James Steintrager教授大致提出以下三組問題：聽覺革命、運動的情感結構、以及革命思想資源三部分，以回應Kellner教授。第一，Steintrager指出「媒體奇觀」不應僅限於視覺媒介，如何去分析聲響以及文字傳播在群眾運動當中扮演的角色，以及如何去解釋音樂和視覺媒體在群眾運動中相互影響的關係，是有待發展的理論問題。第二，儘管Kellner教授認為群眾間分享了某種革命情緒的時代感，也試圖指出2011年的全球各種抗爭係承繼了一九六八或八○年代末的革命氛圍，但是這樣的革命懷舊情緒，究竟如何轉化成為當今運動的進步能量？過去的革命精神或思想資源以什麼方式感召、催使群眾付諸革命的實踐？我們該如何去理解和描繪那些投身占領和抗爭群眾的感受性結構（affect/a structure of feeling）？最後，Steintrager問Kellner的革命願景是什麼？希望群眾運動，或人民革命帶來什麼樣的結構性變革？我們又該怎麼批判性地取用左派的激進思想資源（如Hardt和Negri、Zizek、Wallerstein等西方左派知識份子的思想），並將其注入當下、實際的人民行動中？

另外，關於香港雨傘革命，Steintrager教授提到，雨傘革命能夠號召港人以及全球的注目，新聞報導和媒體奇觀功不可沒。這場運動刺激我們的視覺神經，牽動觀者的情感結構，進而召喚更多人的熱忱投入。但是，運動領導人和當權者雙方都非常敏銳地意識到抗爭主體、政府和媒體三者之間動態的消長關係。抗爭主體必須細心操作運動的新聞熱度、保持運動的視覺生命，以防太過激烈或暴力的行動傷害運動的行銷策略；相對地，香港政府則精明地以耐性換取媒體奇觀在時間裡自然消解。因此，這場雨傘革命除了展示媒體奇觀與運動情感的共構關係，也暴露出政府細微的媒體治理藝術。

John Hutnyk教授質疑，若我們只關注運動發生的當下，僅僅透過媒體的再現來理解運動，我們將會忽略及錯估阿拉伯之春與英國暴動各自的、盤根錯節的在地歷史環節。雖然英國暴動的確受到阿拉伯之春的影響，但其背後更深層的歷史問題，如：為何工黨背叛了群眾、為何英國左派式微等等，並不在媒體和閱聽者的分析視野裡。所謂懶人包式的媒體奇觀，服膺於資本主義的商品生產模式和意識形態，阻礙我們真正花工夫去思考和理解運動的複雜性及歷史性。是時候拋棄這種認識運動的方式了。

陳光興教授同樣對Kellner研究群眾運動的方法論置疑。Kellner羅列的全球占領運動雖共享國際媒體的關照，但不同的運動之間，如何、是否能夠相互形成參照點？連結不同運動的歷史基底或思考資源到底是什麼？陳教授不認為在不同歷史時空發生的全球占領和抗爭運動，能夠粗淺地以2011年為座標而被整體化地分析、認識，因為在全球各地持續進行的占領運動，不見得都會引起國際的重視，而其運動目的也不盡然都在製造所謂媒體奇觀。陳教授希望Kellner教授能對各個占領或抗爭事件進行更細緻的歷史分析，以免同質化不同運動的發生脈絡。

從阿拉伯之春到全球的占領運動，媒體奇觀是帶來更多的可能性？還是反而會使激進想像變得不可能？

比如在占領華爾街運動中，「We are the 99%」這些口號很容易在媒體的鏡頭下看到。但占領華爾街很多激進的想像，卻不是這些口號，而是直接民主的實踐、共識機制的嘗試等等。這些激進的想像與實踐，卻是較少在媒體的鏡頭下看到。那麼，媒體奇觀到底是能帶來更多的可能性？還是會讓我們忽略反抗運動中的多樣性？

在去年香港的雨傘運動中也有類似的情況。的確，在9月28日，媒體報導了警方發放催淚彈的片段後，激起了很多人走上街頭，抗爭行動也成為了國際焦點。不過，在媒體的鏡頭下，反抗運動變成了「展示」。因為「全世界都在看著我們」、「這樣會變成負面新聞」、「這樣做報導不好看」等等，都變成了運動的新規訓與道德要求。這樣，在媒體奇觀下，原本的多樣性不只無法呈現在媒體的鏡頭下，反而因為「不好看」而被排拒。這樣看來，媒體奇觀使反抗運動的影像在全球快速傳播、遍地開花，是否也同時存在黑暗面？

Julien Quelennec是交通大學社會與文化研究所及法國第八大學哲學系雙聯學位博士生。以下這篇英文論述稿，Quelennec於參與Kellner教授的講座之後寫成。他的主要論點，在提醒縱向地將1968年與2011年的兩波全球革命╱起義浪潮系譜化，或橫向地把2011年發生於全球各地的各種抗爭運動一體化，這樣的參照邏輯可能會消除各區域內部的歷史差異，以至於無法確切解釋運動內在的變動軌跡。依據以上論點，他進一步提出兩組問題：其一，從1968年過渡到2011年，全球革命主體的歷史演化過程裡，「媒體奇觀」到底佔據甚麼位置？另方面，2011年不同的全球運動又是如何獨自地面對抗爭難題 ，譬如歐美政治、軍事勢力與阿拉伯地區各個獨裁政權之間的共謀關係？細緻的論證脈絡，請參見原文如下。

It is difficult to oppose the hopes carried by the diverse insurrectional movements occuring in 2011 and to refute their global inspiration as much as their mediatic dimension. The parallel which is drawn with the events of 1968 is largely rooted in this general hope for a change based on a bottom-up form of movement, operating outside the traditional organized structures. There are indeed reasons to say that « 2011 was looking more and more like 1968 » : the cycle of protests-repression-extended mobilizations ; striking comparisons ( is not Mohamed Bouazizi for Tunisia what Jan Palach has been for Czekoslovakia ?) ; similitudes in the use of slogans and artistic forms of expression ; global contamination of the upsurges. However, if this parallel is certainly alluring from the perspective of a certain memory of the « leftist » struggles, I wonder if it is not also misleading regarding the historical understanding of the present conditions. I am convinced that the concept of « media spectacle » can be very usefull, especially when it comes to provide an analysis of the contemporary production and molding, or unsettling, of our representations. But I wonder if we cannot question its relevance regarding both the comparison between 1968 and 2011, and the understanding of the relation between the different events of 2011.

As to the comparison between 1968 and 2011, if it can appear as similar, in particular from the perspective of somebody who lived and exeperienced these two historical « memorable » years, we also have to grasp to what extent these similarities are misleading. For D. Kellner, in both cases, « multiple insurrections generated discourses of revolution ». In my understanding, in the case of 1968, the revolutionary discourses were generating the insurrections as much as, if not even more than, being generated by them. As the director Chris Marker aptly put it, in 1968, « le fond de l'air est rouge »(the essence of the air is red, « Grin without a cat » for the movie translation – cfhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4tksCx2gUk&list=PL0B325779C50443E1&index=2). In other words, there is a global revolutionary « feeling », something which threatens the powers of any kinds, which somehow links the diverse insurrections. The Vietnam was a global point of convergence as a symbol of the contradictions of the world system ; the name « Che Guevara » was in the mouths and on the walls everywhere, just to take the most symbolic and famous examples. In 2011, I wonder what would be the colour of the air... The fact that the revolutionary motif largely vanished should be part of the discussion. I am not sure that we actually assisted to its revival, on the contrary. D. Kellner actually indirectly recognizes it when he concedes that the Arab Uprisings are not revolutions in the Marcusian sense. The question I would like to ask then is, to come back to Kellner's perspective, what is the role of the « media spectacle » in the disappearance, dismissal, or dissolution of the revolutionary modes of subjectivation ?

Now, regarding the links between the diverse insurections of 2011, if on the one hand I share the impression that indeed these events are connected, that they tell us something about the situation of the contemporary world, and that we can observe some analogies between them, on the other hand, I have some reserves about the « influence » model of understanding implied by the concept of « media spectacle ». In short, instead of noticing the connection between these events, I wonder if it would not be more interesting to consider how, why, when, and where they did, or did not, articulate. For example, D. Kellner mentions the meeting of some Egyptians with members of Occupy Wall Street, and he remarks : « so far no specific demands have been made to define the movement as a whole ». Solidarity between the different movements is manifested. But how do they respecively address the problem of the involvement of the USA, and more generally of the Western powers, in the presence and maintain of the authoritarian regimes in Arabic states at the first place ? For me, and I think some of the questions asked to D. Kellner were going in the same sense, the approach in terms of « media spectacle » does not enable us to produce a deeper understanding of the complexity of the situation in North Africa and the Middle East. It cannot explain why Bashar Al-Assad din't fall, or why Bouteflika's Algeria remained under control. The « media spectacle » is somehow too much tainted by what is usually associated to the « Western » perpsective of politics, and I am afraid that it would provide only a superficial understanding of the conditions of the different insurections in the Arabic region as much as in the other parts of the world ( the identification made by D. Kellner of the riots in the French suburbs in 2005 to terrorism is for me a perfect example of the possible short-cuts generated by the media spectacle outlook). To conclude and to echo the discussion about the musical dimension of the insurrections, we can remember that « the revolution will not be televised […], the revolution will be live »(Gil Scott-Heron).