writ-2004

[writ-2004]

Sketch By Emily Harrison

After analyzing "Exploitation, Alienation, and Liberation" by Kylie Jarrett, I decided to create a drawing to express the user experience of advertisements on social media. The medium of pencil on paper was important to represent the old version of communication. I then decided to digitally enhance the photo on an app called Photo Editor Pro, in order to showcase the user experience online and how new innovative technology in Web 2.0, allows us to continually refine ourselves and our communication. The drawing shows a capitalist puppet master dangling advertisements in front of various audiences. The puppeteer crosses are made of online creators, marked “B” for Blogger or “Y” for Youtuber. The portrayal of the Capitalist figure as having baggy eyes, is to symbolize the strain on the capitalist market  and how it can be viewed as unsustainable. In the digital enhancement, the shadows are darkened and a blue hue is added to bring this symbolism forward.

Because of the user based involvement available on social media sites, many users may have a utopian ideal. Where they see the sites as democratic spaces for community engagement. However, as pointed out within Jarrett's article, when a site has no commodity to sell the user, it is because the user is the commodity. More specifically, user data. Social media sites such as Facebook, will sell a users "digital footprint" to companies, so that those same companies may produce targeted advertisements, to then promote them on the social media platform, to sell to its users. So if Facebook saw you looking at photos of dogs or interacting with dog owner pages, you may find an advertisement for dog products on your feed the next time you log in. This rapid progress of online commodity is most commonly attributed to the rise in capitalism. The capitalist market can most easily be described as a worker creating a product for a company, who will then pay him, allowing him to participate in the capitalist market and buy more products. Placing his earned money back into the capitalist machine and creating a loop of dependence. Social media sites can be seen as relating to this model, as content creators post their work online, to gain advertisement revenue, to continue posting online; or when a user creates data on the site, which is then sold, so that the user can continue to participate on the site for free. However, as pointed out by Jarrett, users and content creators alike willingly agree to participate in this model, when you sign the terms and agreements/ terms of service. Moreover, the pleasure gained by users and content creators, from participating on these sites has personal value on their own.

Jarrett goes on to point out that not all value is monetary value and that when users participate on these social media sites, what they are gaining is community determined value. When we use sites like Facebook, we are not just participating in a financial economy but a social and cultural economy. Within the drawing, many of the users are willingly participating and engaging with the content being displayed to them for this reason. Moreover, they are clumped together to symbolize the community value found within online "virtual homes" as outlined by Warnick and Heineman. "Virtual homes" allow specific communities, a space within the online rhetoric of the digital world and allow them to connect with people of similar values; many of the users within the drawing are portrayed as children to symbolize the family feeling of community engagement. None of the drawn users appear stressed or concerned because they have agreed to participate in this model, with the advertisements, in order to engage with the dangling influencers. The content creators are portrayed as the puppet crosses because they are considered the driving force in user engagement. The term "influencer" is often used to brand content creators as such. They mainly achieve this through reciprocity and the validation of their fan base, as outlined by Morrison. Influencers will often listen to their fans concerns and state that they are valid, in turn allowing the fans to praise the validation and achieve a mutually stimulated loop; in which both are validated by each other in their online communication. This also allows users to know that they exist outside of the advertisement algorithm and as more than just data, but real fans, fandom or a “virtual home”.

However, in connecting to the main message of the drawing, capitalism is a tired practice. In sociological theory, it is not a sustainable societal model. As a mass amounts of product are being created in todays ecommerce society, and popular social media sites become the driving force in sales, the market is producing too many products. Moreover, the market is not paying users enough to allow them to purchase all these products. The theory goes, that eventually the market will start accumulating losses because there is simply too much product and not enough buyers. Furthermore the monopoly that is happening within companies, allows for one company to dominate a category with so much product, that it will end up competing with itself. Similarly, Jarrett speaks about the fear of a "technopoly", in which large sites like Google and Amazon Web Services, will dominate all social media sites. While it is a possibility, that all current sites will be dominated, independent programmers and other users are constantly innovative when it comes to Web 2.0. The internet is not a finite space, like earth, it is infinite and therefore contains infinite possibilities to grow users and user capabilities. To connect to the notion of user innovation, the digital enhancement within the second photo, was used to show that even though capitalism as a practice may becoming more tired and worn out in society, our ability as users to frame it and rework it, is easier than ever. The creative medium of a traditional drawing, that is then further developed, is important in relating to the constant innovation within humanity in the online realm.

Works Cited

Jarrett, Kylie. “Exploitation, Alienation, and Liberation.” The Routledge Handbook of Digital Writing and Rhetoric, 2018, pp. 423–432. 

Morrison, Aimée. “Compositional Strategies of Conflict Management in Personal Mommy Blogs.” Feminist Media Studies, vol. 14, no. 2, 2012.

Warnick, Barbara, and David Heineman. Rhetoric Online: the Politics of New Media. 2nd ed., Peter Lang, 2012. 

[writ-2004]

Summary of “Implications of Persuasive Computer Algorithms”

Within Estee Beck’s article, the topic of algorithms as persuasive programs which affect site rhetoric, is brought to surface. First Beck begins by defining algorithms as neutral language scripts which take in and output data. Beck notes that while many view the term “algorithm” as including human algorithms, or step-by step processes, computer algorithms are completely separate and eliminate human mistake. Beck then goes onto question why digital rhetoricians may want to study computer algorithms, specifically those of popular sites such as Facebook and Google.

Beck begins the analysis by identifying three characteristics of algorithmic influence theory; algorithmic ideology, processes and inclusion or exclusion. Starting with algorithmic ideology, Beck notes that we must first understand the reason for the transactional invention of a given algorithm and its embedded values. For example, if I like a Fashionnova post on Instagram, I may then see “sponsored” advertisement for Fashionnova on that same site, as well as others in affiliation. An algorithm which produces advertisements, values sales and selling as many items to consumers as possible and will produce targeted advertisements in relation to what they like or post on a given site, to increase the odds of consumer purchase. In this case, the data collected, is the user activity on that site and the output result is the targeted advertisement. Furthermore, as stated by Rodrick, technology is a human creation and as such, emulates human values, the same theory works for algorithms. Although many algorithms are viewed as neutral, they are created by humans and therefore  may emulate the values or bias of their writer or programmer. Limitations placed within an algorithm, as set by the creator, can also offer a certain level of bias, in terms of how the algorithm can interact with a site user and ultimately react to the collected data. For example, the programmer of the Advertisement algorithm on Instagram, chooses how and what advertisements are chosen for me and how they are shown. Beck recognizes this as a flaw in the initial and popular definitions of algorithms as “neutral”.

