There is a gap between American and English media personalities. Mark Lawson says that "The level of metal detectors and security guards to be negotiated before admission to his presence was almost presidential in scale." American anchors and top journalists are wisked away in limousines and taken to special, high security VIP airport facilities as they await their private jets. In America there appears to be something exclusive in having high security, VIP existence which makes the new elite more separated from the lives of the common people any elite has ever been in history (Mark Lawson Loss of Innocence Guardian Weekly 5/9/99 22).

While in aristocratic Britain, famous people are seen amongst the masses riding the Underground and frequenting neighborhood supermarkets, American celebrities and other well known, powerful people seem to go to quite a distance separating themselves from the masses. A lot of this may be out of necessity since the American civic orientation seemed to really encourage over the years a number of events include a predisposition towards celebrity obsession and worship and the corespondingly of whole new media and entertainment industries. Much of this led to obsessional tendencies on the part of die hard fans and/or sociopaths. The results of this in terms of privacy intrusion and security were quite frightening to many notable personalities.

However it is hard to isolate whether the rich and famous live their security obsessed celebrity class, lives separated from the lives and experiences of the common people for this reason totally. Since it is that the American experience has for quite some time fostered the notion of us verses them, but this has been if not as much, then more apparent in England. England is a much more spatially tight society, that has not seen the same the demographic and cultural changes take place. For one thing there is less space to move at a level that most Americans have grown accustomed to. British society is still centered in London a city of seven million people, the scale is much smaller and in many respects. England is much more tightly knit society than the U.S. The social fabric for the common people may be more satisfying than that what many see as the soulless culture in America. The common people in the U.K. not been completely rendered into mindless consuming masses to the extent that they have in the U.S.

However there are signs that this is changing, as their have been an increasing occurrence of trajedies involving famous people. More people are living their lives through famous people that idolize to an extent which many psychologists might see as mentally unhealthy. When one lives their life vicariously through someone else, there is a element of meaninglessness and worthlessness in their own lives, so they put all their energy into the worship of the all powerful and supremely distant other. Thus a cult of personality "ring "is configured much like a religious cult, and all religions begin as cults. This may explain why they so deviate from the original truth of the prophet. It is for this reason that almost all organized religions are little more charismatic, "personality" games that are defined by idol worship, "ass kissing," back stabbing and a heavy dose of hedonism.

With the death of Princess Diana there was a Kennedyesqe show of sorrow. The obsessive compulsive behavior among a large cross section of society that manifested illuminates the magnitude by which people have lost a sense of themselves and then seek to recapture it among the people who "matter" in the world. It demonstrates the gross distance between the haves and the have nots that goes beyond simple economic statistics. England has been seen as less affected by celebrity, but this little more than a quaint platitude that is useful to remind Brits as to their superiority over the Americans. However there are signs that England is becoming more Americanized. That it is not immune to the statistical inevitability of tragedy as the celebrity obsessed cultures of the world cultivate mentally unstable people who target the stars. Jill Dando was a television presenter (anchor) that was recently killed by a stalker outside of her terraced house in London. Ironically she had just sold her house and planned on moving to more private and exclusive surroundings. Her killing has shaken the British from their ivory tower that was perched way above the Americans. Soon after Dando's killing in 1999, the BBC tightened security so that uncredentialed, unauthorized people could not so easily access on the premises of the most prestigious media entity. George Harrison was nearly killed when somebody entered his house and stabbed in the chest several times.

The leadership classes have always resented living in close quarters with the common people. A core driver of success in our society is the exclusivity of being well-known and wealthy. On a deeper level, our need to become important relates to the sense of ordinariness within the common professions and social circles of the vast majority of our huge national population. To be seen as just one among a national population of 270 million and a global population of over six billion is just too much for many. So they either become ambitious and use their talents to competitively position themselves, so as to reflect their needs, ambitions and aspirations or they grow increasing frustrated and resentful as to the perceived status of their ordinariness.

The Atlantic Monthly is a media entity that has a special niche in the media universe. It is a literary magazine who marketing base group is similar to Harper's--a small, but vocal and well place intellectual elite. Now that Mortimer Zuckerman a New York real estate baron has given up on making the Atlantic Monthly a solidly profitable entity, he decided to sell it to another blueblood compatriot, David Bradley. Bradley first got going by starting a "for profit think tank"--The Advisory Board--in 1979 in his mother's Watergate apartment, selling information to powerful economic and political interests.

Bradley by taking his company public, netted 148 million dollars, and thus was proclaimed by the establishment punditry to have achieved the covet status of media mogul. It is a status he wittily disputes by comparing himself to Henry Luce, who ran Time. Bradley says Luce got his empire started much earlier than he did, and therefore represents the true model for a media mogul. Luce was a pivotal figure in the construction of the mainstream media as it manifests today.
The essence of Bradley's success is his self-effacing leadership style where he speaks "in tones so dulcet he sounds more like a sympathetic psychotherapist"...rather than "the ferocious new media mogul on the block." Mr.

