Photoshop for Democracy
Consider the implications that Jenkin’s “Photoshop for Democracy” has for educators, consumers, and citizens. What is the new relationship between politics and popular culture? Draw on the central ideas of the reading and your experiences. Your response should be approximately 900 words and posted sometime before class on Monday, February 1.
I agree that there is an emerging relationship between politics and popular culture, as Jenkins states. More than more is popular culture making political statements. When it comes to entertainment, in many ways popular culture is more diverse and less polarized than politics. I believe television shows such as The Daily Show are more geared towards the political left, but they have no qualms over attacking and ridiculing every part of the political spectrum. In fact shows that aren’t as specific as The Daily Show are adding political ideas and commentary, such as South Park. When it comes to entertainment, and larger and larger spectrum have added in their own critique and ideas on politics. The Simpsons once featured and episode with Bill Clinton, in which he states that he isn’t a very good president, while Jon Steward had a pretty decent George W. impression. I believe it is easier to find popular entertainment that leads to criticizing the Right than the Left, but it in now ways means the left is exempt from ridicule or attack.
I also agree with the idea that Jesse Walker makes, about mainstream media changing based not on what they want to do, but what they have to do; that new media is forcing older media to speed up and change against its will. It is a great example of the growing relationship between politics and popular culture, because in the case of entertainment like The Daily Show, the day a politician says something stupid, by the next there will be commentary on it viewed by millions of people. I ended up watching part of the interview of Jon Steward on “Crossfire,” and it made me think about how differently I view Jon Steward vs other “serious” newsreporters/hosts. There is an upfront honesty about what Steward does, he is a fake news pundit and there is no doubt about it. What he does is for the laughs, for entertainment. There have been two instances however, where he has been absolutely serious about what he says, the first being his interview with Jim Cramer from “Mad Money” just last year, and the other being his appearance on “Crossfire.” In both instances I respected and understood his ideals far more than anything I have heard or seen from mainstream media. On the other hand I agreed with his ideas both before I heard them, and afterward as well. This addresses one of the final points of our reading, about the possible fracturing and polarizing nature of the internet and new media.
When it comes down to it, it is far easier for people to view what they want to over the internet, to specifically seek out and obtain the information and ideas that they understand and agree with. In the article Andrew Leonard (239) states “What I find disturbing, however, is how easy the internet has made it not just to Google the fact that I need when I need it, but to get the mind-set I want when I want it.” This is something I definitely agree with, and am guilty of doing myself to some degree. Jenkins says that push media is usually when messages are sent to the public whether or not they are wanted, and that pull media generally serves people who actively seek information on a topic. Older, more mainstream media such as television and radio are push media, and the internet is more like pull media.
It is without a doubt true that the internet and new media makes it far easier to stick to receiving messages and ideas that you already agree with, to search and find a community that shares your beliefs. While it is true that when it comes to push media you can just switch the channel if you disagree, with pull media you can actively strengthen your beliefs instead of simply rejecting another.
I find that in respect to this entertainment media has changed because of the fact that it is able to keep us interested because we’re entertained, and thus it can still push a political message. I’m not trying to say that entertainment has a set political agenda and feels that its message is easier to spread if people are laughing instead of seriously debating, but more that entertainment media understands its ability to make a joke that is both serious and meant to make us laugh. This goes back to the idea that Jenkins poses, and that in a way Levy does as well, that is that a knowledge-base culture will lead to a more democratic and and global understanding. When it comes down to it, the internet is based far less around political ideologies than it is around common interests in virtually everything. Websites are based off of cultural icons, toys, television shows, social networking, buying things, selling things, art, comics, etc. Tens of thousands of online communities exist through common interest in subjects not pertaining to politics. Yet these communities can still be the basis for debating and sharing issues, political and not. This is the most important role of new media of the internet, of a knowledge-based culture, the ability to bring together people of vastly different backgrounds and beliefs based on shared interest. This is what fuels Levy’s ideals on democratic and global understanding, and it is what’s needed in order to move his ideas forward. But this is only the background, the set up. As Jenkins says, “experimentation and conscious effort” (238) are needed for Levy’s “achievable utopia.” (235)
The most interesting aspect of the article to me was the references to the Sims game. First of all I had no idea that the game had so many realistic features and that people really actively participated in this community. I found it particularly amusing that there were even debates about the cyber world presidential elections on NPR shows. I suppose my naïveté is something of a hindrance to the argument that politics and popular culture are coming together, especially since I am of a younger age bracket, but this is nevertheless an interesting idea. To actually have political debates between characters played by a 21 year old man and a middle school girl named Ashley is unbelievable and helps show a sort of progress in our society. This is not only a younger person, well below the voting age, who is running for the “presidency,” but this is also a girl running, which at the point of this article had never occurred with any United States Presidential election. This popular culture game is motivating young people to get involved, even if only in the cyber world. As we saw from Ashley, after her Sims defeat she did not simply hang up the towel and give up on politics, but instead prompted action: “One might imagine that a broken election within a game might destroy any sense of empowerment in real-word politics, yet Ashley and her supporters consistently described the events as motivating them to go out and make a difference in their own communities, to become more engaged in local and national elections, and to think of a future when they might become candidates and play the political game on different terms” (232). For such a relatively young girl this ability to bounce back and take this as a lesson to do more for the world is exceedingly mature and shows the ability the modern world and popular cultures have over people. Ashley was only playing a game when she ran for president of Alphaville, but this game influenced her life and taught her a political lesson that will likely influence her throughout her life, causing her and her friends to be more active at an earlier age as well as keeping up that activity once they are of legal voting age. This game taught Ashley a lesson in societal responsibility that many learn much later, if ever.