Specific algorithmic processes also reflect the types of data which they may collect. This includes demographic data, rating data, behavioural patterns and transactional data. In other words, what social group you’re in, how many followers you have, what you do on a daily basis and that Gymshark order you just made. The algorithm will take in these input values and generate an output response to the end user. Predictive text is a valuable example of behavioural data. Your smart phone will analyse your texting patterns and collect the statistics of how many times you use certain words and based on your patterns of joining specific words, it will generate a recommendation for you. Therefore creating a transaction between the algorithm and the user and changing how the user interacts with the content. Google is noted for using an extensive algorithm to generate “relevant” information pages, predictive search results and advertisements. Once a user interacts with the algorithm and creates a transaction, the algorithm can specify and move from a general realm, into one of scope and specificity; what Beck refers to as ontological and epistemological points. It is only after this which we will see extremely targeted advertisements, sometimes a little too targeted. How did I know you clicked on that Gymshark link? The algorithm probably told me. As well my use rhetoric, as explored by Warnick. By using a bold font and a hyperlink, the readers eye is drawn to it and  perceives it as important, increasing the chance of reader curiosity.

The Implications of algorithm and their inclusion or exclusion, also houses the ability to persuade a users experience. Facebook did a study where they posted negative recommended content on a users news feed and positive content on another, to test their interactions with the site. Facebook found that those who viewed the negative, responded to the rest of the site in a negative way. Where as those seeing positive content interacted positively with other platform content. Allowing us to see how the algorithms outcome can affect rhetoric of the site and general user experience; Beck refers to this as the algorithm “writing us”. Although they also have fairly extensive algorithms, Facebook is often targeted for using collected user data for studies or tests, which the users did not consent to. Raising the problem of algorithms being used to pry for information from the user and their agency to do so. This is most commonly noted in the product, Amazon Echo, who will store data on everything you say, in an attempt to better it’s understanding of your persona. However, in it's attempt to gain the output, all the input data is stored with Amazon and is corporately owned, as it is with Google or Facebook. User limitations to their own data and the invisibility of these algorithms is also brought up by Beck. Many of these algorithms are not public and therefore can not be examined to determine what data is, or is not being collected. Beck attributes this to “surveillance capitalism” and the minimal effort in todays product at the cost of privacy. The product being user data, wildly collected after the signing of “terms and agreements” tab, where users sign away the rights to much of their personal data; data which is then commoditized by a given company and sold to advertisement agencies.

In conclusion, Beck notes that algorithms have become deeply rooted in how we interact with online media. While new technology has proven a benifit to humanity, Beck notes that it can come at a cost of exploitation. The notion of the algorithms themselves as being “co-rhetors” to their writers comes into place, as they are reacting and adapting based on user interaction. Furthermore, algorithms affect the way in which we experience and use online resources. It is a persuasive tool for many companies and commodifies the user experience to the online market.

Question 1: 

What do you believe Youtube's algorithm is persuading its users to do?

Answers:

1. The recommended tab and trending page push for more violent and scripted content.

2. “Click bait” titles can alter the results of the algorithm. This forces users or content creators to “sugar-coat” things to benifit themselves in the algorithm and get advertisements.

3. It gives you a false sense of control as a user. For example, you can turn off the “AutoPlay” feature, but the site will still give you recommended videos and pop-up advertisements to keep you consistently clicking.

Question 2:

Do you believe the algorithm of sites like Google, who collect significant amounts of data from us and generate ads, has a positive or negative affect on public safety (online or otherwise)?

Answers:

1. It is definitely creepy but as a user I feel as though I can't avoid it and I might as well give up. However, if I choose not to participate or agree to the terms of service, I will be absent in social media and many online communications.

2. It depends what the information is being used for, On the positive end is 23 and me building a database for their own research, and on the negative end is 23 and me selling that information to the government. Third party companies or entities buying user data or in this case DNA is a negative for me and defiantly feels like an invasion of public privacy.

3. Government demographic targeting through the use of user collected data, such as the case of “Gerrymandering” within the U.S elections, is extremely dangerous and can effect whole government voting results within entire regions.

Works Cited

Beck, Estee. “Implications of Persuasive Computer Algorithms.” The Routledge Handbook of Digital Writing and Rhetoric, 2018, pp. 291–302.

Roderick, Ian. Critical Discourse Studies and Technology: a Multimodal Approach to Analysing Technoculture. Bloomsbury Academic, 2016. 

Warnick, Barbara, and David Heineman. Rhetoric Online: the Politics of New Media. 2nd ed., Peter Lang, 2012. 

[writ-2004]

Tweet Under the #CallabDRM 

This tweet, posted by Youtuber Ninja Kuma, touches on the technical problems arising from copyright in digital media and more specifically, YouTube. By the end of 2014, YouTube implemented its “Copystrike Policy” which allows users and content creators to Copystrike each other and remove videos, if copyright infringement took place. After 3 strikes in a 3 month period, the YouTube channel itself could face termination. For example, if creator #1 made a video featuring creator #2′s un-cut, un-changed, extensive footage. Creator #2 could Copystrike that video and remove the video. However, through the concept of Maximalism described by James Porter in “Rhetoric, Copyright, Techne: The Regulation of Social Media Production and Distribution”, we can analyze the problems arising from Copyright laws and an increasing social media presence.

The article by James Porter touches on the 2007 YouTube use of Content ID, which allows users to claim the revenue of a video which has committed copyright infringement. The troubles steaming from the use of copyright filtering technologies still very much exists within YouTube Copystrike. The first of those issues being the misuse of Copystrike and Content ID, as outlined within Ninja Kuma’s tweet. It is not uncommon for videos to become Content Claimed (through Content ID) in an attempt to claim revenue, even though they appear to follow Copyright law. Many of these Copystriked or Claimed creators, state that their content is protected under the U.S.A’s “Fair Use” policy. The most popular and a current example of this is the feud between Twitch user Alinity and Youtuber Pewdiepie. In May 2018, Pewdiepie uploaded a video titled “Testing Out Eyetracking”, in which he reviews content from other creators, while using a device that tracks his eye movements. As mentioned above, Pewdiepie states that his content is protected under the Fair Use Act because it features his own commentary and editing, which would classify it as a “transformative work”. However, for her 4 second feature in the video, Alinity decided to Content ID claim the video to gain its revenue. As a reaction to this, one of Alinity’s own videos was Copystriked and taken down, most likely by a fan. As pointed out by Porter, the self-policing that accompanies these policies “erodes Fair Use” by allowing the absolute control over even a minor use of content. Similarly to this event, Ninja Kuma’s video has been Content claimed by the same source for using clips of specific creators, which he claims were also protected.

