The Power of "Slacktivism"

Natalie Fang
CCS 313
Blog Post #3

                A month ago, Oxford dictionary named their word of the year vape. Among those in the running was the term "slacktivism," a merging of the words "slacker" and "activism," defined as "actions performed via the Internet in support of a political or social cause but regarded as requiring little time or involvement." In a time where your Facebook activity is almost as important as what's on your resume, it's easy to see how this term came to be. However, denouncing those who sign an online petition to show that they "care" undermines actual progress on causes via the internet.

                Henry Jenkins describes the convergence of old and new media in "Photoshop for Democracy." In the chapter, Jenkins backs the use of the internet by grassroots organizers to mobilize. Jenkins says that the difference between the Internet and TV news is that the Internet reaches the hardcore while TV news sways the undecided (224). I don't find this to be completely true. As a recipient of Internet media, I would take the stance that the Internet gives voice to the hardcore and informs the uninformed and undecided. It seems apparent in sites such as twitter and Tumblr, where users are given access to thousands of individuals and use that access to spread information about certain issues in a digestible way. Terms like slacktivism take away that agency from these Internet activists.

                More so now than ever, the public relies on sites like twitter to receive the truth. With the problems in Ferguson, igniting a movement throughout the nation, and even reaching overseas, social media has become the keystone connecting all the protesters. It also gives the public a firsthand account of the actions which they can't expect from news sources, which are unabashedly filtered through bias. It is not a surprise that during the press conference announcing the grand jury decision in the Ferguson case, Prosecutor Robert McCulloch in his second breathe expressed concern over the social media presence over this case and issue. "McCulloch acknowledges that much of the social media coverage has been fueled b public frustration with the lack of information coming from his office or the police," but also claims that this social media flood is filled with speculations and is inevitable harmful to the case as a whole. But McCulloch fails to acknowledge the power that this noise stirred up in social media has had on the movement. The growth of the numerous hashtags named after the endless list of black individuals unlawfully gunned down by police in recent months has kept this issue in conversation on older media sources.

Works Cited

Jenkins, Henry. "Photoshop for Democracy." Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York: New York UP, 2006. 217-50. Print.

Scola, Nancy. "Ferguson Prosecutor Slams "Non-Stop" Social Media While Calling for Increased Attention to Race." The Washington Post. N.p., 25 Nov. 2014. Web. 6 Dec. 2014.

Blog Post 3

Dana Macaluso

Blog Post 3

      For this final blog post, I decided to analyze and discuss how the television show Talking Dead relates to specific theories and concepts that we have covered in this course.  The Walking Dead is one of the most popular television shows currently on television, attracting millions of viewers each week and is also one the highest-rated series that is currently on television. This show has created a large dedicated fan base, who tune in every Sunday night making sure they never miss an episode. As a result of the huge popularity of this show, the Talking Dead was created. This show directly relates to the idea of interactivity because of what the show is about and what happens during the show.

     

     For those who have never seen Talking Dead, it is essentially a talk show that only discusses the events that occurred in the previous Walking Dead episode. Each week different people, often cast mates and other celebrities who are fans of the show, come on the show and express their opinions and discuss their questions concerning the episode that had just aired.  What really shows how Talking Dead uses interactivity to connect with its large fan base is all of the ways the viewers can connect and contribute to the show.

     

     One example is that before every commercial break, there is usually live polling of a question asked about the previous Walking Dead episode. People tuning in can go online and answer the questions and you can see the percentages changing right before your eyes. This give viewers the sense of a connection to the show, because they can visually see how they are able to interact with it from the comfort of their home. This in a sense helps the show form a relationship with its viewers. As Caldwell describes this, "Interactivity, then, was not a cybernetic product, but a way for programs to seal a relationship with viewers."(Caldwell, 260).

     

     Talking Dead does many things to try to create a relationship with its viewers. Aside from the polling questions, the host and the guests answer questions that people post on Twitter. Also, there are times that the show plays video submissions that viewers have sent in. In my opinion, Talking Dead is one of the most interactive shows that is currently on television.

Works Cited

Caldwell, John T. “Televisual Audience: Interactive Pizza.” Televisuality: Style, Crisis, and Authority in American Television. New Brunswick: Rutgers UP, 1995. 249-83.