Beyond the Sims example of popular culture influencing politics, I saw a great deal of ways that this could be used for educators. As a prospective teacher myself I was thinking throughout the article how this idea could be used within the classroom. There are numerous ways that you could use the Sims specific idea by creating something similar for a sole classroom or even for the entire school where roles are randomly assigned to students and teachers alike and there is an opportunity to play a role you would not otherwise be able. Teachers could then use this as a jumping off point for discussions on society, political involvement, government, etc. I could also see a great deal of benefit in doing exercises on diversity where you find out many of the differences between yourself and others in the class, but then find similarities that actually bring you together. This could aid in creating a world where friends don’t say things like, “I suppose Nazis had friends too but I wouldn’t want to associate with any myself” (235-6) upon finding out that you happen to associate with Republicans. So much of the anger in politics comes from a belief that the other side is so unbelievably different than you. Democrats and Republicans are not from different planets; teaching that to students at a young age could be extremely beneficial in creating more comfort with the idea of voting naked because there would be greater acceptance among people, as well as simply allowing you to recognize commonalities with people rather than always getting hung up on differences.
I also found the idea of blogging to be quite intriguing. At the point of this article, blogging was not quite as mainstream a it is today, but it is very important to the populace of this country. People are constantly blogging of commenting on online articles at the bottom of the page. This age of communication has made it extremely easy for anybody with a computer to have their voices heard. However, as the article stated, a problem can come of this as well. All too often people are online just posting their thoughts on a website, which is subsequently read by some like-minded, but also ill-informed person who takes the blogger’s word for fact. This then creates a stream of misinformation that gets passed around from person to person, often building in nature to a degree that students begin using these ideas for class work, citizens start complaining about the validity of a government decision, and consumers start spending differently. And all this because someone decided to write something online without any real knowledge on the topic. This viral world can be a tremendous benefit in allowing people to share their thoughts and views of the world with more people, but when people start believing sites like Wikipedia are full of reliable information, something has gone wrong.
The nature of our society today is one where people are much more interested in whether Brad and Angelina are having marital troubles than what that white guy under Obama—what’s his name? Oh yeah, Joe Biden—is doing today. The only way to remedy this very flawed outlook on the world is to make politics part of popular culture, to make politics fun and interesting again. When there are so many more opportunities that present themselves to kids of the world today, it is a struggle to keep them interested in anything, much less politics, but by using the popular cultures and new innovative ideas, we can get people even as young as Ashley involved and interested in politics. It will surely be slow progress, but once we start getting children involved in politics from a younger age, the face of the United States will dramatically change.
I think that politics and popular culture just cannot be thought of as two mutually exclusive arenas any more. In “Photoshop for Democracy,” Jenkins discusses how influential new media was in the 2004 presidential election, and now after the election of 2008, the connection is even more defined. In 2004, new media sources, like blogs, YouTube, comedy news shows, Jenkins tells us, helped to draw in new voters by making political information accessible to those who were not necessarily “into politics.” In the most recent election, this trend definitely continued; in fact, I believe it increased. There was hardly a moment when the leading campaigns were not splashed across not only news programs, but MTV, VH1, Comedy Central – even Facebook. I think that should serve as the clearest indicator the political and popular spheres overlapping: the year Facebook got political. Almost every one of my friends, all college sophomores or younger, would display encouragement for their chosen candidate on their statuses or become fans of a campaign. The most entertaining though, was that each candidate actually made (or paid someone to make) their own Facebook page so that their supporters could friend them. So Barack Obama could be as personal and as accessible to you as your best friend…or at least that guy in your Poli-Sci class…
That was a bold move by the 2008 candidates, but I think it was a good one. It shows how entirely the barrier between the new popular media space of this generation and the traditional media sources of generations past has dissolved. This is a truth that Jenkins brings out in his this chapter, and the implications are clear. More information is available and interesting to more people than ever before. Teens and young adults that do not tune in for the nightly news, are staying informed on the issues anyway because it’s on their Facebook News feed, it’s on their late night television programming, and it’s what their favorite celebrities are all talking about anyway. This means that the demographic of who society considers “experts” is changing – the power is shifting. Where I go to find out what’s going on in the world I certainly don’t pick up a news paper, and I rarely flip to Anderson Cooper 360. What I might do though, is open up my Yahoo homepage, click through the headlines, and Google the items that interest me. From there, who knows where my information will come from? It doesn’t have to be an internationally recognized, highly paid, and expensively educated old person anymore. It might be the news blog of a politically aware high school kid in Germany who doesn’t have to censor himself due to ratings, funding, etc. He might be able to give me a fresh and interesting perspective that I would not have found anywhere else. What’s more, is that we could then potentially communicate. I would be able to ask questions, share my opinion, and start a conversation that would create new information – I can’t really chat with Anderson Cooper.
I think that this is a really interesting movement. The rich and the powerful no longer own all of our media space. Instead people like Obama Girl have the opportunity to share their views on YouTube, and get millions of hits – thereby spreading information and participating in the a political issue. It’s like some kind of public rebellion or revolution. Jenkins writes, “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 one-to-many communication” (208). The people no longer want to be dominated by information sources they cannot participate in. Instead, they are creating new channels of communication to get involved in the issues, reach out to one another, and spread information themselves – rather than passively listening to whatever CNN decides to air. What he goes on to predict as long term effects of this new democratic media style is “a changed sense of community, a greater sense of participation, less dependence on official expertise and a greater trust in collaborative problem solving” (209). These all sound like good ideas to me, so I am hoping that this new media wave is not just some kind of trend. I think that it will lead to a better educated public in which citizens take greater interest in what goes on in their country and begin to do so a much earlier age. This what democracy is supposed to be all about, right? We the people caring enough to inform ourselves and get involved in making good decisions that will lead to a more perfect union…or help us pursue happiness?
