M. Appeal (Mass Appeal)

Sometimes I wear my hair in an up-do with a clip like Sarah Palin but it never gets to the height of the teased-and-sprayed poofs of the early 1960s. A little back combing and hairspray might have helped my rendition of “Stand by Your Man” in Reporting class. I hesitated before I warbled but then thought, “What the heck.” It was brief and off key, but remarkably, an undergraduate broke out in song along with me. I’ve been trying to practice the notion of “authenticity” in class — the idea that students respond better to professors as people, not authority figures.

Anyway, what precipitated this miscarriage of juke-ness was my playing of a video of the 1992 interview that then-Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton had with correspondent Steve Croft of CBS News 60 Minutes. At the time, Clinton admitted causing pain in his marriage in response to allegations by Arkansas mini-celebrity Gennifer Flowers that she had had a 12-year affair with Clinton. This occurred prior to the New Hampshire primary.

I use this video when talking about interviewing, specifically the best way to ask a “bomb” question. The bomb is the question that is uncomfortable to ask and can make long-held enemies for reporters. It’s one of the things that differentiates a journalistic interview from a casual conversation.

I tell the class to watch Croft’s body language, and particularly his eyes. They’re like lasers that bore into your soul.

For nine minutes, he is relentless. Some excerpts, in order:

“I’m assuming … that you’re categorically denying that you ever had an affair with Gennifer Flowers.”

“You’ve said that your marriage has had problems, that you’ve had difficulties. What do you mean by that? What does that mean? Is that some kind of, help us break the code. Does that mean you were separated … does it mean adultery?”

“You’ve been saying all week that you’ve got to put this issue behind you. Are you prepared tonight to say that you’ve never had an extramarital affair?”

“You’re trying to put this issue behind you and the problem with the answer is it’s not a denial, and people are sitting out there, voters, and they’re saying, ‘Look, it’s really pretty simple. If he’s never had an extramarital affair, why doesn’t he just say so?'”

And, then the journalistic payoff heard round the world.

Clinton: “You’re looking at two people who love each other. This is not an arrangement or an understanding. This is a marriage. That’s a very different thing.”

Hillary: “You know, I’m not sittin’ here, some little woman standing by my man like Tammy Wynette.  I’m sittin’ here because I love him and I respect him and I honor what he’s been through and what we’ve been through together. And, you know, if that’s not enough for people, then heck, don’t vote for him.”

The students are riveted by this act of journalistic chutzpah. They’re also taken by Hillary’s pronounced Southern accent. They laugh knowingly at the irony of Clinton’s response considering what followed after he became president. That’s one part of presidential history they all know about, even if only one of them could conjure the most famous words from Tammy’s ode from 40 years ago: “Stand by Your Man.”

Sarah Palin's frames

A vast amount of communication research exists on news “frames.” News frames are the ways that the news media construct stories so that they fall within certain cultural touchstones or create narratives that we can relate to. They can also be a device that newsmakers or stakeholders use to try to shape narratives.

George Lakoff is a name known to virtually every communication researcher even though he is a linguistics professor, not a communication academician. He is called the father of framing because of his ideas about the way we make political decisions based on how candidates fit into our notions of family and other long-held beliefs or internal narratives. Lakoff says that cognitive science shows that we respond to the stories buried in our unconscious, trying to match those stories with the facts and events we encounter in the outside world. We interpret the facts and events according to our frames, not necessarily the truth of the situation.

Media fit into this idea because reporters and editors, as storytellers dealing with complex issues and events, work in frames as a way to relate to readers — not necessarily consciously, mind you. But news stories often fit frames we’re all familiar with — the good guy always wins, the underdog comes out on top, the beauty and the beast, power corrupts, etc. Stereotypes and prejudices can be reinforced through frames, which is why reporters today get a lot of training in diversity issues and why they are sometimes accused of being elitist. The mainstream media are dominated by white, well-educated, middle-class men, so that is often the perspective that seeps through.

Anything considered a “media uproar” is usually a battle over framing. An event occurs and then journalists, newsmakers, news commentators, now bloggers, etc., start throwing things on the wall to see if they stick. What sticks are usually the frames that end up becoming “fact” — or the-way-we-view-that-development-from-here-to-eternity.

