The Drone Wars

Rolling Stone has a great piece on how America's use of unmanned drones is changing the way we go to war and conduct foreign policy. Made me think of Stahl's article and the idea that war is more like a video game and video games are more like war.

New Media and Internet Activism

Richard Kahn and Doug Kellner evaluate the new era of online activism in the article New media and internet activism. They discuss the early activities of the “battle for Seattle” and several protests surrounding the war in Iraq from groups such as MoveOn and ANSWER. Web based activism has really hit its stride since the turn of the century. Blogging has allowed anyone with internet access to become a contributing reporter. Kahn and Kellner note bloggers are able to post pictures, text, audiom and video on the fly from PDA devices and cell phones (93).  With the age of the article (2004) it feels to lack emphasis on the speed technology moves today. Since these publication advancements in society such as Twitter, smart phones, tablets, and Facebook have exploded to everyday use. Blogging and activism took a drastic increase in speed.

While I agree several avenues for democracy, news, and facts arose with the new blogging and reporting environment, the web is also rampant with misinformation. Take for example everyone’s favorite activist, blogger, and Right wing rabble-rouser Andrew Brietbart. In 2010 on his website he reported a video of Department of Agriculture agent Shirley Sherrod making seemingly racist comments (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/19/clip-shows-usda-official-admitting-withheld-help-white-farmer/). This created a hailstorm of media coverage. It was reported across the country with Fox-News at the forefront. Within days Ms. Sherrod was forced to resign only for details to later explain Brietbart heavily doctored the video footage (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/22/us/politics/22sherrod.html?_r=2).

Even though apologies were handed out by nearly everyone involved (except Brietbart who always held the spirit of his video was correct), Sherrod's reputation was permanently tainted and her name tarnished forever.

In another case Brietbart exhibited almost the exact same actions. In 2009 he released a video depicting the Government agency ACORN as promoting prostitution and fraud. Thus massive investigations were held by Massachusetts, California, and New York which concluded the ACORN workers committed no criminal activity and the videos were heavily edited to mislead and shape the material out of context. Any effort to critically analyze ACORN's credibility was derailed by the initial video and they were completely disbanded by 2010 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-atlas/acorn-vindicated-of-wrong_b_612265.html?page=3&show_comment_id=50563828).

While the ethics, motives, and validity of these stories can be heavily questioned, we've also witness a number of positive online causes. For example the Trayvon Martin case, after being entirely dismissed by local police, now has life in large part due to online activism. This summarizes the cause and the petition: http://www.change.org/petitions/prosecute-the-killer-of-our-son-17-year-old-trayvon-martin. Even people who believe Zimmerman is being unfairly persecuted by public opinion mostly agree the case should be invested more thoroughly than the previous attempt. A mother, whose son was tragically slain in public, now has a chance at truth for her son's final moments. Whether Zimmerman is guilty or innocent, right or wrong, just or unjust, further insight and investigation isn't much for a grieving mother to ask.

So I guess this brings me to my question, is online activism good for society? My guess, it is good at times, awful and others, and the “truth” to any situation will float somewhere in a myriad of online opinions.

~Tim Nettrouer

The Rhetoric of Internet Trolls.

At this point, it's safe to assume we've all been watching a youtube video or reading a yahoo news article when we see it: an outrageous, vulgar, offensive comment from someone with all caps writing and poor grammar that thoroughly convince you that humanity is, in fact, doomed.  From racial rednecks to obscene scandalizers, they make us wonder how and why these people couple possibly be the way they are, and what sort of sick, sociopathic pleasure could they possibly be getting from enraging hundreds of posters. 

I've been asking myself this question for a long time, and besides the protection internet anonymity offers and a sad, pathetic existence, I haven't been able to consciously put together why these "trolls" exist.  

The other day, I was watching a video and noticed the top comments were both like this: "Guys, don't even respond to his comments.  He thrives off of our anger, don't give him the satisfaction!" 

I scrolled down enough to see his comment look something like this:  "HAHA YOU ARE SUCH A FAG BRO BRO YOU SERIOUSLY NEED TO GET A LIFE BRO DON'T YOU KNOW THAT THIS VIDEO IS FOR BABY BITCHES WHO HAVE NO LIFE BRO WTF HAHA YOU ARE SUCH A FAG STOP MAKING FAGGY VIDEOS BRO SERIOUS" 

I clicked on his youtube name and it brought me to his profile, which had the following description:  

About YUMADBRO?

I am a little douchebag that dislikes and leaves shitty comments on popular videos. i have no friends, and i am a attention whore.i am a troll on the internet. i have multiple accounts on youtube that keep getting banned. i never learn my lesson and keep comming back to troll. I'M A COD FANBOY BRO I THINK I'M A HARDCORE GAMER BRO I THINK SAYING BRO MAKES ME COOL.I don't do anything all day so i have time to wait for hate comments on my channel BRO. i have 0 uploaded videos. i also like flagging videos for no reason bro. I like posting my shitty c.o.d gameplay online BRO and talking shit like a douchebag because i know i am protected by a screen.i also like saying bro alot, because i'm a fag that watches Jersey Shore. I know you all hate me and i don't care bro. besides what would youtube be without little teenage douchebags like myself leaving troll ass comments on videos? KEEP THE HATE COMMENTS COMING, I GET A KICK OUT OF THEM

When im not online trolling, im camping on c.o.D

At first, it almost seems like he's acting as a parody on trolls.  But there is no punch line, and with only this video, it seems like he recognizes the ridiculousness of his behavior, but commits to it nonetheless.  He still enrages hundreds of people daily.  He keeps making new youtube accounts once he gets banned (hopefully this one will still be up for us to analyze).  How, as students of digital rhetoric, do we account for people like this?  Yes, it is upsetting, but Internet Trolls exist.  People would never act this way outside of the internet, so is anonymity and a pension for hate the only reason, or is there something else at work?  Is the Internet truly a place to be an open, public sphere with the existence of this type of poster? 

Please take a minute to provide your input...

For my final project I am going to test my browser and search engines and see if I can manipulate the identity that is formed for me through cookies and other website tools that guide our internet behavior. When I talked to Professor Hess about it last week in class he suggested that I develop a character or two and do a number of different searches as if I was that character. The example he gave was conspiracy theorist. So the plan would be to enter search terms like - conspiracy, New World Order, moon landing hoax, subliminal messaging, etc - and then see if these searches would then impact a generic search for something like politics. Anyways, I thought it might be cool to get input from the class and see what you all thought would be an entertaining character. I like the idea of conspiracy theorist but I would like to do at least one more and see what you guys could come up with - any suggestions would be helpful. Thanks.

"You Don't Play, You Volunteer" Response.

