Crabb’s article is, in essence, a recounted slew of scandals: Ben Polis, Shane Warne, John Della Bosca, David Beckham, Tiger Woods, Ricky Nixon, and Anthony Wiener to name a few. But then she takes the next step: What do all these names have in common? They are all men, she says. As if to drive herself further from indemnity, she clarifies: “When will they learn? More specifically, when will men learn?”

Instead of taking the more academic approach – what makes men behave badly? what kind of society makes these kinds of men famous and/or powerful? why are women comparatively sensible? – Crabb chooses to give example after example, each time framing the culprit as specifically male.

Let’s consider her argument by reflecting the stereotype onto women.

Annabel says, “Give a Republican US congresswoman a Twitter account and she’ll distribute links to congressional committee reports. Give her male colleague a Twitter account and within a week he’ll be photographing his donger and sending the pictures to a puzzled sophomore in Des Moines.”

Consider what backlash might come if I had written the converse: “Give a successful businessman an internet connection and he’ll spend hours checking his stocks. Give his female colleague the same, and within a week, she’ll have increased the GDP of Italy by imported shoes alone.”

The rewrite smacks of sexism. First, because it limits a woman to her stereotype despite her financial success and then secondly, it belittles her with that stereotype. It’s not as harmless as the stand-up comedian saying “men are like this, while women are like this” – The implication is that a man in power is more likely to jeapardise his career, because he is a man. Annabel’s comment, though aimed at men and not women, is the equivalent to calling all businessmen neanderthals and then beating them with their own proverbial club.

Beyond her indictment of powerful men as dimwits, she also fails to even consider that where there are dimwitted men, there might be dimwitted women. Consider for a moment Britney Spears flashing the paparazzi, Sinead O’Connor’s disturbingly personal sex tweets, Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian’s sex tapes, Rebekah Brook’s exposed corruption, and Sarah Palin’s… everything. I don’t point these women out to belittle their gender; we are equal in our propensity for failure, especially in a society which elevates individuals based on traits irrelevant to intelligence or morality.

What if we consider how all of the men were caught? Annabel cites Ricky Nixon, but fails to mention Kim Duthie who has constantly been found manipulating the truth for her own selfish purposes. Shall we wash the guilt from the women who revealed such transgressions, as if they could not possibly have nefarious tendencies?

But it would be incorrect to say that women are opportunistic or manipulative when in touch with a powerful male figure. To use Kim Duthie and her ilk as proof of a female demeanour would be a thoroughly sexist generalisation.

We should not merely be concerned about female-centered sexism on the merit of it being the more prevalent form and, as a tool of the dominantly male society, arguably more effective in its limitation of women. Instead, we need to avoid any entry into gender politics which ignores one gender in order to criticise the other. The first issue of Annabel’s article is that it focuses its critique on only one side of the gender divide. The second is that it does so with such superficiality that it blames a handful of men’s transgressions on their genital situation instead of critiquing the social discourses which might have caused such men to fall to such folly.

Unfortunately, she is not alone in failing to see the bigger picture. Just last week, UK resident Samantha Brick wrote an article in which she bemoaned being hated for her beauty. The “twittersphere” responded violently, and Facebook users soon followed. They attacked her conceitedness, and then they attacked her physical attributes. Very few, unfortunately, jumped to the heart of the controversy to ask the question: Even if Samantha Brick is blissfully unaware of her own conceit, surely the editors of the Daily Mail were not, and in their complicity, have become culprits in the perpetuation of hate.

We need to move away from being reactionary beings and consider the structures which actually give rise to such transgressions. There is very little in this world which isn’t caused or perpetuated by some kind of social structure and these antiquated structures should not be so rigid that they resist the change of a more enlightened society.

Rather than simply distil front page headlines into a male stereotype, we need to consider whether the reason that men are caught out is in the societal structure alone. Perhaps, in a time where women are still not paid equally, and where very few CEOs are female, those specific women are more sensible because they had to work harder to get there. Or because they are more likely to lose everything if they fail. Consider that the Labor party might avoid choosing another women as leader, not because they are necessarily sexist but because Julia Gillard’s gender has taken somehow the blame for her shortcomings.

Why not go further? Why are men like this in positions of power? I promise your family lawyer isn’t sending nude pics via twitter, nor is the local grocer sexting about the vegetables he fondles. It is not men who are to blame, but the society which causes guilty men to be heralded until the facade wears thin.

Why might a sportsperson who can barely string a sentence together on the TV news? Why is one of our most funded industries also the one consistently charged with gang rape? Are we really to assume that all men are rapists, philanderers, sexual deviants or just plain dumb?

It’s been thousands of years since the greek tragedy was defined, surely we can move past the catharsis of seeing powerful men fail and actually promote those with the intellect to sustain their positions. And the same goes for women. The problem with Sarah Palin wasn’t that she was female vice-presidential candidate, the problem was that she was grossly underqualified.

