Dylan Wohlenhaus' Final paper

Dylan Wohlenhaus
Final Paper
The Habermasery of Jenkins' photoshoped Democracy

The separation between satire and journalism and reporting at a certain point was clear. You have variety shows, comedians, TV hosts and journalists all working in television but by no means could comedians affect the credibility of journalists. Never could a variety show become the watch dog of the media big dogs. The news director, station manager even the managing editor are still the boss in today’s media world but they are far from the only people you have to answer to in the public sphere. In this paper I will explore the idea of Jugen Habermas’ Public Sphere along with Henry Jenkins chapter six, Photoshop for Democracy. The media artifact I will be looking at is the Jon Steward and Jim Cramer “Brawl Street” battle. With both authors arguments you will see how satire can now serve as a media watch dog.

Jim Cramer, a prominent CNBC financial reporter, advisor and analyst. Mad Money first aired in 2005 mainly an entertainment show for financial speculation and investment opportunity. For anyone including myself that is global economic market illiterate, Jim Cramer and his Mad Money television show was an outlet you could turn to for some free financial advice. Mad Money, an interesting show for a not so interesting topic, buying stocks and buying the right stocks to maximize your investments. “In Cramer we trust” you see as a slogan for his show, essentially asking you to trust him with your money in responsible advisement on where it should go. Well in early 2009 he made some terrible even catastrophic (to some) financial projections. They landed him in some hot water not with the CNBC news director. Not with Jeff Zucker, president of NBC but a TV host. A comedian that claims he and his show has no journalistic traits. It was the accuracy check that factcheck.org didn’t catch and the giant miss many watch dog organizations didn’t call out. At least if anyone up until Stewart held Cramer accountable that nation sure didn’t catch on.

Jon Stewart, a comedian, a satirist and the current host of Comedy Central’s Daily Show. He gained his prominence through small acting roles and MTV Spring Break hosts even appearing in the movie Half Baked as a stoner buying a bag of weed. The ideal journalist or even someone who should be taken seriously, of course not, or should he? Since 1998 when Jon Stewart took over as host of The Daily Show it has been gaining prominence among its viewers and Stewart is getting more credit for his work than I think he even gives himself. Making fun of current events and many times the people that report on them Jim Cramer just happen to fall in line with Jon Stewart’s satire shtick in March of 2009. The now infamous companies, Goldman Sachs, Bear Sterns and Lehman brothers all have one big thing in common. They are the big three companies that helped drive America in to an economic down turn. Up until the economy collapse in the spring of 2009, Cramer advised the people who were watching his show to buy stock in Bear Stearns and that “It was doing fine” and he “Still believes in Bear Stearns” overall this clearly was a problem that CNBC had. Because of Mad Money’s popularity Jim Cramer became the face of the faults with CNBC but he himself wasn’t to be spared from his bad judgments either.

The pot really boiled over when Cramer went on the TODAY show in early march and essentially belittled and claimed Stewart inferior to himself and the power that he had. When Cramer was asked by Meredith Viera, “You’re coming under fire with Jon Stewart” Cramer replies “A comedian, a comedian is attacking me, wow, he runs a variety show”, the last draw for Stewart. Jim Cramer finally made his appearance in The Daily Show as a guest. John Stewart made Cramer look completely un prepared, un professional and overpowered Cramer with his tough questions and points. “We feel like it’s a game that you know, that you know is going on but that you go on television as a financial network and pretend isn’t happening.”, Stewart says to Cramer about the stock market crash Cramer replies “absolutely we could do better, there’s shenanigans and we should call them out.” More mea culpa less the mono e mono that the title “brawl street” trumped up.

Increasingly The Daily Show is gaining a more intelligent audience. When it first began in 1996 with the host being Craig Kilborn its audience was the South Park viewers and the small pop culture audience who really tuned in to Comedy Central. But over the years Jon Stewart’s claim to being a “non journalist” really didn’t matter because he was gaining credibility with an audience of well educated politicians and the people who tuned in to main stream news and a generation of young adults getting their news from satire shows like The Daily Show. In Jenkins book he cites a PEW survey taken in 2000 that states 9% of people under the age of 30 received their news from comedy shows. That percent rose to 23% in 2004. Soon after you started to see a segment on George Stephanopoulos news program on ABC highlighting the week’s satire political skits, many shows were soon to follow in having similar segments. Point being traditional journalism was losing ratings and comedy alternative media was the leading news source with the younger generation. About ten years ago never would the credibility be legitimately questioned in a satire segment, and here we are now with the “brawl Street” battle.

