Differences & Repetitions

Most of my friends seem to have developed World Cup fever, including those who, up until now, haven’t shown any particular interest in soccer/football. I suppose that’s how you end up with one in every two people on the planet watching at least some portion of the tournament.

But for those of you who, like me, are suffering from the opposite condition — World Cup hypothermia — I’m happy to share this most excellent clip from The Simpsons. Enjoy.

I missed most of the SyFy (née Sci Fi) series Battlestar Galactica (2004-2009), though I managed to catch enough to know that I wanted to watch the new prequel, Caprica, from the beginning. I haven’t been disappointed. With the pilot and two episodes now under my belt, it’s safe to say that I’m hooked.

Caprica provides an origin story for the Cylons, a cyborg race created by humans who later attempt to annihilate their masters. That may sound pretty de rigueur as far as the sci-fi genre goes, but here’s the twist: we learn that each Cylon’s “being” — his, her, or its unique identity or essence — is actually the aggregation of a human individual’s medical records, purchasing patterns, educational transcripts, voting records, electronic communications, and other personal information archived online. The Cylons are, in other words, the walking, talking, informational avatars of the human race.

It was with all that in mind that I happened upon the clip embedded below, which is from the February 2, 2010 episode of The Colbert Report. The title, “Cognoscor Ergo Sum,” translates from the Latin as, “I am known, therefore I am.” How apt. In the segment Colbert spotlights Blippy.com, IJustMadeLove.com, and other websites that allow people to reveal and record the intimate details of their daily lives. Blippy lets you broadcast what you’ve just purchased using your credit card, and where. IJustMadeLove allows you shout from the electronic rooftops when, where, and how you’ve just done the nasty. (Yes, I wish I were making that one up.)

---

The Word – Cognoscor Ergo Sum

www.colbertnation.com

Colbert Report Full Episodes

---

There’s been all sorts of talk for years now about the vulnerability of information online, and it’s no surprise given the proliferation of networked databases that identity theft has emerged as one of the foremost crimes of our time. What’s even more striking to me, however, is how Caprica and the Colbert clip together seem to shift the meaning of — and even up the ante on — identity theft.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m not suggesting that we humans are poised to give rise a line of super-machines intent on wiping us out. What I am suggesting, though, is that we can only begin to imagine how and for what purpose the digital data trails that we leave behind today will be used in the future. I like to think about it this way: when I started college, how could I have anticipated a rash of photos and videos surfacing close to 20 years later on Facebook? Heck — there was barely an internet back then, let alone affordable scanners or even the idea of social networking.

Leave it to popular culture, then, to register one of the critical questions of this new decade: how does a society plan for an information future that may well be unfathomable, technologically speaking?

It’s always intriguing for me to see how life influences the direction of one’s work. When I was growing up in the 1980s, 4:00 p.m. meant one thing: The Oprah Winfrey Show would be on the television set in my home. Sometimes my mother would take a break from cooking to watch the show in our TV room. If the meal was complicated, she’d just turn the TV up and listen from the kitchen. Either way, 4 pm meant that it was her time — and consequently my time — with Oprah.

Plus or minus two decades later I published an article on Oprah’s Book Club in an academic journal called Critical Studies in Media Communication and, later, a chapter on the same subject in my book, The Late Age of Print: Everyday Book Culture from Consumerism to Control (Columbia University Press, 2009).

Because I’ve been ensconced in Oprah for so long, both personally and professionally, it’s difficult for me to understand why people refuse to take her seriously. I suspect a lot of it has to do with offhanded impressions about the The Oprah Winfrey Show, television talk shows in general, or indeed Oprah herself. Honestly, I don’t have much tolerance for critics who disparage or dismiss the Oprah phenomenon without studying it intensively, in all of its complexity and over the long-term. I don’t embrace all-things-Oprah by any means, yet it seems pretty clear to me that she’s transformed and even enriched U.S. culture in countless ways.

I’m excited, therefore, to see this week’s edition of the media blog In Medias Res devoted to the theme of Oprah. Here’s the lineup:

• Monday: “Stories of O: Oprah’s Culture Industries” by Kimberly Springer
• Tuesday: “Too Big to Fail” by Janice Peck
• Wednesday: “For the Sake of the Children” by John Howard
• Thursday: “I’ve Been Rich and I’ve Been Poor: The Economics of Oprah” by Vanessa Jackson
• Friday: “Oprah’s Got Beef?: Alleged Matriarchies and Masculinist Rhymes” by Kimberly Springer

I’m looking forward to seeing how the series of posts unfolds. I find that academic authors tend to be extremely cynical towards Oprah, both the person and the broader phenomenon, and so I’m keeping my fingers crossed here. Hopefully the contributors will give such complex subject matter its due.

