C.C. Assignment.....

Chapter 2: Contesting the Vote

Corporate sponsors, through product placements and online communities, want to duplicate the success of popular entertainment, making viewer loyalty synonymous with brand loyalty. Widely accepted by most audiences, product placement has become a standard for most reality programming. Unfortunately, Jenkins says, "product placements may be a double edge sword." Consumer grievances towards a brand name tends to influence their opinion of the entire show (or vice-versa), along with its other corporate sponsors. Example: American Idol pushes viewers to use AT&T for their call-in voting system. The flaws of this system, and uncertainty over whether or not all votes were counted, have inspired distrust in AT&T (not to mention Coca-Cola and Ford) and put the impartiality of American Idol's producers and judges into question. At the same time online "consumption communities," created by sponsors, have given "inspirational consumers" a place to discuss their frustrations. "Sponsoring such a show ensures that companies will get talked about," says Jenkins, "but it doesn't guarantee what the audience is going to say about them." He argues that producers and sponsors need to use these "scandals" as opportunities to learn from consumers and better understand their "emotional investment" in entertainment property and product labels.

R: The Ecstasy of Influence.........

Jenkins got me thinking about early forms of "consumption communities" that may have existed on the cusp of what we now call convergence culture. Fan sites, of course, have existed as long as there have been Hollywood stars and starlets to swoon over. But Lethem's essay reminds me of one of my favorite pastimes: making mix tapes (now CDs) and dispersing them among friends and acquaintances, something that actually takes a lot of time and consideration. [See ALT readings: audience and context. A good mix takes both of these into account, as well as meaning, order, texture and respect of authorship. Not to mention cover art and overall presentation/representation.] In my world it is an imperative gesture, a sharing of cultural insight, but reflecting on it a bit i realize that it's also a device that promotes music sales. If someone enjoys a track that I've included on a mix, it is likely that they will buy the album. Now, to put this into Lethem's perspective, he argues that a work of art exists in a set of two economies: a "market economy" and a "gift economy." Whereas a market economy is characterized by a "disconnectedness" between producer/distributor and consumer, a gift, on the other hand, "makes a connection." Communities such as mix CD clubs, where members share a listing of single tracks by various artists not only incite knowledge about the abundance of music that is out there, but they also boost the market economy by broadening public awareness of lesser known artists (including those who have either faded into obscurity or can't afford to tour). Above all, this hobby, besides being a creative form of mediated distribution, can be deemed "ethical" (in comparison to mass file-sharing) by both artist as well as industry standards.

ALT: Response/Concerns....

"It is necessary early on to distinguish between responding critically and being a critic" (8). Ponder this alongside this statement: "Activism expressed through academic journals is not likely to effect significant change" (19). Is this a contradiction? Responding critically entails utilizing all available information to form a subjective position around a particular text. Being a critic, on the other hand, involves a greater commitment to this practice, tapping into research methods, analysis, plowing into the immeasurable stream of discourse which has served as the foundation of academic scholarship. The critic is "responding critically" but on a grander scale, achieving this position (a status obtained by tenure) when they themselves become a viable source for further academic criticism. This viability is often evaluated by the degree of objectivity exhibited by the critic-turned-rhetor, and by how well they are informed of traditional standards. However, the maneuver of a subjective position, through which one "responds (and interacts) critically" to a text, never leaves this equation, it only enters into a political dimension. Therefore, it can be construed that "activism" is a constant undercurrent of the academic press.

[What then of "significant change"? This provides the fuel for another discussion.]

[This discernment between "responding critically and being a critic" reminds me of a creative writing instructor I had years ago. She always made the distinction between a writer and a person who writes. A "writer" is someone who has been published, whereas others merely "dabble" in prose and poetry. Her dis-acknowledgment of active student writing frustrates me to this day, though i do consider this experience to be a valuable lesson.]

disclamor...

i added an ongoing list of all the films i will be engaged with all semester long. i include this, not only because film is my favorite topic of discourse, but in the spirit of blogging/sharing information as well as the spirit of this course. Film, through DVD, is the dominant means by which i interact with the "digital world," and has become such an (must call it) obsession for me that, two years ago, i decided to continue my undergraduate studies, after a seven year hiatus, just so i could know more about it, learn its history and engage in its theories. That said, i greatly welcome any recommendations or queries. Just drop 'em here.

R: Intro to Convergence Culture

Convergence as we can see, is both a top-down corporate-driven process and a bottom-up consumer-driven process. Corporate convergence coexists with grassroots convergence (18).

I don't believe that it's just me who reads this statement with "acts of subversion" (not to be confused with "fraudulent behaviors") in mind, as I am quite certain that I am not alone as one whose digital experience has consisted, primarily, of downloading free materials (books, films, music) that most people pay money for. And it's all perfectly legal and within the public domain (Examples: http://www.archive.org/index.php, http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Main_Page, http://www.ubu.com/), ready for my perusal. Considering this alongside Jenkins' discernment between a medium (beginning with its advent remains a constant influence) and a delivery technology (the carrier of a medium, which tends to become outdated), reminds me that there has always been this coexistence between industrial/corporate entity and individual/grassroots activism. The printing press, for instance, allowed for the quick dispersement of propaganda as it also gave private citizens the means to print material that could challenge dominant political systems, and be just as easily distributable (though military opposition is, indeed, not a force that can be reckoned with). And today, with copy machines, a manager of a retail clothing outlet can rattle off as many copies of his/her advisement campaign as someone with a small budget handing out leaflets protesting the ethics behind that company's reliance upon sweatshop labor.

[I can't help thinking about a scene from Streetwise (1984), a documentary film about street kids living in Seattle. A common means of food was to take advantage of Pizza Hut's over-the-phone ordering system. Call in several pizzas (with equal distribution of toppings) from a pay-phone across the street. The restaurant calls back to confirm the order. Order is confirmed. When no one arrives to pick them up, the (still hot) pizzas get thrown into the dumpster. One hour wait time and food for a day or two.]

My focus here, actually, is on the distribution of knowledge, not as a commodity, but as a necessity (nourishment even). As restrictions are enforced, somehow people tend to find a way around them.

[End of rant.]

response to "the rhetorical situation"...

What seems to be undermined, in the arguments of Bitzer and Vatz, is the frequency by which either the rhetorical situation (Bitzer) or the translation of information into meaning (Vatz) occurs. If one considers the ever-broadening definition of the term “text” to encompass any thing, event or action that signifies “something” and bears with it a lexicon of personal and culturally shared meanings, the narrowness of (particularly) Bitzer’s viewpoint, with its dominant emphases on oral and literary tradition, becomes apparent. He is correct in defining rhetoric as “a mode of altering reality” and as “(creator) of discourse.” However, Bitzer’s professed “three constituents of the rhetorical situation” (exigence: a situation which demands response or action; audience: receiver—by rhetor—of the response or action; and constraint: fact or belief that influences both rhetor and audience), lacks proper attention to the nature of a text, in its broad sense, as an unstable (that is, ever-shifting) carrier of meaning and potential site of struggle. The rhetorical situation, set off by exigency, according to Bitzer, “invites a fitting response.” The response that is “fitting,” (again Bitzer’s view) is a perception shared by the rhetor’s audience, rather than (my view) the response as a means towards further discourse, with the result, eventually (or never), arriving at an impasse. A rhetorical situation, in short, occurs in correspondence with an ideology, revealing itself in base interactions that we hardly ever think about.