I really don’t think Annabel Crabb is a sexist, but I do think this article is. We need to be careful when we brand people with these labels, rather than branding their actions, because branding people merely disconnects the vessel while maintaining the source.

Yes, there are a lot of fools, but they are not all men, and not all men are fools.

Okay, we get it. You’ve had your fun. You have readers to poach and gawkers to feed. We understood. Now stop it.

A few days ago, many of us who believe that physical abuse isn’t okay were horrified to see Chris Brown take the stage at the Grammys. What’s more, we were aghast when we read the statement about why. It seems that the award show is “over it” and willing to invite him back. No, not the beating, they’re over being stood up.

But while there are a lot of things wrong with the selection of Brown as a performer this year, griping about something which has already passed isn’t going to do anything except establish moral outrage. As he continues to disregard the impact of his fists, tweeting our disapproval isn’t going to fix the solution because for every hater, there is someone willing to disregard what he did, relegating it to the realm of his “bad boy image.” This is evident with the amount of people who tweeted that they’d let Brown beat them. As long as the media continues to support such artists, they will be using their influence to cause great ethical damage.

What we need to do is ensure that the industry stops supporting people who are willing to disregard human decency, and who avoid the ramifications of their crimes through their fame. This is why I make this principle request, and I hope people will support me by passing it on.

I ask that all music media – online, print and TV – boycott any release or performance by Chris Brown. Do not acknowledge its occurrence, nor review its contents. Do not support the creation of a role model unless he is willing to accept the consequences of his influence. For shows where Chris Brown features, focus on another performer. When Chris Brown tweets, ignore him. Unfollow him on Twitter if you can’t control yourselves. There are only two reasons that the media community reports on Chris Brown: talent and controversy. I feel that the first is something which only deserves acknowledgement when an individual is willing to bear the social responsibility which that acknowledgement creates. The latter is something which deflates the morals of journalism and does nothing but stimulate damaging attitudes towards women and domestic abuse.

Chris Brown has lost our respect by showing himself as an abuser. He does not deserve the chance to regain his success until he has taken the appropriate measures to address the things which he has done. If you agree with what’s being said here, please share this link on Facebook and Twitter. Tag every media outlet you can think of. Tell your friends that for as long as Chris Brown stands behind his decision to abuse a woman, throws tantrums at those who ask about it, and gloats about his success despite his predispositions, that he does not deserve to be heralded as a key player in an industry which has the potential to influence young men and women.

For those who have forgotten, or choose to forget, here is an abridged version of the police report. If you have seen this and don’t want to relive it, or you are a victim of domestic abuse and think that this might upset you, skip to after the italics.

“Brown reached over Robyn F. with his right hand, opened the car door and attempted to force her out. When he could not force her to exit, he took his right hand and shoved her head against he passenger window of the vehicle, causing an approximate one-inch raised circular contusion. Robyn F. turned to face Brown and he punched her in the left eye with his right hand. He then drove away in the vehicle and continued to punch her in the face with his right hand while steering the vehicle with his left hand. The assault caused Robyn F.’s mouth to fill with blood and blood to splatter all over her clothing and the interior of the vehicle.

Brown looked at Robyn F. and stated, ‘I’m going to beat the sh– out of you when we get home! You wait and see!’ ” The detective said “Robyn F.” then used her cell phone to call her personal assistant Jennifer Rosales, who did not answer. “Robyn F. pretended to talk to her and stated, ‘I’m on my way home. Make sure the police are there when I get there.’ After Robyn F. faked the call, Brown looked at her and stated, ‘You just did the stupidest thing ever! Now I’m really going to kill you!’

Brown continued to punch Robyn F. on her left arm and hand, causing her to suffer a contusion on her left triceps (sic) that was approximately two inches in diameter and numerous contusions on her left hand.

Brown pulled Robyn F. close to him and bit her on her left ear. She was able to feel the vehicle swerving from right to left as Brown sped away. He stopped the vehicle in front of 333 North June Street and Robyn F. turned off the car, removed the key from the ignition and sat on it. Brown did not know what she did with the key and began punching her in the face and arms. He then placed her in a head lock positioning the front of her throat between his bicep and forearm. Brown began applying pressure to Robyn F.’s left and right carotid arteries, causing her to be unable to breathe and she began to lose consciousness.

She reached up with her left hand and began attempting to gouge his eyes in an attempt to free herself. Brown bit her left ring and middle fingers and then released her. While Brown continued to punch her, she turned around and placed her back against the passenger door. She brought her knees to her chest, placed her feet against Brown’s body and began pushing him away. Brown continued to punch her on the legs and feet, causing several contusions.

