Death by Twitter

On Saturday, January 22, Onward State ”killed” Joe Paterno. It took two tweets: The tweets have since been removed from Onward State’s feed.  The image above is a screen capture I took from Poyntner’s account of the incident. According to Poyntner, the timeline is as follows: (1) Onward State reports Joe Paterno’s death through twitter. The site subsequently goes down, apparently over flooded by incoming traffic. (2) 94.5 FM breaks the story on its own, but credits no sources. (3) CBS picks up the scent. They tweet a link to Joe Paterno’s obituary on their site.  It’s off to the races at that point, as the Huffington Post, Anderson Cooper, Poyntner, and Breaking News redistributed the story. What do all these sources have in common? None of them tried to confirm the reports before clicking the “tweet” button. Joe Paterno, as it turned out, was not dead yet. Paterno’s son and a spokesman for the Paterno family denied the story.

I appreciate the support & prayers. Joe is continuing to fight.—
Jay Paterno (@JayPaterno) January 22, 2012

Dan McGinn, the Paterno family spokesman, at 8:57 p.m. on reports about Joe Paterno's death: "Absolutely not true."—
Mark Viera (@markcviera) January 22, 2012

The question is, how could this happen? Shouldn’t professional journalists know better than to parrot anything from Twitter without checking?

Well, media do know better. As Eric Wemple points out, we should give “Bonus points for all the outlets that didn’t take the bait.” The AP wire, for one, did not take the bait because it couldn’t verify the original report. After all, when your source is Twitter chatter, you should be wary. Didn’t Jon Bon Jovi get the death by twitter treatment last December? As it turned out, Jeffrey Goho, a musician most of us had never even heard of before, started the rumor using Twitter. This time, established media outlets did nothing, that is, until Bon Jovi debunked the Goho’s hoax with this picture.

So, what’s the difference between the Bon Jovi hoax and Paterno’s death by twitter? What made CBS hurry, when we all know that exaggerated rumors about celebrity deaths are a recurrent theme on twitter?

Here’s one possible answer: It’s all about the source. Granted, I’m not up to date on student run blogs. I had never heard about Onward State. This does not mean that the site isn’t a legitimate news source. Indeed, the site has been profiled by the Chronicle of Higher Education and Mashable as an up and coming student blog to watch. More ironically, though, US News and World Report described Onward State as being “as new as Joe Paterno is old.” Ouch!

But, what does this tell us about Onward State? It says that, up until the evening of Saturday, January 21 of 2012, Onward State was not seen as a little fringe blog. It was a little blog that could play with the big boys and girls of journalism. Unfortunately, today is January 22 and things have changed. Now, Onward State has become an example of how not to be a journalist.

@washingtonpost What is Onward Penn State? How did they get tio be a J source?—
daniel johnson (@danielgjohnson) January 22, 2012

My colleague, Andrea Duke, characterized Paterno’s death by twitter as one of those moments that remind us of the “whoops power of social media.”  She writes,  ”You CANNOT report hearsay.  You CANNOT report assumptions.  You CANNOT report news that may or may not be true JUST to be the first to report it”

Yes, and this is also one of those moments in which we should reconsider how news is reported. We do rely on established news organizations to give us the facts, which means that we trust them to fact check. In this sense, Onward State is not the only outlet at fault. They made a huge mistake, and they have apologized profusely for it. In fact, Onward State has published two accounts of what happened, and how it happened. In one, the site’s founder, Davis Shaver, describes the controversy as “one of the worst moments of my entire life.” In the other one, managing editor Devon Edwards announces his resignation. He writes,

“I never, in a million years, would have thought that Onward State might be cited by the national media. Today, I sincerely wish it never had been. To all those who read and passed along our reports, I sincerely apologize for having mislead you. To the Penn State community and to the Paterno family, most of all, I could not be more sorry for the emotional anguish I am sure we at Onward State caused. There are no excuses for what we did. We all make mistakes, but it’s impossible to brush off one of this magnitude. Right now, we deserve all of the criticism headed our way.”