In Henry Jenkins chapter six he talks about how popular culture is changing the way people think about traditional media and politics. I find this media artifact extremely relevant because ratings of Jim Cramer’s Mad Money fell 25% after the beat down by Stewart, The Daily Show’s ratings rose 20%. On page 219 of Jenkins he talks about pop culture, “Changing the ways people think about community and power so they are able to mobilize collective intelligence to transform governance”. In essence the ratings drop in Mad Money displays what Jenkins states as the change in community mentality, that no longer the professional stock adviser is any more credible then the professional comedian. The stock market crash was nationwide and even leaked in to other nations. Before Jon Stewart’s call out on Jim Cramer no one really challenged the CNBC network for the bad calls that it made prior to the market crash. Jurgen Habermas argues that in the public sphere is getting smaller and the public sphere is no longer representing the public opinion. Indeed this is true. You have the group of few journalists and financial analysis in the media claiming they have the insider information and that they should be trusted with where you should invest your money. When the stock market crashed it wasn’t the public sphere, the politicians, the financial advisors and people in government who were representing the average Joe, but a comedian. In line with Habermas’ argument of the Public Sphere Jon Stewart represented the mass opinion that what happened was bad and needed to be brought to someone’s attention. Public opinion was represented in poll numbers, sure, but there was no main stream voice there to call out the people that put us there. Stewart acted as a check and watch dog essentially to the forces of the ones who called themselves professionals. “There were the private individuals who were excluded from the public authority because they held no office, public no longer referred to the representative”. A direct quote from Jurgen Habermas, he is talking about a different time when there were princes and kings, but can be applied to modern times.

Habermas argues that todays, mass media is increasingly cheap and increasingly powerful and that it attempts to manipulate and even create a public where there is none. It seemed as if Jim Cramer was representing the people on Wall Street, he saw Bear Stearns going under and in an attempt to revive it he said buy stock in it. Again the public sphere is taking on a feudal aspect as politicians and organizations represent themselves rather than the voters, which seems to be the general perception. The age of a the convergence culture is here, Henry Jenkins speaks again if pop culture and a converging media culture, “No one voice speaks with unquestioned authority” and Jon Stewart is acting as that outside authority on CNBC and Jim Cramer. In a Photoshop for Democracy pop culture media whether it be YouTube or Comedy Central can serve as a check and represent a mass opinion more so than ever.

Both of these theories are very relevant to a modern society. More so Henry Jenkins because he is writing in our modern society. There are many instances where popular culture and grassroots media have affected political campaigns, media ratings or overall political discourse. I think the “brawl street” battle reveal the validity of Jenkins. He mentions several times The Daily Show as having prominence over news stations, especially during the 2004 presidential election. “Comedy Central offered more hours of coverage of the 2004 Democratic and Republican national convention than ABC, CBS and NBC combined”. The circulation of the Jim Cramer/Jon Stewart interview through outlets such as The Huffington Post and YouTube brought about the notion that the media was distorting the facts. Jenkins argues that the circulation of media is more watched illegally and legally then the broadcast of the interview itself. It seems the news organizations look to Comedy Central for their ques on integrity and the American people respond to Stewart and people like him as their spokesmen, which also falls in line with the Public Sphere.

I think the theories that Jenkins and Habermas both present reveal that Stewart and Comedy Central have more political power than they are willing to admit. Now Stewart isn’t stupid he knows somewhat the political and journalistic clout he is gaining. I also think satire and programs that make fun of the news; essentially pop culture is gaining a reputation as more reputable than traditional journalism. When you have a generation already increasingly getting the news from these shows, a new generation will be growing up with the same thing. The public sphere as Habermas explains it has only one fate is to shrink and constantly be held accountable to the private sector and to people like Stewart. The form of news medium that is The Daily Show also pushes people to become informed citizens. It presents them with a platform to sift through fact and fiction because they label the show as “snake oil” viewers know not everything is literal.

Drawing a conclusion from all of this I find that alternative media is vastly becoming the choice of the young people today. Newspapers are failing, nightly news ratings across the board are dropping and the overall ratings of the television news industry are suffering. Where are they going? To alternative media outlets, such as The Colbert Report, The Daily Show, Saturday Night Live and even YouTube episodes of The Young Turks. Photoshoping Democracy to whatever views the private sphere wants to believe. The public sphere as Habermas explains, crumbling before our eyes. Wake up Jim Cramer, and pro journalists you have a new boss, popular culture.

Works Cited

Jenkins, Henry. (2006). Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York University Press: New York and London.

Habermas, Jurgen. The Public Sphere: An Encyclopedia Article (1964).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcVp_3Ix76o

Jim cramer on the TODAY show, March 2009
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwUXx4DR0wo

CNN News story about Mad Money and The Daily Show ratings. Full episode, March 2009

Paige's Final

Paige Wold
Professor Conway
Comm 405
02 December 2009

Spoiling & Plunking with Improv Everywhere

In this paper, I will describe and analyze Improv Everywhere (IE) as a media artifact. I will examine IE in relation to the writings of Henry Jenkins in his book, Convergence Culture and DeeDee Halleck in her essay, “Plunk Your Magic Twanger: Community Control of Technology.” IE is a comedic performance arts group based in New York City with a slogan: We Cause Scenes. The group carries out non-threatening pranks, which they call “missions” in public places. The stated goal of these missions is to cause scenes of “chaos and joy.” IE was started in 2001 by actor Charlie Todd after playing a prank in a Manhattan bar with friends that involved posing as musician Ben Folds and band mates.