There can be rehabilitation, but only through retribution and reconciliation with the truly awful nature of his crimes.

Facebook Pages to share:
MTV, Billboard, AOL, E! Online, Pitchfork

Twitter Accounts to Tag:
@chrisbrown, @pitchforkmedia, @TwitterMusic, @RollingStone, @MTV, @EOnline, @AOLMusic, @Billboard

Feel free to leave any others in the comment sections… My twitter username is @wiredjazz if you want to keep me posted on anything.

Painted for my best friend who asked for something to hang on her wall as she moves interstate. It’s a favourite poem we share by William Carlos Williams, so I was really going for simple symbolism…

Two 10×10″ canvasses, hung a few inches apart.

The Red Wheelbarrow William Carlos Williams

so much depends

upon

a red wheelbarrow

glazed

with rainwater

beside

the white

chickens

]]> http://www.samuelwebster.com/portfolio/2012/01/painting-the-red-wheelbarrow/feed/ 0 http://www.samuelwebster.com/portfolio/2012/01/rubyrevue-jan2012/ http://www.samuelwebster.com/portfolio/2012/01/rubyrevue-jan2012/#comments Sat, 14 Jan 2012 08:47:32 +0000 Samuel Webster http://www.samuelwebster.com/portfolio/?p=1094 Please click the smaller images to see photos full size.

All photographs are protected under copyright and remain the property of Samuel Webster. They may not be used, under any circumstances, without permission.

◄ Back

Next ►

Picture 1 of 18

The Ruby Revue / © Samuel Webster 2012. All Rights Reserved.

[Show as slideshow]

[View with PicLens]

The creation and development of information is based upon processes of interaction between publishers and their audience. In the digital world, as interaction becomes more and more important, we can see a progression across three interrelated stages – reception (which involves receiving or reading information), expression (transmitting information and, in the process, forging identity), and interception (the disruption of understanding through peer review and direct opposition). Traditional forms of media have retained rigid barriers between creation and reception of information – one party engages in the dynamic process of creation, whilst the other in the passive process of reception. However, in the development of modern social media, the line between creator and receiver are in constant transience. The average internet user now enjoys a myriad of roles in the virtual world – from the active blogger to the mere observer, but in order to make the most of this engagement in the education field, we must take the existing levels of interaction and extend them into the area of community interception, where they can be challenged rigorously and strengthened as a result.

In 1938, H. G. Wells criticized the knowledge organization and access of the time as ‘“extremely ineffective” and better suited to “the horse and coaches phase of development rather than … the phase of the automobile and the aeroplane”. Universities, schools and libraries, he said, “do not enlarge their scope to anything like the urgent demands of this troubled and dangerous age. They do not perform the task nor exercise the authority that might reasonably be attributed to the thought and knowledge organization of the world” (Wells 1938, 84). He proposed a new type of “permanent world encyclopedia” or “world brain” that would link the collections of all the major libraries and universities into a worldwide network ” (Lievrouw, L. A. 2010: 222)

The first stage of online interaction is one which arrived, as expected, quite naturally. The system which H.G. Wells had wished for was not a system which defied any of the conventional means of sharing information, it merely existed on a larger scale and was internationally accessible. Though Wells believed quite strongly that open access to information would bring world peace – and he is certainly noble for such optimistic thought – his prediction was one which was limited by the time in which it was presented. It engaged with all of the traditional notions but carried none of the extended considerations which the digital age brought about. Of course, he can’t be faulted for proposing a model which stopped at the Reception stage of global learning, but his shortcomings in regards to the grander possibilities should be addressed.

H.G. Wells believed that if all human knowledge were made available in a grand vault, that the multiplicity of truth would create world peace through universal understanding. The problem with this model, which we have since discovered, is that without a method of antithesis, ideas remain in opposition with each other, judged by their exponents as true, yet never evolving through conscious debate. That is, ideas without exposure to antithesis remain as they enter, and like the public libraries of today, are merely left without update to grow stale and antiquated. The reception level must be seen as the foray into idea generation, realising that if it is considered as the only method of education, it is easily antiquated by the technology on which it is stored.

The level of interaction which builds upon the reception model is that of individual expression. In the 21st century, it may seem odd to refer to individuality as a ‘new’ form of educational technique, but we must consider it anew, due to the repetition which the birth of new technology creates. Historically, we can see other mediums which lacked the latitude for such an expansion. Two-way telephony promoted conversation, but was not a broadcast medium. Though television increased the audience for public broadcast, it was not available to the common man for such a use. With the advent of the Internet, for the first time, users had access to a potential publishing platform. Additionally, digital media has introduced the factor of anonymity to further complicate the idea of authorship and identity.

