The main argument the author makes is that popular culture can influence political culture; it 'matters politically'. Pop culture is everywhere, on the television, on the internet, in magazines. Its influences are inevitable, and are widespread. Politics can have that effect too, but it has to be moreorless sought out, by those who seek it. There are special news channels (like CNN) that cover politics more, websites that cater to that topic more, etc. This article examines how politics can combine with popular culture, by using the same technologies, and influence people to be more concerned with politics, voting and government policies. This 'concept of convergence' goes beyond popular culture and can affect politics as well.
What support does he offer?
He uses various means of support for these ideas. He discusses how in the 2004 Presidential election, Howard Dean made use of the Internet (with blogging) and television, to the two most popular forms of media, to help get the public more engaged in politics. With the blogging, people were about to give their opinions and feedback, with the hopes that others would read it, and ignite a spark in the public's mind about political affairs and campaigns. With television, the idea was that since almost everyone has access to one, he could capitalize off of its accessibility, and allow the political sphere to connect with the popular culture one. He also discusses how two websites, Moveon.com and Meetup.com, have affected politics, with the former being aimed at moving past Bill Clinton's sex life and extramarital affair, and concentrate more the state of the country. He also mentions gaming, and the ficitional living community, Alphaville, that the Sims live in, have affected the way that people who play the game, namely children, think about the government.
Do you agree or disagree with the main argument?
I agree with the argument in general, but there are parts of it that I don't agree with. I agree that use of popular culture can influence how people see politics, especially with the most recent {Presidential election of Barack Obama, in 2008. His use of Youtube and constant advertising, of course, had an influence on how alot of people saw him as a candidate who wanted to identify with the public. However, that was not the reason I voted for him, nor is the reason that Senator McCain didn't capitalize on the media as much the reason I didn't vote for him. I feel like other forms of media helped people to become more aware, like the free concerts, shows, and parties with or hosted by celebrities that endorsed one or both candidates helped, and was one of the main reasons why so many people of the younger generation were so involved. Also, the posters, constant t-shirts, and ways that people could voice their opinions, similar to the Photoshop effect that was discussed in the chapter also helped.
Is the author's support relevant and believable?
Yes, he lists credible sources and websites and uses good examples to support his claims. Everything he says is believable, simply because they act happened. But there is no real side that gives insight, or just an opinion on the other side of the spectrum. There is no discussion of maybe how popular culture has not helped, or can affect politics in a negative way, which I believe at times, it did for Barack Obama. But everything Jenkins says was believable.
In what ways does this chapter relate to the 2008 presidential election?
It had a lot to do with the 2008 Presidential election. Obama had SO much endorsement to help back his campaign. With his constant video updates, celebrity partnerships and involvement, parties, concerts, merchandise, people were able to get a constant update on everythign he was doing, on and off the political campaign run. McCain, or for that matter, no other candidate or President has had that much backing or influence from popular culture as Obama has, and still does. There is a reason why people call him a 'rock star' and a 'celebrity'. He had popular culture on his side, and to this day, people are still wearing his face splattered across their T-shirts, watching his live updates on Youtube, whether it has to do with his latest bill being signed, or his family's new dog. He capitalized on the very media sources that Jenkins discusses, and its worked out pretty well for him, in most aspects.
In what ways did the 2008 election seem different?
There was definitely more of a concentration on appealing to what was current at the moment, namely Facebook, Myspace, Twitter, Youtube, and other social sites. There were campaign ads all over; even gossip sites like PerezHilton.com had Obama's face as the wallpaper for weeks before the election. This campaign was definitely covered more by the media, from everything to late night shows, to segments on Nickelodeon, where kids staged mock elections. It was everywhere.
What is digital democracy?
Digital democracy is the combination of electronics and democracy. It uses communication technologies, like the Internet, to enhance democracy. One example of digital democracy is Alphaville, the living community in the Sim's Online Game, where people can decide on who they want to govern them; Jenkins discusses how this idea can affect those who play the game, namely children.
Discuss your understanding of the term culture jamming.
Culture jamming is a type of political effort at communication, which takes a political issue, picture or video, and alters it to make it more humorous. It can be used with satire or irony, which can make it more relatable to the public, while also engaging them in conversation about whatever this political topic is. The best example, I think is SNL's take on the Presidential debates, and poking fun at Sarah Palin. Admittedly, initially, I was not as interested in the campaign until I started watching the segments; it got me more interested in the politics, and eventually I started watching the debates myself, even before I saw SNL make fun of them.
Discuss the connections between fan culture and politics.
Fan culture is when people who are a fans of something all go to one website and discuss their thoughts and feelings about whatever the common interest is. They can make comments and suggestions on this topic. This method can help people become more involved in politics; support for a candidate or a party can increase (or decrease) with the more conversation that results from people getting together about something they are interested in.
How does the idea of "play(ing) with power on a microlevel" (p. 239) relate to the readings and discussion from last week?
Both discussion have something to do with children and their efforts at power, namely through fantasy. With the discussion of Alphaville, this is the way that they can have some sort of control over government and politics, since they obviously can't do it in the real world. This same type of issue was discussed last week when we discussed power struggles with the influence of Harry Potter. Children can enter a fantasy world and have control and exert power through their various fan communities, allowing them to have some sort of involvement, whereas, at other times they can not give their opinions or voices. Ault groups and organizations, like Warner Brothers, educators, and some religious groups wanted to stand in their way and ruin that for them, by wanting to sue the children over their Happy Potter fan fiction web sites. Its taking freedom away from them, and both situations deal with that, in different ways.
No comments:
Post a Comment