Later that year, Todd started taking classes at the Upright Citizens Brigade Theatre in New York City where he met most of his “senior agents.” While these agents and other long-time members of IE participate in most missions, many are open to the general public. To date, IE has executed over one-hundred missions involving tens of thousands of undercover agents. Some of their most notable missions include: having agents pose as Best Buy workers, performing a synchronized swimming routine in Washington Square Park fountain, a “No Pants” subway ride, and a time freeze in New York’s Grand Central Terminal.

In a constantly changing world it’s important to study projects such as IE because of the significance they have in the realm of media studies and communication. It’s socially significant for two reasons. First, IE is relatively new and exciting, having only been around for eight years. Therefore, very little academic analysis has been done in looking at the impact of such a venture. The second reason IE is worthy of scholarly attention is because of its potential position as a model for future media success. In advancing IE, founder Charlie Todd has really utilized horizontal integration.

Horizontal integration is defined as the ownership of many different media products in order to better market or promote a single concept. As it is with so many new and emerging technologies, IE’s popularity started through YouTube. After participants and on-site viewers posted video of “missions” online—IE became an overnight sensation. Currently, their YouTube page is the 64th most subscribed channel and the videos have been viewed over 78 million times. This led to countless interviews for Todd—everyone from The Today Show to the New York Times and Maxim Magazine wanted to speak to him about his project.

IE has released three DVDs featuring not simply past missions but also previously unreleased material, commentary tracks, and special features. In 2007 IE made a pilot for NBC but it it wasn’t picked up. More recently, in 2009, Todd wrote and released a book entitled Causing Scenes: Extraordinary Pranks in Ordinary Places. This book essentially acts as a how-to for wannabe pranksters and admirers of IE’s work. IE also remains an active presence through their Facebook and Twitter accounts, along with the official website and Todd’s Urban Prankster blog. The IE website also acts as a source for Improv Everywhere products such as the DVDs, book, and t-shirts. In looking at the future of media, it seems that those who establish a horizontal presence in many different markets and products (like IE has done) are the most successful.

Looking at Jenkin’s Convergence Culture, I examined the chapter on Spoiling Survivor to analyze IE; specifically, his theories on spoiling itself and civic participation. When discussing knowledge cultures, Jenkin’s describes the significance of brain trusts.

“The brain trust represents the return of hierarchy to the knowledge culture, the attempt to create an elite that has access to information not available to the group as a whole and that demands to be trusted as arbitrators of what it is appropriate to share with the collective” (Jenkins 39).

In the case of IE, this brain trust would consist of the “senior agents.” As I’ve already mentioned, most of these senior agents are members of the Upright Citizens Brigade Theatre and coworkers of Todd himself (he is currently a professor of improve at the UCB). Therefore, this select group is privy to information and details that the general public doesn’t have access to.

Also in the Spoiling Survivor chapter, Jenkins details the efforts of a specific segment of Big Brother fans called the Media Jammers. Jenkins says, “In the first season these fans pushed further, seeking to alter the outcome of events in the house by breaking through the wall of silence that separated contestants from the outside world” (52). IE takes this concept a step further. Through their missions, agents started breaking down the wall between staged events and reality. It’s this boundary between real and staged that creates much of the humor. In videos of past missions, it’s the reactions of passerby that really grab the viewer’s attention and make them laugh.

The second theorist I looked at in analyzing IE was DeeDee Halleck and her thoughts on community control and corporate-free television. In “Plunk Your Magic Twanger,” Halleck emphasizes the need for a more democratic communication outlet stating, “The product was never the goal. It’s the process, of course…” (7). At its core, IE is about the process and having fun. Their website says as much.

“We’re big believers in ‘organized fun.’ We get satisfaction from coming up with an awesome idea and making it come to life. In the process we bring excitement to otherwise unexciting locales and give strangers a story they can tell for the rest of their lives” (Todd).

Both Halleck and Todd emphasize the process; the process and the work that goes into any media, whether it is a television station or a staged mission. Both authors harness the power of everyday people in shaping content.

In her essay, Halleck cites the popularity of America’s Funniest Home Videos in emphasizing the need for a more democratic television. “They [audiences] await a flash of recognition of humanity on a box that daily denies it. The public hungers for something more authentic, more in touch with the everyday lives of people” (Halleck 10). On their website, Todd emphasizes that IE isn’t at all motivated by advertising or promotion from corporate influence. They do not stage official IE missions that advertise a brand.