First off, allow me to apologize for the lateness of this post.  I had a miscommunication with David, who also posted this week, and it turns out we were writing over the same article.  So, here’s my new post over Dr. Hess’ piece, “You Don’t Play, You Volunteer”: Narrative Public Memory Construction in Medal of Honor: Rising Sun.

            For this article, Hess dove into a narrative and ludological analysis of Medal of Honor: Rising Sun, a video game released in November 2003 during the Gamecube, Xbox, and Playstation 2 generation.  Since I spent more time than I care to admit playing this game as a 14 year old, I had an easy time slipping into the rhetorical world Hess wrote about; however, for the sake of those who do not partake in video games, I’ll offer an overview of the ludological and narrative focuses of this game (as researched by Dr. Hess) before diving into the interactive effects and implications Hess discovered within these aspects of Medal of Honor: Rising Sun, as well as an overall reaction to this piece and how it applies today.

            Just as with novels or films, video games too have overarching themes for audiences to experience and attribute meaning.  However, unlike the vast majority of novels or films, video games such as Medal of Honor: Rising Sun construct meaning through both narrative devices as well as player interactivity.  While the industry's humble begins from Tetris to Super Mario World leave much meaning to be desired, now, as Hess states, “computer mediated environments, such as multiple user dungeons, chat rooms, and especially gaming, have reached increasing complexity and realism” (p. 340).  Now that the technology exists, digital gaming presents interactive simulations that interweave player action with complex narratives to present fully rhetorical situations (i.e. Mass Effect), and in Medal of Honor’s case, one that uses historical events as a backdrop for a soldier-simulation in WWII (Hess 2007). 

            Due to this unique situation, Hess used narrative and ludological criticism to analyze how the narrative and interactive elements of Rising Sun.  Take a look at how Medal of Honor: Rising Sun is presented.  Hess stated that “the intersection between the gameplay narrative and the historical narrative is underscored through mission objectives” (p. 345).  Here, the objective (scene) is set up through a cinematic where players are caught up on the narrative and goals they have to complete.  Once the cinematic is over, the player takes first-person control of the main character, and it is up to them to fulfill the mission.  As an ordinary gamer taking the place of an ordinary soldier, the player is now thrust into a vernacular perspective on the wartime events that follow (Hess 2007).  The first person perspective of the interactive experience during historical moments in WWII rhetorically place the player in a situation that seems credible and real, leading them to a perspective of patriotic vengeance on Japan in which events played out seem like they actually happened as the player experienced them.

            However, as narratives tend to go, there is a beginning, middle, and end to the player’s journey, and in order to reach the end, the player must play the part.  Hess writes, “while immersed in the text, the player interacts with its limits, borders, and environment” (p. 344), and playing the part in this “authentic” historical environment leads to the critical blindness described in the article.  This blindness leads us to the implications Hess describes as Rising Sun using intertwined narratives to create a story of personal revenge, with the players actively becoming involved in at type of public memory that reigns in themes of nationalistic pride and jingoism.  One of the most important things to realize, however, is that the game is both, as Hess puts it, static and dynamic (353).  There is only one way to win, but getting there is an interactive journey taken on by the player.  Thus, the “politics of remembrance” are being brought to a new audience in a new way.  By reconstructing the war in this way, players are not only experiencing it, but also creating it themselves.

            It is easy to see that the rhetorical situation in video games is, at the very least, complex, and this complexity lends to the potential for game to use narrative construction as a work of art and tell stories that can affect the player in ways only a video game can.  Yet as technology increases at a rapid pace, so does the propensity for influential video games.  Call of Duty: Black Ops, which came out a few years ago, uses historical wartime settings, events, and characters (from JFK to Castro) in a very similar fashion to Medal of Honor: Rising Sun.  Here, the façade of better animation, better graphics, and better production value are offering the opportunity of better truths.  But while not all games profess these sorts of narrative arguments and conscious (or subconscious) representations, Hess’ research allows us to recognize the propensity for video games to attribute such important meaning to what is experienced within them.   

The focal point here is that video game narratives offer a unique opportunity for participatory experience within an emerging art form, and rhetoric in these moments is experienced from multiple vantage points thanks to interactivity.  Wolf states in his Game Studies and Beyond article that “with the addition of interactivity, the image is not just a window but a tool that allows one to (metaphorically) reach through the window frame to find things and manipulate and interact with them instead of just viewing them” (p. 117).  Video games implement different thematic production and narrative techniques found in film or the written word, but with interactivity, the rhetorical situation becomes much greater than the sum of its parts.  Now it’s your turn, classmates.  What do you think this means for the video game industry?  Does participation in a narrative actually grant players choice, or is it just as linear as the railway cars in Holocaust museums?  Do video games have the potential to become not just artistic, but the medium for an entirely unique rhetorical experience, or are they doomed to be simulative constructs that will remain planted in the linear? 

War Games

When the topic of video games first came up in this class, I wasn't sure how we were going to tie them into theories of rhetoric. Given my frame of reference is Super Mario Brothers and Mike Tyson's Punch Out, you can probably understand why. After reading the Hess and Stahl pieces, I have a much better appreciation for the rhetorical arguments that video games can make.

I have a lot of random thoughts, so in no particular order...

What I found particularly interesting in the Hess piece was the revisionist history that occurs in games like Medal of Honor: Rising Sun. History, they say, is written by the winners. And this game is a great example of that. While it has the outward sheen of authenticity, the game itself presents a singular vision of World War II which glorifies the victors and dehumanizes the enemy, leaving out any details which detract from its specific narrative. (Since many video games and consoles are made by Japanese companies, I wonder how people would feel about a Japanese version of the game that allowed the soldiers to participate in the bombing of Pearl Harbor? .....Guessing that wouldn't go over well). Like most of the war games in this genre, Medal of Honor also reinforces the idea that taking the fight to the enemy is the only patriotic thing to do. Even if people are not desensitized to violence by playing the game, it doesn't do much for promoting international diplomacy or peacekeeping efforts. I particularly liked the analogy of the video game to a digital museum display, the stories from "real-life" veterans to docents.  Just as we judge museum displays by the authenticity of the artifacts, we judge war games by the realism of the the uniforms, the weapons and the battle scenes. Medal of Honor gets its sense of historical accuracy from its era-specific artifacts; not by providing an authentic experience of war. Having never fought in combat, I can't say I know what it's like. But I'm pretty sure that no video game, no matter how realistic its graphics or advanced its game play, could ever recreate the experience of being at Pearl Harbor or the Battle of Guadalcanal. I wonder how many young people today will grow up with this game as their only frame of reference for World War II, in the same way that I conceptualized pioneer life by playing Oregon Trail....