The Tweet appears under the #CollabDRM, the company who issued the Content Claims mentioned above. Collab DRM is a company who aims to regulate content that features their creators, like Alinity. However, Collab DRM has been under suspicion of abusing Copyright laws and has even admitted many “human errors” on their part, as evident in Pewdiepie’s  response video. Furthermore, when filling out the YouTube claim form, Collab DRM will not specify the specific content infringement or provide a timestamp for identification. They claim they “are not here to help users escape infringement”. The rhetoric of the report given to the creator by Collab DRM, becomes a suggestion that the creator cannot fight back; because there is no specifications, it makes it increasingly difficult for the creator in question, to file a “dispute form”, which is used to counteract misuse of Copystrikes. Showcasing the administrative rhetoric of YouTube, to favour the company over the creator. This can easily be related to Porter’s example of the Disney vs. Lev case, in which a mother’s video of her son was Copystriked because of a Disney song playing in the background. Even though both Ninja Kuma and the Lev video, were not intended for commercial use (as Ninja Kuma is a small scale creator), it brings to light the absolute control sought out in Copyright law. Similar control has also risen from other large corporations or creators trying to patent a common phrase in order to control it’s use or generate income. 

The hashtag (#CollabDRM) itself has been used by many other creators such as Saltyasfudge, who claims to have been Content Claimed 3 times by Collab DRM. The hashtag often features tags of Philip Defranco, who many feel positively misrepresented Collab DRM in a video. Although the hashtag is un-popular on twitter, where it only has 33 hits, on YouTube there are countless videos made on it. After taking into consideration Edward and Lang’s ideals on hashtags as forms of social activism, we may find that #CollabDRM does not deal with any social or political ideals. Mainly, it is a flaw in a legal policy and can only be corrected with a new algorithm. Moreover, unlike a social issue, Copyright policies can only be disputed in a legal sphere and may pose too risky a burden for many social activists. 

Youtube’s communicated principals towards their creators and audience has been that of innovation and creativity. However, within these restrictive policies, they are actually talking an extremely “protectionist view” on Copyright laws. This quality was mainly attributed following the public Taylor Swift vs. YouTube feud in 2016. However, these new policies are fundamentally changing the very rhetoric of YouTube as a site. The ease and un-regulation of such Copystrike claims, encourage users to Strike each other and abuse Copyright laws. The above also brings to light the question of large corporations on YouTube and how they are taking over individual creators within the market. Allowing Corporation's to exist on the same field as individual creators, generates this expectation from the audience that all content should have the same quality and consistency. Most of which is impossible to compare, when concerning individual, self-funded channels and large million dollar corporations, like Buzzfeed. Furthermore, the existence of the Copystrike (when misused) makes it easier to abuse small scale creators as they do not have the means to “settle” a case. Creating the implication that YouTube supports these large companies over individual creators and has re-branded itself as a platform for advertisement and professional video production.

Works Cited:

Edwards, Dustin, and Heather Lang. “Entanglements That Matter: A New Materialist Trace of #YesAllWomen.” Circulation, Writing, and Rhetoric, Utah State University Press, 2018. 

Porter, James E. “Rhetoric, Copyright, Techne: The Regulation of Social Media Production and Distribution.” The Routledge Handbook of Digital Writing and Rhetoric, pp. 581–600. 

Warnick, Barbara, and David Heineman. Rhetoric Online: the Politics of New Media. 2nd ed., Peter Lang, 2012. 

[writ-2004]

Animated Video 

After reading “Keeping Safe (and Queer) by Zarah Moeggenberg, I decided to create a short animated video to express the Queer experience on social media. The medium of video was important to communicate the connection between the experiences, user personas and the “virtual home” for vulnerable LGBTQ+. Primarily, I focused on the site rhetoric used within different platforms and how that contributes to the Queer experience. This video shows a Queer man checking various social media notifications with regard to his proposal post to his long-time boyfriend Ryan. This first of these sites displayed is Instagram, which hosts many likes on the post, but controversial comments. The Second is Facebook, which hosts many dislikes and angry reactions. The final notification is from Tumblr, which Is met with love and community support. To analyze how these experiences relate to the Queer experience, we must analyze the rhetoric of each given site.

As noted by Rodrick, technology is created by humans and therefore is modeled after specific human behaviour. Liking or commenting on an event or conversation are things we would do in face-to-face social interactions and are therefore emulated within the online rhetoric of these sites. However, the sites are also created to emulate that specific companies values or ideas and can lead to variations of experience across different social media. As outlined by Moeggenberg, Facebook creates a space that promotes hate. Unlike other platforms, Facebook has a “family friendly”, “traditionalist” mentality and because of that, its users tend to dispute the un-traditional. Making Queer friendly posts, or “virtual homes”, easy targets for members of other, larger “virtual homes”. Furthermore, Facebook creates a space for these “virtual homes” or groupings to occur within literal “Facebook groups” or “liked pages”, in which you can connect with people of similar interests. Allowing pages with more followers, to digitally attack those with less. Facebook as a platform also makes it extremely easy to promote hate with emotional reaction features as displayed in the video and the new feature of “up voting” or “down voting” specific comments.

These rhetorical devices encourage users to express blatant like or dislike for a post or comment. For the easily targeted Queer group, who “oppose” traditional values or are seen as “not family friendly”, this can create an extreme sense of vulnerability. As shown within the video, this can lead to the user removing their post all together. As stated by Moeggenberg, this can cause many users to practice dis-identification. Where they will not risk posting photos or links pertaining to their sexuality and create a separate or more reserved persona on Facebook. This can manifest itself in the fear of “doxing”, in which personal information will be tracked down and used against a user. Doxing is a form of social control over “abnormal” groups to withhold the norm, or else face consequences that will jeopardize their way of life; whether that be the leaking of an address or nude photos. This is why many Facebook users would rather “play by the rules of society” then question them and be hated off the platform or tracked down in person. 

Instagram, whose parent company is Facebook, takes a step in a positive direction as the rhetoric of their site does not allow for “disliking” or “downvoting” a post or comment. As seen within the video, the content posted on instagram can be easily liked, allowing targeted users to feel safe. However, instagram still allows for a comment section without liking the post, or in some cases even following the account. It is also composed of photos only and promotes a visual representation of it’s users. This is what may lead to controversial commentary from other users, especially for someone with a large following whose account is public. In turn, the rhetoric of instagram does push for more love than hate, and eliminates the obvious grouping and exclusion as seen within “Facebook groups”. Moreover, the overall rhetoric or goal of instagram is to be progressive and influential, therefore leaving a space for a large queer or other minority community. This allows queer users interacting with the site to feel they have a “virtual home” in which to share their thoughts. 

Within his reaction to Tumblr, we may find that in the general post, our character was a lot more open about his life and his feelings. This is particularly because the rhetoric of Tumblr, minimizes hate. Tumblr leaves no room to “dislike” a post, nor does it allow for comments without the sharing of the original content. Because of the nature of the site and it’s users, sharing the original content will be imply to other users that you agree with the post or at the very least are content with displaying it on your own blog. Tumblr does not allow for comments or feeds to be displayed without the use of the reblog button. If you delete your reblog, your comment is also deleted. Furthermore, you can direct message/comment to the content poster, but they have easy access to ignore or block you without public humiliation; which often occurs on the other sites mentioned above. At the end of the video, our character is seen feeling positive and reassured while being apart of a large community. The LGBTQ+ community on sites like Tumblr is massive and generate a huge following. Many of these Queer blogs also act as social activism platforms and help to fight for community awareness. This gives users the chance to feel protected in a large “virtual home”. 

