What: Roundtable discussion titled “Hacking the Ivory Tower: The Intersections of New Media, Academic Scholarship, and Pedagogy”

Why: In the past 5 years, FlowTV.org, Radio-TV-Film’s online journal of new media and television, has published 800 columns from more than 300 scholars around the world. To celebrate we are hosting an interdepartmental roundtable discussion with scholars from across UT, immediately followed by DRINKS at the Dog & Duck Pub.

When: Friday, October 30 @ 4:00

Where: Chicano Culture Room of the Texas Union
Immediately followed by BEER at Dog & Duck Pub (406 W. 17th Street)

Who: Roundtable Participants include
Michael French, Co-Editor-in-Chief of Pterodáctilo; Spanish/Portuguese Dept.
Randy Lewis, American Studies
Sean McCarthy, Rhetoric & Writing
Neil Nehring, English
Tanya Rabourn, School of Information
Sharon Strover, Radio-Television-Film

The audience is strongly encouraged to participate in this discussion

This event is made possible by generous donations from the Department of Radio-Television-Film.

Please feel free to redistribute.

Social media have created new ways for individuals to communicate and share information. Technologies such as blogs, Twitter, social networking sites (e.g. Facebook, MySpace, Bebo, Orkut, etc.), wikis, Second Life, digg, Last.fm, FlickR, etc. have become increasingly pervasive. Social media are being used by celebrities, athletes, journalists, politicians, TV personalities, musicians, scholars, news organizations, businesses, marketers, and more. How does the use of social media change the ways we think about identity, community, and interpersonal communication? In what ways are social media being used for political purposes, for collective action, and news aggregates? How does receiving a Twitter message on your cell phone from Shaquille O’Neal or NPR’s Scott Simon erode boundaries between public and private or change conceptualizations of intimacy? Are blogs and other social media challenging journalism’s traditional gatekeeping and agenda-setting functions? Should we be concerned about issues of privacy and free speech? How are certain social media technologies being gendered, classed, racialized, and policed? And as is the case with all forms of media, we must be careful to ask who is denied access and to what effect?

We are interested to hear what the Flow community thinks about social media technologies: uses and users, popular discourses and rhetoric, and the ways in which social media challenge concepts of identity, community, friendship, public/private, creativity, surveillance, and more.

Please send submissions of between 1000-1500 words to Jacqueline Vickery (jvickery183@gmail.com) and Anne Petersen (annehelenpetersen@gmail.com) no later than May 18th, 2009. Flow has a longstanding policy of encouraging non-jargony, highly readable pieces and ample incorporation of images and video.

Image Credits:
1. Social Media Mix

Even if you don’t watch House, MD, it’s quite possible you’ve caught wind of the “shocking” episode from April 6, in which Dr. Kutner (Kal Penn) unexpectedly committed suicide. At the end of the episode Fox displayed a PSA-style ad for NAMI (National Alliance on Mental Illness) and then encouraged viewers to visit a virtual memorial set up in Dr. Kutner’s honor. I was completely fascinated by the idea of a network sending viewers to a virtual memorial after the death of a fictional character and I had to check it out. Within minutes after the show’s original broadcast a virtual memorial on Fox’s website was setup in honor of Dr. Kutner,1 complete with images, a memorial video, an obituary, and even “hand-written” letters from other characters on the show (written in the voices of the characters).

However, I curiously noticed the lack of any and all advertisements or Fox promos on the site, not even an inconspicuous banner was present. By removing any advertising was Fox actually trying to create a sombre and respectful virtual memorial in honor of the recently deceased Dr. Kutner? Were they attempting to create and facilitate more paratextual hype for the show?2 Was this merely a way to acknowledge and encourage fandom? This just didn’t make sense; Fox had to have a commercially-driven motive for the memorial. At the bottom of the memorial there was a link that encouraged users to leave personal messages for Dr. Kutner. The link took users to a Facebook Page (not profile) called “In Loving Memory of Lawrence Kutner”. The page included many of the same features as the virtual memorial, but with the addition of discussion boards. I was shocked to discover over 3,000 people had become “fans” of the page just twelve minutes after the end of the episode (a number that quickly rose to over 32,000) and hundreds of people were indeed leaving messages for Dr. Kutner.

Click here to view the embedded video.

This all seemed very strange, both on the part of the fans, but even more so from the network’s perspective: In other words, what was Fox hoping to gain from the memorial? In an ever-changing media environment in which broadcasters are struggling to gain and retain viewers (and thus advertising dollars), many shows are attempting to further engage audiences with the narrative through increased opportunities for interactivity. However, rather than focus on the fandom aspect of the memorial and Facebook Page (albeit fascinating), I want to consider the ways in which the Facebook Page actually proved to be a rather innovative, yet distinctively ad-free, example of convergence marketing that connected Facebook back to on-air advertising.

When Facebook launched its new interface in February 2009, it not only changed the features of the personal profile pages and the news feed, but it also changed the design and function of Facebook Business Pages, which are public pages intended to be used by businesses, bands, celebrities, artists, brands, etc. The newly designed Pages were still free to use, but now functioned more similarly to personal profile pages. They included the same “tabbed” features of personal profile pages which now allowed the administrators of Pages to leave wall posts on the Page and therefore further encourage interactivity between the brand and the fans. Also admins could now update their statuses (short news blurbs) in order to more frequently communicate with fans. In so doing, Facebook Pages became integrally incorporated into users’ news feeds and personal profiles just like any other profile, thus increasing the Pages’ visibility and virality.

For example with the “In Loving Memory…” memorial page, every time a user became a fan and/or left a comment on the page, that user’s entire Facebook network was made aware of the action and thus of House. And certainly users are aware of this as one individual on the memorial discussion board expressed, “Your profile appears on my page ten times so ten times over you should have stayed on House”. Of course social networking site advertisers are also completely aware of this and are even dependent on these kinds of viral interactions in which the users “do the work for them” (of spreading the word about a particular show,brand, or product). Certainly creating a space for House fans to engage with the characters and the narrative in a public and visible manner is a good promotional decision in and of itself. Presumably though, the ultimate goal is not to merely create online buzz about House or a particular episode since this kind of marketing does not necessarily generate more advertising dollars. In other words, there had to be a way to connect this form of marketing back to the on-air advertisers, the life source of the show.

After carefully reading Facebook’s Business Pages Q&A’s I discovered the following:

“Powerful reporting and insight tools are provided free to Page Admins. On a cumulative and week-over-week basis, these granular reports will measure reach (e.g., impressions, clicks), viral impact (e.g., fan adds), responder insights (e.g., gender and age), and engagement (e.g., video plays and wall posts) of visitors to the Page. One advantage of using the applications designed by Facebook is the ability to receive these free, regular, detailed updates on the growth of the page.”

“Responder insights” apparently refers to the demographics of the Page’s visitors (regardless if they actually become a fan of the Page or not). It comes as no surprise that Facebook and businesses are tracking users’ behaviors and demographics, but this becomes increasingly relevant in the case of Fox. I want to go back to the beginning of all of this in order to more fully articulate and appreciate the dyadic relationship between the Facebook Page and Fox’s on-air advertisers.

Actor Kal Penn decides to take a job at the White House working for the Obama administration and thus needs to leave the show.3 The writers then have his character unexpectedly commit suicide;4 the episode leaves many questions unanswered, both for the characters and the audience. Knowing the unexpected death of a character would evoke a strong emotional reaction from the viewers, Fox was able to capitalize upon this narrative strategy by encouraging fans to interact with each other in a designated virtual space. In a wise move, the producers direct viewers to a virtual memorial rather than directly to a Facebook Page. Arguably the virtual memorial aroused greater curiosity than a Facebook page would have had it been advertised at the end of the episode. However, in order to create an ambiance and mood, Fox also wisely chose not to clutter the memorial with advertisements or discussion boards (which would have felt like a marketing move rather than a legitimate memorial and/or fan space), but rather redirected fans from the memorial to a Facebook page. Entering the Facebook Page in this less direct manner probably felt less “cheesy” or corporate-driven than it would have had Fox simply encouraged viewers to go directly to Facebook.

Once users were on Facebook however, Fox was provided with an instant demographic snapshot of House viewers – their gender, age, location, sexuality, and probably even their political and religious affiliations (since all of this information is privileged as “basic demographics” at the top of a Facebook profile). It is important to note that this snapshot is of course limiting and limited (by those with computers, internet access, and maybe a higher level of fan motivation), but nonetheless extremely valuable to Fox. While Nielson ratings, focus groups, and other market research certainly provide insight into who is watching House, the “In Loving Memory…” Page operates in a similar yet even more direct manner. And so we come full circle: While the demographic information collected via Facebook may not necessarily earn money within Facebook it can be used to sell more market-specific on-air advertisements.

While we are all aware that Facebook is selling our demographic information to marketers, I think it is interesting to consider the ways in which television is also capitalizing from the convergence of social media such as Facebook. While Dr. Kutner’s virtual memorial and even the Facebook page may feel like a “genuine” or “authentic” fan space, due to the lack of visible advertisements as well as the “organic” feel of Facebook, a closer analysis demonstrates the ways in which networks are perhaps becoming more savvy purveyors within convergent environments.

Image Credits:
1. Screenshot of Dr. Kutner’s virtual memorial – author’s screenshot accessed via Google cache
2. Author’s screenshot of the Facebook Page
3. Dr. Kutner with his adoptive parents, photo taken from the Facebook memorial photo gallery
4. Front Page Image

Please feel free to comment.

1. This has since been taken down, but is still available through Google cache, at least for the time being.
2. The show had been heavily promoted and was “highly-anticipated”, although from reading blogs and messages boards it seems that nobody predicted Dr. Kutner’s suicide.
3. Interestingly, one user remarked “Damn you Obama, first you screw up the economy and then this?!?! Where will it end?” Conservative, anti-Obama sentiment was surprisingly common on the Facebook Page discussion threads.
4. Several viewers interpreted this to mean the writers were offering commentary on Kal Penn’s “career suicide” decision.

When Desperate Housewives first started making a buzz I was quite skeptical. Why would I want to watch these beautiful rich women complain about petty problems? Or worse yet, act out some testosterone-driven fantasy that further serves to reify the male gaze? No thanks, I'll pass. Once a few of my female friends convinced me to actually sit down and watch an episode though, my cynical views began to budge, at least a little. While there is no denying some blatant stereotypical female portrayals, there is a refreshing depiction of femininity, and it all rests upon the shoulders of Lynette Scavo (Felicity Huffman).

Initially Lynette is the stay-at-home mother of her four children; however, she makes it quite obvious that she is a bit resentful that she had to give up her career in order to take care of her children. Not resentful of her children, she nonetheless bemoans the fact that she was a very successful career woman whose potential may never be reached. Furthermore, she openly voices frustrations about the day-to-day burdens of motherhood. Her hair is usually tousled; her children are usually fighting, causing scenes, and embarrassing her in public. While frustrated, Lynette is not ashamed, she frequently gives other women the, “Oh, you think you could do better?” look. Lynette's character attempts to demonstrate the hardships of being a mother and wife. Her life is far from easy or perfect. She vocalizes both the joys of being with her children, but also the challenges it presents, as well as her wishes to return to the workplace. The character thus serves to complicate the binary either-or-sphere of career woman and motherhood.