Bradley is a smooth operator whose old fashioned innocence still is quite effective in swaying people towards his side. When he arrived at the Atlantic Monthly's headquarters Bradley artfully soothed an emotional staff, reassuring them that he has no intentions to change the editorial direction of the magazine and impressing the managing editor--Cullen Murphy to a significant degree (Robyn Meredith "Atlantic Monthly Staff Sizes Up New Owner" The New York Times 10/29/99 C1).

His task is daunting, since the world of modern mass media depends on advertising for most of its revenue. Advertising is an industry that Robin Meredith says is "known for its love of that mysterious blend of public relations and cocktail party chatter." You need some form of buzz says Alan Jurmain, a operative of Lowe and Partner/SMS, something that is authentic and is able to create a breezy alluring package that entices people to their "terrific product." Excitement is what they are looking for and a certain kind of excitement one which is non-critical to those who run the establishment. Celebrity based sensationalism is the only way to create sales in a society whose leadership structure has through the years encouraged a superficially orientated civic orientation. The other is by way of muckraking investigative reporting and powerful inspiring and illuminative commentary, which Harper's, The Nation and the Atlantic Monthly are on occasion known to do. However the reason that they only do this on occasion is related to the fact that they do rely on advertising income, and have a liberal constitiency, that you can only go so far with. Bradley himself says quite well that the Atlantic monthly is about "literature and and about journalism that aspires to the level of literature. It is abut serious untrendy, unbuzz driven discussion of ideas..." Thus there is appears to be an unbridgeable reality between the excitement of discussing provocative information that relates to our social conscience and our integrity, and the need to make money. This is the reason that magazines with an liberal, intellectual bent are having difficulty making ends meet. However what passes for the provocative in this marginal niche market is little more than curious contrivances designed to titillate its readers, who as liberals cannot be expected to make a clear break from mainstream thinking for their positional status in society would not allow it. Rather than speak of the need for serious socioeconomic change these magazines really speak for the high class, hedonistic aspirations of the Burgeoise, which congregate around the notion of high literature and art.

Building a Superficial Civic Orientation
However where the money is at in celebrity iconification which centers on the need to create some sort of buzz any buzz around one self, so as to make up for what is missing within the soul. Those who can somehow manipulate their reality to achieve this are worshipped as celebrities and important people while the rest of who have not abilities and the motives to master this art of human manipulation are seen as ordinary and plain.

The Medium is the Message: The Rising Sensation of Skins on the Internet
Skins are interfaces that cover the plain aesthetic of the computer's programs with a personalized flair. "People love the skins because they seem to have a personal relationship with them that can change depending on the person's mood or the type of music, says Rob Glazier chairmen and CEO of RealNetworks Inc. Neo Planet has developed a series of skins for its browser software. Drew Cohen who is CEO of Neo Planet sees it as increasing personalization of the Internet and dubs it the of Internet fashion. These skins are seen as another subconsious way to trigger emotional attachment to corporate icons. Thus many professional web designers are feel that this is just another clever plan to "get more corporate branding on our desktops." John Boyden a creative director for www.pets.com adds that the web "is starved for well-designed content, so let's put our energy into that, not slapping layers of goop onto perfectly clear tools like browsers." Robert Lord works for Winamp an online music software company owned by American Online. He feels that the popularity of skins reflects the need of the Internet users to take part in the development of the medium. He notes that there are now a growing assortment of skin discussion groups and Web "rings," which link sites with similar themes (Kara Swisher All Over the Internet, a Rash of Skins. The Wall Street Journal 10/29/99 B1).

The Need to Cash in on Celebrity Star Power
Renting star power is known as borrowed interest. "If Amos and Andy could make Americans brush with Pepsodent toothpaste and Ozzie and Harriet made them snap picture with Kodak film, why can't Sophia Loren make shopping at www.giftcertificates.com chic and Dr. Joyce Brothers make buying computers at www.cozone.com seem like a no brainer." Joseph Park CEO of www.kozmo.com--a company specializing in, "urban delivery systems," says that consumers are inundated with a lot of hype in relation to the Internet. "One of the challenges is to bring credibility." Carl Rosendorf who is senior V.P. of www.Barnesandnoble.com adds that what critical thinkers already know--that "A celebrity subconsciously brings credibility and legitimacy to whatever claims are being made,"--except that here it is coming out of the "horses mouth." A celebrity subconsciously bring credibility (Stuart Elliott Cyberspace Filling Up With Stars. The Arizona Republic 11/26/99 E1)."

If we advance the idea that celebrities get used too much in advertising as CFO Edward Booches of Mullen Advertising says, and that this whole celebrity phenonomena of the unconcsious really has nothing to do with the actual qualities of the product, then how can economists say that the economy functions in a rational way?