With the advent of such user based interfaces as Facebook and Twitter, publishing platforms have become commonplace and have allowed users of online resources to enjoy dual roles of producing and consuming online media. It has been observed that “The idea that Web 2.0 has blurred the lines between the producers and consumers of information, enabling any Internet user to create and share content with anyone else, has already become something of a cliché́. What may be more significant for scientific and scholarly communication, however, is that the turn to new collaborative platforms, interfaces and applications has also blurred familiar distinctions between documents and interaction. Wikis, blogs, social network sites and computer-linked research collaboratories,1 tagging and bookmarking, forums, gateways, and real-time conferencing and chat are being employed in ways that may have important consequences for scientific and scholarly communication, transforming it from a relatively straightforward process of gatekeeping, publishing, and targeted search and retrieval, into a multilayered, thoroughly socialized arena of commentary, amendment, collaboration, critique, argumentation, recombination, and recommendation (Furner 2002). In a very real sense, social media are helping to change people’s expectations about the sources, availability, and uses of information in all its forms, both in society at large and in the practice of science.” (Lievrouw, L. A. 2010: 220). It is perhaps this development that has been the most crucial in the online world – the acknowledgement that the internet is now no longer a domain where one must merely ‘receive’, but rather, it is based upon user contribution and expansion of available information. Importantly, the breadth and diversity of such information has also progressed exponentially though it was an initially slow uptake.

Though personal websites and blogs have been around for nearly fifteen years now, it is only now considered a normal pastime to engage in such methods of transmission. The term “Web 2.0″ is becoming antiquated at the very moment that it is achieving normalcy. The egalitarian flexibility of publishing on the web is enticing to those who find themselves without a voice in other scenarios and through the use of social media, we have seen the seeds of great political change sowed. On a more personal level, it has been shown that those with self-esteem deficiencies (of all magnitudes) find solace in media interaction, through para-social interaction. For example, the effect of music media upon adolescent development and perception of self has been well noted, and its impact is bittersweet. Kistler et al observe that “Music media consumption was positively associated with adolescents’ involvement with media focusing on music personae. Higher involvement was associated with perceiving the self as less physically attractive and having lower overall self-worth. Music media consumption was directly related to adolescents’ evaluations of their own romantic appeal. Results suggest that through involvement processes with music media characters, adolescents may use music media as a venue for social comparison against which they evaluate their own physical attractiveness and self-worth.” (Kistler, Rodgers, Power, Austin & Hill 2010: 616)

There are many comparisons to be made between music media consumption and social media, due to the prevalence of accessible identity in both. Interaction with these identities, however superficial, is what Kistler et al (2010) call “Para-social interaction” – interaction which lacks many of the common traits of face-to-face connection but engages with many of its pitfalls – social pressure, personal comparison and obsession.

Parasocial interaction describes a “felt interpersonal relationship with media characters that can take place during or outside the viewing episode and is related to, yet is conceptually distinct from, wishful identification and liking [...] Each of these components of involvement with characters (wishful identification, parasocial interaction, and liking) are cognitive processes associated with the interpretation of selected media content, and the presence and magnitude of each will vary with the individual and with media type. Perceiving music artists to be attractive or desirable—that is, ‘‘liking’’ the characters, is an attentional process; wanting to be like the artist (wishful identification) and feeling social connection with music or music artists (parasocial interaction) are retentional processes.” (Kistler, Rodgers, Power, Austin & Hill 2010: 619)

Indeed, the advent of social networking website, Twitter, has caused many to consider the role of narcissism in online interaction. Narcissism is the potential downside to an ultimately positive freedom – affording the individual an elevated voice and an independent pedestal. Furthermore, it has even been argued that social networking means have functioned to accentuate and intensify the broad spectrum of human qualities and characteristics – both for the better and for the worst. “The Internet reflects some of our best qualities: irreverence, vitality, excitement, and youthfulness, for instance. but Keen suggests that it also reflects many of the worst developments in modern cultural life—in particular, what he calls digital narcissism, the embrace of the self. Time magazine’s person of the year for last year was “you,” and Keen thinks that “you” is not a good person. He does not believe that the key to citizenship is personal self-expression. For him, the key to citizenship means listening and reading and consuming high-quality information and entertainment. In Keen’s view, the most corrosive element of today’s Internet is the anonymity that creates an uncivil world. We don’t behave properly and we have uncivil conversations and other unpleasantness because we don’t reveal who we are.” (Junco & Chickering 2010: 15) Despite Keen’s aggressive stance upon anonymity, interaction via Twitter seems to have evolved beyond the narcissistic. As Gayo-Avello (2011) posits: “Twitter has since evolved into a complex information-dissemination platform, especially during situations of mass convergence.” (Gayo-Avello 2011: 121) Though the abhorrence of narcissism would seem to be a valid claim by those on the outside of social media, it is one which is soon solved within the community itself. Because the users are individuals, narcissism isn’t accepted any more than it would be in regular society and continued egocentric solipsism is discouraged.