The Stahl piece was especially fascinating because I had no idea just how deeply the commercial gaming industry and military industrial complex were in cahoots. I knew the U.S.Army had developed a video game for recruiting and branding purposes, but I never knew so many commercial video games start out as military simulations, and vice versa. When the video game companies aren't developing soldier simulations, they are trying to capitalize on real life conflicts. I thought it was interesting, albeit not surprising, that Sony tried to trademark "Shock and Awe" at the start of the Iraq War. (Didn't Disney just try to do the same thing with "Seal Team 6" shortly after they took down Osama Bin Laden?) The Kuma/War game goes so far as to even re-enact dramatic military missions down to the very last detail, only weeks after they played out in real life. To me, it would be more interesting to see games based on past wars and conflicts. I can only imagine the titles: Call of Duty: Battle of Hastings!  or Civil War: Shiloh Showdown!  How do you think people would react?

In any case, both articles make a strong case that the lines between video game and war, citizen and soldier, are blurring. Wars look more like video games, and video games look like wars.

Guess I'll stick with Super Mario Brothers.

Are video games art?

I really wish that Gee had started off his paper on videogames as art by giving us a context and definition of art. Whether videogames are art or not largely depends on our definition of art. Roger Ebert for instance argues that games can never be art because of their interactive component. To a degree I understand his point. Is there a difference between playing Madden on your gaming console and actually playing on a football field? Shall we consider sports art as well?

Kellee Santiago works for thatgamecompany. Thatgamecompany produces stylistic games such as “flower” and the more recent “journey”. She defends videogames as a style of art by comparing how videogames have evolved throughout the years in the same way that art has evolved from cave paintings to what we have today. You can watch her 15 min speech at the bottom of this response from film critic Roger Ebert. Ebert has become infamous within the gaming community for claiming that games cannot be art. I will not explain all of Eberts points in his blog post but I strongly encourage you to read it and watch the video of Santiago that he is responding to http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/04/video_games_can_never_be_art.html

While Ebert raises many great points in his response to angry gamers defending games as art, I believe he neglects a careful examination of the interactive component of videogames that James Gee explores in his paper Why Game Studies Now? Before I continue I will adhere to what Ebert asks of gamers at the end of his response… “Why are gamers so intensely concerned that games be defined as art?”. To be bluntly honest, as a gamer myself, I don’t care... but defining games as a new unique form of discourse is important for furthering the field of rhetorical studies. Along with new trends in discourse come new ways to reason. What do you think? Is it important to define games as art?

My central problem with Gee is that he does not define art. My other problem is that while he gives good arguments as to why games are art, he does not explain why it is important to define games as art. He says that through the manipulation of symbols such as shapes, games produce two different narratives (59). As humans we produce stories to rationalize the world around us…think back to Fisher’s narration as a human communication paradigm. If you are moving a block in a game, such as Tetris, we construct a story around it. Even games that have a more explained reason for moving a block, such as Ico, will generate a second narrative within the users mind.

When you see Zelda all pixilated you visualize in your head what the real Zelda would look like. So part of the story is generated by the designer and the other part of the story is generated by your interpretation of their design. When I was a kid I used to go into the manual section of my nes games and there would be all kinds of illustrations. In this case the designer is guiding the gamers interpretation of the narrative. Also in defense of videogames as art, Gee relates gaming to experiencing a symphony because “ambience, mood, feeling, sound and look” (59) act in the same way that tones of sound work to move you through a symphony.

The main difference between a symphony and a game is that a game, unlike a symphony, has two different narratives. On one hand the designer is guiding you through a main plot and on other hand you can choose how to experience that plot. Even older games such as the original Mario bros which seem much more guided than modern games such as Skyrim, have a plethora of ways to go through it. For an example watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDX3zfn1LTU. My favorite is from 1:00 to 1:50.

One question I would pose is, if we are to say videogames are art because we are co-producing the experience can we say anyone who plays a videogame is an artist? Throughout history, has it not been the technical skill of the artist that has made certain paintings a work of art and other paintings a piece of crap?

I think this is where Ebert struggles in defining it as art. Ebert points out that George Melies can be considered an artist from his film “A Voyage to the Moon” (1902) because “he has limited technical resources, but superior artistry and imagination”. It seems to me that Ebert is saying that the art depends on the quality. I would agree with this. Editing video for a news station, I can tell you that what we do is definitely not art. He also openly admits that games could be art someday, but are not right now.

Gee, Santiago, and Ebert all raise compelling points…who do you side with most?

Gee, J. (2006). Why game studies now? Video games: A new art form. Games and Culture, 1(1), 58-61

~David Koehn

Further proof of the melding of mind and machine

Saw this article about "Google working on Internet-connected glasses" and immediately thought of Calleja & Schwager's piece on rhizomatic cyborgs.

Reality in World of Warcraft

In her article “Don’t Hate the Player, Hate the Game: The Racialization of Labor in World of Warcraft,” Lisa Nakamura talks about how ‘worker players’ within the game WoW are becoming discriminated against in terms of race. Her focus is not on the game itself, but rather on the racializations players bring to the game, breaking the players into two distinct groups: leisure-players and worker-players.  Worker-players, “produce and sell virtual goods such as weapons, garments, animals, and even their own leveled-up avatars or ‘virtual bodies’ to other players for ‘real world’ money,” (130) this resentment against these worker-players aka famers has led to many being targeted and even killed online. Now while it is interesting to notice the parallels between reality and the online medium, the main focus of this blog is going to be the use of machinima by players of WoW. Before I go into detail with my conclusion of the piece I think it is important that you know I know nothing about WoW, except that Chuck Norris plays it and that if he plays it then it must be awesome.

I wanted to touch briefly how the racism against WoW ‘Chinese farmers’ have parallels in recent history. When I first heard Nakamura use the term ‘Chinese famers’ I was immediately drawn to the American Gold Rush and the surge of Asian immigrants to the West coast, these immigrants were essential to the construction of the railway system connecting the East coast to the West coast, by performing manual labor, laying the foundation for America. The other parallel I saw when reading this article was how the individuals who have come to represent the ‘Chinese farmers’ are actually working in sweatshop conditions, working in twelve hour shifts before going to sleep on a pallet in the other room before they get back on WoW and start all over again. It is also interesting to note that leisure-players are disgusted at the idea of worker-players selling their virtual goods; however, they are not above paying for these good because they themselves do not have the time to obtain these goods on their own.