Blog Post 3

Zachary Fortgang

CCS 313-1

Professor Smith-Casanueva

Due: 25 November 2014

The True Value of an Audience

            As the end of the semester nears, I have gained strong insight pertaining to televisual studies.  One major aspect we have discussed in class involves the understanding of televisual audiences.  It is interesting to see how different shows can impact an audience through political as well as social concepts. 

            Examples of specific shows include Glee, The New Normal, and Modern Family. The visibility of openly gay characters in these shows has had a direct impact on audience’s stances on the LGBT community (Huffington Post 1).  During the time of the 2012 election, statistics reported that twenty-seven percent of viewers who were surveyed said that gay television made them more in favor of gay marriage, leaving twelve percent more opposed (Huffington Post 1).  Also, there were indications that Obama voters were twice as likely to watch Modern Family as compared to Romney voters, twice as likely to watch Glee, and three times more likely to watch The New Normal (Huffington Post 1).    

Views on gay marriage have exponentially gone in its favor since 2002 (1).  In the past ten years, about three times as many voters have become more pro-gay marriage as have become more anti-gay marriage (1).  The percentage for pro-gay is thirty-one while the percentage for anti-gay is ten (1).

Caldwell brings up solid points when discussing the three persistent myths of communications studies.  First, he states how there is a single type of viewer that television affects (Caldwell 250).  Secondly, how television itself is a single or unified force that can wield these influences (250).  Lastly, he claims that the audience is a victim worked upon by this unified force (250).

Based on Caldwell’s research, their bolds truth when referring to specific audiences.  The viewer will establish his or her own opinion in regards to what he or she viewing.  It can influence a person to watch something that will give them a more valid understanding of a major issue.  With shows such as Glee and Modern Family, the audience is targeted by an underlying message to have a voice on a political issue such as gay marriage.  All in all, the televisual audience is a key element in televisual studies and will continue to change and adapt over time. 

Works Cited

Caldwell, J. "Televisual Audience: Interactive Pizza."Televisuality: Style,

Crisis, and Authority in American Television. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers UP, 1995. 249-83. Print.

Wong, Curtis M. "'Glee,' 'Modern Family' And Other LGBT-Themed TV Shows Drive Gay Marriage Support: Poll." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 05 Nov. 2012. Web. 25 Nov. 2014.

Blog Post 3

CJ Severin 

As someone who has made art and decorated with televisions I found Anna McCarthy’s essay in Television after TV to be particularly interesting in that her approach to television studies looked both at television’s themselves as medium and at television audiences as viewers  so differently than the other texts we read in this half of the semester.  Whereas the majority of the other texts we’ve looked at have essentially meant “television” to be the thing which brings broadcast and cable programming into our homes, McCarthy examined how televisions work as parts of our everyday, non-domestic life, in and as a part of the world around us.  

My own most recent television-based project and its results can best be understood through McCarthy’s analysis of site specific television studies.  Last month for Halloween I was charged with the task of decorating for a friend’s house party and alongside the more traditional decorations I used multiple televisions playing different horror and Halloween movies to decorate and illuminate the house.  Following what McCarthy described, the televisions in areas with seats and in places where people were waiting got watched much more intently than those in hallways or more active areas, no matter what was playing on them; the wall of televisions in front of the living room couch, for example, was almost constantly being, if not watched, at least looked at.  

On the other hand, however, there was a television in the bathroom, the sole source of light in the space, which when almost entirely forgotten about.  The fact that this set, which was put in a place where the viewer was most isolated and had the most opportunity to focus solely on it, was ignored speaks to the relationship between the viewers and the content.  For traditional television content the viewer is present for the majority of the content, they form some sort of relationship with what they are watching, and even when they watch only parts of the content (as the viewers at the party did in the bathroom) they actively engage with programs/movies/advertisements.  McCarthy describes how engaging with programs in waiting areas both helps pass time and, if the loop of content is viewed multiple times, elongates it because of the nature of the bond between viewer and program.  The set in the bathroom then should fall into the first group by McCarthy’s analysis, but for some guests this was not the case because the film being shown filled the time spent in the bathroom in a negative way and thus blocked out; instead of having their own personal space away from Halloween, the party decorations intruded into their empty time and forced an uncomfortable personal engagement that many guests intentionally didn’t watch.  

