Don Imus: Trial by Pop Culture

Cultural theorists have written about two economies, one financial and one cultural. But I wonder as with the current controversy surrounding shlock jock Don Imus whether or not we can really separate the two. Within the financial economy at least three advertisers have announced intentions to withdraw their advertising support from the Imus program: Procter & Gamble, Bigelow Tea, and Staples office supply chain. As MSNBC decided to suspend airing of the program we could also say that General Electric owner of MSNBC also has for the time being withdrawn its economic support. The economics of syndicated radio are more complicated than this simple scenario for advertiser withdrawal suggests; there are plenty of advertisers, for example, including General Motors that have not as yet withdrawn their advertising from the program. Sometimes pop culture transcends the financial economy as controversies like the one Imus finds himself involved in enter the cultural economy. Think Calvin Klein Kiddie Porn, Heroin Chic. Think Benneton. One could suggest, perhaps, that within a capitalist economy there is a self-correcting mechanism: if demand for Don Imus remains strong then he will probably survive either over the airwaves or on satellite radio. However, if his listenership wanes or if the intensity of his current fan base lessens continuing interest on the part of advertisers may also become depleted. When it comes to culture we can see the cultural economy play out like a marketplace, although instead of trading shares on the New York Stock Exchange, trading in the “cultural shares” of Don Imus take place in the Blogosphere, talk television like The Today Show, among others as well as traditional media like magazines and newspapers. Day after day we can see in these various venues trial by pop culture. However, I do not think the financial economy operates separately from the cultural economy. Rather, I think they work together, not necessarily in tandem, but they reflect the complex nature of the players in this game of culture both corporate and political.

Goodbye Old Pals

The ultimate power that fans have is the ability to change the channel. And, as you know from my previous post, I was so angered by what I thought was a cheap trick by the writers of Grey’s Anatomy that I swore off the program. I love some of the comments have tempered my anger over the week, but for now I’m sticking to my guns. I love the empowerment, but that doesn't mean I'm not sentimental. Thursday at nine, then, gave me the opportunity to catch up with my old pals at The OC. As you know this was the final episode, and I was a big fan from the very beginning. If you refer to my previous post, you know how I like my pop culture - neatly sewn up in the end. Yes, the ending was sapping. Ryan becomes an architect, and as he is leaving a construction site he eyes a boy in trouble. We know that Ryan will take the young lad under his wing the same way Sandy came to his rescue. And as for Sandy and Kiki, they had a baby girl, and moved to Berkeley so that Sandy could teach law. The program flashes forward to Summer and Seth’s wedding. Julie marries Ryan’s father and we see her sweet happy family wearing “team Julie” tee-shirts at her graduation ceremony. What a neat little package: Easy to watch; Easy to digest; I can rest easy knowing that all is well in the world of The OC. I can’t say that I always like this sort of pablum. But sometime--every once in a while--it’s nice to know that things work out - no complications, no cliff hangers, no death and destruction. Yeah, happily ever after. That’s the way I like my pop culture.

Meredith: dead or alive? Either way, I’m appalled!

I usually write this blog as an academic, not a fan. But I am a fan of Grey’s Anatomy, and could not help--like many many fans I’ve read about--get emotionally involved in last night’s episode. For now, I've lost my academic perspective.

Shonda’s blog reads as follows: “You all have some pretty strong feelings about this. I’ve been reading your comments. STRONG feelings. Which I respect. Grey’s is in its third season and we’re doing something a little…different. It’s about time we did. Because, just as I said when you all shouted your horror about the Meredith/George sex, I remind you that we writers like to follow the characters here and we try very hard not to make story just to make story. We like to have a point. Meredith being dead is about…well, you will see what it is about next week. She was in pain, this girl. And…
…okay, I don’t want to talk about that. Meredith being dead at the end of this episode. I can’t. Not yet.”