By comparison, this is what Mark Swanson of CBS Sports had to say:

Really? One paragraph is all we get from CBS? That’s unfortunate, and it’s shameful. Sadly, I don’t think anyone expects Mark Swanson to step down as managing editor of CBSSports.com. Fortunately for him, the blame can be shifted to a student run blog, whose own managing editor admits he made a huge mistake.  Edwards writes, “getting it first often conflicts with getting it right.” What’s CBS’ excuse? Why were they more careful about reporting Peyton Manning’s alleged retirement (breaking news, according to Rob Lowe), than when they decided to run the Paterno story? An answer like, “because Paterno was actually dying, and Rob Lowe doesn’t have Manning on speed dial,” does not exempt a news organization from its duty to fact check

Getting it before CNN does not beat getting it right, or at least trying to get it right.

On Sunday, January 22, 2012, Joe Paterno did pass away. Last night’s odd turn of events has become a footnote to a long career. Yes, he had triumphs, and also scandal, but this post isn’t about Joe Paterno’s career. This post is about last night. Frankly, I could not help but think of other times news media has gotten it wrong. I thought about Dewey defeats Truman, but more importantly, this story reminded me of the 2000 election miscall. Four years after one of “the most egregious election-night gaffes in the modern television era,” television news anchors were more than cautious when calling the 2004 election for Mr. Bush.

That probably explains how the Washington Post used Twitter to announce Mr. Paterno’s real death this morning

.@AP now reporting that Joe Paterno has died. We'll have story soon: wapo.st/oat1TM #PennState #PSU—
The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) January 22, 2012

Filed under: Uncategorized, Joe Paterno, journalism, Penn State, social media, Twitter

The Hodag Chronicles: Branding and merchandising in small town America

Usually, I write about media on this blog. I have posted short critical essays, technology reviews, and other academic style work. One thing I have never done is to treat it as a travelog or as a diary. In fact, I started a different blog on Tumblr to share travel pictures, just to keep the personal and the professional aspects of my life separate.

Coming to Rhinelander changed that. It’s a small town in northern Wisconsin, with a population of roughly 8,000 and some inhabitants. Rhinelander is the county seat of Oneida county. It is sorrounded by lush forests and lakes, which are great for those of us who love outdoor activities, like hiking and camping. Yet, to me, what makes Rhinelander really special is a mythical creature known as the Hodag.

Now, if you don’t know what a Hodag is, you are not alone. I had never heard of this creature until I checked into a hotel in Rhinelander. The Hodag is listed as the town’s legend, but more importantly, as the town symbol. Indeed, the Hodag is important enough to have several statues. The biggest one is displayed prominently on the lawn of the Rhinelander Area Chamber of Commerce. This is video I shot of that statue.

It’s safe to say that no one in Rhinelander thinks this beast is real, much to the chagrin of cryptozoologists everywhere. In fact, all the promotional literature about the Hodag explains how Gene Shepard, a logger, created the Hodag as a hoax. This happened in 1896, when Shepard conviced several of his friends that such a creature existed. He had a picture of it, and the evidence was convincing enough to enlist a posse to hunt down the Hodag. As the story goes, the group tracked the Hodag and tried to capture him alive. They ended up killing him, and bringing back the remains to Rhinelander. There is even a photograph, recreating the event.
This picture became a popular postcard in the 1920s (Kortenhof, 2006).

The Hodag also became a popular side show attraction, once Mr. Shepard claimed to have captured the creature alive. He exhibited it at the Oneida county fair, to much success. In fact, the creature brought a lot of attention to Rhinelander. Today, you can consider the Hodag as the town’s brand. There is a Hodag park, a Hodag music festival, a highschool team, and even an entire promotional campaign, built around the Hodag.

This is a great example of branding, and I could not help but wonder what else was out there, bearing the image of a Hodag. There’s the obvious array of knicknacks, plush toys, and t-shirts, which you can buy at grocery stores, Walmart, and the Hodag market place. Here are two videos I shot at the Hodag Market place, and Trig’s Grocery Store.

