of a PBS and NPR allocates funds at the top governance level, but gives much of the control of programming to local communities. This is as opposed to state-run media where government agencies determine programming that keeps those in power happy.
Hurray for the forces continuing to fight back, such as Steven Colbert (I can’t wait to see what he moves on to after next year!), and Trey Parker and Matt Stone of South Park.
Trump’s Campaign to Crush the Media | The Atlantic | July 21, 2025
CBS Cancels Colbert as media continues to turn Trumpward | Public Notice (Aaron Rupar’s substack) | July 21, 2025 (no paywall)
This brings us to one of the most insidious and alarming aspects of the PBS and NPR defunding. – something that I believe is not getting attention.
Jeff Nesbit, public affairs chief for five cabinet departments and agencies under four presidents, warns us of the game plan that’s not being talked about. According to Project 2025, defunding PBS and NPR is only step one in their master plan for public broadcasting networks, and he says it should “send shivers down the spine of everyone in America.” His explanation of the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 plan for the next step then gets into the weeds. That is “to strip both public broadcasters of their noncommercial, educational (NCE) status.”
In the case of NPR, that would strip them of the benefits of NCE status and their place on the FM radio dial. Project 2025 states that the FCC reserves 20 stations at the lower end of the radio frequency and only those stations can be licensed to NCEs. Project 2025 states that Trump, probably through executive order, should “instruct the FCC to exclude the stations affiliated with NPR from the NCE denomination and the privileges that come with it.”
Should NPR be taken off those frequencies, Nesbit asserts that religious programming – “specifically, conservative, evangelical Christian programming” – would replace it. While there is a great deal of religious programming already on FM radio, NPR and local stations currently sit in those protected frequencies. The Project 2025 folks, and specifically Russ Vought, a primary architect of Project 2025, rabid Christian nationalist, and now Director of OMB (Office of Management and Budget), are intent on seeing America become a white, Christian nation. This is one part of that vision, Nesbit contends that:
“the Project 2025 authors believe that their core argument that these public broadcasters have a liberal bias—and the perception that NPR and PBS simply fail to represent conservative viewpoints—will win the day with the American people.”
Seriously?
There is a real push in this and other areas to blur the lines between church and state (for example: Trump’s establishing a “presidential commission on religious liberty, and establishing a White House Faith Office in the West Wing”).
So, funding for NPR and PBS is only the beginning of the troubles for public broadcasting and for the principles of separation of church and state.
What Trump and the GOP have planned next for PBS and NPR should scare you | The Contrarian(Substack) | July 21, 2025
*It has been suggested to me that when I include a lot of names, I should have a key to help people keep track, although this is far from a Russian novel. Nonetheless, this may help in following the rapidly moving day-to-day news. So, here are people who are not necessarily household names…yet (Please let me know if this feels like overkill):
Brendan Carr – The new Chair of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), rabidly pro-Trump, aggressively going after media
Larry Ellison – Co-founder and now Executive Chair of the Oracle Corporation, purportedly the second wealthiest man in America, now in partial control of Paramount
David Ellison – Son of Larry Ellison, founder of Skydance Media (with a little financial help from Papa). Skydance Media has just completed the purchase of Paramount, home of Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart
Bari Weiss – Entrepreneur/Journalist, founder of The Free Press, a conservative media platform. Currently being pursued by David Ellison, possibly to consult with CBS
Mark Andreessen – Co-founder of Andreessen-Horowitz (a16z), ranks first on the list of venture capital firms by assets under management, and one aggrieved techbro.
Russell Vought – A primary architect of Project 2025 and current Director of the OMB (Office of Management and Budget), the key agency within the executive branch overseeing the preparation, and administration, of the federal budget. In this regime, he holds the purse strings.
IN DEFENSE OF DEMOCRACY
You didn’t think I could let you go without mention of A.I., did you? So, I will just leave you with a couple thoughts to ponder.
“Over the next ten years, I believe humanity will make a fateful choice: will AI help us think better and work more effectively, or will it make things worse, perhaps irreversibly? Will these tools support people and their communities, or will they mainly benefit the companies that build them—and the governments they may be beholden to—by manipulating and exploiting users and their data? The possibility that it is the latter is an imminent threat, not a distant one. In the United States and abroad, democracy seems to be near an inflection point. It may soon be too late to reclaim control of essential tools before oligarchic corporate dominance becomes inescapable—if we do not refocus on the need for truly human-centered control.
To avoid this outcome, we need to urgently redesign the technology ecosystem to restore individual human agency—not just over how we allocate our attention, but over how we arrive at our very understanding of the world, our actions, and our distinctly human ability to collaborate and develop collective intelligence.”
In this essay, the question Richard Reisman, senior fellow at the Foundation for American Innovation, thinks is most important that we can/should ask is, “Who does it serve?” He emphasizes:
“Democracy is not a thing to be automated and optimized by AI, but a deeply social human process to be augmented in its workings by AI. Democracy is given legitimacy not by what is decided, but by how it is decided. AI, if it is to be pro-democratic, must fit into our sociotechnical evolution as a tool for augmenting that human process of collaboration, deliberation, and negotiation, and never for replacing it.”
To Make Sure AI Advances Democracy, First Ask, ‘Who Does It Serve?’ | Tech Policy Press | July 16, 2025
ON THE MUSICAL SIDE
The American jazz musician Chuck Mangione, one of my favorites, passed away this week. He had recorded over 30 albums, had 14 Grammy nominations, and won two Grammy awards.
When you start a brand new day / Let your heart show you the way / And make a dream or two / Come true.
How I love when my thoughts run / To the land of make believe / Where everything is fun / Forever.
Land of Make Believe | Chuck Mangione ft. Esther Satterfield | Massey Hall, Toronto (1973)
Feels So Good | Chuck Mangione | 1977 (Made it to #2 on the Billboard 200 chart in 1978)
Children of Sanchez | Chuck Mangione (film soundtrack) | 1978 (Mangione won a Grammy for the title song from the soundtrack he created for the film)
Chase the Clouds Away | Chuck Mangione | 1975 (written for the 1976 Olympics in Montreal)
Give It All You Got | Chuck Mangione | Album: Fun and Games (1979) (written for the 1980 Winter Games in Lake Placid, N.Y.)
Thanks for reading…and listening to Wayfinding(s)! Click the “Share” button at the top of the post to welcome others into subscribing for free, to receive new posts, and to support my work.