This sounds ideal, but like any other revolution, it’s not just about wiping out the old ways and replacing them with all of our newfangled ideas. I am all for using Facebook, blogging sites, Twitter, and YouTube to create a more conscious American public, but I worry that some young people may be too hasty in turning away from our traditional information sources entirely. Moderation is always the key. New and old media must blend and work together to reach the greatest number of people.
The first thing I thought about after finishing this article is how it uses its argument to work in its advantage. Jenkins brings in popular culture in his argument to make important points. He uses numerous media references to reach the largest group and make all of the information pertinent. One example is comparing Jeff Probst from Survivor to Donald Rumsfeld. Jenkins captures the reader’s attention and plays into his American demographics with words. I agree with his argument that the internet is very powerful for political reasons, just as the internet is powerful as any source for information.
Jenkins also spends a lot of the article talking about blogging. Anyone can start a blog and post their political views on their own soapbox. People can also comment on others’ blog, giving people opportunities to share and debate their posts. “By pooling their information and tapping grassroots expertise, by debating evidence and scrutinizing all available information, and, perhaps most powerfully, by challenging one another’s assumptions, the blogging community is ‘spoiling’ the American government” (Jenkins 215). Suddenly, people whose opinions were pushed away now have a place online to be heard. Candidates can also use the internet to share their views and get the story straight on their official pages. Jenkins also addresses the spin issue of campaign cultures. It is really interesting how politics is controlled by words and language. I can definitely see how people are using the Internet and social networking sites for political use. Over the weekend, my mom requested that I became a fan of someone who is running for Lt. Governor on Facebook. She later asked me why I declined to become a fan. I told her that I don’t put my political views on Facebook. I don’t want people judging me and having all that information on a page. Facebook, essentially, is like a hyperactive blog. Users can post all kinds of information that they feel is relevant to their online identity. A user’s online identity can be true to their non-virtual lives, or it be created as an escape. Jenkins uses the example of the game, The Sims, to demonstrate the realm of an online reality as important. Ludlow brings the idea of what these cyber worlds teach kids to the table, but I believe kids know there is a barrier between the online world and a cyber world. Although I am sure there are many arguments against this, a lot of kids may not be thinking in a real life political context when they are playing The Sims. Political messages are everywhere in our lives, including the internet. We cannot say that kids will get the wrong message from an online game any more than they can with a high school election based off of popularity. If this were the case, all information from the internet would reach children and become a huge problem. There is obviously information on the internet that children should not see, and children still have the best ability to be resilient, oblivious, and often have a strong moral compass.
I think something this article could have addressed is the influx of online financial transactions and politics through the internet. On politicians pages, there are numerous videos and testimonies, with the words “DONATE NOW!” under them. Supporters can donate money with a click of the mouse and then have a personal stake in the campaign and the success of the politician and campaign group. The internet has made giving money easier than it ever has been in the past. It catches people at the heat of the moment after searching a candidates page, full of pictures and videos of politicians saying encouraging words and holding small children. The influence money has on people and making an investment is an interesting game for politicians to gain support over the internet.
Influence of politics gains power on the internet as more people have access and knowledge about it. Americans know how to search for the information that is important to them or to find out more information. “The Internet reaches the hard core, television the undecided” (Jenkins 213). Jenkins also points out that the internet can be a great platform, but it must be searched. When someone is watching Law & Order, and the commercials come on, the audience is forced to absorb the content in some way. The person cannot just “x out” the commercial. There will always be differing views on politics and America has already figured out how to differentiate media. Before the internet, there was television, before television, radio, and before radio, newspapers. The American people have their opinions and will find the information they need. As consuming media becomes more ubiquitous, so does our ability to decode it. Seeing a spoof on television is no longer novel or clever, but rather a way to look critically at an issue. I think moving toward giving every person a voice is great. Moderation should be up to the user and should be able to decipher what information is relevant to their lives.
Jenkins brings up the growing number of people getting their politic news and information from shows like Saturday Night Live and The Daily Show rather than traditional network newscasts, like ABC and NBC. These shows have the ability to address political news without the threat of censorship (to an extent) and make politics not only simpler to understand, but entertaining to learn. Writers like Tina Fey and Jon Stewart can openly satirize politicians and their platforms that many viewers can digest not only as funny television, but also as a means to be aware of current political issues. For example, Tina Fey’s impressions of Sarah Palin were funny, but also made me more intrigued to learn more about her. While some may argue shows such as these limit what viewers know about the issue, Jenkins feels the shows are beneficial, and I for one agree. Personally, I love these shows and find them very entertaining. The Colbert Report is another show I love and would fall into the same category as Saturday Night Live and The Daily Show. Honestly, if it were not for these shows, I would not have much of a clue about politics. A couple years ago, I had no particular interest in politics, but then I started to watch The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. I found their jokes and skits to be hilarious, but it also made me more aware of current political issues, to a degree. I eventually caught myself going online to websites like ABC News and such to find out more information on what Colbert or Jon Stewart were talking about, which would never have happened had I not been watching their shows. I see shows such as theirs as stepping stones for viewers to become more aware of the political world, much like how Jenkins views them.
