Click-Through Activism With Real World Results

Flipping through the channels today, I saw a story on Channel 7 News, entitled "Cuffed on Campus." The story was about the students at Cape Cod Technical High School who organized a sit-in in protest of a speech given to them by their new dean during a lunch period when the students were served only cheese sandwiches as punishment for not cleaning up the day before. In the speech, the dean reportedly referred to the students in a derogatory manner, calling them "pigs" among other things. In response to their punishment and the speech from the new dean, some of the students created a Facebook group which eventually led to a school-wide organized sit-in, which resulted in the arrest of two students.

Click HERE for the Channel 7 News article and video

When the newscaster mentioned that the sit-in was organized through a Facebook group, I couldn't help but think of click-through activism. Unlike most groups on Facebook that promote a cause, this group led to fast, highly organized action. Although this is a reatively small scale example of click-through activism having real world effects, it is a demonstration of the potential of Facebook groups to organize an actual movement, when all of the members are emotionally invested in the cause.

Mocking "Click-Through Activism"

After reading the Washington Post article about "Click-through Activism," I was curious to find out what types of groups were currently popular on Facebook, and what kinds of causes they supported. In the process of browsing groups, I came across a group that mocks this "Click-through Activism" that is so common on Facebook.

The group is entitled, "An Arbitrary Number of People Demanding that Some Sort of Action Be Taken." Click HERE to view the page.

The description of the group is as follows:

"We Demand Immediate Action on This Crucial Issue!

If nothing is done then however many of us are in this group will be very displeased. We may even comment to express our anger, possibly with bad punctuation or spelling to further communicate our individual but quite possibly collective emotion.

Something Must Be Done About This!"

I found this group, which has over 95,000 members (now including me) to be hilarious, mostly because of its accuracy in capturing the essence of most Facebook groups that claim to support a cause. With its satirical representation of a so-called "activist" Facebook group, this group brings up many of the problems and shortcomings of "Click-through Activism." It mocks the fact that while people who participate in "Click-through Activism" do so to "express themselves as individuals," it is really because of an eagerness to fit in with the collective and an aimless desire to be a part of a cause that they join these groups. The specific cause itself is unimportant, as we saw in the Washington Post article which mentions a psychologist who created a group supporting an entirely fictitious cause, the prevention of the leveling of Copenhagen's Stork Fountain to make room for an H&M clothing store. Within a week or so, the group had over 27,000 members, despite the fact that it was clearly stated on the groups page that the cause was made up. This experiment demonstrates the blind desire of Facebook users to "express themselves" by supporting a cause. Any cause will do.

The group, "An Arbitrary Number of People Demanding that Some Sort of Action Be Taken," also mocks the pointless and ineffective way that most "activist" groups express their anger and emotion about a cause, i.e. via mispelled and poorly punctuated comments that rarely lead to any actual protest or external activism.

I will surely keep this satire in mind the next time I decide whether or not to join a group. The popularity of Facebook gives it the potential to have a real life influence, but until its users start taking the groups and causes seriously, start joining groups for the right reasons, and start making a commitment to support the groups they join, Facebook groups will remain a joke.

What Kind of Tech User am I?

Here are the results of my tech user quiz from PewInternet.org :

You are an Media Mover

"If you are a Media Mover, you have a wide range of online and mobile habits, and you are bound to find or create an information nugget, such as a digital photo, and pass it on. These social exchanges are central to your use of information and communication technology. Cyberspace, as a path to personal productivity or an outlet for creativity, is less important to you.

Overall, this result is quite accurate. I do have a wide range of online and mobile habits and I do tend to use technology and cyberspace primarily for social purposes. While I of course use cyberspace and the Internet for academic purposes, I feel media/technology/cyberspace is often more of a distraction than a creative aid. Cyberspace as a "path to personal productivity" is virtually nonexistent in my life. In fact, while I enjoy using cyberspace, I feel that it actually takes away from my productivity.

GLOCAL SCENE

Glocal Scene is a documentary by Chestnut Productions about global local music scenes. The film makers, two men from Leeds, travel to seven different countries, from South Africa to the United States, find and interview local musicians, and hear their music.

The issues that emerge in the film have a lot to do with the barriers to entry into the popular music world, the "unhealthy monopoly" of companies such as Clear Channel as a result of the Communications Act of 1996, and the changing technologies and trends surrounding music.

What inspired the film makers to make the film was knowing a lot of great musicians in their home town that could not get past the local scene, and wondering if this was the case in cities and towns throughout the world. They are by no means expert film makers, but this only adds to the organicism of the film. Something perfect and polished would not be an accurate representation of the music or the six months that the film makers spent on the road.

The musicians in the film "don't have the right hair," or "aren't from the right city," so their music simply isn't promoted or backed, leaving it up to the musicians to have their music heard via touring and networking. As the film states, "Those with the most money get the most coverage," and these musicians do not fit the marketing model of the major corporations (and don't want to) and certainly don't have the most money. As one musician puts it, "Your music is ok, but your pants aren't right."

Another musician talks about a three month period around 1995 when "all the rockers were killed, and marketing took over." At the beginning of this period, Nirvana was at the top of the rock world, and three months later, