"this thread needs to get back on topic (altho it is still entertaining)"
Okay, let me try, with a rather polemical paragraph.
Zizek is as a new kind of philosopher - a man who has perfected a personal style halfway between language and cathode ray. He knows, when it comes down to it, nothing (a certain amount of insight into Lacan besides) but has an opinion on everything. In this respect, the status he enjoys amongst certain bloggers is not coincidental. At the same time, Zizek is not entirely a figure of the new media (though pehaps blogs aren't either): his standing mode of address - the sweeping, empty, pronouncement, tossed off periodically - is that of the opinion journalist, which is perhaps why other opinion journalists, like Johann Hari, despise him: its a crowded market.
Moreover, I think that Zizek considered sociologically - as himself a phenomenon - is much more interesting then the content of anything he actually says. Though what he says is perhaps a factor of his own peculiar sociological status: when one considers it, Zizek's philosophy is precisely constructed to lend figures like himself a great deal of status. Ideology is everywhere, and everything is ideology - and hence you need a contrarian to get people thinking. Capitalism is triumphant, and attempts to narcotivize - thus you need Zizek, making blood-curdling statements, which, although strangely attractive to the media, nevertheless can be understood as "the true leftist position."
Finally, Zizek is a figure of the identity politics which he himself affects to despise. Want to establish an identity as "a leftist"? Follow Zizek - he'll let you know what to think, and give you your talking points.