The main focus on Nakamura’s article was how WoW players are using WoW to create racist rhetoric through machinima. Machinima, according to Wikipedia, can be defined as: “the use of real-time 3D computer graphics rendering engines to create a cinematic production. Most often, video games are used to generate the computer animation. Machinima-based artists, sometimes called machinimists or machinimators, are often fan laborers, by virtue of their re-use of copyrighted materials.”  Users of WoW have taken the game and used it to create their own rhetoric expressing their personal views about the game. According to Warnick, the players of are consciously using rhetoric to persuade other players to identify with their viewpoints and concerns (97).  While some of these productions are adopted by the developer of WoW and end up becoming part of the official game, other productions are rejected by the developer and a key part of their content winds up dealing with race.

http://warcraftmovies.com/machinima.php

This appears to be the official website of WoW machinima, within this website there are different categories depending on the user’s interest. When I went to the website I was able to access the underground machinima and good number of the postings dealt with the worker-player and how they are corrupting the game of WoW. By taking aspects of the game WoW these users are able to create their own digital rhetoric which they then post online creating a forum for other who have the same opinion to come together in agreement  without fear of prejudice. It is interesting to see how the internet has become an extension of us; we take the information we have at our fingertips to create rhetoric that represents us or our causes.

Creating this rhetoric has its consequences, however, and for gamers playing the WoW it has created a racist environment in certain players have to contend with ridicule and persecution.  While many of the users who share anger on how the worker-players are corrupting WoW they would not consider their viewpoints to be racist but rather a legitimate claim. It is interesting to note here that Nakamura distinguishes between ethnic and cultural racism, many of the WoW players who are angry at the worker-players feel the way they do because the worker-players do not act American, instead, they act ‘Chinese.’ From this perspective economics comes into play, leisure-players are taking a consumer perspective, while worker-players are the producer. Therefore, without these ‘Chinese farmers,’ leisure-players would be forced to produce for themselves and the joy would be taken out of the game. 

~Olivia Emry

Users Like You...May Need to Rethink your Agency

        When discussion turns to the implications of user-generated content (UGC) on individual agency online, van Dijck (2008), prompted by Time’s 2006 Person of the Year (“you”), explores a reframing of traditional perceptions of users’ contribution.  More specifically, van Dijck seeks to point out possible shortcomings in considering users “active internet contributors, who put in a ‘certain amount of creative effort’...’created outside of professional routines and platforms’”(p. 41) which exceed previous discussions of agency offered by Howard (2008) in terms of scope of consideration; van Dijck’s assertions depart from the vernacular dialectic in an approach to agency that examines cultural and  economic perspectives and  labor relations, and identifies YouTube as a fitting locus of exploration.  Van Dijck supports the need for developing new approaches to agency by positing, “…user agency is a lot more complex than these bipolar terms (produser and co-creator) suggest; we need to account for the multifarious roles of users in a media environment where the boundaries between commerce, content and information are currently being drawn” (p. 42).  Van Dijck’s agency then turns to three perspectives in order to move toward a more representative agency model:

1. The Cultural Perspective (p. 42-46)

                The emergence of a participatory culture, fueled by a call for ordinary citizens to simultaneously produce and disseminate messages of their own, has cultural theorists celebrating the advent of new media technologies (p. 42).  Van Dijck wishes to reframe this perception, however, as the notion of participatory culture as an occupier of digital space rests on arguably un-sound assumptions (p. 43). The first of these assumptions is that content generating internet users share a unique relationship with digital media, one not encountered with “old media” including television.  This, according to van Dijck, is a “historical fallacy;” this assertion is supported by several examples of an “intrinsic engagement of the viewer with the medium” including bands covering popular songs, fandom, and reality TV (p. 43).  What is different about new media, according to van Dijk, is sophisticated networking that affords users an opportunity to engage with the medium immediately.  Moreover, van Dijk provides statistical support for the low rate of actual content contribution on sites such as Facebook; participation with media, it seems, does not necessarily yield active contribution (p. 44). 

                Another assumption supported by the cultural perspective of user agency is that of digital community, which is similarly cast as a hopeful perception lacking historical accuracy: brand communities and entertainment consumer groups carry the same cultural preferences as online communities, but we attribute potentials for grassroots mobilization to the latter.  If we consider Hess’ (2009) findings about YouTube as a site for deliberation, is this an accurate assertion about online community? Are we, as van Dijck posits, giving online communities too much credit for their ability to mobilize users and offer an unprecedented sense of community involvement?  Finally, in the same vein, what happens to the online community if we consider the final assumption discussed in this article regarding the role fulfilled by the institution in “steering the agency of users and communities” (p. 43)? (Structural features on YouTube serve as an example here, i.e. how the site might be navigated differently depending on the display of “Top Viewed” videos, etc.)

2.  The Economics Perspective (p. 46-49)

                While discussing economics’ role in shaping internet user agency, van Dijck offers a triangular model for understanding the spaces occupied by media producers, consumers, and advertisers (p. 46).  This model has a long tradition, and our tendency to rethink consumers’ status (placing them in the same category as producers via UGC) is an oversimplification of this triangular relationship; producers as an institution still work very closely with advertisers in an increasingly intimate power exchange.  Not unlike targeted advertising in traditional media, van dijck affords examples of sites that track usage preferences, and this is often coupled with personal information such as age, gender, and income.  These pieces of “metadata…can be mined for various purposes, from targeted advertising to interface optimization, but the bottom line is that users have no power over data distribution” (p. 47).  In this sense, user agency is slighted when new media companies steer users through structural elements such as cookies, IP address tracking, browser type, etc. (p. 48), and to ignore the increasing intimacy of the triangular relationship described above “downplays the tremendous influence of new media companies…” (p. 49). 

                Our classroom discussions frequently touch upon this point; there seems to be a general consensus that targeted advertising online is pervasive and influential.  If we recall earlier course readings regarding interactivity and intertextuality, it appears that van Dijck’s claims are supported. We have similarly discussed notions of retracing site builder’s mental processes during content creation, with the interactive maps discussed in the Davisson (2011) piece as an example.  What about the effect these elements have on agency, especially with regard to negotiations of power between media producers, consumers and advertisers or YouTube’s business model discussed on p. 48?

3. Labor relations (p. 49-54)

                The final approach to understanding user agency offered by van Dijck considers labor and UGC, or online volunteerism v. paid content contribution.  In this sense, even content (such as that found on YouTube), that is considered user-generated is not under complete user-control, even with rating and evaluation systems; these structures are subject to commercially-driven control (discussed above) and are increasingly subject to review by institution-supported professionals. This is especially true since Google’s takeover of YouTube, as, “…commercial stakes are rising and YouTube’s paid staffers are taking over an increasing portion of the sites moderating tasks” (p. 52).  As site owners become increasingly concerned over an apparent “demise of the professional system” (p. 53), van Dijck warns us of a simultaneous demise of user agency, claiming, “…it is a myth to expect that amateurs or volunteers will gain more control over the monetization (or moderation) of their immaterial labour…On the contrary, user agency is defined more than ever by the capital-intensive and technology-driven economies of global, vertically integrated markets” (p. 54).  