You can expect to see me leaving comments on IMR throughout the week, since, clearly, this is a topic that’s been with me for a good long while. I’d encourage you to chime in, too. In the meantime, enjoy the Letterman-Oprah-Leno ad from last night’s Superbowl.

Leave it to Oprah Winfrey. She’s already changed what people read. Now she’s out to change how they read by giving Amazon.com’s e-reading device, Kindle, her coveted endorsement.

Oprah’s official announcement came today on The Oprah Winfrey Show, although for several days now Amazon has been teasing the big news on its home page.

Amazon has been excruciatingly tight-lipped about who’s been buying Kindle and how many units it’s managed to sell. The consensus among technology commentators seems to be this: since its debut last November, Kindle has found its way mostly into the hands of older, gadget-savvy early adopters who don’t mind dropping $350 on a stand alone mobile e-reading device.

Given how few people I’ve actually seen with a Kindle, I’d venture to say this is a rather small cadre indeed. Significantly, all but one of the Kindle users I’ve observed over the last year has been male.

In other words, Winfrey’s endorsement could prove to be a real game changer. She has enormous reach among women between the ages of 18 and 54. That, combined with the Oprah Book Club, makes her an extraordinarily influential figure with exactly the population that purchases the most books in the United States.

The real challenge, it seems to me, will be for Winfrey to persuade her audience to part with a large chunk of cash during a major economic downturn. Amazon’s decision to offer a $50 “Oprah Winfrey” rebate–about 15% off of Kindle’s retail price–will be a major incentive in this regard. (By the way, the rebate also happens to be a smart way for Amazon to move its existing stock of Kindles to make way for generation 2.0.)

The other challenge will be for Winfrey to convince her audience that what makes a book a book are its words and images, and not its physical form. That could prove to be an even harder sell in the long run. As Jeff Gomez has observed in his book Print is Dead, it’s hard for many people to shake the image of books as things made of paper, ink, and glue, which they’re supposed “to hug…in bay windows on autumn days, basking in the warm glow of a fireplace with a cup of chamomile by their side.”

The genius of Kindle is to marry e-reading with on-the-go book distribution. Its downfall thus far (beyond the concerns I’ve raised about its interface and matters of privacy) has been Amazon’s apparent inability to connect the device with less gadget-inclined book readers. And in this regard, Oprah’s endorsement of Kindle can only help bring e-reading to within eyeshot of the mainstream.

Courtesy of last night’s Colbert Report comes this pithy segment against “elitism.” And no, it’s not against elitism per se. Instead, it’s directed against a political culture that impugns relativism, only then to turn around and assail those who appear to have a modicum of intelligence or expertise. The segment’s about the charge of elitism, in other words, and its disingenuous use. Brilliant (elitist?) stuff. Enjoy.

---

It was enlightening to watch the ABC News/Facebook/WMUR Presidential debates this past Saturday night, for many reasons. I was aware of Obama and Huckabee’s having won the Iowa caucuses, but honestly, I hadn’t kept up much in terms of who-stands-for-what. The Indiana primary (where I live) doesn’t occur until May, which is about two months after the Democratic and Republican nominees will have all but been determined. (The states with primaries later than ours are Kentucky, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oregon, South Dakota, and West Virginia.) I lived in New Hampshire many years ago, home of the nation’s first primary, and was I born in New York, a state teeming with electoral votes. It’s strange now living somewhere that barely registers in Presidential elections, other than as a place that can be counted on to go red literally within minutes of the polls closing.

Two things struck me most about the debates themselves. First, I appreciated seeing former Libertarian Ron Paul mix it up with the Republicans. His presence there changed the whole tenor of things, try as the other candidates might to stay “on message” and stick to their don’t-let-them-seem-rehearsed sound bites. Though I have no intention of voting Republican, it was still refreshing to hear someone, finally, talking about the implications of the massive devaluation of the dollar that’s occurred under Bush 43′s watch. My only regret was that ABC News excluded Dennis Kucinich from the Democratic half of the debate. No doubt his presence there would have broadened the scope of the conversation and made it much more interesting.

Second, I was flabbergasted, as was the studio audience at New Hampshire’s St. Anselm College, by a comment made by the debate moderator, ABC News’ Charlie Gibson. He premised a question to the Democratic candidates about tax cuts by saying, “If you take a family of two professors here at Saint Anselm, they’re going to be in the $200,000 category that you’re talking about lifting the taxes on.” Huh? Did I miss something here? Since when did it become routine for professors to make $100,000 per year or more? Apropos, there’s a story in today’s Inside Higher Education that talks about the public’s misperception of the nature of, and compensation for, academic labor by full-time faculty. No wonder folks still can’t manage to shake the myth of the ivory tower. Heck–most of what’s in my office is made of plastic.