Through a series of events though, Lynette does go back to work, and for awhile she is even Tom's (her husband's) boss. It is here that her feminine role begins to get watered down by patriarchal attempts of securing dominating masculinity. While Tom (Doug Savant) plays a subordinate role in the workplace, he expresses feelings of emasculation. These feelings transcend the workplace and enter the domestic sphere – a realm paradoxically considered the “woman's place” while simultaneously representing the notion “a man's home is his castle.” Tom explicitly tells Lynette that he has accepted her position of authority at work, but that he cannot then also be expected to play the subordinate role at home as well. A fight breaks out and attempts at resolution are made in the bedroom. But when Lynette wants to climb on top during sex, Tom loses it saying, “You were bracing! You were bracing with your leg! I was trying to lay on top of you and you were bracing yourself against the mattress so you don't have to get on your back!” A resolution is not made.

The next morning Tom and Lynette are in the elevator together heading to work; clearly they are both still upset. Tom stops the elevator and tells Lynette that they were not finished from the night before. He tells her that to save their marriage he needs to feel in control. He begins making an aggressive (though not forceful) sexual advance at Lynette. She at first resists, but is then seen passionately submitting to his amorous advances, and they presumably have sex in the elevator. Not only does Lynette succumb to Tom's dominating advances, but she does so while wearing a suit in her workplace elevator. And so Tom does not merely regain domination in his marriage through sex, but he does so in the public work sphere, thus attempting to secure his dominate role in both their marriage and the work environment.

However, as the series progresses Tom unfairly loses his job and takes on the role of stay-at-home dad, while Lynette becomes the ultimate breadwinner for the family. Having spent time in both roles, Lynette can appreciate the challenges and responsibilities of both positions. Tom however again explicitly vocalizes feelings of emasculation. By arguing that his role is to provide for the family, he is creating a hierarchy in which a career is more valuable to a man's identity than taking care of the children. The underlying assumption then, would imply that a “woman's role” at home is not as important or valuable as a “man's role” (career). If the role of breadwinner and child-rearer were seen as equal, then Tom could appreciate his role without feeling emasculated (since both roles would be valued as equally necessary, important, and challenging).

So while it is considered acceptable for Lynette to play roles in both the domestic and workplace sphere, Tom expresses feelings of emasculation when he can only serve in the domestic sphere. This further reifies the false notion of binary spheres in so much that a woman can work, but she is also expected to take care of the home. Furthermore, by demeaning the domestic sphere to banal and unfulfilling, Tom undermines women who do choose to forego the workplace in order to be fulltime stay-at-home moms. So surfaces the notion that full-time motherhood might be okay for a woman, but it is not acceptable for a man. Does this imply that women are satisfied to serve in a private realm void of public meritocracy? What assumptions does this reveal towards women who choose to stay at home? Feminism is about choice, yet, clearly there still exist bias about women who choose fulltime motherhood over a career. The unfair hierarchy and false mutual exclusivity of the spheres are demonstrated by Tom's desire to re-enter the workforce. One has to wonder, to what extent is “woman's role” defined for the sole purpose of securing man's dominate role?

But returning to Lynette's role as modern feminist, I want to point out her attempts at further complicating the balance of power. She supports Tom's desire to go back to work and she encourages him to follow his true dreams. When Tom reveals his dream of owning a pizza restaurant Lynette is very skeptical and downtrodden to say the least. Tom continually hides complications from Lynette because he does not want her berating him for making mistakes. When she confronts him about such difficulties he tries to make her feel guilty for not supporting him. However, Lynette serves to problematize Tom's one-sided argument. She points out that he is gambling with their lifesavings. She will encourage and support him, but she reminds him that she has a say in what he is doing. Since the accumulation of their lifesavings truly has been a joint effort, she asserts her voice as an equal authority in how he gets to spend the money. And so again, Lynette makes an attempt to find balance in the complicated roles of supporting wife and simultaneous career woman, in effort to blur the lines between these false dichotomies.

While Desperate Housewives may not be completely groundbreaking or revolutionary, and while other characters definitely depict stereotypical views of women, Lynette's role does at least begin to complicate the boundaries between a career and motherhood, while bringing to the surface some underlying and contradictory assumptions about both feminism and masculinity.

Image Credits:
1. Lynette and Penny
2. Tom and Lynette fighting
3. Tom and Penny
4. Lynette at work

Please feel free to comment.