alexbiddison-blog

[alexbiddison-blog]

           For this blog post, I will be discussing the effects of participatory practices and how even the least engaged consumers can significantly affect media.  Croteau and Hoynes (2019) introduce a series of categories to describe the roles that users have in the media (p.291).  At the highest level are creators, or those who create content to be consumed by others such as writing a blog or uploading videos.  At the opposite end of the spectrum are inactives, or those who neither create nor consume new media content.  In between are conversationalists (share their opinions with consumers), critics (respond to the content of others by posting reviews), collectors (organize content for themselves or others), joiners (maintain profiles on social media), and spectators (consume content generated by others).  As technology advances, so too does the power wielded at each level, as well as the fluidity between the levels.  Someone who is a joiner one day can easily become a creator the next by creating a YouTube channel.  An unfortunate side effect of this is that as more voices are able to be heard, individuals must be much more conscious of their actions and decisions, as just about anyone can record something that occurred in a split second, and just that split second can have significant effects on an individual’s life. Additionally, with the increased power individuals have, those creating content must be much more aware of the consequences that may arise from what they post.  Content that is posted online is not restricted to only having online effects.  

           Along with the levels of participatory practices, I will also be discussing the concept of structure and agency as proposed by Croteau and Hoynes (2019).  They discuss three levels of analysis regarding structural constraint and agency, and I will be focusing primarily on the third one, which is the relationship between an institution and the public (p. 13).  This deals with how the media industry influences the users of media, as well as how the choices and actions of users affect the industry.  Within this I will focus on how as technology advances, the voice and power of the users are able to grow, giving them more agency to affect the content they are consuming, as well as enacting change through the voices they are now given.  I have identified four real-world examples where consumers of media have reacted to media, and created some sort of change or consequence as a result.  

           First, there is the story of Lexi Thompson, and how a viewer of an LPGA tournament was able to have a direct impact on which golfer won the tournament.  As explained by Berhow (2017), a writer for Golf.com, on the final day of a four-day tournament, Thompson had a two-stroke lead going into the twelfth hole.  If she could hang onto that lead for six more holes, she would win the tournament.  However, as Thompson was putting on the twelfth hole, the broadcast announcers began to discuss a rule infraction committed by Thompson that had been recently brought to their attention (Berhow, 2017).  As a result of the infraction, Thompson was assessed a four-stroke penalty, putting her two strokes behind the new leader. Additionally, the infraction she had been called for was misplacing her ball during a putt, meaning she had placed her ball quite literally tenths of an inch from its original place on the green. The only problem with the ruling? The infraction she had been punished for had occurred the day before on the seventeenth hole.  The director of rules and competition explained that the LPGA had not been aware of the infraction until a viewer emailed the LPGA with the information as the final group was playing the seventh hole on the final day.  The LPGA reviewed the footage, and five holes later assessed Thompson the penalty (Berhow, 2017).  Thompson would eventually finish tied for the lead after eighteen holes, and lose in a playoff.  While second place is certainly nothing to be ashamed of, she would have won the tournament had it not been for the four-stroke penalty.  This event sparked widespread debate over whether or not the ruling was fair, and many thought that the four-stroke penalty was too harsh for the minor infraction Thompson had committed.  However, it also sparked a larger debate about whether or not the viewers of a live sporting event should be able to impact the results of that sporting event.  The LPGA employs rules officials, and if they could not spot the infraction, why should a viewer of the event be able to enact such a significant change over such a small infraction?  While there is no clear cut answer to this question, this will certainly not be the last time a viewer of live television brings light to a legitimate concern regarding a broadcast.  The question moving forward is how do the producers of a broadcast deal with instances where a viewer or viewers are able to spot a legitimate infraction regarding the broadcast that was not originally noticed by those on site, and how should the instance be addressed once it is called out?

           The second example I chose is an instance regarding a live news broadcast, and how due to the actions of someone on camera, viewers of the broadcast were able to produce real-life consequences for the individual on the broadcast.  The instance in question occurred during an MSNBC news broadcast during preparation for Hurricane Florence.  Ali Veshi was interviewing the man in charge of the Coast Guard’s hurricane response efforts to discuss the changing path of the storm, and how the Coast Guard reacts when such circumstances happen (Prine & Simkins, 2019).  While the commanding officer is talking, an officer behind him who is seated at a desk looks directly at the camera, looks away, then appears to discreetly flash an ‘okay’ sign at the camera.  While many wouldn’t find anything wrong with this gesture, it has become to some a racist sign used to symbolize white supremacy. The notion originated on the messaging site ‘4Chan’ as a joke, but was reportedly picked up by white supremacists, coming to the forefront of national news during the Kavanagh hearing.  A small number of viewers noticed the act, recorded the few seconds of the broadcast in which it occurred, and took to Twitter (Prine & Simkins, 2019).  The instance quickly gained notoriety, and debates were quick to spark on Twitter over what had actually happened.  To some, the act was clearly racist and should result in swift punishment of the officer.  The others, the act was meaningless, that the officer was simply scratching his ear, or if the sign was intentionally given it was simply meant as the universal ‘okay' sign as used in diving. In the end, the officer was formally reprimanded by his commander but faced no loss of rank or position.  The reprimanding will, however, remain on the officer's record for the rest of his Coast Guard career (Prine & Simkins, 2019).  Again, users of a live television broadcast were able to create real-world consequences for an individual who appeared on the broadcast.  