Courtesy of the Los Angeles Times via Sivacracy, to which I can only feebly respond, “yikes!”

The all-you-can-eat packages of voice, video and Internet services offered by phone and cable companies may be convenient, but they represent a potentially significant threat to people’s privacy.

Take, for example, Time Warner Cable, which has about 2 million customers in Southern California. The company offers a voice-video-Net package called “All the Best” for $89.85 for the first 12 months.

But for anyone who has the wherewithal to read Time Warner’s 3,000-word California privacy policy, you discover that not only does the company have the ability to know what you watch on TV and whom you call, but also that it can track your online activities, including sites you visit and stuff you buy….

You can read more here.

It’s over. Summer break, that is. Today started orientation for new graduate students in my department here at Indiana University, which means fall semester has begun for all intents and purposes. Honestly, summer really ended about 10 days ago for me, when on last Monday morning there arrived an avalanche of emails pertaining to things that needed to happen NOW before the semester started. And on top of that, my department moved buildings. More on that, later.

The summer was a reasonably productive one, as I’m sure readers of D&R already know. When I wasn’t writing, reading, prepping for fall classes, or traveling, I spent a good deal of time watching reality TV. It seems as though that’s becoming an annual occurrence for me, as one of my posts from last summer attests and as my colleague, Jon Simons, reminded me today during one of our orientation sessions. This year I got sucked into two cooking competitions, Fox’s Hell’s Kitchen and Bravo’s Top Chef, in addition to On the Lot (a competition to become a feature film director) and So You Think You Can Dance. (Yes…I watched So You Think You Can Dance. Snicker all you want.)

Most of these shows wrapped within the last week, and so with a little critical distance under my belt, I’m moved to reflect on their significance as a genre. I’m especially intrigued with shows like On the Lot and So You Think You Can Dance, both of which, like American Idol (Pop Idol for my readers from across the Pond), base their weekly contestant eliminations on audience call-ins, text messaging, and internet voting.

This is marketing research, and a clever form of it at that. It’s so clever that rather than costing money, it actually generates income for show producers who subsequently sell the already-proven skills of the contest winner in the form of CDs, music downloads, movies–you name it. Think about it for a moment. Rather than someone from some random opinion-polling firm calling you up during dinner, bothering you with questions about whether you’d prefer to see this or that type of film, TV program, or performing artist, viewers contact these shows of their (our) own volition to provide essentially this type of information. We do it en masse. Now, this isn’t perfect research, to be sure. People typically can vote as often as they’d like within an allotted period of time. But even so, what’s essentially happening is that the unsexy drudge-work that used to be hidden away in mass culture’s “back office” (i.e., opinion polling) now is emerging front-and-center as a key aspect of the entertainment value of these shows. And of course, it’s never called “opinion polling” or “market research.” In good “democratic” spirit, these shows always stress audience interactivity and empowerment. (I wish I had a dollar for every time I heard Ryan Seacrest proclaim, “America voted, and here are the results….”)

All this is part of a larger set of trends. From bar codes becoming things that people other than cashiers now pay close attention to, to the widespread, public testing of “beta” versions of products and more, the boundaries between what used to be called “production” and “consumption” are increasingly fuzzy. And oftentimes, it seems, this fuzziness provides not only for a richer, more potentially informed and interactive relationship with TV programs and other cultural consumables; it also opens up weekly, hour-long opportunities to test-market products in front of millions of viewers.

Focus groups are just sooooo 20th century, aren’t they?

…from the good folks at Moveon.org. Please click on the link below and do your part to rescue public broadcasting in the United States.
—————————————————————————–
George W. Bush is trying—yet again—to slash funding for NPR and PBS. This week, Bush proposed a new budget with devastating cuts to public broadcasting. Sesame Street and other ad-free kids’ shows are under the knife. So is the independent journalism our country needs.

Enough is enough. We’ve fought this fight before and won—but we can’t afford the risk anymore. With the new Congress, we can make sure this never happens again. We need Congress to insulate NPR and PBS from the political winds.

We can make it happen if enough of us sign this petition: “Congress must save NPR and PBS once and for all. Congress should guarantee permanent funding and independence from partisan meddling.” Clicking here will add your name to the petition:

http://civ.moveon.org/publicbroadcasting/o.pl?id=9851-6377474-L5dPf0j_gyEzG4IObMd1cQ&t=2

After you sign, please forward this email to your friends, family, and co-workers to keep this campaign going. We’ll deliver the petition to members of Congress as they consider Bush’s budget—offering a public counterpoint to this dangerous attack.

