ASSESSED POST (WEEK 9):
Burgess and Green argue that: ordinary people who become celebrities through their own creative efforts “remain within the system of celebrity native to, and controlled by, the mass media” (Reader, page 269).
There can be no doubting of the power of internet celebrities, or more affectionately, “cewebrities”. Most commonly discovered through YouTube and other online video sources, these regular, everyday people grasping fame through their uploaded videos are finding themselves with an increasingly prominent position in today’s mass media; their names and creative projects splurged over newspaper headlines, viral emails, discussion forums and even television programs. One could go so far as to argue that these ordinary citizens are the face of a new generation of stars, finding fame through their own means rather than being followed endlessly by paparazzi and pushed by agents like the traditional star. Viral sensations such as Rebecca Black of ‘Friday’ fame, Antoine Dodson of ‘Hide yo’ kids, hide yo’ wives…’ and Chris Crocker of ‘Leave Britney Alone!’ have proved to be so popular not only from their unique videos, but from their apparent ‘everydayness’- the viewer relating to the natural and somewhat genuinely authentic circumstances in which the video was created and uploaded. Indeed, a lot can be said in the merit of acknowledging these regular human beings as celebrities, rather than obnoxious divas caught up in the fake and materialistic society of Hollywood stardom.
And yet despite the simplicity, authenticity, and even democracy of these “cewebrities”‘ practices, it can be argued that this new generation of stars are not part of the celebrity culture generated and dominated by the mass media. As Burgess and Green assert, entrance into the exclusive ‘Celebrity Club’ is secured not through online popularity, but through “gate-keeping mechanisms of old media- the recording contract, the film festival, the television pilot, the advertising deal.” (2009:24). This is where these “cewebrities” are left hanging in cyberspace: their fame may have millions of online views, but, as Burgess and Green commentate, they are simply “famous for doing something in particular very well, even if that something is unlikely to accrue prestige in the traditional media or arts industries.” (2009:24)
An example that immediately springs to my mind is Keenan Cahill, a 16-year-old teenager who uploaded videos of himself lip-syncing to popular songs such as Michael Jackson’s ‘Thriller’ and Katy Perry’s ‘Teenage Dream’; some of which have received over 40 million views.
Essentially, Cahill is a YouTube sensation because his videos make us laugh- he can get a little too into the lyrics and his confident dance moves are quite unique. He’s been featured on MTV, interviewed by Chelsea Lately, and even collaborated with ‘real’ stars such as 50 Cent, but this sudden popularity online doesn’t automatically make Cahill a celebrity. Although he’s recognizable on our computer screens, he hasn’t quite made the transition from what Couldry (2003, in Burgess and Green (2009:22) labels the ‘ordinary word’ and the ‘media world.’ I can’t imagine Who Weekly will be publishing photos of him shopping for groceries next to a picture of say, Cameron Diaz frolicking on the beach.
As Burgess and Green observe, “YouTube has its own, internal system of celebrity based on and reflecting values that don’t necessarily match up neatly with those of the ‘dominant’ media.” (2009:24) There’ll always be an opportunity for a wannabe celebrity to broadcast themselves into internet stardom, but the real system of celebrity can only be cracked by those supported by members of the mainstream media.
Burgess, Jean and Green, Joshua (2009). ‘YouTube and the Mainstream Media,’ in YouTube: Online and Participatory Culture. Cambridge: Polity Press.
ASSESSED POST (WEEK 3)
While discussing YouTube, José van Dijck argues that the site’s interface influences the popularity of videos through ranking tactics that promote popular favourites. How do ranking tactics impact on the formation of online ‘communities’?
Yesterday, my friend emailed me a YouTube clip of a song she thought I’d like. After listening to the wonder that was Sparkadia’s “Talking Like I’m Falling Down Stairs”, I noticed the horizontal bar down the right side of my browser, suggesting various other popular Sparkadia music videos to watch. Keen to discover more great tunes, I clicked on these links, and soon uncovered tens of songs, covers and live performances, thanks to the encoding of YouTube’s web software. Before too long, I found myself immersed in the vast online community of Sparkadia and Sparkadia enthusiasts worldwide.
As normal as this practice of clicking a suggested link after watching a popular video may now seem to us whilst surfing popular Web 2.0 websites, ultimately these actions are ones of great paradox. As Jose van Dijck asserts (2009:44), whilst digital networks enhance ‘cultural citizenship’ by encouraging societal engagement and interconnection, the steering of YouTube users towards particularly promoted or highly ranked videos singles out certain clips as more favorable than others. In this way, YouTube’s influence over the promotion of videos minimizes the opportunity for true democratization within the site and questions its participatory foundations by essentially advertising certain videos as better, or at least more popular, than others, rather than allowing for users to search entirely independently.
Yet equally, YouTube is driven by user-generated content and interaction. The website’s control over the formation of online communities through video suggestions and subject groupings can be seen as somewhat detrimental as it influences the popularity of videos and steers viewers towards some videos, therefore naturally moving them away from others. As Schultz (2000) asserts, this new distribution of power between users and within online communities in turn renders new technologies as ‘far from interactive’ (qtd Gane and Beer, 2008:95) Whilst social networking is undoubtedly encouraged through YouTube’s groupings and suggestions of similar videos, it does raise a crucial question. How much control does the website’s software have over user participation and interaction, and hence, the formation of online communities?
Be it detrimental or beneficial to the participatory foundations of YouTube, it cannot be denied that ranking tactics and data manipulation assist in the formation of online communities. Whether these networking cultures are truly interactive, democratic and participatory can be debated, but essentially, the display of popular or ‘favourited’ clips encourage discussions and exchanges between users. Either way, my once starved iPod is now bursting with new Sparkadia beats I would have ignored were it not for that little link on my browser gently suggesting what I might like.
van Dijck, Jose. (2009) ‘Users Like You? Theorizing Agency in User-Generated Content’, Media, Culture and Society V.31
Gane, Nicolas, and Beer, David. (2008) ‘Interactivity’ in New Media: The key Concepts. Oxford: Berg.