IE also parallels Halleck when it comes to her concept of “plunking the magic twanger to turn the world upside down” (Halleck 9). Halleck uses this analogy to emphasize her belief in the need to rethink the current television system and move toward a commercial-and-corporate free model. IE also “plunks the magic twanger,” but in their case it’s the rethinking of pranks.

“We’re out to prove a prank doesn’t have to involve humiliation or embarrassment; it can simply be about making someone laugh, smile, or stop to notice the world around them” (Todd).

Ultimately, Todd and Halleck are both out to change the way their viewers see the world.

While there are many parallels that can be drawn between the writings of Jenkins and Halleck in relation to IE, there are also some key differences. The first obvious example stems from the title of the chapter I evaluated in Convergence Culture, Spoiling Survivor. Jenkins describes spoiling, “They [hard-core fans] know Survivor inside out, and they are determined to figure it out—together—before the producers reveals what happened” (25). IE is, in essence, a form of spoiling but with some a distinctions.

Jenkins is describing a divide between real life fans and televised events. Spoilers see the process of figuring out the plot as both a challenge a game. IE is also a game—but in this case the line is drawn between participants and non-participants, both intermingling in real life. In the case of IE, “agents” are to stay in character at all costs and interact with the public. Therefore, they would occupy the position of “producer” that Jenkins describes in that they know what is about to happen while the others do not. There is no script beyond the mission. The excitement comes from the fact that participants have no idea how the non-participants will react.

The second key difference I noted was IE’s position in relation to Halleck’s strong anti-corporate stance. Here again another significant difference emerges in that Halleck is evaluating only the medium of television. IE is distributed through YouTube, live enactments, etc. But it’s Halleck’s corporate stance that contradicts with IE’s. She states, “We need a commercial-and-corporate free television, not a medium designed to make a profit from constructing needs in an already needy world” (9). Meanwhile, IE has a much more casual attitude in terms of corporate influence. The IE website says,

“We do take on sponsorship from time to time. If a company wants to hire us to do a mission we already want to do (with their brand having nothing to do with the content) we would consider a sponsorship. We see it as no different than a television show being supported by commercials. So long as our content is not influenced by the sponsor, we think it is a smart way to fund our work” (Todd).

IE also does not stage missions to draw attention to particular causes. The website states, “We are focused on creating comedy for comedy’s sake and staging missions for no explicit reasons behind them, other than spreading joy and chaos throughout the world” (Todd). This is another significant difference between Halleck and IE. Halleck’s work centers on the need for civic engagement and organized, purposeful action while IE focuses on silliness and commotion.

This leads to the over-arching question: What conclusions does this give about the “social implications of an information society?” In evaluating IE, I came up with three general findings illustrating social implications. First, I think it’s essential to define exactly what an “information society” is. An information society is,

“A society characterized by information technology (IT) transforming every aspect of cultural, political, and social life. There’s also a pervasive influence of IT on home, work, and recreational aspects of individuals’ daily routine” (Information).

Based on this definition, the United States is without a doubt an information society.

This brings us to the social implications of IE on our information society. The first implication I touched on already; that is how IE is mixing between participants and non-participants and therefore blurring the separation between producers and fans. We see this in the way that IE allows anyone to be involved in missions. It’s as simple as joining their mailing list. The second implication involves technology itself. In the case of IE, there is a difference between witnessing their “missions” on-site vs. seeing a clip of it later on YouTube. Obviously, technology is evolving and as it does we’re seeing the emergence of technology as art itself.

My third and final implication regards the global village. Many media scholars have researched and analyzed the concept of the global village. This term is credited to scholar Marshall McLuhan and is used to describe the ever-shrinking world by means of different media types (especially the World Wide Web); making communication across states, countries, and continents easier. IE founder, Charlie Todd has taken this global village concept and run with it. Through the official IE website, Todd has created a national and global network for would-be pranksters wanting to begin their own branch and/or recreate missions. Along with the New York mailing list for those wanting to participate in future missions; Todd has recently added a global mailing list for upcoming global events.

Looking at IE through the works of Jenkins and Halleck has revealed an up-and-coming media form that is changing the landscape of what media is, why it’s made, and how we study it. Media will continue to shape our society and the way we process information. But even with its serious impact, it’s easy to believe that IE will never take itself seriously.

Works Cited

Halleck, DeeDee. “Plunk Your Magic Twanger: Community Control of Technology.” Communications and Media Studies 2.5 (2002): 6-10. Print.

Jenkins, Henry. Convergence Culture. New York: New York University Press, 2006. Print.

“Information Society.” BusinessDictionary.com. BusinessDictionary, n.d. Web. 01 December
2009.

Todd, Charlie. Improv Everywhere. WordPress. Web. 15 November 2009.