Congress can protect NPR and PBS from future cuts. The long-term solution to save public radio and TV is to:

fully restore this year’s funding

guarantee a permanent funding stream free from political pressure

reform how the money is spent and keep partisan appointees from pushing a political bias

Bush’s budget would cut federal funds for public broadcasting by nearly 25%. According to PBS, the cuts “could mean the end of our ability to support some of the most treasured educational children’s series” like Sesame Street, Reading Rainbow, and Arthur.”

As telecommunications chair Rep. Ed Markey said, “In a 24-7 television world with content often inappropriate for young children, the public broadcasting system represents an oasis of quality, child-oriented educational programming. We owe America’s children and their parents this free, over-the-air resource.”

The cuts could also decimate one of the last remaining sources of watchdog reporting on TV—continuing the partisan war on journalism led by the ex-chair of public broadcasting, Ken Tomlinson. More people trust public broadcasting than any corporate news media. President Bush would rather undermine our free press than face reporters who are asking tough questions.

Let’s put an end to the constant threats to NPR and PBS. Let’s ask Congress to guarantee funding and stop partisan meddling. Clicking here will add your name to the petition:

http://civ.moveon.org/publicbroadcasting/o.pl?id=9851-6377474-L5dPf0j_gyEzG4IObMd1cQ&t=3

Thank you for all you do.

–Noah, Marika, Eli, Adam G. and the MoveOn.org Civic Action Team
Thursday, February 8th, 2007

P.S. Our friends at Free Press have more on how to save NPR and PBS once and for all:

http://www.freepress.net/publicbroadcasting/=policy

I always look forward to the fall.

I excitedly anticipate the start of each new school year, often to the point of insomnia, and I love experiencing the change of seasons as the harsh summer gives way to the more mellow autumn. The fall also means the start of another new season–the television season. This week and the preceding one have seen a deluge of new and returning shows.

I’m most intrigued by the new Aaron Sorkin production, Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip. Sorkin, you may recall, wrote and created The West Wing (before his ouster) and is widely regarded as a doyen of “quality television.” I caught a rerun of the Studio 60 premiere last night on Bravo, and I’m looking forward to seeing episode #2 tonight on NBC. The show revolves around a television writer-director team played by Matthew Perry and Bradley Whitford, who return to a Saturday Nigh Live-esque show after having been fired several years before by an uptight network executive.

The premiere featured an extended rant by Judd Hirsch, who plays (or played) the longtime producer of the fictitious show-within -the-show, Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip. After having received word from network standards and practices that one of the night’s skits wouldn’t fly, Hirsch breaks into the broadcast and kvetches about how television programming has gone down the toilet, to the point of “lobotomizing” the television audience–an audience that doesn’t seem to care, for example, that a global war’s been going on for years. All the TV audience seems to care about anymore, he inveighs, are programs about marrying one’s sister.

I was both thrilled and saddened by what I’ll henceforth call “the rant.” I was thrilled because, though I don’t necessarily agree with the arguments about the decline of “quality” television, it’s rare that television writers get to indict or critique the medium within which they’re working to the extent Sorkin appears to have. The show’s “meta” dimension works quite well, as it were, in terms of talking about the possibilities and limitations of our existing televisual system on TV. By the same token, I get the sense that Studio 60 may, in the end, be too “meta.” The rant was followed later by fictitious news coverage, which likened the monologue over and over to the famous “I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take it anymore!!!” speech from the 1976 film, Network. That coupled with the fact that Perry and Whitford’s characters seem to embody key elements of Sorkin himself seem to me to make the show, at least at this early stage, just another TV program that aspires to little more than announcing itself as “postmodern” or self-aware of itself as TV. And that’s just not all that interesting to me.

I’m going to give Studio 60 a shot, though. It’s remarkably high production values, clever writing, and potential make it worth watching. Let’s just hope that Sorkin can tone down the meta.

P.S. While I’m on the subject of TV, a quick follow-up to my summertime post about Rockstar: Supernova. Despite the fact that Dilana clearly was the better front-person, the band took the easy way out and picked–surprise, surprise–a guy to lead them, Lukas Rossi. The band claimed in the finale that their decision was based on the call-in and online voting. It’s depressing to me how people can’t seem to get their heads around the fact that women can rock. I might well have purchased Supernova’s album had Dilana recorded with them, but now there’s not a chance.