Within the past decade, there has been a movement, particularly in the past two presidential elections, to get young voters to the polls and have their voices heard. Candidates have turned towards popular culture to reach out to voters and attempt to win their votes. Jenkins has noted how politicians, like John Kerry, had blogs that gave voters easier access to him and may have helped sway bloggers in supporting his campaign. With social networking sites like Twitter and Facebook, candidates like Barak Obama and John McCain had fan pages supporters can join and leave comments on, reflecting how tactics have changed to reach out to young and tech-savvy voters. Young voters make up a major percentage of voters in America, and both campaigns became well aware that this generation can be best reached via the internet. While politicians have used popular culture to spread their message, branches of culture have been encouraging the masses to be politically aware. Jenkins had mentioned the major “20 Million Loud” campaign MTV and even WWE presented during the 2004 election, encouraging young voters to get to the polls and reach their goal of twenty-million voters under the age of thirty. I also remember Sean “P. Diddy” Combs and his less subtle “Vote or Die!” campaign as well. With young people seeing major celebrities encouraging them to vote and be more involved with their governments, they have done so at a staggering rate and it was made easier through television and the web. Many companies took advantage of this movement, producing shirts, hats, buttons and so on to sell to the consumer. People wanted to show pride in being politically aware and participating in the elections, and businesses profited from this. Even I had a t-shirt that read “Vote for something” on the front during the 2004 election, and I was only sixteen! I may have been too young to vote, but all the media encouraging youth to get involved and vote made me more driven to be aware of the elections and learn just how important they were.
One other key point Jenkins makes is a reference to David Buckingham and his book The Making of Citizens, which addresses why children and even young adults are so disinterested with politics and current affairs. While they notes the obvious, like the lack of comprehension of politics, Buckingham pointed out how the fact that children are not allowed to vote may make them feel powerless. Jenkins believes in order to get young voters more driven to vote, we must encourage children to be more active and feel included in the workings of our government. This is where educators have the opportunity to help young America get more involved. Students may have to take the Constitution test in middle or high school, but this simply is not enough to get them more interested in local and federal government. Teachers have the opportunity to help students find their voice and become more aware of the world around them. For example, one of my teachers had my class act out a city council meeting. Everyone was nominated for a position, whether it is a trustee, mayor or what not. We had elections with posters and all, followed by our town meeting. It was really interesting; however, I was in third grade and was not exposed to any other political simulation activities ever again, and did not really learn about government again until at least five years later. In order to make our youth more productive, active citizens in local, state and federal government, teachers should encourage them to find their voice and not be afraid to stand up for what they believe in. The internet can be an outlet for students to discover their voice and express it.
The relationship between politics and popular culture is continuing to grow and span across many different medias and through many different situations. I would further imply that it is near impossible to have any popular culture, without some form of political agendas involved. Jenkins provides many examples of where these two ideas cross, he uses institutions from the family, the church and the government. Popular culture plays a very significant role when confronting theses institutions. The very first example that Jenkins presents, which is a very interesting observation, was during the Bush administration. Sometime in 2004 Donald Trump, was involved in a video, that dealt with the firing of the president George W. Bush. I have never seen this video, however, Jenkins states that it “generated a higher than average response rate.” Jenkins argues that popular culture, is popular because it reaffirms and reestablishes people’s ideas and concerns. The media does an excellent job at keeping these ideas and concerns as a huge presence on the Internet and the television. This is only one situation where politics and pop culture are at play.
More recently, with the earthquake in Haiti, many spokespersons have come out to speak about the matter, to raise donations, and ultimately to keep people optimistic. A handful of actors, musicians and athletes are giving teleprompts on television. Now, at first when I think of the word politics, I immediately take into mind policy and government affiliates. These plays of power expand further thant the judicial realm. Wherever the true majority is, that is where the politics will focus its efforts. I would go on further to say, that the Internet is the place for the growing majority. And in the case of a college student, websites such as Myspace, Facebook and Twitter are ones that the majority of college students visit. The facebook world is a breeding ground for advertising and marketing. Handfuls of companies will promote their products and invite students to join their groups and so on; whether they are governmental or commercial. I believe that new medias are not necessarily built for these purposes. For example, Jenkins presents an situation dealing with the site Meetup.com. Jenkins states that this site was built solely for the purpose of X-Files fans to keep their favorite shows on the air, nothing to deal with politics or civics.
What these last series examples have in common is that they all possess the ability to entertain. This is the main reason why television and the Internet are so popular in my opinion. They are becoming less and less of a way to actually understanding information. Rather, it has become a place that is a world of pure entertainment. I think that Jenkins provides a good example, when he mentions the Daily Show as a source of real news for people. I have friends that care nothing about news, politics or world affairs but Steven Colbert and Jon Stewart are rarely missed. When I sit down and watch these shows on Comedy Central, in my experience, ever leave the show with some new found knowledge in any particular area. So I feel that I do not fall in the category that Jenkins suggests. He mentions that many people who watch entertaining news broadcast are more seasoned about presidential campaigns. All in all, I feel that this is somewhat beneficial because it encourages my generation to keep an eye on whats going on politically. However, I also feel that this is dangerous because if politics and popular culture are closely linked, then regardless of who’s speaking there will always be some sort of hidden agenda. I also feel that if the American population continues to prize entertainment, then slowly, over time we will lose any form of discernment that we once might have had.
One last interesting argument that Jenkins proposes deals with people being parts of idealogical communities as opposed to cultural communities. Furthermore, that the idea of popular culture is much easier, and more comfortable to be involved with. We can exit a web page or change the T.V. Station any time we want. But to speak about these issue in the public sphere is harder to do, and in some instances forbidden. The Internet and other medias create this giant collective, where its users become more and more comfortable in the shadows of ideas and opinions. Knowledge has nothing to do with how much information is out there, or how much of it is shared. Jenkins eludes that knowledge dissipates when people begin to all share very similar ideas and belief. I took this as the same idealogical references are being recycled and recycled, and as long as this process occurs then, in my opinion, popular culture and politics will be indistinguishable.