                The concept of agency discussed here speaks to our previous discussions of vernacular v. institution.   Are sites such as YouTube, which seemingly embody the flourishing of community and free amateur content just institutions under an attractive (vernacular) guise?

                Whatever the case, I find an emergent theme throughout our classroom discussions and participation on this blog that speaks to van Dijck’s central assertion: when considering new media, a multifaceted approach subject to change in time with the technological and economic landscape is necessary for understanding their rhetorical implications. 

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Davisson, A. (2011). Beyond the borders of red and blue states: Google maps as a site of rhetorical invention in the 2008 presidential election. Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 14, 101-124.

Dijck, J. van (2009). Users like you? Theorizing agency in user-generated content. Media, Culture & Society, 31, 41-58.

Hess, A. (2009). Resistance up in smoke: Analyzing the limitations of deliberation on YouTube. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 26, 411-434.

Howard, R. G. (2008). The vernacular web of participatory media. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 25, 490-513.

GBV In the White House (no way dude)!

After our discussion concerning the Howard piece yesterday I was thinking about how common vernacular can attach itself to institutional discourse thereby providing participants in on-line media new access to audiences and widening spheres of influence. This reminded me of a recent occurance in the White House Press Briefing Room involving White House Press Secretary Jay Carney and his love for the seminal (yet relatively unknown) Dayton band Guided By Voices . Watch the clip (he mentions GBV about thirty seconds in) with the thought that no GBV fan would ever imagine having any agency in the White House, no matter how cool President Obama seems about most things. Having been a fan for going on twenty years this really blew me away. After he mentioned their band name, the video went up on GBV's website, Facebook, and YouTube within minutes. I believe that this directly speaks to the "pulses of electricity", "digtal bits", and "myriad of everyday expressive moments" that Howard claims can influence the "discourse of powerful institutions" (Howard, 2008, p.509). While it is far fetched to believe Carney's statement could have any bearing on major policy decisions, it does add a certain element of identification with the people who work in that particular institution daily. Our shared identity could be all that is neccesary in this age of digital rhetoric to enhance argumentation or identify and define the profile of our audience.

A Problem With the Vernacular

Hey classmates.  So this is an article my brother sent me for some delicious debate via facebook, and while that could lead to an entirely different rhetorical conversation itself, I think it goes really well with what we were talking about tonight.  While the fundamental data collection and major argumentation is flawed, (at least in my opinion...discuss?), and it showcases some significant bias, the article talks about younger people lacking the verbosity necessary to contribute to the identification of morality within society.   So, in short, here's an example of people from the digital age using the vernacular and an argument for how that is bad for society, specifically in regard to ethics.  Is this a bi-product of living in a hypertextual\intertextual world, and do you agree with the argument?  When should we start worrying about how the vernacular may be holding back educational progress?  Are we doomed for idiocracy?!

http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/sociology-and-the-life-of-virtue.html

Television Ad - Montage of Memes

Vitamin Water has a recent television ad that includes a number of internet memes. After watching the Weezer Pork and Beans video, I thought this would be an appropriate video to share with the class. See how many memes you can spot.

Vitamin Water Commercial

Flour Bombing?

Kim Kardashian was flour bombed at a red carpet gala to celebrate the launch of her new perfume. Not sure if the act had act political significance (there's speculation that it's because she wears fur), but it did remind me of the "glitter bombing" we talked about in class and the Harold article on pranking.

Heat in Hoodies

Not sure where it fits into our current discussions but I thought this was interesting: the Miami Heat basketball team posted this picture to draw attention to the story of Trayvon Martin, the black teenager who was shot to death by neighborhood watch volunteer. This could become something of an Internet meme if other people start mimicking the gesture. ... Story has been all over the media last day or so. Geraldo Rivera, the Fox News blowhard, said the hoodie Martin wore was as much to blame for his death as the man who shot him. I wish I was kidding.

Vernacular Discourse in Institutions

According to Howard’s research vernacular discourse differs from institutional discourse in that vernacular is alternate from the institution. This is a pretty simple way to view the difference between these two voices in the public sphere. In the year 2012 our internet is primarily dominated by user content. According to Howard’s article this user content would qualify as vernacular discourse among the institutional parameters. These institutional parameters being any website that facilitates users content such as Facebook, twitter, blogger, Tumblr, and YouTube.  Howard states “On the one hand, vernacular forms are those available to individuals or groups who are subordinated to institutions, and, on the other, they are a common resource made available to everyone through informal social interaction. Based on this dual meaning, the vernacular came to refer to discourse that coexists with dominant culture but is held separate from it.”(2008, p.493) This means that our entire vernacular discourses on these facilitating websites is under the institution of the given website. That is why we have so many of these websites that have no affiliations, but they purely exist to make the most user friendly tool for one’s own voice. The article talks about this shift in content on the internet. The rise of "web 2.0" changed the way people viewed the internet. The internet began to function less like a newspaper, TV, or retail store and more like a coffee shop, family reunion, or a swap meet. This change attracted people because they could now express themselves on the internet and also receive messages free from the institution. I think part of the reason why the internet is so addictive is because we can post our own content and then receive feedback from virtually anyone. I know personally when I post something on Facebook I am more excited about the responses to my post than the content of my post itself.

In the case of “Homosexual Extremist Catholic Space” the website Dignityusa is an institution of gay and lesbian Catholics. Raymond posted this content on his own blog and then provided his own vernacular discourse on the matter. This is case in point the new age of web discourse. Everything is fair game. Anything that is posted on the web by an institution is then able to be reposted on facilitators of vernacular discourse. This is what makes the internet a beautiful thing. We as consumers of Media are no longer subject to merely the discourse of institutions but we can now easily deliberate the ideas of institutions among our public sphere. GM motors embraced this new way of communication by mixing the institutional discourse and then opening it up for vernacular discourse. I think we will see more of this in the future. I think we will see institutions try to meet their consumers at a vernacular level, because human beings ultimately want to be heard and feel like their voice has an impact.

 How have you guys seen these institutions adapt to the new wave of participatory media? 

An Anatomy of 'An Anatomy of a YouTube Meme'

An Anatomy of 'An Anatomy of a YouTube Meme'

Your Blogger: Wesley Rupel

First and foremost I would like to apologize for the lateness of this post.  I have some stupid hours that do not seem to get any better, but enough about my trials and tribulations let's get into some fun stuff.  