These concepts do not only apply to the LGBTQ+ community, but other minority groups as well. The rhetoric of these sites is not specifically aimed at Queer people, but at all minorities or people who defy the “norm”. The concepts discussed above, should allow us to consider how we interact with forms of hate or hate groups on various platforms and how the rhetoric can be re-written to combat this. It also places an important focus on public safety online and the risk of social activism. I myself have been afraid to post or share my personal traits or political views out of fear of attracting negative energy or becoming a target. If the rhetoric of these sites is meant to emulate human interaction, what does that say about our society? When someone is receiving hate for being themselves, what does that say about how we view abnormality in the digital age. In my opinion, we may appear to accept “abnormalities” more, in that they have the sense of equality in posting and commenting on the same platform, but there is still an underlying view of the “weird” or “un-family friendly” type of person; rooted in the rhetoric created by these sites and their need for social drama. Furthermore, we may view digital dis-identification as a form of oppression on specific groups, in that they are denied the human right to feel safe being genuine and honest.

To further reflect upon my choice of medium, we may also consider the “maker culture” of the specific applications I used. The video was made with Powtoon whose creative Rhetoric is very limited. Powtoon wants you to create business-style presentations and limits the available images to reflect that. This can be related to the traditional workings of Facebook and Instagram, where a vulnerable user may feel they have to present a business friendly or non-offensive version of themselves to avoid hardships. However, the video was later uploaded to YouTube, a site which promotes user creativity and support. In this sense, we can relate YouTube to the rhetoric of Tumblr, where users are encouraged to further the conversation.

Works Cited:

Edwards, Dustin, and Heather Lang. “Entanglements That Matter: A New Materialist Trace of #YesAllWomen.” Circulation, Writing, and Rhetoric, Utah State University Press, 2018. 

Hutchinson, Les. “Wielding Power and Doxing Data.” The Routledge Handbook of Digital Writing and Rhetoric, Routledge, 2018. 

Moeggenberg, Zarah C. “Keeping Safe (And Queer).” The Routledge Handbook of Digital Writing and Rhetoric, Routledge, 2018, pp. 511–534. 

Porter, James E. “Rhetoric, Copyright, Techne: The Regulation of Social Media Production and Distribution.” The Routledge Handbook of Digital Writing and Rhetoric, pp. 581–600. 

Roderick, Ian. Critical Discourse Studies and Technology: a Multimodal Approach to Analysing Technoculture. Bloomsbury Academic, 2016. 

Warnick, Barbara, and David Heineman. Rhetoric Online: the Politics of New Media. 2nd ed., Peter Lang, 2012. 

[writ-2004]

Summary of “Compositional Strategies of Conflict Management in Personal Mommy Blogs”

The article above, written by Aimée Morrison, speaks to the analysis of two different “mommy blog” posts. Morrison begins to define mommy blogs as a sub-genre of hobbyist blogs; in which a blogger writes their experience and emotional reactions to daily activities. Morrison compares two posts by bloggers Beck and Sweetiepie, to examine why bloggers write the way they do and how they create emotionally reciprocal communities through interpersonal practice. Morrison states that many hobbyist blogs value harmony and community support over debate. Morrison also notes the underlying sexism within many hobbyists blogs and uses that to add importance to the analyzation of female bloggers. While also recognizing that the mommy blogs themselves also hold a certain level of sexism because they are not many “parental” or “daddy” blogs.

Through examining blog post number one by Beck, Morrison documents the highly valued idea of “truth” within mommy bloggers. Steming from the fact that the readers want to hear the “truth” about being a mother, even if it goes against the social norm or idolizing of motherhood. Morrison also notes the given “voice” of the blogger evident within their writing; attributing Beck to be critical. It is also noted that Beck sets the tone of a controversial topic in a comedic or satirical way; through the analyzation of cartoons. This is done by using low modality to diffuse any offense taken by the article’s argument, by portraying it through something that is not real. Morrison notes that many blogs do this to manage disagreement, as they do not wish to start a debate in the comments. By using comedy right away, Beck is generating good will from the readers through the notion that she has a sense of humor about the proceeding topic. Beck is also noticed using the term “we”. Phrases such as “we/our/us” are noted as invoking feelings of inclusivity, inviting the readers to identify with the blogger. She also does this through the “admitting” of her own faults to generate sympathy and trust. As Beck aims to judge the shortcomings of other parents, this admitting of fault contributes highly to her Ethos. 

Morrison then goes onto analyse the comment section and notes it as an important part of the “whole discussion”; in that the blog post is not the end of the interaction/conversation between blogger and the digital reader. Normally, we think of website authors as being the authority and the readers as being passive, but forums and comment sections are changing this dynamic. Through forum, readers have a space to respond and converse with the author on an equal playing field, where the author will normally respond; thus incorporating comments into the “whole conversation”. In this case, the community of mommy bloggers is created through the use of not only the original post, but the comments or reactions to that post, which are shared on the same forum or platform. Commenters themselves usually read other comments to get a sense of the “whole conversation” before expressing their own opinions within the forum. Commenters wish to be open about the topic or their disagreement with it, without jeopardizing their relationship with the blogger. To do this, many commenters use humor or well-wishing to display their disagreement without appearing negative. Furthermore, when the blogger responds to these comments, they normally offer clarity or express thanks, in a view of equality and validation between reader and writer; where they can both interact in the same forum. Morrison then offers the explanation of this sense of reciprocity as the social implication of a polite comment policy as the result of hospitality within the intimate public of the “momosphere” or more broadly, the “blogsphere”. 

While examining the second post, Morrison notes the tone or “voice” as drastically different than Beck’s. Blogger Sweetiepie has issued a plea for advice and comes off as vulnerable and honest; as she opens up about disliking male children, although she is pregnant with one. By using a plea, Sweetiepie is already giving her audience a sense of equality by asking them for help. Thus calling upon them to behave or respond in a certain way. This honest plea is met within the comments with reassurance and support. Morrison also notes that many commenters had reason to disagree with the blogger; in the case of miscarriages of a boy or disabilities within their own son. But all met the blogger with support and advice on raising a son. This is largely due to the tone Sweetiepie set at the beginning of her post, deeming her blog as a “safe space” for herself. Effectively, she is creating a “virtual home” for mothers struggling with morality. Sweetiepie also anticipates any negative reactions the audience could have had and addresses them in the beginning by admitting she is wrong to feel this way. Therefore, any commenter shedding a negative light on the situation would be violating the “safe space” mentality, as well as making a redundant point to which Sweetiepie already admitted. Resulting in 100% of her comments being positive. Sweetiepie also issued a formal thank you through another blog post titled “blogger=awesome” and like Beck, validated her audience and their relationship, through her response.  