Amy Unrau's Final

Amy Unrau

Final Paper

Comm 405

Professor Conway

Effects of Cultural Globalizations

Today’s world holds people who come from many different types of cultures. All of the different types of people either live their life like their original culture, completely recognize many different types of cultures, or are somewhere in between. Whether or not all of these people can live in harmony is questionable. Jan Nederveen Pieterse and Samuel P. Huntington have differing views on whether or not society can function correctly with the all of the very different types of cultural views. Pieterse believes that the world can function very well with the hybridity that come from the western culture. Huntington, on the other hand, believes that the mixing of cultures causes chaos and in turn causes “cultures to clash”. In the information society that we live in today, technology increases globalization of foreign cultures. It also constantly influences the way we live our everyday life. Both authors’ theories are, in fact, very true. I believe that bringing different cultures together can cause problem, which we have seen throughout history with racially discriminating wars, segregation, and slavery. However, I more so believe that cultural hybridity can make an information society better.

The NBC show “The Office” originally aired in the United States in March of 2005. This show is based off of the award winning BBC version. The American version takes on the same sitcom/documentary style format as the original version does, but uses American culture to progress its plot. This makes the American version of the show a hybrid. The show has been a huge success for NBC, which would fit Pieterse’s theory that good things can come from hybridity. This show can be seen in many countries and is usually a hit with the culture that it is directed towards. However, when a different culture views another’s version, they do not find it entertaining. This goes along with Huntington’s theory that cultures clash when they come in contact with each other. Both theorists’ ideas work when describing the show in multiple aspects, but there is one more factor that decides who has a stronger theory. The format of the show combines two different types of shows. It is sitcom based, because it has characters, developing story plots, and is placed in prime time viewing periods. It also has a documentary style format where characters reference the camera many times throughout the show and even do personal interviews. These two types of show are very different, yet they work together in a very successful way. Therefore, Pieterse’s theory overpowers Huntington’s chaos theory.

The three different clips that I chose to use from “The Office” come from episode 2 of the first season which is called “Diversity Day”. The clips show Michael, the boss, trying to diversify the office by getting everyone to place cue cards on their forehead which have a certain race or culture written on it. After placing it on their heads, Michael has all of the others come up and treat that person like their culture. Eventually, Michael wants everyone to try to guess what culture is on their forehead by listening to the stereotypes that are said to them. Pieterse’s theories of cultural difference, cultural convergence, and hybridity all apply in this clip, along with Huntington’s theory of the clash of civilizations and rise of western culture.

Pieterse defines cultural differentialism on page 42of his book “Globalization and Culture”. He says “differences are regarded as immutable and generating rivalry and conflict”. He says there are only three ways to break down cultural differentialism. Those three are culture difference or lasting different, cultural convergence or growing sameness, or cultural hybridization or ongoing mixing. He defines cultural difference as an absolute difference between different cultures. He says that cultural convergence takes place when cultures have indistinguishable traits from one another. He then defines hybridity as “traveling culture”. By this, he means that cultures adapt different aspects from other cultures, bringing them together in a new way. Pieterse believes that hybridity is an overall great idea. He believes it can make the world flourish and grow with new ideas, but he also admits that there can be some problems. He describes those problems in a similar, yet less pessimistic and dramatic way that Huntington describes his theories.

Huntington’s idea about the clash of civilizations comes from the same theories that Pieterse attempts to argue. On the first page of the article “The Clash of Civilizations?”, Huntington says “The clash of civilizations will be the battle lines of the future.” He then goes on to say, “Conflict between civilizations will be the latest phase of the evolution of conflict in the modern world.” By this, he means that people are always looking to define themselves by their own culture, which in turn causes problems and will ultimately cause problems within the world. One of the main influences of cultural clashing, according to Huntington, is the rise of western culture. He refers to western culture as the newer cultures that have an “emergence of the modern international system”. He believes that one day, people will acknowledge our difference and cause a “war” based on those disparities.

In the “Diversity Day” clips from “The Office, cultural difference is seen by how each person in the office acts differently when they come in contact with a different card. For example, Dwight says “Shalom, I’d like to apply for a loan.” This statement implies that Pam has the word Jewish written on her card. Pam eventually looks at Dwight’s card, which says “Asian”, and replies to his statement by saying that the culture is generally a bad driver. This shows that each culture has its own individual traits that no other culture has. This then gives distinct differences between cultures.

The “Diversity Day” clip also portrays Pieterse’s theory of cultural convergence or growing sameness. Every character knows how to act around each cue card. The characters use stereotypical statements that have become globally known. A very common stereotype that we see Stanley talk about is the success of the Jewish culture. When something becomes globally known, usually it is a result of cultures converging and getting to know and understand other cultures. Also, the characters in the show are all wearing the same type of clothing and speaking the English language. These types of dress and language are widely known throughout the world, and the similarities between the American culture and other English speaking cultures will be very close.