While studying the effect of social media upon change in political standpoint amongst Russians, Rimskii (2011) comments that “although communication on the Internet is mediated by technical means, it is carried on between individuals, each of whom has to decide on his membership in the community, accept its values, find his role, determine his similarities and differences, and so on. Otherwise, participation in virtual communication would be problematic; the community would reject the individual who was not able to form an identity appropriate to the community. In exchanging information, Internet users form their identity by internalizing elements that they acquire from the Internet—attitudes, perceptions, stereotypes, judgments, opinions, assessments, priorities, tastes, ways of life, characteristics of activity, and so on. In this regard, the information environment of the Internet shapes certain qualities of identity of each of its users via the procedures by which the information is selected, participation in the formation of values and the exchange of information with others, in commentaries, keeping blogs, diaries, and so on.” (Rimskii 2011: 94) This self-regulation, while ultimately dependent on the group in which the interaction is occurring, ensures that interaction reflects the goals of the overall community.

The pinnacle of the model I would present is Interception, and the term is chosen as a careful step beyond mere interaction. Interception is not simply interaction. Interaction can be garnered purely by the simultaneous connection of users. Interaction does not require solid antithesis, ongoing synthesis or the recreation of new hypothesis, as Hegel would have preferred. Instead, as Alavi and Leidner argue, “If a library can only provide books to readers, then it is just a static knowledge database; but if it can provide readers the opportunities to share and communicate with each other, then it is a dynamic knowledge sharing. With this interaction mechanism, knowledge acquiring and absorbing are not just of one direction. Alavi & Leidner (2001) sorted out some scholars’ viewpoints about knowledge. They thought that knowledge is a process that includes the creation, sharing and spread of it. Simply speaking, knowledge is a sharing process. Nickols (2003) pointed out that the advantage of a community of practice is that it can promote the interaction between members in order to create new knowledge and share out the best practicality experiences. Once the knowledge is built, community members can acquire from it and further enhance their learning activities. The knowledge sharing process can also help members develop their identifications in the community so that they would be more willing to stay. Even if someone leaves the community, the knowledge he/she once provided will not be taken away. As a result, knowledge sharing plays an important role in a library, and it is the community of practice that can provide the knowledge sharing mechanism.” (Huang, Yang, Yueh-Min & Hsiao 2010: 85).

Interception, definitively, carries a denotation of disruption or, in fact, complete interruption. Rather than being a model of collaboration, it is a model of direct ideological clash. This can occur in simple forms (peer review, editing suggestion, feedback systems) or in more complex forms (fiercely debated wiki-contribution, crowd sourced knowledge bases.) What is key to interception as a model as opposed to interaction is that it requires knowledge, not just information. “William James argued that there are two types of knowledge, the acquaintance with and the knowledge about. As he noted, “the less we analyze a thing, and the fewer of its relations we perceive, the less we know about it and the more our familiarity with it as the acquaintance-type.” Later, journalist and sociologist Robert Park extended the notion to suggest that “knowledge about” is a formal knowledge achieved through some degree of exactness and precision. However, Park suggested that news was a form of this “knowledge about” and a type of reification of ideas. I would suggest that the emphasis in our culture on celebrity encourages an acquaintance with issues, events, and people. Without in-depth news and analysis, as we have seen develop over the most recent period of media technology, we lack historical, cultural, and social context. Reading, interpreting, and thinking—what might be called reflective thought—is replaced frequently by Googling, Yahooing, or by some search engine.” (Ferri 2010: 406)

Where interaction asks for response, interception requires proof. Where interaction might be open to uneducated opinion, interception requires fierce speculation and antithesis. “…Social networking helps users locate people with shared interests and thus form CoP. Through these social platforms, collective intelligence is realized. Afterwards, people can bring different CoPs [Communities of Practice] together to form CoIs (Communities of interest) which can provide unique opportunities to bring social creativity alive by transcending individual perspectives.” (Huang, Yang, Yueh-Min & Hsiao 2010: 79) Interaction requires an active audience while Interception requires a diverse, knowledgeable Community of Practice.

It is obvious, as research continues, that there are many social dangers to Internet use amongst adolescents. However, while social media continues to be marginalized by the mainstream media, students all over the world are engaged. As thoughtful and keen educators, we must keep track of the emerging technologies, not purely for our own personal benefit, but so that we might use these tools as active methods of engagement.

Bibliography

Ferri, A. (2010). Emergence of the Entertainment Age?. Society, 47(5), 403-409. doi:10.1007/s12115-010-9351-1

The FP Survey: The Internet. (2011). Foreign Policy, (188), 1-9.