It is noted that in both blogs are successful examples of online communication. The commenters applaud “truth” or “honesty” within the blogger and their writing. The blogger in turn applauds the support of the readers and responds to validate them, in a mutually reinforced loop. Moreover, the blogger trusts the audience not to be negative and the audience trusts the blogger to be honest. This element of trust is fundamental for successfully building a community through forums. Both blogs mentioned above are successful in dissolving hate and showcase the importance of studying successful online discourse, not just hateful online communication. To study hateful online communication is helpful in understanding where things go wrong or where groups clash, but to truly advance in online communication, we must also take note of the ways it is successful and implement those techniques. 

Question 1:

Morrison refers to comments as being an additional part of the “whole discussion”, do you believe likes and shares are also part of this discussion? If so how do they differ?

Answers:

1. Likes can be viewed as validation, agreement with the original post. This can fuel Sweetiepie to feel accepted or further supported. In contrast, shares can also be negative if accompanied by a proceeding text. 

2. While comments are interactive, shares are disconnected because the writer has no direct way to respond. Shared posts also facilitate further comments and responses that perhaps in a general analysis are important to include, but every share is not necessarily relevant to the original discussion or community interactions for ether blogger.

Question 2:

Do you believe that the audiences of the two bloggers differ? To what extent is this due to their writing style?

Answers:

1. Beck is inviting people who are looking for that sort of controversy with her strong comments and direct judgement of other parenting styles.

2. Sweetiepie pulls on emotions in her writing to avoid controversy, with the use of her plea, where as Beck confronts the issue head on in a critical way. 

3. Sweetiepie’s blog is portrayed by her to be a “safe space”, because of her confession of trust attracts a supportive community. Although Beck is less personal in her writing, she also has an element of trust. Beck creates a space for a critique on parenting thus inviting more discussion and pulling on the trust of her audience; in that they trust her to deliver critical and honest views. 

Works cited: 

Gurak, Laura J. “Ethos, Trust and the Rhetoric of Digital Writing in Scientific and Technical Discourse.” The Routledge Handbook of Digital Writing and Rhetoric, Routledge, 2018. 

Morrison, Aimée. “Compositional Strategies of Conflict Management in Personal Mommy Blogs.” Feminist Media Studies, vol. 14, no. 2, 2012.

Warnick, Barbara, and David Heineman. Rhetoric Online: the Politics of New Media. 2nd ed., Peter Lang, 2012. 

[writ-2004]

John Oliver Segment (5:12-9:51) + (13:04-14:48)

This segment from comedian John Oliver covers the problems facing the scientific discourse in a digital world. While Oliver’s entire piece from his talk show Last Week Tonight is relevant to the subject, we may find the sections highlighted above to be relevant to our own discussion. Within these clips, Oliver’s ideas help us to relate oversimplified news reports to Laura Gurak’s concept of Bias confirmation and a false sense of trust within Media outlets. 

Oliver points to the problem concerning what happens to Medical studies when they reach us, the lay public, including news reporters. Because the general public is not well adverse in medical language or terms, many will only read the abstract or the title. Leading to a misconstrued, misrepresented medical study. Moreover, if someone does search for additional information or analysis, it is extremely hard to identify a credible source as a common citizen. In today’s society, anyone can purchase a .org or .edu site and emulate the style of a credible source. Anyone in the comments can also appear to be an expert, as most sites are democratized spaces, with equal opportunity to post. Not only does scientific information then become distorted, but due to the existence of sites such as WebMD, anyone can act as a medical physician in theory. Diagnosing friends and spreading false “facts” to other members of a given community.The dangers of these movements are heavily seen within the Anti-Vaxxer movement, which Oliver touches on in another episode found here. 

The general public seems to choose what they would like to hear and make that the entire point of the medical study, as pointed out by Oliver’s clip of the Today Show at 14:40. The ironic air quotes used by one Today Show host, when talking about the “scientific studies” she likes, followed by the perpetuation of the confirmation bias by another host who states, “you should choose the study you like and live by it”, both contribute to the miss-trust placed in news reporters; as they are not medical practitioners and cannot give medical advice. However, due to our own bias confirmation, the public likes to trust and agree with people who live in a similar ‘virtual home’ as them and share beliefs. This same concept is why many Republicans in the U.S.A like Fox News, because it has boosted itself as a Republican platform, although news outlets are typically thought of as being for the general public. In contrast, Oliver’s program also claims to be for the general public, although he is quite obviously liberal in nature. 

This faulty game of telephone is also easily seen in many political parties or nation groups such as the NRA; who have distorted facts on gun violence and twisted them to construe their “own truth”. This ideal of personal “truth” is yet another example of the bias confirmation described by Gurak and attributes to notions of de-legitimization. This de-legitimization is what allows people like the NRA or Anti-abortion groups to deny scientific facts or legitimate studies based on their own tribal “feeling” towards a topic; by choosing studies they deem more appropriate to serve their needs as a group. This group like behaviour can also be related to Kenneth Burke’s concept of “consubstainability”, where people will act together as a group to support a similar interests or beliefs. 

The intertextuality within the episode, also points toward other key issues such as women in congress and the dangers of the few speaking for the many. Oliver also goes onto discuss the ideals of platform rhetoric, where news sites may encourage the easy sharing of reported scientific information. This is done through catchy phrasing or comedic titles, which usually appear not only on that News stations website, but on their Facebook page or Twitter. The rhetoric of these platforms encourages wide spread sharing. Oliver notes this as “sharing like gossip”, further connecting the concept of “sharing” a post, to a natural human activity of exchanging information. 

We must also recognize the rhetoric used in Last Week Tonight itself. Oliver appears in a news room setting although, he is not a journalist but a comedian. By using a set resembling a news station, the adoption of news-style visuals and the documentation of interviews with important figures within the show as a whole, Oliver is effectively emulating the discourse of journalism. The position of power gained through this, is also due to the use of strong visual rhetoric within Oliver himself. It should be noted that Oliver’s desk is on a platform, to raise him above his audience, communicating a sort of superiority. Furthermore, he dresses formally to communicate a sense of professionalism and intellect. To no fault of his own, Oliver’s British accent also has the same effect. Here Oliver is using the concept of Ethos effectively by communicating a sense of credibility. 

Dually, Oliver uses his stance as a comedian to connect and relate with his audience, in an attempt to dissolve any hostile feelings towards his grim topics. Last Week Tonight  is also produced by HBO, a notable and trusted network hosting other massively popular shows such as Game of Thrones. By using this network, Oliver is then appealing, not only to followers of his own show, but HBO loyalists as well. Giving Last Week Tonight its own virtual home for liberals, HBO fans, information seekers and lovers of comedy. 