The main point Jenkins makes is that the relationship between politics and pop culture are now intertwined. I completely agree with that. In my experience, the times I take more notice of politics is because of pop culture. I always watch Saturday Night Live, and I don’t often actually watch the news, so sometimes that is how I find out my news. Sometimes I just get on the internet and look up story that Saturday Night Live was making fun of and get the real story, if I didn’t know what was going on yet. Instead of actually watching the news, I usually just read whatever news story I’m interested in online. It almost seems like a pain to actually sit down at 10pm and sit through the entire show. I personally am not very interested in politics, so often the only time I care about smaller political issues is when something is being made fun of. I have several friends who simply watch The Daily Show instead of the “real” news. And, why not? It’s much more funny and interesting anyway. Last year, the skits where Tina Fey parodied Sarah Palin on Saturday Night Live drew in so many more viewers than normal. Those parodies could have really influenced who people voted for. Pop culture definitely affects the voters, and people can use it to influence you in a certain way, whether the person realizes it or not. Maybe there was a person who liked Sarah Palin at first, but eventually decided she didn’t; she subconsciously might have been influenced by seeing so many Saturday Night Live skits making fun of her. Last year, Saturday Night Live definitely wanted President Obama to win the election. They always made fun of John McCain and Palin, but they constantly made Obama seem perfect. So, people definitely use pop culture for their advantage.
It was not just on Saturday Night Live that pop culture influenced voters about Obama. Obama was on the cover of many magazines, and was often in tabloids, such as People. Oprah also backed him, and many people practically worship Oprah. Obama also had a book out as well. Sometimes I think of Obama as more of a celebrity than our president. I don’t think that’s what he intends, but it is just that the coverage is so different now. Sure, Bush was parodied all of the time in pop culture, but you definitely never saw pictures of him in People. Pop culture is becoming more and more directly related to our lives, and that includes with politics. Future presidents will now probably always be dealing with the intertwinement of pop culture and politics. Pop culture is the stuff that everyone remembers, whether they are interested or not. The thing I remember the most about Mike Huckabee from a couple of years ago was that he made a political commercial with Chuck Norris. That had to have boosted his popularity, especially with young people. It is definitely a good idea for politicians to use pop culture to their advantage. If that’s the way people bash their careers, they might as well use it to boost their own careers. Nowadays, we often see politicians with celebrities. That is how I remember John Kerry in the 2004 election. I associate him with trying to get the votes of the young people because he was always with celebrities and was on MTV several times. And for some reason, I still remember that he always wore the Live Strong bracelet, which was so popular at the time. I’m sure that if someone really likes a certain celebrity, and then the celeb is seen with a politician, that person may start supporting the politician solely because he/she likes the celeb. I don’t know if that’s necessarily a good thing, but we need to just accept that that is the way out culture works now.
Jenkins also talks about Howard Dean and how he used the internet to his advantage for his campaign in 2004. That is definitely a good idea, and politicians should start using the internet more for their campaigns because most people use the internet more than any other type of media. And now there are all kinds of online communities, such as Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, and so on. Politicians can use these sites to their advantage, like by making a Facebook group. I think it’s a good thing when politicians adapt to new forms of media and understand how consumers work. Yet, at the same time, I don’t think that should just replace more traditional forms of news. Everyone needs to be able to access reliable information regarding politics, especially for the classroom. I do think that pop culture is changing the way politics work and that we should embrace it, but sometimes we should only embrace it to a certain extent. Educators should still teach their students about traditional news forms and reliable sources of information, and the difference of laughing at parodies and actually believing them. That way, the students will become informed citizens and consumers, but still aware of pop culture and how it affects them.
As Jenkins points out, the 2004 election definitely seemed to be the starting point for the blatant mixture of pop culture and politics. I was only 16, but I remember I wanted to be able to vote so bad because of campaigns such as “Rock the Vote” or “Vote or Die.” The election was all over MTV, and of course that is what I watched all of the time when I was 16. Today, we see more and more influence from pop culture in politics, so as citizens, educators, and consumers, we all need to stay informed through all types of media, so that we can make smart decisions when it comes time to vote.
After reading the Jenkin’s article “Photoshop for Democracy” I have to say that I never really noticed just what influences are going in behind the popular culture media that I enjoy in my spare time. I have always mostly avoided politics, only doing some research whenever there is a presidential election so that I can vote that one time. But after reading the article, it occurs to me that television and the internet, as well as any kind of advertising media, and many other information technologies, are easily filtered and controlled by certain interest groups, and perhaps I really am surrounded by political messages in my favorite tv shows and websites, that I just don’t pay any attention to. This is more concerning to me than imagining that an outrageously biased or extremist view were propagated in a popular website, videogame, or tv series; it’s easier to notice extreme views and to distance yourself from them. However, just how much has my opinion about nightly news, current events, new technology gadgets, etc, been influenced by subtle political influence? Being so unconnected to many political agendas, I am vulnerable to taking on ideas that are biased, without even realizing it.
Thinking about Jenkin’s article moreso, it does not surprise me that the social networking advents of Facebook, MySpace, and Twitter can be harnessed for political uses very easily. I’ve seen it before, and by now I think everyone has seen an example of a political campaign or agenda getting pushed and promoted on one of these sites. For me, trying to steer clear of the political activists sometimes becomes difficult when I get tons of messages from friends who want me to donate to such-and-such, or to vote for such-and-such, and when my friends put political updates into their statuses. I always get a little annoyed, because I prefer my friends to be separate from politics, and it’s become impossible. I know which of my friends voted for Bush, and then which voted for Obama. It was all over Facebook. But I suppose that at least on Facebook you can learn some real, honest opinions about political issues and candidates, whereas I wouldn’t trust TV or most of the news websites I frequent, or any newspapers to give me real, honest, unfavored information. I am aware that in those scenarios media companies have political agendas that they want to push, and it is easy to control what goes on the air or in the print or online, so that information that counters such agendas is simply not available, or at least jumbled or ridiculed in some way. Outside of a major political time period such as an election, however, I just don’t really think about it, and I suppose I ought to be on the lookout, since Jenkins is right that those messages are pushed everyday, in order to reach the greatest amount of people.