           The third example is different from the first two in the sense that the consumer is not interacting with content provided by creators or networks, but rather content provided by an individual farther down the participation chain.  An individual at the joiner level posted an Instagram story at a bar, and in the story soccer player Wayne Hennessey was pictured in the background giving a Nazi salute.  According to Palace (2019), following other Instagrammers reporting the post, Hennessey faced a review for possible punishment by a Football Association panel. The charges against him were eventually found unproven due to an astonishing lack of historical knowledge by Hennessey, as it was discovered he truly did not know the historical significance of the gesture.  Additionally, he was able to provide proof that he had made similar gestures during matches in attempts to communicate with teammates.  This instance is significant since it shows how even media posted on mediums farther down in the participatory categories can still have serious results.   As well as the accountability for their actions, people are now more accountable for being knowledgeable regarding historical and contemporary social movements and respecting cultural and societal norms, as actions such as Hennessey's with seemingly innocent intent can trigger deep historical and cultural pains.

           The fourth instance is yet another unique scenario, with one YouTuber facing punishment as a result of another YouTuber’s actions.  Both channels were independent channels, not involved with the traditional media industry whatsoever.  YouTuber Cody Ko uploaded a video of himself and a friend reacting to and mocking a video uploaded by fellow YouTuber MattySmokes.  In the original video, MattySmokes attempts to do a ‘vape hot box’ in which his friends vape in a car in an attempt to fill the car with vapor. Cody Ko’s video plays the original video from MattySmokes, with periodical breaks for commentary from Cody and his friend.  What makes this instance unique, however, is that it was not Cody Ko’s video that directly resulted in MattySmokes facing punishment.  Rather, Cody Ko’s followers were exposed to MattySmokes channel, and a significant number of them reported MattySmoke’s channel to YouTube for violating the YouTube community policies.  Following this, MattySmoke’s channel, with over four-thousand followers, was removed.  Matty was not punished as a result of posting his video, nor directly as a result of Cody’s video.  Rather, the reactions of Cody’s followers were what resulted in the removal of Matty’s channel.  This is significant because the actions of one YouTuber, trying to make a video to make his followers laugh, resulted in the removal of another YouTuber’s channel who was completely uninvolved with the video mocking him.  Not only are independent creators now responsible for their own content or following, but they must now be mindful of the impact their content can have on the future of other creators.  Additionally, this instance shows the power that those lower within the participatory categories have, as they were able to remove the channel of a fairly successful YouTuber (not that Matty’s channel was monetized, but gathering multiple thousands of followers is a difficult feat).  

           These four instances show that as technology and participatory practices have advanced, so too has the power of viewers of media who may not be directly involved with that media in any way.  This results in increased accountability across the media spectrum, from the major media corporations creating massive amounts of content, to the least involved individuals who may not even consume new content. This also means that the structure and agency dynamic within the media industry has changed.  Individuals can now independently create content and have access to audiences of potentially millions of people.  Viewers of a certain show or broadcast can enact change within the very broadcasts they are watching.  Additionally, traditional outlets within the industry are now much more responsible for respecting and representing cultural norms.  Say a network only presents gay characters in a certain way that is not representative of that demographic.  A viewer can, just as in the Lexi Thompson case, reach out to the network, take to social media, start a campaign, or use a variety of other avenues to enact change upon that network’s representation of certain character types.  Without technological advancement, none of the four specific examples presented here, nor the broader shifts within the industry they represent, would be possible. As technology advances, all groups within the participatory categories are more responsible, all categories are given more opportunities to express their voices, and individuals’ ability to enact change on the industry expands as well.

Citations:

Berhow, J. (03 Apr. 2017). Lexi given 4-stroke penalty after tv viewer spots rules violation, loses

in playoff. Golf.com. Retrieved from https://www.golf.com/tour-news/2017/04/02/lexi-

thompson-given-four-stroke-penalty-after-viewer-notifies-lpga-rules-violation

Croteau, D. & Hoynes, W. (2019). Media/ society: Technology, industry, content, and users.

Sage Publications, Inc. Thousand Oaks, California.  

Palace, C. (16 Apr. 2019). Wayne hennessey did not know what nazi salute was- fa panel. BBC

Sport. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/47946382

Prine, C. & Simkins, J.D. (13 Jan. 2019). Coast guard member reprimanded for flashing

controversial gesture on msnbc. Navytimes.com. Retrieved from

https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2019/01/13/coast-guard-officer-

reprimanded-for-flashing-controversial-gesture-on-msnbc/