Works Cited

Gurak, Laura J. “Ethos, Trust and the Rhetoric of Digital Writing in Scientific and Technical Discourse.” The Routledge Handbook of Digital Writing and Rhetoric, Routledge, 2018. 

Roderick, Ian. Critical Discourse Studies and Technology: a Multimodal Approach to Analysing Technoculture. Bloomsbury Academic, 2016. 

Warnick, Barbara, and David Heineman. Rhetoric Online: the Politics of New Media. 2nd ed., Peter Lang, 2012.

[writ-2004]

“Social activism” is also commonly derailed by parodies or “trolling” posts. Easily done with memes and gifs. Thus identifying another group of people, who disagree or do not find the hashtag to be evidence of a movement. Loaning them a “virtual home” to troll. Seen in the article as #yesallcats.

In reflection, the “thing” power of hashtag movements is never something I truly recognized. Most people think of hashtags which are used for comedic or personal purposes, such as #hooman to describe thoughts of animals. Without realizing the effects some hashtags may have on entire communities such as those mentioned above. How fast hashtags can spread throughout platforms and into news reports is truly powerful in an age of technology and short attention spans. 

Works Cited 

Edwards, Dustin, and Heather Lang. “Entanglements That Matter: A New Materialist Trace of #YesAllWomen.” Circulation, Writing, and Rhetoric, Utah State University Press, 2018. 

Roderick, Ian. Critical Discourse Studies and Technology: a Multimodal Approach to Analysing Technoculture. Bloomsbury Academic, 2016. 

Warnick, Barbara, and David Heineman. Rhetoric Online: the Politics of New Media. 2nd ed., Peter Lang, 2012.

Enlightenment Meme

After reading “Entanglements that Matter” by Dustin Edwards and Heather Lang, I decided to create a meme to represent #Yesallwomen. This meme is made as an enlightenment meme, to represent each hashtag as a movement, which gradually moves closer towards social enlightenment; illustrated as the red soft vibration in photo three. The #notallmen movement was important in recognizing the concept that not all men are sexual offenders. The #metoo movement took a step further towards enlightenment by representing women who have been victims of sexual harassment or assault and calling out those men who are sexual offenders. However, #yesallwomen is the ultimate enlightenment within this representation, as it points out that yes, not all men are predators and yes some still are, but more importantly, ever women has the risk of being assaulted at any moment (women will have an approx. 25% chance of being assaulted in their lives). As an example, when examining the recent news outbreak of the Bret Kavanaugh case, a video defending Kavanaugh emerges, featuring older women justifying the actions as “boys just being boys”. Under further examination, the #notallmen movement is brought up in relation to falsely reported sexual assaults. In this way these women are in the lowest level of enlightenment, as they realize the potential of false accusations. The next phase would be for them to comprehend the statistics of falsely reported rapes, vs. those that actually occur (only about 2 in every 100 reported rapes are false). It would then be even more crucial for these women to recognize that they, at any moment and any age, have the same 25% chance of being raped and normalizing rape culture is a massive problem for themselves; Hence why this is placed as the ultimate enlightenment, where they would realize the first two steps while also recognizing the danger their actions create. This meme is meant to link towards the concept of “digital activism”, as the social recognition or “thing power” generated by these hashtags implements a form of change within our social perception. Easily brought up by the Bret Kavanaugh and Brock Turner cases. 

Furthermore, this meme categorizes each of the hashtags into groups. Similarly, the hashtags themselves categorize the people who use them into groups, using Kenneth Burke’s concept of “consubstantiality”. Which describes people acting together as a group with a common interest or belief. This is easily seen as the #yesallwomen, became a social movement, housing people who all believed in or experienced this risk of sexual assault. By using “consubstantiality”, these hashtags become “virtual homes” for those groups and allow those who used the hashtags to be easily identifiable. It reinforces social connection and allows for easy circulation within other communities that are related, such as feminist communities.

This meme can easily connect to the concept of “intertextuality” within the post itself. As social or comedic posts are made to appeal to a certain demographic or group of people. For example, when posting this meme, I am connecting with people of a similar belief system, who think that #yesallwomen is a form of enlightenment and supersedes the others. The intertextuality within the platform itself is also note worthy. Not only are the expectations of the platform met, as one would expect to see a meme on tumblr, but tumblr as a platform itself is persuasive. Through interactive features, which as Rodrick points out are designed to emulate human social activity, it creates a space where you can “reblog” someone else. You can do this by holding the reblog button to write a post or simply click it once for an instant reblog. When you “reblog” a post onto your own profile, it is perceived as an implicit social assumption that you agree with the original post. You can also “reply” to the post, where a direct message is sent to the author. Creating no public space for direct criticism unless you reblog. Unlike Facebook’s comment section, where you do not have to “share” someone’s post to leave a comment. Tumblr as a platform, ultimately allows for easy circulation and may be persuading users to agree with or support more posts through the instant reblog button, which does not require as much work as a comment reblog. Easy circulation through reblogging gives a hashtag momentum to established its presence on the “trending” page, which communicates its popularity and validity. Circulation is heavily important in the success of social activism and hashtag movements. Easily achieved through social actors, used within movements like the #ALSicebucketchallenge. A hashtag simply cannot exist without humans propelling it forward and giving it life. Lending those who use the hashtag an importance in the entire validity of the movement. 

[writ-2004]

Enlightenment Meme

After reading “Entanglements that Matter” by Dustin Edwards and Heather Lang, I decided to create a meme to represent #Yesallwomen. This meme is made as an enlightenment meme, to represent each hashtag as a movement, which gradually moves closer towards social enlightenment; illustrated as the red soft vibration in photo three. The #notallmen movement was important in recognizing the concept that not all men are sexual offenders. The #metoo movement took a step further towards enlightenment by representing women who have been victims of sexual harassment or assault and calling out those men who are sexual offenders. However, #yesallwomen is the ultimate enlightenment within this representation, as it points out that yes, not all men are predators and yes some still are, but more importantly, ever women has the risk of being assaulted at any moment (women will have an approx. 25% chance of being assaulted in their lives). As an example, when examining the recent news outbreak of the Bret Kavanaugh case, a video defending Kavanaugh emerges, featuring older women justifying the actions as “boys just being boys”. Under further examination, the #notallmen movement is brought up in relation to falsely reported sexual assaults. In this way these women are in the lowest level of enlightenment, as they realize the potential of false accusations. The next phase would be for them to comprehend the statistics of falsely reported rapes, vs. those that actually occur (only about 2 in every 100 reported rapes are false). It would then be even more crucial for these women to recognize that they, at any moment and any age, have the same 25% chance of being raped and normalizing rape culture is a massive problem for themselves; Hence why this is placed as the ultimate enlightenment, where they would realize the first two steps while also recognizing the danger their actions create. This meme is meant to link towards the concept of “digital activism”, as the social recognition or “thing power” generated by these hashtags implements a form of change within our social perception. Easily brought up by the Bret Kavanaugh and Brock Turner cases. 