Trippi mentions that this great control that media companies have over what messages and information get sent to everyone, could possibly threaten our democratic lifestyle. I feel this is true, though, I have no plausible ideas as to how we in this country, or any country, could counter such a thing from happening. Cable and internet companies are companies, out to make profits, and where money is involved, politics usually aren’t far behind. Politics in this country, and in many countries, has become a great business. In order to reach an office, a candidate has to have the support of enough people in the public, but in order to get that support, they have to have a great deal of financial resources so that they can get their face and their ideas on the cable channels, websites, mail, newspapers, and billboards that people see every day. If they don’t have enough money to purchase advertising time with these companies, they won’t be successful, no matter how great they are or how great their plans of action are. Isn’t that scary? Unlike a highschool presidential election, you can’t just print out flyers and stick them in clever places like bathroom stalls or parking spaces, where people will see them every day. You have to pay for each time your face gets seen by people. As well, because media companies have agendas themselves, if your agendas go counter to what they want, for example if you want to pass legislation to limit sex on tv, that media company probably won’t give you the time of day.
However, as scary as the prospects of media and politics mingling can be, there are certainly opportunities for real social progress if the right people try to sell agendas for good. For example, I agree with Jenkin’s observation that “More and more, groups with ties to the entertainment community are using their visibility and influence to push young people toward greater participation in the political process. MTV, Nickelodeon, Norman Lear, Russell Simmons’s Def Jam, and even World Wrestling Entertainment launched efforts to educate, register, and rally young voters.” I think this is a great thing, since political apathy (the same that I am guilty of) is such a huge detriment to the democratic process. While I make sure I take the effort every few years to at least vote for a president, many people do not, feeling that their vote doesn’t really matter, or that it’s just too big of a hassle, or that they don’t trust any of the candidates at all. This kind of all negative attitude does no good to the country. People who have money or other interests invested in strong political agendas or far biased parties will certainly vote every year, and if people who are not as biased don’t vote, the biases will always maintain control, possibly in the future to our detriment.
“It’s sad that we need a movie about Darfur to get organized and do something about it.” Those words have stayed with me since they left the mouth of my high school history teacher’s mouth. Ms. Hoff was a grass roots kind of woman; after she graduated from the University of Chicago, she left to serve in third world countries with the Peace Corps. She elaborated to our class that during her time there, she saw things just as bad as the genocide throughout all the countries she visited – but she didn’t need a movie or popular culture to know about these things. No, rather, she experienced them first hand and decided to become a history teacher to teach people the travesties that were occurring in America and abroad. She lamented that so many of the students seemed to be learning about these tragedies through what the media fed them. After Hurricane Katrina happened, she organized a group of volunteers to go to Mobile, Alabama – to help restore homes. When a student asked: “Why Mobile? Why not New Orleans? Isn’t that where Hurricane Katrina hit,” her face dropped. She asked the student where he heard this information from, and he replied, “The news.” The student was collecting his facts about the event through what the media fed him, which he apparently thought was good enough. This sort of mentality is what Jenkins is trying to warn us against.
According to Jenkins, “For a growing number of young Americans, images (or more precisely the combination of words and images) may represent as important a set of rhetorical resources as texts” (222). More and more young children process ideas through images; we use video games like Leap Frog to help them learn grammar and spelling instead of using workbooks like Hooked on Phonics. Because we are raising such young minds in such a technologically oriented environment, it is only natural for them to process politics through images transmitted to them via popular culture.
However, there is such a high chance of manipulation when it comes to technology; anyone can access it and change it, and make it what they want it to be. More and more people are gleaning facts about candidates through parodies and what bloggers are writing about. Consider the Obama campaign – what do you remember the most? Do you remember his stance on politics, or do you remember the high popularized red, blue, and white halftone image of him with the word “Progress” underneath his portrait? Or do you remember the phrase, “Si se puede!” When I asked my friends about who they would vote for, many of them said they would vote for Obama, even though they did not even know what Obama’s stance was on health care, immigration, and education. All they knew was, “Si se puede!” In fact, before I came to college, I worked for a non-profit, grassroots organization that promoted immigration reform. Our slogan, along with many other immigration reform groups became “Si se puede!” because we worked in a highly populated Latino community. Before Obama decided to run for president, I met him to talk about his views on immigration, and if he would help us support the Dream Act (naturalizing children who were not born in the U.S. under a certain set of rules). Interestingly enough, he declined his support; but by the time he began to push for his candidacy, the phrase, “Si se puede!” became synonymous with Obama’s campaign. Using this phrase implied (even though Obama explicitly stated on his website during his campaign that he did not support certain rights when it came to illegal immigration) that Obama was a supporter of immigration reform – and many people began to think this way because of the use of the Internet and television. The phrase became so viral that some people did not even know what it meant, but said it anyway.
However, Jenkins isn’t saying that the use of the media, especially the Internet, isn’t all bad for popular culture. There are ups and downs to having such a highly technological popular culture, with the upside being that we can receive information much faster. We can receive live time information about certain events and happenings – and it makes us quicker to react. In addition, it makes it possible for us to research the events or topics more thoroughly. When the Haiti devastation occurred, millions of people began searching online. One of the most popular phrases on Google, Yahoo, and even Twitter was, “Haiti earthquake”. In addition, campaigns and support groups began setting up online fundraising banks to help Haiti; the invention of Paypal and texting make it possible for us to donate money without going to the bank and sending off a check. All these things have shaped our culture to give more, to help more, and to do more.