Gayo-Avello, D. (2011). Don’t Turn Social Media Into Another ‘Literary Digest’ Poll. Communications Of The ACM, 54(10), 121-128

Huang, J. S., Yang, S. H., Yueh-Min, H., & Hsiao, I. T. (2010). Social Learning Networks: Build Mobile Learning Networks Based on Collaborative Services. Journal Of Educational Technology & Society, 13(3), 78-92

Jang Hyun, K., Min-Sun, K., & Yoonjae, N. (2010). An Analysis of Self-Construals, Motivations, Facebook Use, and User Satisfaction. International Journal Of Human-Computer Interaction, 26(11/12), 1077-1099.

Junco, R., & Chickering, A. W. (2010). Civil discourse in the age of social media. About Campus, 15(4), 12-18

Kistler, M., Rodgers, K., Power, T., Austin, E., & Hill, L. (2010). Adolescents and Music Media: Toward an Involvement-Mediational Model of Consumption and Self-Concept. Journal Of Research On Adolescence (Blackwell Publishing Limited), 20(3), 616-630

Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2010). Learning Cultures on the Move: Where are we heading?. Journal Of Educational Technology & Society, 13(4), 4-14.

Lievrouw, L. A. (2010). Social Media and the Production of Knowledge: A Return to Little Science?. Social Epistemology, 24(3), 219-237

Orange, E. (2011). Augmented, Anonymous, Accountable. Futurist, 45(4), 37-41.

Pollet, T. V., Roberts, S. B., & Dunbar, R. M. (2011). Use of Social Network Sites and Instant Messaging Does Not Lead to Increased Offline Social Network Size, or to Emotionally Closer Relationships with Offline Network Members. Cyberpsychology, Behavior & Social Networking, 14(4), 253-258

Rimskii, V. (2011). The Influence of the Internet on Active Social Involvement and the Formation and Development of Identities. Russian Social Science Review, 52(1), 79-101

Stefanone, M. A., Lackaff, D., & Rosen, D. (2010). The Relationship between Traditional Mass Media and “Social Media”: Reality Television as a Model for Social Network Site Behavior. Journal Of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 54(3), 508-525

Tokunaga, R. S. (2011). Friend Me or You’ll Strain Us: Understanding Negative Events That Occur over Social Networking Sites. Cyberpsychology, Behavior & Social Networking, 14(7/8), 425-432

This is not the first time I’ve written about the Prime Minister, but even in these first few words I fear misrepresentation.

Instead of ‘her’, I used Julia Gillard’s title, wondering to myself if avoiding gender might rob her of her womanhood when in fact I hope to leave it intact. Do I risk the step Australia made in electing a female to our highest rank by refusing to address her femininity in my speculation?

The Prime Minister’s gender is something that Australian critics have been forced to deal with. I barely get through 100 words before stumbling over the personal pronoun for the sake of the line between celebrating a woman’s right to power and judging her as merely a woman from that point on. I even use her full name to avoid another trend I have noticed, dropping her last name – a trespass which could be humbling, but often shows disrespect.

But I do try, because nobody else seems able to, and its worst offenders have begun to sicken me.

The first incident, beyond post-election speculation about hairstyles and marital status, was the day of the carbon tax. Instead of reporting on the impact of what would be a nationwide incursion, papers published a photo of Gillard and Kevin Rudd kissing in congratulations. It wouldn’t be the first time the media has focused heated political rivalry (and the fact that it is within party ranks does make it extra juicy) but no mainstream newspaper would have spun a story about two competing men shaking hands. No – it was a kiss, and sex sells.

The second incident happened with the Queen. Gillard, fully aware of what the custom did and didn’t require of her, chose not to curtsy. She didn’t break any rules or offend any heads of state. The Queen’s political power is arguable at best. But there it was again, headlining the media. Some may draw comparison to Keating’s similar flogging all those years ago, but the two are only similar in their relationship to custom. Keating’s disruption was a choice to make unwanted physical contact, Gillard’s was a personal decision which affected only herself. Avoiding the concept of the curtsy as a sign of submission to greater powers, she was well within her rights to forego.

The third incident occurred yesterday, when our Prime Minister met her American equal (remember that – they are equals) and the Herald Sun’s Patrick Carlyon chose to writean article full of drivel, the least sickening of which was the opening line:

“Gillard blushes, like a high school girl who has, finally, after much bedroom plotting, captured the gaze of the football captain.”

But who am I to say what good writing is? After all, Carlyon is a Walkley award winning journalist. In fact, the 2009 Walkley judge commented that he “has a good forensic detail that gives strength to the story’s eloquence” and that he possesses “a beautiful turn of phrase.” Now, I admire a good turn as much as the next ballerina, but to what point should we allow it to infiltrate our news media? Is the sexualised elaboration a necessary commentary on leadership?