I did enjoy reading this article, mainly because it felt as if I was able to follow along as I read. Normally, it might take a couple of reads on several lines in an article to fully or somewhat understand what is being said.  I don't know if I am just not used to the double spacing or if the word usage was just simpler. Whatever it might be it was somewhat of a breeze to read through.  There were a few things I noted down as I read through to remind myself to make mention in this very spot.  The entire article is a qualitative (mainly) and quantitative analysis on the memetic videos on our good friend YouTube. We know how much YouTube is for us to watch, well Shifman attempts to break down the draw to YouTube and the particular videos that thrive on said site.  

I am going to go over some of the few aspects that intrigued me and hope to get some nice little responsive posts out there...

I am not a huge YouTube person, definitely not a YouTuber at all.  I usually only watch when someone tells me, "Dude! You've gotta watch this! It's F'n hilarious." Then they proceed to put their iPhone or whatever phone in my face as it loads.  I'll admit for what I've watched... pretty funny stuff.  I have used YouTube to find clips of some of my favorite shows, Family Guy mainly (cough), to show a friend or two or seven. The first thing I did when I finished this article I went right to YouTube to find some on these "memetic videos" that Shifman used in the article.  Since 2009, when the data from the table was collected, it appears YouTube's layout has changed a bit to reflect a more categorized look than just, "here are the top viewed," "These here relate that video you just watch!" "Most Popular".  Now they have, what looks like channels you can go to like, music, news, sports, and trending.  This is different than what I remember of YouTube, but it does have nice feel to it.  Anyways, the site did not instantly pull the "memetic videos" up, I had to search the titles that Shifman used through out the article just to watch some of them.  My how things do change...

Shifman quotes Burgess (2008, 6) on page 6, "successful internet memes incorporate textual hooks or key signifiers that cannot be identified in advance, but only after a video has become prominent through the active selection of users."  This particular passage, I found intriguing for the simple fact that we will never be able to preemptively figure out a meme before it is a meme.  A person can think their new video is going to be successful, but the nature of a meme, which this article explores, depends on some social factors on how successful the video might be.  

Shifman identifies common features among the sample taken in the study.  These synonymous features are 'Ordinary' people, Flawed masculinity, Humor, Simplicity, Repetitiveness, and Whimsical Content.  I believe Shifman nailed this one pretty straight on the head, because a good combination of these aspects will lead to a memetic video on YouTube.  

I believe the most powerful of all features is the combination of the 'Ordinary' people and Humor.  These two features lead to simplicity, because they have a way of making the audience watching the specific video relate easy to an 'Ordinary' person and if that 'Ordinary' person is going through something humorous, then you might just have a winner there.  Then again, you will not know, because you can not determine a meme before it becomes a meme as it takes the response to a particular video to determine it as such.  Why does Simplicity come from 'Ordinary' people and Humor?  I believe it is what I am going to call, the "Common Ground Effect" (don't coin that, it's mine, unless it is already a real 'effect').  It means just what it states, the idea of having common ground or similar interest between two or more people or groups.  We see an "ordinary" person doing something that we, ourselves, are very capable of doing and we can then place ourself in their shoes. Then if this "ordinary" person falls or does something, again in the realm that we can do this "something" too, idiotic, moronic, or accidental tends to lead to laughter (humor).

This could be scoped vision, because I do not know many people who get serious, credible news from YouTube.  YouTube seems to be more of an entertainment type web site.  This is why critical thinking skills should developed much earlier, because the exposure level is hitting much younger ages and they need to be able to identify and differentiate what is a "good," credible source of information and what is just crap, for lack of better words.  

I did want to make quick reference to page 11 where Shifman makes a descriptive comment about a particular video.  Is midget really the word you chose to use.  Is it not more politically correct to say little person? I do not know why that hit me when I saw it, but it struck me out of place with how the entire article went.  I have seen a few documentaries, specials, and shows where little people have said they prefer the term "little person" instead of "midget".  It  was just something I noticed and wondered if anyone else thought the same in regards to that.  No where else is it mentioned in the article, but still to me... odd.


Let me know what y'all think in regards to my thoughts and overall thoughts to this article...


Oh and for fun I built some more Wordles (couldn't resist):

An Anatomy of 'An Anatomy of a YouTube Meme'

An Anatomy of a YouTube Meme

Memes in the Technical Sphere

Hey guys,

I'd like to know what you think of this meme I made. I'd like to hear how this image is rhetorical and how does it persuade. I'd like to know from our technical sphere of knowledgeable and educated students of rhetoric what type of artistic proofs are used, what type of speech is used, if this is a starting point for rational debate, and are memes in general used with civility and decorum. These are just starting points feel free to analyze it from what ever angel you would like. 

This meme is entitled liberal college girls if that helps you get some context of the statement that is being made.

GO NUTS, PLEASE!

Joey   

Occupy Again

It looks like the Occupy Movement is making headlines again in Fort Wayne, but not for any legitimate news of its own. It seems a reporter with the News Sentinel is still trying to make a federal case out of the fact that the Occupiers get to camp out stay rent-free in a city park, while he can't park downtown without feeding the meter. Maybe he has a point. But even if you agree with him, you would have to say the media seems to be missing the forest for the trees on this one.

Hackers Revisited

Check out this News-Sentinel article about some hackers from the group Anonymous getting arrested after one of their leaders turned informant. It's considered the first significant prosecution of Internet hackers. I think it's interesting to note the language employed in the article. Authorities accuse them of a "deliberate campaign of online destruction, intimidation and criminality." Remember the Nissembaum article talked about this kind of ontological shift.

One of their alleged "exploits" was hacking into the PBS Web site and planting a fake story that Tupac Shakur was really alive in New Zealand, which they did in retaliation for what they perceived to be "unfavorable news coverage of Wikileaks on the PBS news program Frontline." Hardly what you would consider terrorist activity. And kind of funny actually. One might say more of an act of insurrection than mere sabotage.

....Some people even wondered if the whole story of the arrest of the 5 hackers wasn't a fraud as well.

Occupy-Tea Party Forum

If anyone's interested, there's going to be a televised discussion tonight on politics and economics between members of the local Occupy and Tea Party movements. 7 p.m. at Walb Student Union.

YouTube in the 2008 Election

I’m sorry it took me so long  to get this up. I Was planning on having it done on Friday, but have had an extremely busy week/weekend. I decided to write about Aaron’s piece because I thought it was interesting and completely agreed with it. The videos that we watched in class last week helped me to understand his article much better. The 2008 election was such a huge deal at the time. I personally was not very concerned with it at the time because I was young and had different things going on, but I do remember how the media played a huge role in the election. I recall people making Obama seem as if he was some type of terrorist.  It seemed as if there were two extremes in the election; either you hated Obama or you hated McCain.