“Diversity Day” greatly shows Pieterse’s theory of hybridity. When two different cultures come together and make something that did not exist before, we have a hybrid. The example that we see in the clips is seen in Kelly. She is has an Indian heritage, but has the attitude and social characteristics of a girl that one might find to be from California. She has both traits, but does not identify with one more so than the other. This can also be seen in Stanley. He is an African American. He has many traits that his native African heritage has, but also takes on traits that Americans have. Even though Stanley is a part of both cultures, he does not directly identify with one more so than the other. We can also see hybridity within the boss, Michael. He greatly wants to be a hybrid. He initiates the game, trying to get all of the different cultural traits involved. This is because he loves being like everyone else. He does a comedic skit that was originally performed by Chris Rock. Michael then has to take on “African” traits. He does this because he feels that he is a hybrid and can ethically do so, without getting the African community upset.

Huntington’s theory that cultures clash when they come in contact with each other is seen in the clips. No matter what, everyone will eventually act like and identify with their culture. Even though it is forced in the clip, the characters all eventually act like their culture. When people identify with their own culture, it can sometimes cause problems. People usually tend to praise their culture at a higher level than others. Also, when Michael pretends to be an Indian convenient store owner towards Kelly, she gets very upset and slaps him. If you constantly define yourself in a specific way, it can offend people and cause others to become upset.

The clash of cultures can also be seen outside of “The Office”. One great example of this is patriotism, whether it is for a person’s country, or even for a person’s favorite team. There is a whole movie based off of the rivalry between European soccer teams, called “Green Street Hooligans”. In this movie, people fight against one another purely because the other person hails towards a difference soccer team. This same concept can be found on the University of North Dakota campus. During the latest hockey season of 2009-2010, a fighting Sioux fan and a Minnesota gopher fan became involved with a very physical fight, just because they were from different schools.

Western culture is a large part of how the plot develops in the “Diversity Day” clip. Western culture is known as a “melting pot” of many different cultures. The culture develops knowledge of many different cultures from around the world. Stereotypes are based off of both knowledge and lack of knowledge of a culture. When you know a little bit about a culture, you can make assumptions about it. At the same time, when you do not know everything about the culture, you tend to fill in the blanks. You can see this stereotypical assumption when Dwight and Pam have a conversation. Pam says that his race card is typically a bad driver. Dwight, in turn, believes he has the word “woman” written on his card.

When you watch the full version of “Diversity Day”, you see that the whole office ends up working together and ignores large differences, but also embrace each other’s differing qualities. With this in mind, one might think, “So, which theorist is correct?” From the evidence given in the clip, you can see that both have strong theories of cultures coming together and bringing cultural success and chaos. In the end, you can see the office ultimately comes together. If you watch the episodes in the rest of the season and the following seasons after that, you come to see that that particular office is the number one branch of the company. Each character eventually sets asides his or her differences and works as a team. You can also see this in everyday, real life situations. The world functions. Even though there are times when conflict arises between different cultures, most of the time people get together and work for a cause. Therefore, I agree with Pieterse that cultural hybridity brings newer and greater ideas, which in turn makes society a better place. Without hybridity, we would not have many of the things that the world knows and loves today like clothing fashion, ethnic restaurant chains that can be found in almost every country, and advances is technology.

Today’s world is an information based society where the more knowledge one has, the further that person can get. Technology has very much increased how much and how fast one can obtain the information that he or she seeks. The social implication that comes from technology is that the world’s knowledge is now global and not just location specific. Some say, that technology defaces communication, but as the world population grows, ideas grow, and technology makes life different than it has been in the past. Some say society is losing its core communication values as technology progresses. After analyzing the theories of many authors, I find that communication values do not become lost. I believe that some people misinterpret the newer ways of communication. The act of communication has been changing from the beginning of time. It started with very little, then moved to cave drawings, then to face to face verbal and written, and now through a greater electronic technology. Communication has grown and is continuing to grow. It has and will go on to become something bigger and better than society has ever had the ability to experience.

Works Cited

“About the Office.” The Office, NBC.com. http://www.nbc.com/The_Office/about/

“Diversity Day.” The Office. Season 1, Episode 2. March 2007.

< http://www.tbs.com/stories/story/0,,114918,00.html>

Huntington, Samuel P. “The Clash of Civilizations?” Foreign Affairs 72.3 (1993): 22-49.

Nederveen Pieterse, Jan. Globalization and Culture: Global Mélange. New York: Rowman and

Littlefield, 2004.

Yeah, you SHOULD have said no.

Angela Kitzan

405 Final

You know you do it. You do it in the shower, in the car, and when you are all alone at home just in your skimpy underwear. Yeah, you know you do it---sing when you think no one is watching, that is. Sure, you are doing it for fun and deep down you know you can’t sing, right? Right? You aren’t going to audition for American Idol because deep down you know you can’t sing. I mean, you do realize you can’t sing right?