Now, these things are to be expected, but what I find more interesting are the Hodag statues, which can be found around town. All but one of the statues I have found are prominently displayed in front of business establishments, which just reiterates the connection between the town’s business community, branding, the town’s identity, promotion, and merchandising. The only exception is the Hodag at the public library, which is the only one associated with a non commercial building.

I have to say, furthermore, that none of these statues are the same. One of them, at the Rhinelander Cafe and Pub, has a map of Wisconsin, and a map of the United States painted on its sides. Another pays homage to the troops, and is painted appropriately in camouflage. There is also a Cowboy Hodag, at a BP gas station, and one carve entirely out of a single log, which can be seen outside a real state agency. Finally, there is an entire collection of Hodags at tje Rhinelander Logging Museum.

Road side attractions are part of the American landscape. Many small towns have them, and it is not uncommon for them to use such attractions as a way of branding themselves. The Hodag allows Rhinelander to build up a unique identity, which for a town this size, or any town, for that matter, is actually quite important. Indeed, the Hodag seems to be more important than John Heisman in this town. Heisman is buried here, and his name is well known to anyone who follows American College footbal, as a trophy is named after him. Yet when you drive into Rhinelander on Highway 8, one of the first signs you see is not for Heisman. It is for the Hodag.

Filed under: Branding, random, Uncategorized, Branding, Hodag, Rhinelander, Roadside Attractions, Travel

Blogging from PCA

The PCA/ACA Confefence is underway in San Antonio. This is the annual meeting of the Popular Culture and American Culture Associations. This year, the South West Texas chapter of PCA/ACA is a co-organizer, so welcome to Texas y’all. I will be posting updates and live tweeting for the next few days.

First off, this is a huge conference. The program is a book with over 400 pages. This makes it pretty difficult to navigate, but once you do figure out the layout, you can hear talks on subjects ranging from fan culture, to digital pedagogies, to the relationship between pop culture and life in contemporary America. All very interesting subjects, at least, for people like me who get all excited about discussions that involve rhizomes.

More to come.

Filed under: Uncategorized

Day without Media

I had heard about this assignment in the past, this idea of having students go without any media for 24 hours. I’m not sure who originated it, but it is definitely one of those assignments that has picked up steam among media literacy instructors. I decided to try it out as well, and the results were eye opening.

First of all, it is clear that all my students are very plugged in. Many of them have smartphones, and they use them extensively. Communication, entertainment, information… it all comes intertwined through our pocket-sized devices.

Next, most of my students spoke of the anxiety that resulted from not having their usual media available. Many of them described it in terms of addiction, or in terms of uncertainty about what was going on. Others spoke of media in terms of convenience and scheduling. It is simply easier to organize one’s day when text messaging is an option.

As for myself, I tried doing the media fast. I realized that I missed the background noises from my TV. The apartment was eerily silent, and chores, though they were performed diligently, were just a drag without that background companion. By 8 PM, I broke down and treated myself to Deadwood marathon.

Filed under: Uncategorized

Broadcasting in the United Kingdom (or BBC heaven?)

In 1922, the British government granted six radio manufacturing companies a license to start radio broadcasting. That was the beginning of the British Broadcasting Company, which would become the British Broadcasting Corporation in 1927. About 70 years later, Mike Myers was asking whether we’d make him tea, and if we would turn on the tele to the BBC. And though this was probably not intended as a tribute, it certainly shows how influential the BBC has been. Its significance, both in terms of establishing a paradigm for public broadcasting, and as producer and distributor of cultural products is hard to rival.

It should not surprise anyone, therefore, that any exploration of broadcasting in the United Kingdom not only begins with the BBC, but also seems to revolve around it. David Ward’s chapter, included in Television and Public Policy: Change and Continuity in an Era of Global Liberalization, deals extensively with the BBC. British broadcasting, states Ward, owes its character to the philosophy of public service established by the BBC Charter. However, even stable systems must adapt to changing times, and Ward provides us with an overview of the challenges that affect British broadcasting in general. Multichannel television services, the digital transition, and an increasingly competitive global marketplace have caused dramatic shifts the policies and structure of British broadcasting.

The public interest: a philosophy of broadcasting

In Britain, unlike the United States, broadcasting developed first as a public service, and it was not until the 1950s when commercial broadcasting received a license to operate. However, even the commercial broadcasters were expected to fulfill public service obligations. In other words, they were expected to follow the lead of the BBC, whose public service mandate is encompassed in the phrase “to inform, to educate, and to entertain.” Though this mantra was first advocated by David Sarnoff, the founder of NBC and RCA,  the BBC, under the direction of John Reith, embraced it wholeheartedly. I don’t think anyone would say that NBC did the same.

To inform, educate, and entertain, in its current formulation, means the following for the BBC:

• Universality of access and appeal
• Quality
• Independence and impartiality
• Distinctiveness (covering underserved areas, or areas not reached by commercial broadcasters)
• Encouraging culture and creativity
• Supporting national life and contributing to democratic debate.
• Reflecting the UK’s nations, regions, and communities.
• Playing a leading role in technological development (Digital Britain)

(BBB, 2006)

Under Reith, the BBC reached important milestones. It was the only independent broadcaster to cover the general strike of 1926, it broadcast the abdication speech of Edward VIII, and the it expanded its radio reach to the entire British empire. However, Reith was also well-known for his religious conservatism, which he brought to the BBC. His influence on matters of programming was so important, than to this day, the British refer to the BBC as auntie:

At one time ’Auntie’, the BBC, closed down for an hour or so at 6pm, so that mothers could put the little ones to bed, without distraction. Well, don’t you think it would be a great idea if television closed down now at 6pm, so that families could sit down together and have an evening meal around the table and just talk? (Griffin, 2009)

Auntie knew best; she knew how to inform you, how to educate you, but was not very good at entertaining you, at least, not in the sense of providing you with popular culture fare. Reith would not even consider it; he believed that the BBC should improve the lowbrow tastes of some of its audience by exposing them to quality programming. This is what he had to say about Jazz:

Jazz in its place is all right, but do you not agree that it has got altogether out of its place in the life and interest of a considerable section of the community, and that tot to some extent anyhow it is degrading? (Reith Memo, 1937).

Clearly Reith thought that the BBC should not “cater down on the “give the public what it wants” basis” (Reith Memo, 1937), and since the BBC had a monopoly, it could afford to be dismissive. However, beginning in the 1950s, commercial broadcasting was licensed in Britain. The BBC, though remaining in an advantageous position, now had competition.

Ward reminds us, nonetheless, that even with the introduction of commercial broadcasting, the landscape did not widen until the 1980s. The BBC and ITV lived, to use his formulation, in a comfortable duopoly. Furthermore, because commercial broadcasters were expected to uphold similar public service obligations as the BBC, one of the key philosophical elements of British broadcasting remained virtually untouched. Only with the introduction of satellite did these time-honored tenets begin to crack.

Liberalization to compete globally

Ward does a good job in explaining the transition, in terms of policy, from strict regulations to a more liberalized environment. Thatcherism was an important factor.

Thatcherism refers to the policies advocated by Margaret Thatcher, British Prime Minister in the 1980s. Thatcher was a firm believer in free market economics, privatization , and deregulation. Though many public services were privatized under Thatcher, the BBC was not to be one of them. Yet the duopoly would be challenged through the introduction of new channels, like Channel 4 and 5, and the development of satellite and cable.

With liberalization came the push to become more competitive. Though the BBC still does not broadcast commercial advertising, it had to develop additional revenue sources. This led to the establishment of BBC Worldwide and BBC Resources Ltd.

This is a summary of the sales revenue generated by BBC Worldwide in 2008/09 (in millions of pounds). Total sales = 1,004 Million Pounds, with profits of 103 Million Pounds (Annual Review, 2009)

BBC Worldwide Commercial Activities

View more presentations from iammedia.

Interestingly enough, BBC Worldwide’s (BBCWW) success has brought about calls for regulation, and even for stripping away its ability to engage in commercial activities. In 2007, the BBC Trust, which oversees the BBC, forbade BBCWW from expanding its activities through mergers and acquisitions. The decision was prompted by BBCWW’s controversial purchase of 75% of Lonely Planet Publishing. However, the Trust did not order the BBC to sell LPP. Instead, Michael Lyons, chairman of the Trust, said that this would come “under review”.

The controversy over the expansion of BBC WW is an interesting case. I think it does indicate how  British broadcasting is changing, and how, as Ward suggests, because its public service mandate is very loosely defined, the BBC is very vulnerable to accusations of unfair competition and monopoly. Now, I’m not saying that the BBC plays fair. After all, they still collect the lion’s share of the license fee. However, when the CEO of NewsCorp, of all possible media companies, is one of the people crying foul, and even suggesting that this is “nationalisation”, I have to quietly laugh.

——

References

• BBC (nd.). The BBC Story: This is the BBC. http://www.bbc.co.uk/historyofthebbc/resources/in-depth/reith_5.shtml
• BBC World Wide (2009). Annual Review http://www.bbcworldwide.com/annualreviews/review2009/
• Khan, U. (2009, Nov. 25). BBC ordered to rein in commercial arm. The Telegraph. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/6644337/BBC-ordered-to-rein-in-commercial-arm.html

Filed under: Uncategorized, BBC, British Broadcasting, ITV

Boldly going somewhere…

Whoever sang “it’s the most wonderful time of the year” obviously has not spent time in a cold apartment, tinkering away at a dissertation. It is the end of the year, and it is cold in Ohio.

It is also time for me to wrap up preparations for the next quarter. Hence, there are some changes to this blog. First, I won’t be writing about popular culture as much (but I might share some dissertation stories). I am moving on to my next assignment, and it involves teaching a course on global media. So, for the next 10 weeks or so, I will be writing the occasional piece on the state of public media in the UK, or maybe reflecting on CCTV.

For now, I go back to my regularly scheduled program: the dissertation blues.

Happy New Year!

Filed under: Uncategorized

Blogs of note

Baudrillard and Blair Witch… can’t get any better than this.
Read it here, kudos to Dave Edmunds. Good job.

Filed under: Uncategorized

Participatory cultures: Not your usual politics?

In 2007, Politicstv.com began compiling a weekly top 10 list of political videos. At the time, the site had  been in existence for about a year. They were described as “a progressive political news Internet video channel featuring news, opinion and humor,“  which would support itself through advertising. The goal of the site was to reach out to progressive (read: left-leaning) viewers, focusing exclusively on issues that would appeal to this constituency (MediaPost, 2006).

I would say that Politicstv.com, though still in existence, is not one of the most successful ventures attempting to marry politics and cyberspace. In fact, when I set out to look for political viral videos, the first site I thought of was JibJab. They first came into the limelight of American public consciousness with the “This Land is Your Land” video, featuring John Kerry and George W. Bush. Though JibJab began as an outlet for political satire, by 2007 it had expanded into the on-line card business. In fact, they brought us another internet classic: Elf Yourself (Mcarthy, 2009).

Without a doubt, most political organizers in the United States look to the internet to enhance political participation. The Internet’s promises access to one of the most coveted demographics: the elusive “young voter,” the 18-34 year-olds who spend a significant amount of their time online. Furthermore, the Internet is inherently democratic: you do not need a degree, a resume, or extensive experience to start writing a blog, or to post videos of yourself on youtube.

So, why not politics? Why not admit that the revolution, as Gil Heron Scott stated once, will not be televised?

Or, as Henry Jenkins suggests, that new media, like the Internet, empower us to bypass mainstream media (Jenkins, 2007). New media are significantly different than old media when it comes to politics and participation:

The new media operate with different principles than the broadcast media that dominated American politics for so long: access, participation, reciprocity, and peer-to-peer rather than the one-to-many communication. Given such principles, we should anticipate that digital democracy will be decentralized, unevenly dispersed, profoundly contradictory, and slow to emerge (Jenkins, 2007, p. 208).