For example: The Camelot of the Kennedy administration, Gerald Ford’s clumsiness, Al Gore’s wonkiness, the liberal media, regulation is bad, anti-abortion equals right-to-life, etc.

I was trying to explain the notion of framing to undergraduates in my Understanding Media class at American University, and I asked the students what frames fit President Bush and the United States as a whole. They agreed that Bush is seen as “a tough guy,” a Texan, a man’s man, and interestingly, his frames coincided a lot with those of the nation. One student summed it up by describing Bush’s stand on many issues as a “bad ass” frame, meaning that he — and by inference, the United States — doesn’t take any guff from anyone.

Then the discussion went rather naturally to the topic of the GOP vice presidential nominee, Sarah Palin. I was a bit surprised to learn that many in the class of 40 thought she had been pretty severely mistreated by the media.

“How is she being framed?” I asked.  They saw only one frame of Sarah Palin — that of an unfortunate citizen being ground alive in the media machine.

I was surprised because of all the positive press Palin was getting and because she had given the McCain campaign a huge boost.

I said to the class, “Let’s look at the frames that might fit.”

Playing Sarah Palin (and not nearly as well as Tina Fey), I drew a frame around myself in the air and then pretended to step through it. “I’m an unknown person thrust into the media spotlight,” I said, looking like a deer in headlights.

Then, I drew another frame and took another step. “I’m a babe.” (That was a stretch.)

Another frame and another step: “I’m a Mom.”

Another frame: “I’m a strong woman who is breaking through the glass ceiling, but not one of those feminists.”

Another: “Like TV women everywhere, I’m slightly ditzy but cute when I get mad.”

Another: “I’m a bad ass (who shoots wild animals).

Perhaps Sarah Palin fits them all. And, that might be one answer to the question of why she is a compelling figure to the public and to the media. Maybe it boils down to a kind of framing formula for media frenzy:

— 1 frame equals perhaps one reporter milling around

— 2 frames means numerous reporters are meandering about, with a possible stakeout

— 3 frames means a live shot

— 4 frames – breaking news crawl

— 5 frames – full-force frenzy

Sarah Palin fits more frames than a good war. May the best frame win.

Matt, the slightly crazy cruise director

I didn’t wear an angel costume like Matt did, but he did give me a little gift from heaven…

It takes a certain amount of courage to do something in class that you’ve never done before, especially if it’s a large class and it involves a game that the whole class will play. Probably like a lot of teachers of undergraduates, I’m always hoping to get the class engaged and enthused. I can remember fondly the times that this has occurred the way I imagine it does in the perfect classroom. Sort of like spontaneous combustion, the class will erupt in meaningful discussion.  When I realize that I can step back and say nothing and the class will continue apace, I have hit pedagogical pay dirt.

So, I guess this is my goal for each class. Suddenly, I know why teaching sometimes drives me crazy. I guess I have pretty high expectations.

Whenever I attend a “big group” activity — a seminar, panel discussion, lecture, or even a play or stand-up routine, I’m always trying to analyze what makes audiences pay attention.  When I first started teaching a few years ago, I thought it was all about me, and that made me nervous. But now I have the theory that unless the material being presented is of intense personal interest, the person talking is enormously famous or attractive, or there is non-stop action on stage, a lot of people are engaged when they can talk and contribute.

Just reading that last paragraph helps me realize how tough it can be for a regular old person to hold a class’ gaze and lead it to a fruitful learning outcome.

Over the summer I found myself in a situation comparable to one my students might face in my class, though at first thought it seems an unlikely comparison.  I was on a cruise to the Bahamas, attending an event on board called “Qwest” with other participants who were of my general demographic group but about whom I knew little. I also didn’t know what “Qwest” meant and I had a few reservations about the “teacher” — or cruise director. He was a stocky, Welsh fellow with a spiky crew cut, square black glasses, and a party-boy demeanor who liked to break into a weird smile and talk like Austin Powers.  (A little like me, perhaps, when I do my Tom Brokaw imitation in Understanding Media class.) Sitting, waiting for Qwest to begin, I knew something was going to be required of me and I wasn’t sure I could trust him — a situation a lot of students may find themselves in on the first day of class.