Yet you have this yearning to upload a video of yourself singing and dancing in your underwear, yet if your parents found out you would get in trouble, have a little too much pride and you honestly don’t want to know what other people think so you refrain from doing so. However, there are millions of other people around the world that don’t have any shame and want that fifteen seconds of fame so that maybe they will be on one of those VH1 countdown clip shows, perhaps “Best of the Web 2009”.

I stumbled across my media artifact on one of my friend’s facebook page, which is of a youtube clip of a girl by the name of Nichole butchering a Taylor Swift song. The girl looked a lot like my best friend’s ex-girlfriend and considering that none of our friends like her, I posted it to his page hoping to get a good laugh or two (mean, I know, but after all I am only 23 and pretty damn childish) which we did. I decided to see if she had anymore videos only to discover that she had 64 uploaded videos of her covering songs as well as a few originals that she has written.

She has a good amount of fans and friends as well as a lot of comments, most of them extremely rude and sometimes a bit heartbreaking. Yet as mean as it sounds, I have to wonder if she actually does deserve them because anyone who isn’t deaf can hear that she can’t sing to save her life. Why would someone honestly put themselves through all the negativity she is receiving or is she just in her own little world, thinking that she has talent?

With websites such as facebook, youtube and various blogging applications it seems that more and more people are putting themselves on public display, craving that fifteen minutes of fame, hoping that one day they too will be famous, especially now with the ever so popular idea of reality television which keeps spewing out new shows each season. With more and more people turning to their laptops and computers to catch up on television shows on websites such as Hulu, could video blogs and youtube clips be the next new wave of reality television?

On page 65 of Convergence Culture by Henry Jenkins, there is a small poster of a boy, sneering and saying “You Got Three Seconds To Impress Me”, which when one might see this, they may think that it needs to be a positive impression, rather than a negative one. But is this so? Granted, this young girl attempt to belt out a Taylor Swift song isn’t anything to be impressed about, however, the fact that she is terrible made me come back for more. I was impressed by her terribleness. I highly doubt that if she was truly talented I would have passed it on to my friends and would have simply thought to myself, “Well it is a shame that she isn’t pretty, she can really sing. Then again, plastic surgery does wonders. How come this ugly girl can sing? So not fair. God, you pissed me off today, thanks” and moved to youtubing something that would make me laugh, never to look at this girl’s website ever again.

Jenkin’s idea of “Zappers, Casuals and Loyals” can be tied into my media artifact with ease. Zappers would be the ones who have “internet manners and class” as I put it; the ones that either don’t view it or just view it without passing it on to their friends or leaving her a comment. Casuals are those who out of boredom leave a comment whether it be positive or negative and come back to it only if it starts a spark and ends up into an all out internet rage. As for those Loyals? They are the ones who spend their every waking moment on the girls’ page, bombarding her with comments, mostly negative in hopes that they make her life a living hell and that she will eventually shut down her youtube page, never to be heard from again.

Both the viewers of this artifact as well as the performer in this artifact are doing what they do because of personal fulfillment. Chances are this girl knows what she is doing and probably does think she can really sing, despite what her “haters” say. We don’t know her background or her story; maybe she is a lonely girl whose only social interaction is the comments she gets on her youtube profile and by posting her videos, she is just looking for some much needed attention, whether it be positive or negative. But no matter what, she loves to sing and that is what she is going to do. It’s her art and it’s her love, nothing and no one can stop her.

The viewers are gaining personal fulfillment by posting negative comments and making someone feel bad. As pathetic as it sounds, there are people, those internet trolls that do get joy out of being a complete dick head on the internet because they need someone to belittle to make themselves better; because in real life, they suck as a person and are a complete loser. But hey, making fun of some girl who is not the best looking and can’t carry a tune will make me feel better; because in our society looks and a talent are important in making it in this world. However, those who leave nice compliments and are sticking up for her do gain personal fulfillment as well. Making someone’s day is always a nice feeling and whether or not you agree with her singing or not, some people just take it too far and haven’t those meanies ever thought about “thinking it and not saying it”, hopefully leaving her a nice comment will cheer her up.

Would Benjamin call this art? Then again, what exactly is art? Perhaps what is art to you is certainly not art to me so therefore is art just a thing?

Benjamin stated that, “the uniqueness of a work of art is inseparable from its being imbedded in the fabric of tradition. This tradition itself is thoroughly alive and extremely changeable.” Well one thing is for sure, this artifact is definitely unique in itself and therefore can be declared as art, she is bucking tradition and showing that deep down, anyone can be well known whether it is on the internet or television, all you have to be is unique. Art changes throughout the ages from magical, to religious, to the completely bizarre.