I have a personally policy that I usually apply to films. It goes like this: I don’t mind if a film takes me to a lower emotional point from which I came into the theater as long as the film delivers me back to that same emotional point or a higher one at the end. Films are a one-shot deal. Episodic television is another. For Grey’s to deliver its fans, like myself, to such a low point and leave us hanging for what may be three more weeks is emotionally upsetting. The little girl who was at the scene of the disaster who witnessed Meredith fall into the water, but who was so traumatized she couldn’t speak, was a stand-in for us viewers. We saw Meredith fall in the water too, but we couldn’t speak. We, like the little girl, were left helpless. If it turns out that Meredith is dead (more on that in a minute), then why drag it out? Denny was sick. He died over a long period of time; Meredith is either dead or she isn’t.

The little girl I mentioned above eventually turns up at Seattle Grace and is reunited with her mother. I think this serves as a metaphor for us. As a stand in for the viewer I believe we too will be reunited with Meredith. I don’t think Meredith is dead for reasons I’ll describe below. First, of all, remember at the beginning of the series it was McDreamy that described Meredith as saving him from metaphorically drowning because of his tortured love life. So, this becomes his turn to save her. He will realize how deeply he loves her and how much he needs her and the important role she plays in his life. This epiphany will change the nature of their relationship going forward. At the end of last night’s episode, McDreamy has been forced out of the ER to sit in the hallway helpless as others attempt to save Meredith. My guess is that next week, we’ll see him jump back in the game. She saved him. He must save her. Also, if you recall in last week’s episode, Meredith symbolically drowned herself in the bathtub; McDreamy walked in and again metaphorically saved her from her own tortured existence. So, I think this serves as a model for how this scenario will turn out. The docs at Seattle Grace won’t give up on Meredith, because fans won’t give up on her. Now we’re all in this together. Brilliant!

But I’m hurt either way. If Meredith is dead, then like when Marissa died on The OC, the show is dead. Can you imagine after three seasons Grey’s will end? No! So, I feel like, as a fan, I have been taken advantage of. I don’t like pop culture that manipulates me in such a way, as I said before to deliver me to an emotional place that is lower than where I entered. Because this is episodic television, perhaps I have to be patient. But this is TV--I can change the channel--and there’s always the Food Network where everything is predictable and the emotional range is much narrower. Speaking personally, I think what Shonda and the other writers have done is a recipe for disaster. It’s the next morning as I write this and my emotions are still raw. I can recall few TV experiences that have left me with this residual feeling. Perhaps in the next few days my emotional state will change for the better; after all, this is television I’m talking about here. But for now, I’m appalled!

If you want to read what others have to say about this read the Pop Candy blog the link to which is to the right of this post.

Anna Nicole Smith: A moral tale

It has been almost a week since Anna Nicole Smith passed away and yet media of various sorts continue to give the story prominence. Mainstream media are still churning the story as the issue of paternity of Smith’s six-month old daughter gets tied up with the complexity of her estate. Web sites like TMZ.com cover the story incessantly as do other pop culture oriented web sites. Bloggers churn the story providing readers with insights, news, information, but mostly commentary. We as a culture seem to feed on this stuff: Access Hollywood; Entertainment Tonight. Need I say more? Why are we drawn to stories like this? Tragedies like this one generate public discourse through which a shared culture is created and furthered; it’s how we make sense of our world. Not only do such tragedies fill our imaginations, but also provide us with moral grounding. That I think is an unaccounted for effect of pop culture. As we read, hear or view such stories, talk to others about them, process them both in our thoughts and imaginings, we draw conclusions. Such conclusions provide terra firma upon which ordinary people walk. We have an innate need to be grounded, and such tragedies, among other topics, provide the fodder that allows us to make our way through daily life. As the question over who fathered Smith’s child evolves—and it will continue for a long time as this situation makes its way through the courts and the media—so too will the moral lesson evolve. Culture is not a free-for-all. Culture imposes limits. We learn those limits through the processing of events such as this. What did we do before there was a popular culture? Other institutions held more sway: family, church, and government to name three. But these institutions have weakened giving space for media to step in and fill the void. It may not be that media are so strong that they have displaced traditional institutions; it may be that those other institutions are merely weak. Nevertheless, tragedies such as Anna Nicole Smith’s death provide a shared cultural reference point. The story provides many opportunities for ordinary people to engage with others directly or through social networking on the Web. Such are the opportunities to understand ourselves and the world around us.