I tried to ignore it. I tried to tell myself that it was just the media failing to see the point yet again. I tried to pretend that it wasn’t that corruption of sense which I feared most. But there’s no denying it now. Our Prime Minister is not, for the sake of mainstream media, a Prime Minister by majority. She is first and foremost a woman and will be denigrated as such.

If we had a male Prime Minister, would handshakes, foregone bowing or collegial presidential visits remain the subject of such intensely fetishised scrutiny? While the Walkley judge may have admired his turn of phrase, it seems that Carlyon has since taken his talents to the widely published equivalent of erotic fan fiction. Here’s another phrase to turn your stomach (you can have that pun, Patrick, even though it doesn’t have the sparkling wit of “The audacity of grope…”):

“In Obama’s company, Gillard looks like she’s won a date with George Clooney. Their encounters, the respectful gazes as the other speaks, the touches of familiarity, stand to bestow her with a statesmanship she may have lacked until now.”

It seems to me, come next election, that Patrick Carlyon might vote for Asher Keddie, given how convincingly lovesick she was in just about every episode of Offspring.

However, although it’s fun to use him as the scapegoat, these things don’t publish themselves. He is not the only one to have committed to the fetish. The above scenarios which at first seemed like low-rate reporting actually point to a much deeper issue. The Prime Minister, our highest ranking politician, is being reported on her faults as a woman, not her faults as a leader. To go even further, her faults as a leader are being directly linked to her faults as her woman.

And yes, though we might reserve some softness for the feminine kind, swooning over Obama as women have swooned over George Clooney undermines her authority and weakens her political resolve. Imagine journalists writing the same thing of Putin’s interaction with the American president. Though Putin might present himself as the Fabio of Russian politics, he would not take kindly to being painted as submissive to any other leader, male or female.

It’s all well and good to criticise journalists for not doing their job (side note: their job is to report the news, if you’d forgotten) but let’s take a step back from media criticism and look at the big picture.

It would be a little rich for me to say that all of this is a right wing, Liberal Party conspiracy to undermine our Prime Minister. I don’t think that’s the case, though I’m sure you can make your mind up about Tony Abbott’s opinion of women in power. However, it does indirectly serve their agenda to have the PM’s media representation subdued by fanciful tales: flighty, sexualised, submissive and superficial. After all, who is more replaceable than a superficial woman, especially when a strong man is ready to take the throne?

I’m not one to bestow honour upon the holder of great power – I believe that respect should be earned, and loyalty will follow – but such media flub impedes the process. Julia Gillard’s job is to represent the Australian people, and Tony Abbott’s job is to play devil’s advocate. By campaigning throughout the entire political term, Tony Abbott’s catch-cry of ‘no’ has sought to weaken the Prime Ministerial position, rather than strengthen the progression of our nation. By denigrating our Prime Minister because of her gender, she can not continue to represent us, because the relationship between leader and citizen lacks truth. It is a relationship tainted by an invented superficial character – a character which is fuelled by the media’s sexist, male-dominated bigotry.

Patrick Carlyon is just one of many to lead us into the valley while painting it with smoke. Until we can find our own way, and until our media allows us that privilege, we are destined to squander our own egalitarianism for the sake of cheap erotic tricks and testosterone-tainted Kool-Aid.

Isn’t it wonderful? Finally, we get the media we want. We have become a part of good, honest entertainment on the daily. It’s fantastic. That is, if it stays honest.

Unfortunately, we’re seeing more and more cases of manipulation. It’s unlikely that Karl Stefanovic has an audience interested in ‘planking‘ (the teenage pastime which involves lying face down on arbitrary objects) but he reenacted the craze anyway. Why? Because Today knew it would be passed around online: simply free advertising.

Online media is an advertiser’s dream. In the way that television heralded widespread access to the population, the Internet provides an illimitable audience ready to consume.
Viral media – that is, media which is passed on socially – is the new ‘word of mouth’, one of the most desirable forms of advertisement. It is free and carries the personal recommendation of someone you know and trust. But along with our adoption of technology has come nefarious use in the hands of promoters. When a shameless stunt is pulled, it’s not surprising some of us feel cheated.

It’s pretty obvious that the US version of “Family Feud” wasn’t innocent when they proposed the topic “Things which you put in your mouth but don’t swallow” to a minister’s wife (btw, there’s a reason news.com.au doesn’t credit the writer on that piece – shame on you), and we have certainly gotten to a point where flash mobs have completely lost all element of surprise.

And what about the serendipity of things going well on their very own? Can we be impressed if we have to constantly ask ourselves if we’re being tricked?