Nevertheless, popular culture also demands consumers to buy more. We are surrounded by advertisements every day, and with the use of Photoshop and other programs, they are made even more appealing. When we go online and surf the web, there are pop-ups and in-frame advertisements that try to lure us into buying things. With the growth of the internet and demand for technology, we became even more of a consumer culture; we are like cannibals, eating at each other to get the best deals. Take a look at Black Friday, for example. Do you remember Black Friday 10 years ago? I don’t. However, I noticed it more and more over the years. Is it such a coincidence that this happened alongside the growth of publicity, advertisements, and push towards consumption? Maybe, or maybe not – but I do know that technology has changed popular culture, and Photoshop has done more than affect politics.
Growing up in this time of technological revolution in terms of the media, I guess I was not as prone to notice the change as much as older generations have. I suppose that by the time I was reaching the voting age, these changes in terms of politics and popular culture were first appearing. In my own experience, I can say that not enough people told me the importance of being an involved citizen. The only people who actually tried to explain the importance of being politically aware and involved were a few teachers. My high school civics teacher was the first person to leave a meaningful impression on me in terms of teaching me the importance of being politically involved. My rhetoric professor in my freshman year of college is to this day the person who influenced me the most in this regard.
The article “Photoshop for Democracy” mentions that for the youth, the language of politics is “unfamiliar” and “uninvolving.” In the other hand, the language of popular culture entertainment is quite the opposite of “unfamiliar” and “uninvolving.” Surely this is why the shows mentioned in the article, such as The Daily Show and Saturday Night Live, are big hits. From personal experience, I can say that these shows in fact have made me more knowledgeable of politics, and from time to time I might further research a topic which was mentioned on the show. Seeing how research proves that these shows in fact do produce more political awareness in youth, this idea can be used by educators in teaching students. Actually, I have seen many great educators use popular culture to their advantage in promoting student learning. Teachers use “You Tube” videos, popular novels, television shows, and other things to make the material more relatable to the lives of the students. If done well, this practice is an amazingly effective teaching tool.
The article discusses how there have been movements to get young people more involved in voting. I agree with the article when in claims that the youth should be taught sooner about voting and being involved politically. I mentioned how not many people in my life told me the importance of the political world. Since I first realized the importance right around the time when I reached the voting age, I felt a little overwhelmed. So, being taught about the subject at an earlier age would have helped. I have heard of an experience where a middle school teacher used her classroom to educate the students about being a citizen. This is similar to the idea mentioned in the article about the video game The Sims. I do not remember all of the specifics of the teacher’s activity, but it allowed the students to create and run their own world, much like The Sims. The students were able to make (fake) money, elect different positions of leadership, and so on. I believe it was either a semester or yearlong activity, so the students were introduced to topics such as capitalism, government and politics. I believe activities such as these are very helpful because at the very least it gives young students an idea of what is to come later in their lives. Perhaps with practices like these, young people will generally show more interest in political matters.
I thought the discussion about blogging was very interesting. I like how it is thought of as a grassroots phenomenon. Every now and then one learns that a certain newsgroup is not trustworthy because of their affiliations with certain corporate giants, or they censor and spin the news in order to push their own agenda. I feel like this is the case with far too many newsgroups. I suppose the reason why I like the idea of blogging is because I can read a blog knowing that it is not censored. Sure, the information might not be completely truthful in some occasions; however, I still like the idea of blogging because of its removal from huge power companies or structures. Like the article, I associate blogging as the folk song, underground newspaper, or people’s radio.
Jenkins’ “Photoshop for Democracy” presents the interesting relationship between politics and mass media, or popular culture. Today, more than ever, I agree that mass media and culture are very much involved in politics. For example, in the last presidential election, one could “become friends” with presidential candidates on Facebook, and voice their opinions on YouTube.com. CNN and other television news outlets aired Facebook posts and YouTube videos sent in from viewers around the country. While the chapter mentions that “nonprofessionals should not be in the business of reporting in interpreting the news” (217), I also agree that participating in mass media “reaffirms [one’s] commitment to [certain] beliefs and also [moves them] one step closer to political action” (207). While some argue that there is a lack of participation, and that only slightly over half of the United States citizens who are allowed to vote actually do, I believe that it is easier than ever for citizens to have an active role in politics. Even those citizens who are not allowed to vote, such as minors, are allowed to post videos and blogs on the Internet in order to express their viewpoints.
Jenkins believes that there is “a shift in the public’s role in the political process, bringing the realm of political discourse closer to the everyday life experiences of citizens” (208). Mass media offers an outlet to so many facets of life. The Internet allows us to communicate, become educated, be entertained, as well as exercise our right to free speech and participate in the democratic process. Joe Trippi, Howard Dean’s campaign manager, is quoted in the chapter as saying “the Internet makes us smarter, more involved, and better informed” (210). Reading this part of the chapter was interesting to me because I remember how quickly Howard Dean’s “howling” speech spread across the Internet. Several parodies to the incident were posted all over the Internet. Various forms of technology were incorporated in order to poke fun at the incident. Voiceovers were used, the video was edited, and stills were Photoshopped to make the event even more comical. It is hard to believe that a single event like that one could be so detrimental to a political campaign.
I thought the description of Moveon.org and the “Bush in 30 Seconds” contest is really interesting. This is something that I did not hear about in 2003; however, reading about it makes me think how simple it is to get the public involved in a political campaign. Getting some famous faces involved, such as Jack Black, and airing the winning entry during a prime television event, the Super Bowl, is a surefire way to get citizens using technology and to give them a political voice.
Another aspect f the chapter that I deemed interesting was the mention of the Sims Online. Growing up, I was a Sims fanatic. I never actually played the online version; however, I enjoyed the PC game because it virtually allowed the player to “play God” by controlling people and communities. The user was in control and had the power to decide whether to rack havoc or maintain order. I did not even realize how controversial the community became with the online version. Similar to the PC version of the Sims that I played, technology and the media have put regular people in the spotlight and have allowed them to “play God” in the media and politics.