He says that “works of art are received and valued on different planes. “ And by the looks of her comments, she is being received on many different planes, from the negative mean spirited planes to those who are trying to stick up for her and telling people to leave her alone to those like her who might see her as inspiration. Certainly those who express negatively view her as low cult and low class, but that doesn’t mean those who stick up for her view her as high class, they just respect that she is a unique work of art who is simply expressing herself and her creativity.

“For the film, what matters primarily is that the actor represents himself to the public before the camera, rather than representing someone else” is one sentence that now fits into the mold of reality television and especially video blogging. Granted, this year we have talked about the aspects of reality television characters and how in almost every reality television show you are automatically typecast/stereotyped into a certain persona that you are expected to carry out the full length of series, but when it comes to video blogging, all that is there is you and your webcam. Nothing else unless you want it that way; how you represent yourself to the public is up to you and the only one you can blame for the negativity you are getting is yourself.

One question that was imposed on me during my presentation was how exactly am I going to fit aura in here? My media artifact would defiantly be “cult” value even though it has 3 million hits. View her page and see that she has a small, but sufficient following. She is one of those “youtube secrets” that the Today Show has probably passed up and didn’t let her go mainstream. In the big world of the internet, she is just a small wonder, a cult classic for 2009. Two years from now when something else catches our attention on facebook, we may even strike up a conversation and say “Hey remember that girl who sang off key, let’s look her up again”, giving her foundation as a “cult classic” on the internet.

Should have Benjamin written this article today, he would have included the internet and perhaps stated that once it is put out there for the whole world to see, it is always there, forever and ever to be remembered and held onto either for good memories of the good old days or for blackmail against a now enemy. And we have all heard the stories of people getting fired or losing what respect they have due to what they have in their public blogs as well as facebook page.

Although Benjamin wrote during an entirely different time that Jenkins, I was annoyed to find out that Jenkins rarely touched on the idea of becoming an “overnight internet celebrity”. Granted, his book was published in 2006 and is only a couple of years old, but the idea of being an internet celebrity has been around for at least the beginning of the decade. Although reality television shows are still popular, they are becoming more and more decreased and only the strongest, like Survivor and Big Brother seem to survive. People, especially my generation are getting tired of celebs like Brett Michaels who keep doing dating reality show after dating reality show just so they can make a buck or two and increase their celeb status. We want those happy surprises that suddenly become famous because someone posted a youtube clip of them singing horribly or singing beautifully. We want every day joes as our new celebs, ones that we can look at and go, “Hey, I can upload something similar on youtube and gain 1,000,000 hits too!”

In reality, whether we want to admit it or not, we wish that deep down, we could have our chance at fifteen minutes of fame. Because if a girl who sings as horribly as that gets around 3,000,000 views and her video hasn’t been up for a year yet, then why the hell can’t I have my own youtube fame? In the end, with the internet---anything is possible. Anything.

Works Cited

Jenkins, Henry. Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York: New
York University Press.

Benjamin, Walter. The Work Of Art In The Age of Mechanical Reproduction. Oxford University Press

Notes from Thursday

Social Implications of the information society
> media
How WE interact with EACH OTHER convergence
participatory
relationships

"We"
> consumers belong to the public
- have different degrees of involvement - the more of an affect it will have on you!
- demographics
ROLES IN MEDIA
-producers
-distributors
-journalists
>>Information belongs to Society
Mediation-Communication Public Politically: If you're here you are part of something
not face to face
effect of face to face
"dumbing down"
deteriorates soft skills

(Playing on WOW improves social skills for people who don't have social skills)

INcreasingly fragmented audience.

Presentation dates

NB: For info on the presentations, see here.

Tuesday, 12/1:
Angi K.
Katie C.
Lacey E.

Thursday, 12/3
Stephanie W.
Amy U.
Leah K.

Tuesday, 12/8
Paige W.
Allison L.
Alison K.

Thursday, 12/10
Ronny M.
Aaron H.
Dylan W.

Tuesday (11/17) Notes

Questions:
Medium = message?
What is power & how does it relate to media?
What is mass self-communication?
What is counter-power?

Points:
Media as agenda-setting
- media as space where power is decided
Politics of scandal
- weakening of credibility in politicians
- distrust of political arena
- voting against rather than for
Power: structural capacity
Counter-power: push-back
Google-bombing, other attempts by horizontal media to affect vertical media
Nation-state is losing ground
- media
- governance
Surveilling internet

Critiques:
Stylistic-douche baggy
Need better examples of mass self-communication
Arguing from doxa
Lumping people into category of "sheep"
Either/or like Boyle, Halleck

Aaron's Media Artifact:
Twix- Get the Girl commercial
- blogging as habit
- mass self-communication
- Jeremy Epstein: 80% blogs should be other people, 20% you
- Entertainment value
- "Just like us" value