My first instinct was to make myself as invisible as possible and hope that no one called on me. Hmmm. This is more insightful than I first imagined.

Anyway, Matt, the slightly wacky cruise director, had everything under control. His idea was to have a type of scavenger hunt right there as everyone sat in the audience. “Ok, this makes sense,” I said to myself. “This might be fun,” I continued thinking. And, then he assigned us into groups. Sound familiar? (Groups are a big thing in teaching right now. Millennials, the generation now in undergraduate classrooms, are big on groups.)

This being a pleasure cruise, some of the items Matt asked for would not be appropriate for class, of course. But I was actually shocked at how enthusiastic the crowd was about competing to find the items he requested and race them to the stage so he could award points.  The way it worked was that Matt would call out an item or direction — a holographic bank credit card, a man wearing women’s shoes, two men holding hands (Many of the requests involved men wearing women’s clothing or otherwise doing something against gender type — an interesting study in its own right, perhaps.), etc. The first five or so people who got to Matt’s side with the item or request would earn a point for each of their teams. It got a little chaotic at times but in a good way.

Eight weeks later and two weeks into the semester, I’m “Matt” and my students in Understanding Media are the cruise goers.  Most educators in communication departments around the country know this class — the introductory, undergraduate, usually large-size class that introduces students to the field. It’s a media literacy class, and in the first few weeks we are looking at the new media-saturated world we live in and the ways in which we all use media.

Here is my in-class scavenger hunt list (compiled by my TA, my husband and myself) with the approximate number of how many were found in the class of 40: (The numbers are not at all definitive because if you were too late to show what you had, you missed out, or some people might have been too shy to participate.)

electric blue cell phone (2)
iPhone (7)
non-iPod MP-3 player (2)
Gameboy (0)
Fountain pen (0)
Phone with a ringtone of Rolling Stones, Led Zepelin, the Who or the Beatles (Several)Cell phone with a waiting e-mail alert (Many)
Text message in in-box from mother/father or guardian (Several)
Wooden pencil (4)
Music CD (0)
Music cassette (0)
Vinyl (0) (by chance, someone in class had some in a previous class)
Any hard copy section of The Washington Post (2)
A novel (3)
Photos of friends from previous weekend on phone (many)
Text message from someone in class (frantic text messaging produced lots)
GPS device not on phone (0)
Apple laptop with your photo on it (more than 4)
Same with Windows laptop (more than 4)
iPod with earphones that aren’t white (many)
iPod loaded with MJ’s greatest hits! (3)
Tupac and Biggie on the same iPod (2+) (from TA)
M.I.A.’s music video of ‘Jimmy’ on YouTube (frantic downloading)
Text without looking at your phone (5+)
Red cell phone (lots)
Pay-as-you-go phone (0 would admit it)
Verizon as a provider (many)
graphing calculator (2)
Discman (0)
“non-bic” pen. (AKA this pen didn’t come in a pack of 20)
Digital tape recorder (0)
Headphones that aren’t white (several)
Blackberry with school schedule on it (5)
book on tape on I-pod. (0)

Among the things the class said it learned:

–Media are converging on cell phones (many of the individual items could be found on them)

–Media that were “new” just a short time ago are now “old”

–Hardly anyone had a print newspaper

–College students are packing a lot of media in their pockets that would have filled entire buildings decades ago

–College students are packing a lot of media that costs a lot of money, and some people are left out of that privilege

Five bonus points went to the group that could make up the best rap about media.

Here was the rap:

When we need some info we turn to da media

Some dawgs like to look stuff up on Wikipedia

Goin’ on the Internet and lookin’ up some vids

Of the other night, regarding what we all did

The crowd wasn’t as raucus as on the cruise. But, it was still pretty shagadelic, yo.

This site has been re-directed to RIOT VILLAGE…..

If your care about ANYTHING you should check it out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Kathleen O’Connell
Dr. Walker
Dissident Media
30 November 2007

When Professor Walker announced on the very first day of class that we would be producing our very own, class-run blog, I couldn’t help but wonder what I’d gotten myself into. “Blogging?!” I agonized, “the only people that blog are the type that want everyone to know how miserable their lives are.” Needless to say, I was a bit uncertain about just how well I would agree with the blogosphere. I was actually under the impression that blogging was already becoming a thing of the past. Apparently I was quite mistaken. How was I to know that amateur internet news sources and opinion feeds were quietly, and single handedly taking the media world as we know it by storm? Despite my ignorance of and averseness to the rapidly expanding internet news realm, I (cautiously) took on the task of political blogging. And, while I have truly expanded my understanding of the prevalence of worldwide blogging, and learned quite a bit about the presidential candidates for the 2008 elections, I’m hesitant to say that I have completed reformed, if you will, as far as my opinion of blogging goes.

One article, or pair of articles, that particularly influenced my perspective of internet blogging was Steve Outing’s “What Bloggers Can Learn From Journalists,” and “What Journalists Can Learn From Bloggers.” Outing’s approach was extremely unbiased and served as a well developed introduction to and assessment of modern

media. He offered a variety of interesting thoughts about the pros and cons of new age blogging and traditional journalism. These thoughts inspired and helped me to make my own evaluations of unconventional journalism and to draw conclusions about its future. One thing that I’ve always felt is crucial to good reporting is a good editor. When I catch mistakes or wild claims in print I am quickly annoyed and often find myself wondering if a monkey would have done a better job. On the same token, I think one of the most intriguing things about blogging is the fact that it is so raw – unaffected by the bureaucratic hand of an editor – and is available to anyone and everyone. Free speech in its most literal form! Outing lightly suggests the idea of blog editors by stating, “[it’s] a brilliant idea […] An extra pair of eyes can certainly help to catch spelling, grammar, and factual errors” (Poynter). These types of errors, among other things, are what I dislike most about blogging. Though I have great appreciation for the expressed opinions and their author’s privilege to provide them candidly, I can’t help but cringe every time I see a careless grammatical error or astronomical fact mistake. These kinds of problems should simply not surface if a person is serious about their blog, and I suppose I agree with Outing. For this reason, I remain hopelessly trapped in my indecisiveness about the legitimacy of blogging.

While I found much of what Outing suggested to be valuable, I couldn’t help but disagree with his persistent plea with the bloggers of the world to find ways to “gain credibility.” I think the strongest motivation for bloggers is a personal want to be expressive, opinionated, and free to be these things. A blogger, in my sense of the term, does not seek a large crowd or following – that’s hardly dissident! Rather, I think the bloggers of the world want to say the dangerous things that they dream of reading in the daily paper, and should they obtain some regular readers along the way, then so be it! I think Outing really missed the mark on the motivation factor, and it affected some of his points in a negative way.

Another perspective that I have taken into consideration is that of Rodger Streitmatter. In Voices of Revolution, Streitmatter includes in his chapter “Dissident Voices/Common Threads” an illustration of the fact that “the dissident press is particularly active during periods of social, economic, and political turbulence” (275). He goes on to stress that said forms of dissident publications “tend to be short lived” (276). This notion called to my attention the dire state in which our nation finds itself: economically, socially, internationally, etc. Could this upheaval of amateur, yet passionate internet publications be the result of our nation’s failing society? Yes, it very well could. This thought called me to question the motivation of bloggers everywhere. Will they cease when the war is over? Or after the 2008 elections? Maybe so, maybe not. But since I feel strongly about the fact that much of internet blogging is considerably “dissident,” I am not certain that blogging will remain extremely prevalent once the nation has less to be opposed to.

One thing I found in writing for our class blog, despite the fact that it was somewhat structured, was that it was surprisingly, and exceedingly liberating. There is no denying the appeal, now that I’ve dipped my toes in uncharted waters. Blogging has, without a doubt, tremendous pros including the fact that it serves as a breeding ground for discussion and debate (even if it gets heated, no one gets hurt!), an implement for expression, and it is readily available to all. I cannot suppress my undeniable affection for all forms of media of the dissident persuasion, and thus am finding it difficult to remain in opposition to the blogosphere. While I am still unsure about where I see the blog’s place in media in the long scheme of things, I believe that it is a powerful instrument for revolution in today’s political and social atmosphere and I hope to see it flourish and stir trouble where trouble should be stirred.

For the class blog project, I was a part of the “Political Candidates” team. This involved regular monitoring of candidates’ positions and statements as well as careful tracking of mainstream media’s opinions of said candidates. For my part, I chose to investigate the candidates (as fairly as I could) on a bipartisan level, despite my partiality to the left end of the spectrum. This included writing about such candidates as John Edwards, Ron Paul, and Hilary Clinton, as well as other prominent political figures. I tried to be as critical of both sides as possible – pointing out flaws and shortcomings of every candidate and discussing ideas of improvement. Similarly, my group members did an excellent job of investigating a large range of candidates, scrutinizing all perspectives, and giving kudos where kudos was due. All in all, I think we did a fairly awesome job of touching on a variety of topics in the political world while remaining as unbiased as was possible. I think we stirred a lot of conversation, and isn’t that the point of dissident media?

Works Cited

Outing, Steve, comp. Poynteronline. Vers. What Bloggers Can Learn From Journalists.

1995. Poynter University. 27 Nov. 2007 .

Streitmatter, Rodger. Voices of Revolution: the Dissident Press in America. New York:

Columbia UP, 2001. 275-278.

Web-logging, sorry, ‘Blogging’ is rapidly becoming the way our society gets it news, information, and entertainment. Gone are the days when the only time to get the news were during the breakfast newspaper reading or the evening news. Here are the days when the internet has turned every average citizen into a certified news journalist. This new title that all citizens have acquired does not site well with everyone however. Those in the journalism community (and by journalism I mean broadcast and print journalists who have formal training and are paid for their work) have taken issue with the unchecked, free-marketization of the news by bloggers.

Is blogging a form of dissident media? Are bloggers treading on journalistic territory? Should bloggers even be taken seriously?

The simple answer to all of these questions is ‘YES’. Blogging is most certainly a form of dissident media because it circumvents traditional news outlets and brings views, ideas, and opinions to the public on issues that the MSM (mainstream media) would normally stay away from. Nothing is off limits in the blogosphere. Yes, bloggers are impeding on traditional journalism by taking news stories and running with them before the MSM has time to filter it down to a package ready for airing, but this is simply the way our society is heading.

“Many of the most active bloggers are insistent partisans in political debate. Some reject the label ‘journalist,’ associating it with what they contemptuously call MSM; just as many, if not more, consider themselves a new kind of ‘citizen journalist’ dedicated to broader democratization (Skube 2007).”

Blogging is a serious medium that is now beginning to be taken very seriously, mainly because of the stories that are being broken by bloggers that greatly impact society. These ‘citizen journalists’ are breaking stories that would have otherwise been left uncovered.

In February of this year, a blogger broke a story about a young NASA scientist who had been highly publicized for his merits and age as a NASA employee who actually had lied on his resume. This was huge because the MSM had reported that the man did in fact do the things that this blogger found to be untrue (Rosen 2007).

Another blogger uncovered the fact that a member of the White House press core was living a double life as a gay male escort. This White House staff member was later dismissed due to the bloggers efforts (digg.com).

Who is to say that these stories would not have been broken by the MSM in the blogger’s absence? The fact of the matter is there are millions of bloggers and only a fraction of traditional news personnel (or MSM). But what is becoming of the dissident underground blogger movement in the face of such a boom in the blogosphere.

“Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, whose popular blog Daily Kos has been a force among anti-war activists, cautioned bloggers ‘to avoid the right-wing acronym MSM.’ It implies, after all, that bloggers were on the fringe. To the contrary, he wrote, ‘we are representatives of the mainstream, and the country is embracing what we’re selling.’ (Skube 2007).”

The convergence of traditional news media and blogging is ushering in a new wave of news coverage. Many (if not all) of the local news stations and even some national news stations are allowing/forcing their on-air talents to publish their own blogs in an effort to steal viewer-ship from the online blogging community. Print and broadcast journalism are slowly but surely seeing that bloggers actually bring something to the ‘journalistic table’; mainly “four things: personality, eyewitness testimony, editorial filtering, and uncounted gigabytes of new knowledge (Welch 2003).”

Overall, the blogging community has created a medium for any and everybody to contribute to the news gathering and information sharing network that is the blogosphere. What was once and some stay still is considered dissident, blogging is creeping its way in the mainstream and will soon be the driving force behind the way the average person gets their information.