The “Vote Naked” campaign mentioned in this chapter may seem comical, but this notion is quickly becoming a reality. Technologies have allowed us to make a larger impact with seemingly less effort. The notion that “we watch television in our underwear; we dress up to vote” (233) is being challenged in our society. Changes are being brought forth in regards to cultural norms. More culture is being spread to mass media and communication. Technology is quickly replacing traditional forms of communication. For example, in the movie “Julie and Julia,” Julie is a journalist who is having a difficult time getting published. She decides to start a blog. This blog proves to be so successful and it eventually leads to a book deal as well as a movie. As the chapter explains, “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 one-to-many communication” (208). Media now has an impact on everyone: educators, consumers, and citizens alike. Technology is giving students access to knowledge and their own voice in culture during this generation more than previous generations. Most students in the country have access to the Internet. While not all students have their own computer at home, they likely have access to computers at a local library or school. As mentioned earlier, everyone is able to participate in politics and other aspects of our society. As highlighted in the section of the chapter discussing the Sims Online, users range from “a twenty-one-year-old Delta Airlines ticket agent from Richmond, Virginia” to “a middle-schooler from Palm Beach, Florida” (227).
The chapter offers statistics that may be more interesting than surprising, “In 2000, 39 percent of respondents regularly got campaign information from network newscasts. By 2004, that number had fallen to 23 percent” and “the percentage of people under the age of thirty who received much of their campaign information from comedy shows such as ‘Saturday Night Live’ or ‘The Daily Show’ had grown from 9 percent to 21 percent” (224). The truth of the matter is that politics is accumulating something for everyone. It is losing the sigma of being something serious and boring, and is gaining a place in entertainment.
The relationship between politics and culture has changed drastically over the years. It has adapted from being limited, due to variations in certain cultures, to expanding its influence over various industries. Amongst these include; entertainment, television and music. However, there is another industry in particular that has steadily been influenced which is politics. In the American society campaigns are ultimately decided by how many voters you can sway to support your opinions. This is done by appealing to popular cultures. Consequently, the candidate is given a greater chance of success since the voters ultimately determine the outcome.
When dealing with the delicate topic of politics one must acknowledge that many things are required in order to continue its progression. Two main contributors necessary are the broadcast and commercial system and the narrowcast and grassroots system. Regarding the first system, new ideas and concepts repeatedly emerge seeking approval from the population. Then, the 2nd system is designed to analyze and seek new media opportunities. Collectively these systems offer the opinions of society while improving the nature of politics. Another tool, the internet has also improved the relationship between politics and culture. For instance, in Trippi’s book he states, “people were hearing me on the radio, going to their computers and donating to the campaign.” As a result, by using this new technology facts and charts can be drawn out to identify which broadcasting method has the most success. Then from here, campaigns can accurately choose which method is most beneficial to them. In essence this new idea of convergence is established. This idea of convergence is interesting because our culture and society thrives off this style of living.
Culture has affected politics through entertainment in a very influential way. Nowadays most commercials and programs are based off comedy. Thus politicians have adapted this theme in their campaign slogans and public announcements. This was not surprising though since humor is the one thing that can bring unity amongst different crowds alike. It causes people to relax and enjoy life rather than oppressing it. It also causes fads to develop. For example, there are many t v shows that appeal to different audiences. Some of these include, ‘The Apprentice’ and ‘The Majority’. These shows are based off politics but have a humorous theme which is culturally appealing. Yet, this type of humor is different, it is a newly adopted term called serious fun, which is a type of humor that is constructively based but has a semi demeaning way. For example, companies enter the entertainment industry in order to create stronger emotional ties with their brands. This idea may seem manipulative but its goal is simply to gain trust, gather information that will help their company and then change their marketing strategy to increase profits. This is really just an interesting scheme that works and in turn, this type of humor not only maintains the current relationship between politics and culture, it improves it.
In addition to the idea of comedy strengthening this relationship, the question of shifting the public’s role in the political process is also under discussion because the realm of politics could be closer associated with peoples life experiences. The public’s role in the realm of politics seems to be at an advantage but in actuality the public is only used for their votes. In the past, the idea of using common public ideas in slogans seemed to be the answer for politicians seeking voters. However, over time the relationship between voter and candidate has improved because the candidate takes time to identify with the voter’s culture. By acknowledging one’s culture you are able to understand the rationality for their actions.
Furthermore, if this relationship were based off life experiences then there would be an even greater connection because it would allow you to associate with the people. In many ways this is beneficial because it shows that you care about politics but also about your supporters. In campaign ads on t v politicians are seen in abandoned places offering their support to those in need. This expression of kindness is shown because of aiding and understanding one’s culture. In addition, with the expression of life experiences also comes the appeal of the consumer. By appealing to the consumer you incorporate the idea of convergence which encourages them to entertain the idea that the media has to publicize. For instance, if during the Super Bowl, one of the most watched events a year, an ad was displayed based off politics, and it would be entertained by the public just because it is on during the Super Bowl. This scheme has thus drastically improved the relationship because it allows all cultures to benefit of the idea of politics.
All in all, everyone has a say in the direction that the politics of America precedes. Whether young or old, the culture of our society ultimately is reflected in the decisions of our politics. People make their decisions based off who appeals to either them or their culture. As such, the idea of conformity comes to mind because people live according to their culture and roots. As such, if one culture adopts a lifestyle then often times other people will also causing a conformist trend. In this situation this concept is appreciated because its goal is to strengthen the ties between two ideas that help run our society. Without improving the relationship between politics and culture then our society too will suffer any sign of improvement.