Furthermore, this meme categorizes each of the hashtags into groups. Similarly, the hashtags themselves categorize the people who use them into groups, using Kenneth Burke’s concept of “consubstantiality”. Which describes people acting together as a group with a common interest or belief. This is easily seen as the #yesallwomen, became a social movement, housing people who all believed in or experienced this risk of sexual assault. By using “consubstantiality”, these hashtags become “virtual homes” for those groups and allow those who used the hashtags to be easily identifiable. It reinforces social connection and allows for easy circulation within other communities that are related, such as feminist communities.

This meme can easily connect to the concept of “intertextuality” within the post itself. As social or comedic posts are made to appeal to a certain demographic or group of people. For example, when posting this meme, I am connecting with people of a similar belief system, who think that #yesallwomen is a form of enlightenment and supersedes the others. The intertextuality within the platform itself is also note worthy. Not only are the expectations of the platform met, as one would expect to see a meme on tumblr, but tumblr as a platform itself is persuasive. Through interactive features, which as Rodrick points out are designed to emulate human social activity, it creates a space where you can “reblog” someone else. You can do this by holding the reblog button to write a post or simply click it once for an instant reblog. When you “reblog” a post onto your own profile, it is perceived as an implicit social assumption that you agree with the original post. You can also “reply” to the post, where a direct message is sent to the author. Creating no public space for direct criticism unless you reblog. Unlike Facebook’s comment section, where you do not have to “share” someone's post to leave a comment. Tumblr as a platform, ultimately allows for easy circulation and may be persuading users to agree with or support more posts through the instant reblog button, which does not require as much work as a comment reblog. Easy circulation through reblogging gives a hashtag momentum to established its presence on the “trending” page, which communicates its popularity and validity. Circulation is heavily important in the success of social activism and hashtag movements. Easily achieved through social actors, used within movements like the #ALSicebucketchallenge. A hashtag simply cannot exist without humans propelling it forward and giving it life. Lending those who use the hashtag an importance in the entire validity of the movement. 

[writ-2004]

Summary of "Identity, Identification and Social Media"

   Within the article, author Barbra Warnich and D.S. Heineman, begin by discussing the political purposes of Social Media, through political sites such as, ‘Tea Party Nation‘ as well as un-political sites such as Facebook and Twitter. This is done by discussing rhetoric within social media through rhetorical theory. Warnich and Heineman discuss ‘association’ as a form of identification within social media, citing the "Facebook Election" of 2008, which was the election of President Obama. Association can be used by a rhetor, or speaker, as a means of  associating themself with an expierence or belief of a group of people so that the audience will 'connect' with or 'feel' for the speaker. This is credited to being the use of Kenneth Burke's concept of "consubstantiality", (meaning acting together as a group with common interests/beliefs), at it's highest peak. The above mentioned, as well as other political parties, use rhetoric to persuade voters into believing they represent a certain belief and gain support through tactics of comradery. Directly relating to Rodrick’s definition of ‘Social Actors’ as those who can be identified as individuals (the politicians), or as groups (republican, democrat, dog lovers).

   Companies such as Papa John's, utilize this idea of shared expierence as a marketing tool, using something as simple as the weather to gain a common belief/experience with their customers. In turn, we may see the company as using a commonality with their audience, as a form of self-promotion. Through interactive methods, companies like Papa John's also use mutuality as a form of self promotion, most easily seen with their charity affiliations. The hope here being that the audience of that specific charity or charity's message will now have a mutual like/interest with Papa John’s. Papa John's also uses techniques with regard to expectation to find common ground, not only through the audiences expectations of Papa John's but audience expectations of what they will find on that Media platform. For example, if they were on twitter, they may advertise through meme's or comedic posts because that is what the audience expects to find on their feed. Thus connecting to the previously discussed notion of intertextuality, where the company may refer to a previous joke or social movement as a means to gain recognition.

   While gaining likes and followers, the company is also creating a 'virtual home' for people who ether liked a Papa John's post or liked Papa John's page. Papa John’s can then be considered a 'mutual like' for people within that community, not un-like Facebook's notion of 'mutual friends' (as being those people who share friends with you). However, as with intertextuality, for these techniques to work, there must already be a social perception in place; In this case that of pizza as a positive thing. This concept of a pre-conceived social or cultural notion also applies towards marketing outside of the realm of pizza.

   The article then goes on to discuss online identites. Within this notion, both authors discribe online identifications or personas, as a social currencey for celebrities, not only in what they say, but the interaction they have with the platform itself. The Authors also believe that you can have multiple ‘identities’, which are socially constructed by you and others influence on you. For example, the identity you have at work on a Monday morning, surrounded by superiors, might not be the identify you have on a Friday night, at a club surrounded by your friends. The analyzation of your surroundings and adaptability to them, is what the authors consider the ‘main motivating factor’ to contrasting new identities. In other words, it is human nature to want to fit in and remain untargeted by that majority. Your identity in this case becomes a performance for whoever you are surrounded by, a rhetoric device.

   The article lists three sub-concepts we may consider as contributing factors to the way online personas are constructed. The first of those being 'apologia', concerning the use of social media as a platform to make public apologies. The second concept is the use of ‘agency’, pointing towards the ideal that different cultures interact differently with social media and that we may use this as a form of cultural identification for a given group. The article references that people within the "Arab spring" protests, used social media and 'activist rhetoric' as a way to gain a voice, as well as recognition in the news/media. The third concept is the use of ‘rhetorical narrative’ to give deeper meaning to an otherwise entertaining and engaging story. All concepts discussed above boil down to the basic idea of your identification depending on your social media presence; from how you write on social media to what you write, what platform you choose and how you interact with that platform. 

   Connecting to the concept of platforms themselves as being a persuasive space. For Example, Facebook may be persuading you to be nice, as there is no option for a dislike button. Furthermore, the persona you have on Facebook is completely different from the persona you have on instagram and this is entirely due to design. As Facebook asks you to write how you are feeling, instagram relies only on photos or visual personas. Leaving space for the promotion of your physical appearance rather than your thoughts.

Question 1: The authors refer to Social Media as multiple items. Do you believe Social Media is one thing or multiple things?

Answers:   

Social media can be seen as one term which houses multiple identities and platforms. 

Social media can refer to different discourses and platforms which vary and therefore may be considered as multiple items.

Question 2: What do you think is a negative of identification being crafted through Social Media? What are some possible consequences? 

Answers:  

Identification being crafted through social media can result in other parties creating a negative or false view of your persona. 