For all Australia’s pomp and circumstance, it’s not surprising that we are easily fixated upon curtsying for the queen, or the kiss between two former rivals, but I do find it hard to wonder whether we’re best served with such distractions. There are plenty of advertising campaigns which intrigue us as they unfold, but if all media production stoops to such obvious manipulation, will we ever be surprised again?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHnhbEzJAS8

On Saturday afternoon, I left the Occupy Sydney protest disappointed. While I had found resonance in the movement overseas, the protests which have occurred in Australia are not representative of a unified idea.

The final straw for me was the erection of Che Guevara flags, and I tweeted my exit: “Yes, the capitalised image of Che. I think I’m out of here.” And it’s not Che Guevara that I particularly have an issue with, but the fact that the image of him has come to represent something he didn’t. Occupy Sydney had gone the same way.

The movement was born from the US public’s reaction to the fact that the top 1% of the population (financially) own the great majority of the wealth, but Occupy Sydney was characterised by an array of confusion: people spruiking (misunderstood) socialism to those claiming Charles Darwin was a conspiracy to keep men from believing they had God-given creativity. It was a peaceful protest – I have the pictures and the media reports to prove it – but it is one which has lost my personal support.

I tweeted again to clarify: “Research your idols, protest with specificity” and although that merely scratched the surface of my criticisms, it is this which allows me to write objectively – and without specific emotional attachment – about this morning’s proceedings.

At 5am, protesters report that approximately 200 police officers arrived and demanded their eviction. Ten minutes later, they began destroying the camp and making arrests. Now, there are certainly those who will argue that, NSW police were simply acting out of their duty to protect the community. Although that reasoning seems slightly dubious given the nature of the Occupy protest, we could certainly give them the benefit of the doubt if it weren’t for the manner in which they carried out their orders.

By arriving at the camp at 5AM, the police avoided the news cycle. Sunday papers were out and Monday’s were too far away. It is a deliberate attempt to avoid media scrutiny. The mere five minute delay between eviction and dismantling shows that they were keen to have this taken care of before anybody could arrive on the scene.

Barry O’Farrell claims that it was the most opportune time to clear the area, but that doesn’t clear the lack of warning. Surely due notice should be given before such forceful eviction. The NSW Police statement claims that protesters “[had] been camping within the grounds of Martin Place for a week, since Saturday 15 October 2011. They only had approval to protest between 2.30pm – 4.30pm on 15 October” which means, as Kate Ausburn points out, they had an entire week to warn the group. Why were there at least 20 police officers standing idly by Saturday afternoon as hundreds gathered (and cameras captured the gathering) if the protest had overstayed its welcome by 6 days? Why did they stand idly by, knowing they were going to forcefully evict them in the morning? It just doesn’t add up.

We can’t simply say that individual police officers are spoiling for a fight (they are at the mercy of their employer) but one is led to wonder whether a fifteen minute window might have allowed for their request to be fulfilled without leading to those arrests. One wonders whether they might have prejudged the protesters, who had been peaceful to this point, on the actions of their Melbourne counterparts.

It is the Police’s job to react to danger and direct threat with muscle. In these scenarios they are not a diplomatic force. They are trained security guards with the full power of the law. Their job is to react, but this morning’s action was not one of reaction unless the police have terrifically slow reflexes. If it were a necessary action, it would have been an immediate response to the threat and – barring the possibility of something secretly occurring at 3am in the morning – this response was not immediate. It appears that someone made the call, and then waited until protesters slept. Why would the police force react to something with such delay if not to strike the movement at its weakest point, and what does this decision say about the way in which the law is being enforced?

There is no excuse for such a quick and non-diplomatic response. Why not tell protesters at 9pm that at 5am police would come? Because they would have the opportunity to stand their ground. Because they would ensure media coverage. Because they would not be the weak force the police intended them to be.

To play my own devil’s advocate, there are those who say that police were simply trying to avoid the violence which occurred in Melbourne with a preemptive attack. While that intention may be a noble one, judging one protest against another lacks intelligence, especially when the Sydney counterpart had gone to such lengths to ensure their protest was peaceful and contained. In this scenario, there is still no excuse for the deliberate nature of the takedown: it was executed less than 12 hours after the media left Martin Place; it was undertaken too swiftly to allow sufficient response from protesters; it was disrespectful of the liberty to protest.

This is not about whether the movement is ideologically sound, and it is not about the events in Melbourne. This is not about the legitimacy of protest. The weakest articles today will focus on whether the writer agrees with the movement, but looking at police response through such a political gaze is short-sighted.

As long as protesting is legal in Australia, a preemptive strike on civilians without warrant or major criminal investigation, is an abuse of the brute force a loyal police force allows. We should not begin by blaming the men and women who are stationed in Sydney’s CBD for doing their job. We must blame those who made the call to send their foot-soldiers into what was a dirty, shameful strike on civilians who could, and should, have been given more than fair warning.