The way that McCarthy approaches TV studies in her art and essay remind us that television is a medium in itself and not just a device to watch cable shows; she enables a type of study that goes beyond analyzing commercial broadcasting and looks at what active engagement means to television viewers when the content and the audiences are less predictable.

Spigel, Lynn, Jan Olsson, and Anna McCarthy. "Rhythms of the Reception Area: Crisis, Capitalism, and the Waiting Room TV." Television after TV: Essays on a Medium in Transition. Durham: Duke UP, 2004. 183-209. Print.

Blog Post 3: Late Night News

Late Night News 

    

 

               Jenkins believes that “making politics into a kind of popular culture [has allowed] consumers to apply fan expertise to their civic responsibilities.”  Forms of pop culture like photoshopped images, parody news shows, etc., have political effects because they represent “hybrid spaces where we can lower the political stakes (and change the language of politics) enough so that we can master skills we need to be participants in the democratic process” (Jenkins).  He provides The Daily Show with Jon Stewart as an example of a show that combines popular culture and political and current events.  The Colbert Report and Last Week Tonight with John Oliver also have similar functions and formats.  They all parody mainstream media news shows and critique their coverage of current issues. 
            The Colbert Report utilizes satire in order to make their points, the character Stephen Colbert is a caricature of a Republican pundit.  Funnily enough there are viewers who believe that Stephen Colbert, the person, is truly a conservative Republican and do not fully understand that he’s mocking them.  Even though this is a late night show on Comedy Central it is still informative.  When the Supreme Court ruled in the Citizens United case Colbert illuminated the process and involvement of the 501(c)(4) and Super PACs and what and how they can use their money by creating his own Super PAC.  Throughout a series of episodes portions were dedicated to his Super PAC “Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow” (parodying names of other actual Super PACs) and discussing the ramifications of the Court’s decision in where the money is coming from and where it is spent.  Colbert actually won a Peabody award for his SuperPAC segments as “innovative means of teaching American viewers about the landmark court decision” (Subramanian).
          Last Week Tonight with John Oliver is another show that mocks cable news.  What’s unique about this show is that since its broadcast on HBO it doesn’t rely on sponsors so Oliver can freely criticize corporations.  A benefit of having no advertising is that there are no commercials and thus more time to actually do journalism and provide more in depth reporting.  John Oliver can spend more time discussing important issues like payday loans in the United States, student debt from for-profit institutions of higher learning like University of Phoenix, or civil forfeiture.  These serious problems, which receive little to no air time on other news shows, are presented in an informative and humorous way.  
        All three shows have millions of viewers and are important to the national conversation.   For example if Jon Stewart disparages Bill O’Reilly on his show O’Reilly will then refute what Jon was discussing on his own show The O’Reilly Factor.  When they are being referenced in the mainstream media they are helping to bring certain issues to the forefront of cable news.  Even though they are biased they still bring up issues that perhaps the mainstream media is largely ignoring or not reporting on enough.  These shows educate the viewer through humor and provide other points of view than those in cable news.   
 

Citations:
Jenkins, Henry. Convergence Culture: When Old and New Media Collide
Subramanian, Courtney. http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/04/05/stephen-colberts-super-pac-satire-lands-him-a-peabody/

Blog Post 2: Interactive Television and VGHS

Interactive Television and Video Game High School

 

              With the advent of new technologies the relationship between the internet and television was explored by the major television networks and by computer manufacturers.  Initially devices that were created for television viewing and had internet access failed, mainly because, paradoxically, the technology was not advanced enough.  Products from companies like Microsoft were “confined to the slow business of dial-up Internet access” and “hurt by a history of network outages” (Boddy).  The ideas of interactive television could not fully be realized until the technology caught up.  Nowadays convergence between internet and television is so commonplace it just seems like an integral part of television viewing.  This convergence also led to a more personalized and interactive television. 
             Video Game High School (VGHS) is a great example of a product of televisual technologies.  VGHS is a live-action web series that takes place in the near future where video gaming is a professional competitive sport and popular all around the world.  At the elite high school students learn a curriculum entirely of video games so they can improve their skills.  The creators and writers of the show turned to Kickstarter for their funding, this action automatically creates an audience that is invested in the success of the show.  The backers from Kickstarter receive special rewards depending on the amount of money they contribute.  Perks range from a signed poster to getting executive producer credit and being able to observe any aspect of production or post-production.  Another interesting reward is “Film Camp” where the creators will teach you everything they know about online video and “help you with your channel/online video dreams” (Indiegogo.com).  This interactivity is beneficial to both the creators and viewers.  The web series platform provides more freedom for the creative personnel because they do not have to rely on and get input from studio executives at a network in order to make their project.      