“it is important to note that the vernacular videographers are engaging in crafty editing practices in their arguments. In many cases, they have selected those individuals who perform the most extreme actions (Sunstein, 2007) and portray them as evidence for the whole. As a type of argument of guilt by association, the videographers present montages of the supporters, telling viewers to vote because of the horrors found at McCain rallies.” (Hess 113) This was an excellent way to sum up how the videographers were portraying Mccain/Palin supporters. These videographers were brilliant! Had I not known any better, I would have thought that supporters of McCain/Palin were very uneducated and biased. They seemed to find the most judgemental people who simply hated Obama because of his race. They didn’t really know that much about him, all they really knew was that they did not like black or muslim people.

Another concept that Hess discussed was the “mash up” technique, “Which combines existing footage

together to create a new video. In this case, a selection of YouTubers combined elements of

both news, institutional, and vernacular sources to make new videos. At the most basic level,

some YouTubers, such as Chris NYC (2008), Cmdrgmh (2008), and VoiceofAmericans2008

(2008), merely reposted local or national news regarding the issue of the McCain mobs. In

other cases, however, YouTubers used more elaborate editing to make connections between

vernacular videos and national news (camerontr, 2008). Kaffemoka (2008) mashes part of

McCain's speech at a presidential debate with bloggerinterrupted's (2008a, 2008b) Strongsville,

OH, videos and a collection of pictures, likely taken from a simple Google image

Search.” (Hess 115) This type of technique that the videographers used established a strong sense of credibility. I think that when people see real clips of the News, they assume that what they are viewing is accurate. If the News channels deem it worthy of being on television, then we should as well. I found this strategy that the videographers used to be very interesting as well as effective. I spent a little time searching YouTube to try and find videographers who used this same strategy in a different situation, but I was not successful in doing so. Has anyone else come across videos that have used this mash up technique, and what did you think of it? Did it strengthen the credibility of the author, in your opinion?

~Brittany Huggins

Social Networking caution

Class

I am sure you realized that I was not in class on Monday. While in my 430-545 class my house was broken into and $3000 worth of stuff was taken. I wanted to inform you all of this to remember to use caution when using social networking sites such as facebook. The "check in" function could allow people to know your schedule and potentially put you at risk of theft. Even though I don't use that function often it can be an open invitation to someone.

Whoever broke into my house was someone that knew me and had been in my house before. I have a 120lb dog that is quite threatening and she was not harmed nor did it seem to deter the robber. They also knew exactly where expensive items were hidden.

I just thought I'd let you all know to take caution. It could happen to you.

Hackers

I thought the Nissembaum article on hackers was pretty thought-provoking. Her point that society's view of hackers is no longer that of cyberspace pioneers or digital mavericks but as deviants and criminals represents a major ontological shift and reminded me a little bit of another group of maligned individuals.

The original pirates of the Caribbean (the people not the film) were privateers employed by the British navy to attack Spanish and Dutch ships. Once the war was settled, these privateers were out of job and their acts of smuggling and sabotage became illegal and punishable by death.  Like the hackers, the pirates were now being hunted down for what they have previously been allowed and even encouraged to do.

In the case of the hackers, corporate interests, government institutions and the popular press have conspired to make hackers into criminals in order to justify greater security standards, regulation and enforcement of private property right. In our lifetime, we have witnessed the online world  transformed from a sort "Wild West" scene to a kind of gated community where users have to register domains, create passwords and rely on Internet providers to obtain access. Nissembaum makes the case that the original hackers held to their own credo and code if you will and were responsible for many of the early innovations in computer programming and the development of the Internet, but now all hackers are reduced to villains and white collar criminals, the so-called "enemies of the Information Age" (p.199).

Even in Hollywood, we have seen this shift in public opinion of hackers play out on the big screen. Think of the 1983 movie War Games where a young Matthew Broderick hacks into a military computer program and almost starts World War III and compare it to a more recent film like 2001's Swordfish where Hugh Jackman is the world's greatest hacker who is employed by a terrorist to steal billions of dollars. Broderick is considered an innocent and naive computer whiz, where Jackman is a dangerous criminal and thief (Another example might be Keanu Reeves character in the Matrix).

I must admit that I don't usually think of hackers as freedom fighters or ideologues, but as vandals who steal and try to infect our computers with viruses. And maybe that's because the hackers who gain notoriety are the ones doing it for selfish and malevolent purposes. Or maybe it's because the media is mislabeling what it is to be a hacker. Either way, it's still worth thinking about. This effort to tame the online world and to drive hackers  - and by extension, those who want freedom and autonomy in the online sphere - to the margins of society continues. Yesterday's Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 is today's SOPA and PIPA regulation.

The Public Screen

Class – I am deeply sorry for getting this up so late. In my defense I thought I had posted this on Thursday from work and when I went to go check the discussion today I see that nothing posted. So I rushed back into work today to pull the saved version from my work computer. The only thing I can think of is that it had something to do with Government security on my work computer. Once again – terribly sorry.

“Ideally the public sphere denotes a social space wherein private citizens gather as a public body with the rights to assembly, association, and expression in order to form public opinion”, Jurgen Habermas. In this article, Public Screen, the authors talk about how we can no longer limit ourselves to just the Public Sphere due to how the Internet and Television has changed out culture. He introduces the Public Screen as a new metaphor to thinking about places of politics.

In the article the authors say, that the ideal public sphere is seen as the seat of civic life, participatory democracy, through the marketplace of ideas such as coffee houses and salons, town meetings, where anyone can say his or her piece, the public sphere is imagined as a place of embodied voices, of people talking to each other, of conversation. Now, in this day in age, I believe we have the means to have these conversations in a broader landscape. Facebook, twitter, myspace, blogs posts, you tube, and many other networking sites gives us the possibility to a more conducive public sphere.

The authors go on to discuss the public screen. The public screen starts from the premise of dissemination. Communication is characterized by dissemination. The public sphere is said to be limiting and is simply a guiding metaphor for social theory. Using the “public screen” as a metaphor for thinking about the places of politics and the possibilities of citizenship. The public screen recognizes that the most important public discussions take place via “screens”, television, computer, and newspapers. The public screen takes technology seriously.

Television and the Internet has transformed the way our society acts and perceives things. The authors hit on TV and newspapers as a form of public screen but I am going to stick with the Internet. “They physically shrink the world while simultaneously mentally expanding it, producing a vast expansion of geographical consciousness”. This quote really stuck out to me. It is so true about how the internet has made things so much more accessible to us and how easy it is to jump on the internet and read todays news, or get in on a political debate, or send a facebook message. Something this is personal to me that really made an impact on my life is the ability to send an email to someone 7000 miles away or even skype with someone that far away. When I was deployed to Iraq the Internet was a life saver. It allowed me to communicate with my loved ones at home instantly and in a sense helped keep me going everyday. It has given us the capability to do so much making every day life easier and at times more difficult. However I think right now the good out-weigh the bad.