NBC’s “Heroes” has all the hallmarks of participatory culture

The NBC series Heroes which was renewed recently re-launched its Web site going full bore with interactive features that include an on-line novel that extends the characters and story lines, games, downloads, message boards, a Wiki, and a message board. The idea behind the Web site is to deepen fan experience which will extend beyond the airing of the program to the Internet and potentially onto mobile phone applications. In my last post I wrote about American Idol as an example of participatory culture. It seems to me, Heroes takes the notion of participatory culture a step further in this multi-platform approach. The Web site has something for just about any level of fan engagement: casual fans to those fans engaged in deep imaginary relationships with the characters. This is a new model of how traditional television networks attempt to extend their reach into the everyday lives of consumers of TV programming and to develop webs that link programs and characters to other aspects of everyday life. Technology provides the means to maintain a connection throughout the day, and technology provides the means to connect wherever the consumer may be. The potential here for interactivity and enriched viewer/fan experience is great, and the approach accommodates different kinds of fans and varying levels of fandom. It will be interesting to see how the program itself attempts to drive viewers to the Web and beyond.

American Idol: The great American transformation from humiliation to stardom

American Idol began its sixth season last night and based on last year's average of 30 million viewers per episode, it is again bound to be a big hit. Jennifer Hudson, an American Idol “also-ran” Monday evening won a Gold Globe for her role in the movie version of “Dreamgirls.” This can only help boost ratings. This year’s program will have additional features, like a songwriting contest to ensure viewer interest as the contest makes its way from the initial humiliation of contestants to longer-term humiliation as those with “talent” make their way to the finals. Humiliation has been a major part of this program and it has been an important aspect of pop culture in general for at least ten years. I have written elsewhere about the ways in which advertisers humiliate men when they depict them as cavemen, wolves, and caught in public without their pants. Americans, it appears, have not lost their taste for seeing bad things happen to other people; referred to as schadenfreude. But more to the theme of our course: American Idol is a great example of media convergence, primarily because of its interactive qualities. In other words, viewers participate--20 million or more votes are cast by viewers--in order to determine those that will move on to the next round and ultimately who will win the contest. Advertisers are integrally involved in this process as Cingular utilized the opportunity to encourage text messaging of viewers’ votes in order to increase the use of this service in America. Obviously, there is interconnectedness between the program itself and the other media properties it spawns that range from touring shows, individual CDs from winners and losers, movies, and books, among others. It is the interconnectedness of all these media that compels individual viewers to become fans and to find in various media modalities ways in which to satisfy their emotional cravings to be close to this viewer created phenomenon.

A way to enter the study of popular culture in America

Convergence culture is a term I learned from Henry Jenkins' book by that name. By convergence Jenkins means “the flow of content across multiple media platforms, among other things. He goes on to say that “convergence represents a cultural shift as consumers are encouraged to seek out new information and make connections among dispersed media content. Jenkins also uses the term participatory culture to refer to the interaction between producers and consumers of popular culture who are more likely within the culture of convergence to interact with one another. Voting for your favorite contestant on American Idol, participating in a fan-oriented web site for a popular TV program, producing your own commercials to appear on YouTube.com, and the social networking that takes place on Facebook.com and Myspace.com might qualify as examples. Finally, Jenkins refers to collective intelligence, a term he gleaned from French cybertheorist Pierre Levy, as the pooling of resources and combined skills of consumers as an alternative to a powerful centralized media. Blogging might serve as an example. These terms will be our guiding light this semester as we begin our exploration of popular culture in America.