Henry Jenkins is a firm believer in participatory culture. Nevertheless, he, more than anyone I have come across, understand that the grassroots power of the internet is half of the equation. Mainstream media are constantly monitoring online events. Their reporting puts viral video into overdrive. In fact, understanding the relationship between old media (television, newspapers, magazines, etc) and new media can partially explain the difference between politicstv.com and barelypolitical.com. If you don’t recognize the site, maybe you will remember this:

Barelypolitical.com is part of nextnewnetworks.com. This is an online content provider that has branded itself as “TV for the Internet.” The company, which is privately-owned, counts Goldman Sachs as one of their investors. And this is another important distinction between barelypolitical.com and politicstv.com: the first has a clear business plan and investors, and the second one, apparently, underestimates both (at least as far as I could tell).

But I digress… I promise I have a point. When it comes to politics, the potential of the internet works as part of a strategy, and the key aspect of that strategy is convergence:

Candidates may build their base on the Internet but they need television to win elections. It’s the difference between a push media (where messages go out to the public whether they seek them or not) and a pull medium (which serves those with an active interest in seeking out information on a particular topic). The Internet reaches the hard core, television the undecided (Jenkins, 2007, p. 213).

Mobilizing on the Internet

In 2008, Wired magazine columnist Sarah Stirland wrote that Obama owed his nomination to the Internet:

He used the web more effectively than any prior national candidate, harnessing its organizing power to vault over party favorite Hillary Clinton and become the first black presumptive presidential nominee. With an enormous internet-driven donor base of 1.5 million people, more than 800,000 of whom have accounts on Obama’s social networking website, Obama is the first internet candidate to win mainstream success. His online supporters have created more than 30,000 events to promote his candidacy, some of which are still underway in the last primary states of Montana and South Dakota (Stirland, 2008).

Reading Stirland’s article, I could not help but wonder why she did not mention Howard Dean. If anyone pioneered Internet campaigning, it was Dean. This is how Jenkins summarizes the Dean campaign:

Dean raised more money online from small contributions than any other previous candidate, setting a model that John Kerry would subsequently follow to close the “money gap” with the Republicans. His staff used blogging to create a more intimate, real-time relationship with his supporters. They deployed “smart mob” — style tactics, including an adept use of Meetup.com, to quickly launch rallies, drawing together thousands of people at a time when other candidates were still speaking to half-empty rooms. Dean didn’t so much create the movement; his staff simply was willing to listen and learn” (Jenkins, 2007, p. 210).

Obama applied and refined these tactics, tapping into social networks, like Facebook, that were in their infancy in 2004, or did not even exist, like twitter. Of course, not everything was a smashing success. When the Obama campaign decided to announce the name of Obama’s running mate via text message, they overwhelmed the system. As a result, many supporters ended up not receiving the text message until hours later (Vargas, 2008).

Regardless of this glitch, the success of the Obama campaign sparked considerable interest on his web tactics. Meghan McCain, in particular, decried how much Republicans failed to understand and harness the Internet. She suggested that “unless the GOP evolves as the party that can successfully utilize the Web, we’ll continue to lose influence” (McCain, 2009). And utilizing effectively the web is not merely about jumping on every new site that appears on the horizon. It is about having a message that appeals to the voters, and, as McCain suggests, about understanding the times in which we live:

We live in an era where most individuals my age [Meghan McCain is in her twenties] get their political news from The Daily Show and SNL’s Weekend Update. I know this aggravates the old school political operatives to no end, but it’s true. The Obama administration understand that my generation spends most of its day on a laptop or a BlackBerry, and that using the web is easy way to communicate their ideas to their constituents. Making a website, Facebook group, or YouTube video entertaining and enticing is where grassroots campaigning begins (McCain, 2009).

To be fair, not all Republicans are as resistant to the Internet. McCain herself is an excellent example. However, she notes, with frustration, the disconnect between the Republican party and young voters. It is also worth noting that the demographic composition of the nation is changing dramatically. In other words, “the overall U.S. electorate is becoming less conservative, less white, and younger, while Republican voters are getting older, whiter, and more conservative” (Koppelman, 2008).