The author goes on to discuss how the public screen as made a shift in public opinion. In the public sphere, public opinion is designed to criticize and control the power of the state. It shifts public opinion by forcing not only criticizing and controlling the power of the state but also of the corporations. Corporations are forced to maintain a positive public opinion to protect their public image.

The public screen is a constant current of images and words, a ceaseless circulation of technologies of television, film, photography, and the Internet. It can be characterized as a “distraction”. Real life is becoming indistinguishable form the movies” (pg 135). Do you agree that the theater of illusion, leaves no room for imagination or reflection on the part of the audience, who is unable to respond within the structure of the film…? A German social theorist recognized this as a new mode of perception. The theorists understand distraction not as a lack of attention but as a necessary form of perception. I find this idea very interesting. The authors state that this theory suggests that they be read not morally but analytically as signs of the emergence of a new space for discourse, the public screen, that entails different forms of intelligence and knowledge.

Occupy Movement

As I was reading the article by DeLuca and Peeples (2002) about the WTO protests in Seattle, I kept drawing comparisons to the Occupy Wall Street movement. Just like in Seattle, the protests on Wall Street and in cities across the country only started getting major media traction once the violence began to escalate between police and protesters, and generally only in those places where confrontations and arrests occurred like in Oakland. Even right here in Fort Wayne, the media has mostly dismissed the movement's goals and objectives and has instead focused on the tangential issue of Occupiers camping out in public parks in violation of park rules. As Harold (2004) points out in his article on cultural jamming and media activism, the media has a hard time ignoring a good "spectacle." It could be argued, as DeLuca and Peeples do in their article, that if it wasn't for the "spectacle" created by these confrontations between police and protesters, the story would likely have died a quicker death (Although Occupiers in Fort Wayne were moved out of Headwaters Park to a more visible location in Freimann Square, news coverage itself has practically disappeared).  Like with the WTO protest stories, coverage of the Occupy protests invariably includes some discussion of why the Occupiers are there in the first place. The Occupy movement itself is born out of a frustration many Americans (the so-called 99%) have in feeling like don't have a say in, or even access to, the decision-making process of their government. Clearly, the Occupiers understand the important of visual discourse or "images" in a hypermediated world as they have staged their protests largely in public spaces where they could be visible to the masses and an irritant to corporate and municipal authorities.  It's only because the Occupy movement has had moments of spectacle that the traditional media has bothered to pay attention. If it weren't for the episodes of violence and police brutality, the Occupy movement might have faded completely from view.

The Golden Circle - Simon Sinek

I just listened to this video while I was at work today and I thought that there might be some applications to our classroom discussions. Last night we touched on movements and how people form opinion and how that grows. Sinek applies his ideas mostly to commerce and the selling of good but he also uses MLK Jr as an example. Watch the video if you have time. Regardless of whether it applies to class, it is though provoking nonetheless.

The Golden Circle as presented by Simon Sinek

Dissecting Habermas

On its face, Habermas gives a pretty sound theory for how democracy operates through the public sphere.  His notion that there is a cycle to the democratic process and that change starts with ideas discussed in intimate spheres which eventually move through literary spheres and ultimately into the political public sphere seems logical to me. I can even see his point about how The State apparatus can constrain or loosen the economy and  how unfettered capitalism can lead to concentrations of wealth and influence which can ultimately short-circuit the democratic process. We have certainly seen that in the form of powerful lobbying groups which represent the interests of Big Business.

Putting aside my skepticism about the economy's singular role in influencing the democratic process (what about religion/morality, education...?) and the somewhat antiquated notion of the literary public sphere (do all social and political movements start at Starbucks?), where I have the most trouble with Habermas is in his insistence on critical-rational thought and civility as essential elements of democracy.

Habermas says democracy depends on critical-rational deliberation which is completely devoid of emotion or personal identity. I wonder how easy that is to achieve, or even how necessary. When was the last time you heard two people discussing or debating an issue that didn't involve some element of emotion or personal identity? Although emotion should not get in the way of logic or reasoning, I think passion and a sense of personal stake have always been an essential part of social and political movements.

The second requirement of democracy, according to the model, is that there be civility and decorum. If we are all supposed to abide by Parliamentary procedure and not speak out of turn, there would seem to be little room in the model for protest. An event like the Boston Tea Party could be considered quite uncivil, but it was not doubt highly effective at inspiring others to take up the cause of liberty. The civil uprisings that occurred across the Arab world in 2011 as part of the "Arab Spring" could hardly be considered civil, yet these uprisings resulted in significant political change for the peoples of those countries.

I'll leave it to someone else to take up the question of whether there is an online public sphere. On a side note, I think it is interesting how Habermas uses the term "publicity" to refer to the speaking out in support of ideas or change. We generally use the word publicity to mean drawing attention to someone or something for commercial purposes.

Narrate Your Day Off

Narration as a Human Communication Paradigm: The Case of Public Moral Argument

By: Walter R. Fisher

Everyone has a story to tell and in this article, Fisher explains how people are narrative individuals through the narrative paradigm. The narrative paradigm branches from argumentative and persuasive themes.

The word “narration” in this sense is a theory of symbolic actions such as words or deeds according to the author. Along with this statement, Fisher also believes that communication is based off of story telling, however, not all stories are the same. In order to argue that all told stories are not the same Fisher created the narrative paradigm to differ from rational world claims.

National World Paradigm:

- People are rational

- Human decision making is clear cut

- The speaking situation can determine the argument

- Rationality is measured by how much we know and argue

- The world is a set of logical puzzles that we can solve through rational analysis

Fisher’s viewpoint:

- People are storytellers

- Make decisions on the basis of good reasons

- History, biography, culture, and character helps us consider what is good reason

- Narrative rationality is determined by the coherence and fidelity of our stories

- The world is a set of stories from which we choose, and thus constantly re-create, our lives

After this eventful weekend of Super Bowl preparations, Sunday was the day to enjoy the game and watch the infamous commercials. My favorite of the night was Mathew Broderick’s Cr-V ad. . For those who have not seen the movie Ferris Bueller’s Day Off , it is about a high school senior who decides to play hooky yet again. This movie is quite different as the main character breaks the “fourth wall” to speak in most in depth thoughts and his decision-making. Now, many years later, Mathew Broderick has taken that senior from high school and recreated the character to tell the story again of Ferris Bueller to an audience that has grown up to someone that normally gets up and travels to work every day. However, “Life moves pretty fast. If you don’t stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it”