A look around.

“I would define a journalist as someone who brings news to the public,” said Martin Garbus, the First Amendment lawyer who represented Josh Wolf, a 24-year-old blogger who spent more than six months in prison for refusing to turn a videotape of a protest he filmed over to the courts (1). Garbus’s description of what makes a journalist is an accurate one, and he was advocating that his client was one. However, after a semester of contributing to and immersing myself in the blog world, I realize that this description does not necessarily apply to blogging and bloggers themselves, as much as they might like it to. Blogging has the potential to be journalism, and when it is done at its finest, it is. Much of what I have seen and done in blogging is not journalism. Blogging is however a pervasive and effective form of dissident media, one that works against hegemony and improves the dissemination of information that Stephen Brookfield, in his essay on critical theory, says is essential for an adult population to truly “practice democracy.” (2)
What stood out in the Dissident Media class blog “Renewing Political Debate” was not, for the most part, journalism, but rather analysis, opinion, and taking existing news from established media sources and compiling it in a useful way. The blogging that took place was indeed a valuable form of the practice. Even if the information was gathered primarily from existing sources, which does not “contest hegemony” as Brookfield says, the analysis and debate among the bloggers that resulted from the information, does.
As I mentioned earlier, when blogging is practiced at its finest, it is journalism. The political blog “The Washington Note” is a source for news and analysis which utilizes the immediacy and personality of blogging and combines that with original reporting and the ethic of accuracy that professional journalists carry. When blogging reaches this high plain I believe that it outmatches other traditional forms of reporting news due to its immediacy.
Good examples of this that occurred over the semester were the live blogging that was done in the classroom when the guest speaker, Newt Gingrich’s press aide, talked about the ongoing effort to renew political debate. Another was the “long blog post” assignment, which required original reporting. In these two instances the full potential of blogging, not only as a dissident media, but as a form of effective journalism, was realized.
There is no question as to blogging’s effectiveness as a dissident media. The way it allows for information to be spread, instantly shared, analyzed, and debated confirms this. In some ways it mirrors the way in which which dissident publications throughout America’s history dealt with ridicule from the mainstream press. Blogging is embraced by many in the mainstream journalism community, but there are also many who view it with extreme skepticism, such as Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Michael Skube. “Bloggers have all the liberties of a traditional journalist but few of the obligations,” he writes in his article “Blogs: All The Noise That Fits.” Through working with blogs this semester it is clear to me that they are an invaluable part of today’s dissident media, but at the same time I can’t help but feel some of the skepticism and worry that Skube does. (4)
Many of the specific points about blogging that cause me to feel this way are highlighted in the articles written by Steve Outing about what bloggers and journalists can learn from each other. Outing is right in that the two sides do have room to learn from each other, and need to. However, I feel that bloggers need to take advice from journalism more desperately if their craft is going to develop and maintain the trust of readers. Outing writes: “with so many new people involved in blogging, most of them having no training in journalism practices, ethics, and media law, personal legal liability is a big deal…In the years ahead, I expect to see some solo bloggers get in trouble.” This is a major issue, especially in a blogging world that is highly opinionated and is often quick to make accusations without doing the proper journalistic “legwork.” By that I mean talking to multiple sources, fact-checking, and so on. “Here’s something you frequently see with bloggers that trained journalists usually avoid: Making accusations or strong criticisms without asking the target for reaction,” says Outing (3). It wouldn’t take too many high-profile libel cases of bloggers to put blogging’s reliability and usefulness into question with American readers. I’m well aware that some in the blogging community do practice their craft with journalism’s ethical and accuracy standards, and if there were embraced fully by the blogging world as a whole, than it would be stronger for it.
As stated before, blogging is dissident media’s newest and currently most effective outlet. It successfully contests the hegemony that mainstream journalism tends to enforce, and when blogging is performed at its finest level, it surpasses mainstream modes of journalism with its combination of solid reporting and instant accessibility. Blogging is still, through my experience, a new form of media which still has a lot of growing to do, and responsibility to accept. If the blog world can keep its creativity and accessibility while adopting more of the ethics of professional journalism, it will be not only an excellent form of dissident media, but the primary news and reporting form as well.