             Since the web series was created for an online format there are many ways a viewer can watch Video Game High School.  You can access it for free on the production company’s YouTube channel or you can watch it directly on rocketjump.com, the production company’s website.  You can also pay for content via iTunes, Vimeo, and Amazon.  On Netflix there are two seasons available to stream, a behind the scenes documentary of the making of the show, and VGHS: The Movie which combines and edits the first two seasons into a feature length film.
             The relationship between television and the internet is continually being negotiated. Since the 1980’s we have seen many developments in televisual technology that have allowed for the convergence of television and internet.  As technology advances we will continue to witness the evolving interconnection between television and internet.

Citations:
Boddy, William. “Interactive Television and Advertising Form in Contemporary U.S. Television.” Spigel and Olson 113-162.
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/video-game-high-school-vghs-season-3#activity

Blog Post #3

CNBC and Kensho Partner Up           

                       Media technology is constantly changing, allowing networks to provide more dimensional content for their viewers. While these new developments aid the industry, the industry’s success is reliant on the audience’s views, and therefore a well-informed and controlled audience.
            Caldwell argues in his piece “Televisual Audience: Interactive Pizza” that the media industry has been teaching audiences how to use new technologies for a while now. When the camcorder was first introduced in the 80’s, many people didn’t really know what to do with them, so the networks took advantage of the situation and taught them. “Although television itself had been a public target for hit-and-run interventions by tape activists in the first revolution, the tables were turned. Shows like America’s Funniest were instead public interventions into the private sphere”(275).

            So what did America’s Funniest “teach” audiences? It taught viewers that camcorders are narrow-mindedly for capturing family moments, for the purpose of creating keepsakes and personal nostalgia. The network limited the uses of the camcorder as to divert people from creating their own content for mass entertainment to keep competition and an entire industry upheaval from occurring.

            The New York Times reported on November 19^th that CNBC partnered up with Kensho, an analytic software company. This addition to CNBC’s newscasts will bring a new dynamic of insight to the audience. “The analytics will tell viewers and visitors to the CNBC website, for example, how energy stocks have historically responded after a huge snowstorm”. To the audience, the affiliation is showing them what to do with their stocks. Don’t get me wrong, there’s a lot of power in swaying stocks (even if based off of accurate historical analysis), but CNBC is actually effecting the audience in another way.

            Just as with America’s Funniest Home Videos, CNBC is telling the viewer how this information/new advancement is best suited for use. In this case, CNBC is saying that data analysis technology should be used for following the stock market, even though the technology is in reality limitless. For example, a consumer could use Kensho’s software to analyze network or company spending to determine if they want to get involved with the organization, but instead CNBC is limiting the audience’s creativity and thereby keeping control.

            “In a news release, the companies said that they would also collaborate on digital products that bring ‘actionable insights and analytics to ordinary investors’.” This statement not only blatantly states the companies' manipulative thoughts (interesting word choices on their part), but also brings to question CNBC’s view of their audience. This brings the conversation to Miller. Miller discusses the difference in how the industry perceives their audience between Television Studies 1.0 and 2.0 in his book titled Television Studies: The Basic. Television Studies 1.0 treats the viewers as though they possess sponges for brains that will soak up anything presented to them in a brainwashing manner. Television Studies 2.0 sees television as completely not having any influence on the audience. By stating that they are presenting the audience with “actionable insights,” CNBC is claiming to provide suggestions which viewers should and will follow without questioning them, thereby controlling their audience.

Sources:

Caldwell, John Thornton. "Televisual Audience: Interactive Pizza."Televisuality: Style, Crisis, and Authority in American             Television. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers UP, 1995. 249-83. Print.

Kaufman, Leslie. "A Partnership With CNBC Adds Context to Its News."The New York Times. The New York Times, 19                      Nov. 2014. Web. 25 Nov. 2014.

Miller, Toby. Television Studies: The Basics. London: Routledge, 2010. 110-45. Print.