Identification crafted through media platforms may be an easy target for social media “trolls” especially if it is drastically different from your in-person identity. 

Works Cited:

Roderick, Ian. Critical Discourse Studies and Technology: a Multimodal Approach to Analysing Technoculture. Bloomsbury Academic, 2016. 

Warnick, Barbara, and David Heineman. Rhetoric Online: the Politics of New Media. 2nd ed., Peter Lang, 2012. 

[writ-2004]

NFL Super Bowl Commercial (2018)

   After analysing an article, titled “Intertextuality and Web-based Public Discourse” by Barbra Warnich, we may note that it speaks heavily of cultural references. The video linked above is the cultural artifact we will be further analysing to understand these references. The video is a 2018 Super Bowl ad created by the NFL and aired during the first game. It features popular Giants players, Eli Manning and Odell Beckham Jr, recreating an iconic scene from the film ‘Dirty Dancing’ (1987), with Jennifer Grey and Patrick Swayze.

   Intertextuality is described as one text including various references to other texts within it. Although we will be analysing motion pictures instead of texts, the themes still apply in several ways, most notably in the form of video spoofs. The commercial uses Intertextuality form number 3, ‘Parody’, by recreating a well-known movie in a humorous way; as the men pictured are not lovers, as in the movie, but team players on a professional sports team. This form is primarily done as a means of entertainment. However, this commercial also utilizes Intertextuality form number 2, ‘Intertextual reference to a specific film widely known by media consumers’, which holds a much deeper meaning. By creating this commercial, the NFL is attempting to reach an audience of 80’s movie aficionados or simply those who were teenagers when the movie aired; it may be noted that Super Bowl fans are mostly comprised of persons within this age gap. Ultimately allowing us to see that the commercial uses this reference towards this age gap or era, as a stylistic device to influence how the audience is experiencing the media; for the lovers of ‘Dirty Dancing’, they are pushing it in a positive direction. 

   The use of imitation of a well-known film can also be seen as a means of making their own content more noticeable through rhetorical persuasion. They are comparing the compassion or happiness found within this scene of ‘Dirty Dancing’ to the feeling of scoring a touchdown in the Super Bowl. Thus, persuading the audience to think positively about the Super Bowl itself, based on their positive or nostalgic experience with ‘Dirty Dancing’. This technique can be related to Rodrick’s tool kit and his description of ‘connotation’. By referencing not only the film, but dancing as a general discourse, the NFL may be attempting to portray notions of freedom, art and expression within the sport of football.

   However, by using these devices we may also find the idea of audience to become enclosed. As mentioned within the article, to truly appreciate the content being offered, one would have to be familiar with the film ‘Dirty Dancing’. This is what the article refers to as the culturally specific nature of intertextuality. It refers to a cultural knowledge those from other countries or eras may not have. Due to this specificity, the interpretation of the content can also vary between viewers, “since different readers possess different levels of textual knowledge”, (Warnich, 87). This concept is reminiscent to an Apple commercial discussed within the article, referencing George Orwell’s novel ‘1984’. “On January 24th, Apple computer will introduce Macintosh. And you’ll see why 1984 won’t be like ‘1984’” (Apple). The text explores that only those with knowledge of the controversial novel, could appreciate the context of the commercial and fully understand the point given about the freedom their product allows; in contrast to the political oppression found within ‘1984’. The same could be said for the preconceived knowledge on ‘Dirty Dancing’ needed to fully understand this 2018 Super Bowl commercial, as well as knowledge on the NFL itself. 

    Considering the above commentary, we may find this commercial to be one targeted at those who would not only have the specific knowledge of Dirty Dancing, but also of the social elements at play within the NFL. In 2016, the National Football League tightened its rules and regulations on group celebrations. Notably throwing a flag after Buffalo Bills player Kelvin Benjamin engaged in a group dance with teammate Devin Funchess. This earned the league the title of the ‘No Fun League’, popular among sports fans. In fact, the NFL received major backlash for this policy after throwing 30 flags in their 2016 season. However, in March of 2017, the NFL announced that they would be loosening the rules on celebratory dancing and stated they wanted their players to be able to express themselves. A concept explored earlier through their use of dance as a discourse. In a 2018 sports Illustrated article,  an NFL representative said they were swayed by the fans support of the choreographed dances, “’That group celebration became the focal point for every team,’ Said Howard. ‘And we saw this amazing thing on Twitter where elementary schools in Minnesota were re-enacting this celebration and doing their school chants, it was like bringing fandom into the classroom in a fun way’”, (Kahler, 2018). 

   Further analysing this newly found intertextuality, we may note the commercial as placing a bigger commentary upon their own rules and regulations. In fact, this commercial seems to be the NFL giving a critique on themselves. During the commercial, when a fellow giants player attempts to stop Manning and Beckham Jr. from dancing, another player is seen saying ‘let them go’. Pointing to the notion that they should let go of the old oppressive restrictions and let their players be expressive through dance. Whether they are truthful in this critique or not is another story. The NFL may be attempting to put on a positive façade, after receiving major backlash relating to the incident with Colin Kaepernick; who kneeled during the national anthem to protest against racism within the United States. Due to this incident, Kaepernick was not re-drafted onto an NFL team. However, he was recruited to be the new face of the 2018 Nike campaign, giving Kaepernick a platform on which to criticize the NFL and its teams, who were too scared of jeopardizing their image to draft him. The notions of control can then become evident to us, as the NFL has a constant need within itself to control players, but more importantly, there own image. 

   The NFL is seen within this commercial attempting to control their image by focusing on the positive experience they give to the viewer. In this case, the touchdown celebrations. This is the social concept of company perception in a capitalist market and heavily relates to the marketing technique of ‘branding’. A company's ‘Brand’ is the way in which the company wants to be perceived and the morals on which they create a loyal following. Events such as the Kaepernick case are not new, and it is not uncommon, or unlikely that people will forget about Kaepernick’s protest and continue to support the NFL out of love for the positive façade they display, as clearly showcased. Events such as this have happened with many companies throughout the years. When company Joe Fresh had their manufacturing building collapse in 2013 due to poor inspection, the incident killed over 1,000 workers in Bangladesh. However, due to clever marketing schemes, Joe Fresh remains a multi-billion dollar company and the backlash is almost completely forgotten. This is highly due to the loyal followers, or as Howard puts it ‘fandom’ surrounding these certain ‘brands’. Calling the NFL a ‘fandom’ is a bold statement and further showcases the reaction which they are attempting to cultivate through their target audience, loyalty.

Works Cited:

Roderick, Ian. Critical Discourse Studies and Technology: a Multimodal Approach to Analysing Technoculture. Bloomsbury Academic, 2016. 

Warnick, Barbara, and David Heineman. Rhetoric Online: the Politics of New Media. 2nd ed., Peter Lang, 2012.