Maybe it’s time, like McCain suggests, to rethink the usefulness of videos like this one.

References:

• Jenkins, H. (2007). Convergence Culture: Where old and new media collide
• McCain, M. (2009). Why Republicans don’t get the Internet.

Filed under: Class notes, Uncategorized, campaigns and elections, convergence culture, Henry Jenkins, Meghan McCain, Obama, participatory culture, politics, popular culture and elections., viral video

Women in American popular culture

Popular culture may seem all vapid and superficial, but it is undeniable that the most significant ideological battles of the Twentieth Century seep into popular forms of entertainment. Civil Rights spawned very special episodes on Little House on the Prairie, and Women’s Liberation opened the door to Mary Tyler Moore. The problem is, though, that when popular culture reflects upon contemporary social issues, the schizophrenia often ensues. Conflicting value systems and interests make for representations of daily life that have little resemblance to actual daily life. This is the main point of Susan Douglas’ book, Where the Girls Are.

Chapter Two of Douglas’ book (Mama Said) deals with images of motherhood in popular culture. Douglas states that these images are far removed from reality, and that they cause frustrations upon those who consume them. In other words, they imposed impossible ideals upon real women. They were expected to be perfect housekeepers:

No wonder so many of our mothers were pissed. They worked all the time with little or no acknowledgement, while their ingrate kids watched TV shows that insisted that good mothers, like true princesses, never complained, smiled a real lot, were constantly good-natured, and never expected anything from anyone. when our mothers sat back to relax in front of the TV after twelve- to fifteen-hour day, they were surrounded by allegories about masculine heroism and the sanctity of male gonads. Rarely, if ever, did they see any suggestion that the incessant, mundane, and often painful contortions of a woman’s daily life might, in fact, be heroic too (Douglas, 1995, p. ).

Television in the 1950s limited women’s role to the domestic sphere; women were expected to keep an immaculate house, while the men went out into the real world to earn a paycheck. In American culture, this idea was expressed as the separate spheres ideology. According to it, men and women were biologically, morally and spiritually different, and these differences were ordained by god. Men were aggressive, rational, independent, and strong, whereas women were passive, irrational, submissive, nurturing and weak. Because of their natural characteristics, men and women were destined to function in separate spheres of influence; the men would rule the public sphere, and the women would reign over the domestic sphere (Lavender, 1998).

Catherine Beecher was an influential, albeit contradictory, advocate of the separate spheres ideology. Beecher, who was a member of a prominent New England family, believed that women should be educated, but only because of their role as mothers, caretakers, and educators. Catherine thought, therefore, that the most significant contribution that a woman could make to the democratic process was bringing up the men to be upstanding citizens:

The success of democratic institutions, as is conceded by all, depends upon the intellectual and moral character of the mass of people. If they are intelligent and virtuous, democracy is a blessing; but if they are ignorant and wicked, it is only a curse, and as much more dreadful than any other form of civil government, as a thousand tyrants are more to be dreaded than one. It is equally conceded that the formation of the moral and intellectual character of the young is committed mainly to the female hand. The mother forms the character of the future man; the sister bends the fibres that are to be hereafter the forest tree; the wife sways the heart, whose energies may turn for good or for evil the destinies of the nation. Let the women of this country be virtuous and intelligent, and the men will certainly be the same. The proper education of a man decides the welfare of an individual; but educate a woman, and the interests of a whole family are secured (Beecher, 1849, 36-37)

The separate spheres argument is a patriarchal one. Patriarchy is a belief system that sustains that men are superior to women, and are thus entitled to privileges that women should not aspire to, or enjoy. In patriarchal systems there is a clear distinction between roles and spheres, with men dominating the public sphere, and women restricted to the domestic one.

In the 1960s, Betty Friedan would re-introduced the separate spheres argument; however, she would call it  the feminine mystique, and would argue that it kept women from reaching their full potential:

The feminine mystique says that the highest value and only commitment for women is the fulfillment of their own femininity. It says that the great mistake of Western culture, through most of its history, has been the undervaluation of this femininity. It says this femininity is so mysterious and intuitive and close to the creation and origin of life that man-made science may never be able to understand it. But however special and different, it is in no way inferior to the nature of man; it may even in certain respects be superior. The mistake, says the mystique, the root of women’s troubles in the past is that women envied men, women tried to be like men, instead of accepting their own nature, which can find fulfillment only in sexual passivity, male domination, and nurturing maternal love (Friedan, 1963, p. 43).

According to Douglas, the feminine mystique ideology did not take hold of American society until the late 1950s. However, once it did, the feminine mystique confronted American women with conflicting expectations. On the one hand, they were expected to be consumers, but were depicted as irrational, childlike, and incapable of logical judgment. On the other hand, they were also expected to reign supreme in the domestic sphere, even though the domestic economy often requires both parents to work outside the home.

For Empey, the problem with motherhood is about incompatible institutions. The public sphere, that of government, schools, and the economy, place impossible demands upon the domestic sphere, and thus individuals can participate fully in one, but not both:

When institutions are coordinated individuals can participate in the activities of one institution without being prevented from participating in the activities of other institutions. When individuals cannot participate in more than one institution, we have good reason to think that something has gone wrong – that our institutions aren’t allowing us the freedom they should (Empey, 69).

But, how much freedom do our institutions really allow for? According to French theorist Louis Althusser, institutions serve the interests of a ruling class, and no ruling class can “hold state power over a long period without at the same time exercising its hegemony over and in the State Ideological Apparatuses.” (2006, p. 81). These Ideological State Apparatuses (ISA) include churches, educational systems, families, trade unions, and the media. ISAs “function primarily through ideology,” not repression, that is individuals are not coerced to accept a belief system; they are, in fact, free to choose what they believe in. They do not, however, have equal influence over which ideas become mainstream, or how they are presented. Furthermore, ISAs actively discourage dissent because they instill expectations about behavior, rituals, and practices that signal acceptance.

When we think of popular culture in ideological terms, we must ask: which ideology/ideologies are being captured and reproduced through its manifestations? In the case of the representation of women, especially that described by Douglas, patriarchy is clearly evident. However, Douglas also states that not every woman bought into the patriarchal argument, which indicates that ideologies may be pervasive, but they are, by no means uncontested or unchangeable.

Questions:

• What is the image of motherhood depicted in contemporary TV? (please provide examples). How does it compare with the image of television mothers of the 1950s, like Donna Reed or June Cleaver?
• Can we think of all forms of popular culture in terms of ideology? Why/why not?
• What are the advantages and/or disadvantages of using ideology as a concept to analyze popular culture?

——

References

• Beecher, C. (1849). A treatise on domestic economy, for the use of young ladies at home and at school. New York: Harper & Brothers, Publishers.
• Douglas, S. (1995). Mama said. In S. Douglas Where the Girls Are: Growing up Female with the Mass Media. New York: Times Books.
• Friedan, B. (1963). The feminine mystique. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
• Lavender, C. (1998). The Cult of Domesticity and True Womanhood. Accessed on 9/29/09 from http://www.library.csi.cuny.edu/dept/history/lavender/386/truewoman.html
• Empey, S. (). Lois: Portrait of a Mother

Filed under: Class notes, Course matters, Uncategorized, class notes, Course matters, Donna Reed, femininity, motherhood, Roseanne, TV mothers., women in American popular culture

Embedding video on WordPress

In class today, someone asked me about embedding video into posts. If it’s from youtube, it’s actually very simple. All you need to do is click on the upload/insert button, paste the video’s URL and voila! you’ve got video. However, if you’re embedding from another service, like Vimeo, it’s a pain. It took me about half an hour to figure it out, and only after I stumbled on this post by Will Wolf-Myren.

This is collective intelligence at work. Thanks  Will, because I don’t have to re-invent the wheel.  You already have it all categorized and ready to go.

Filed under: Uncategorized, How to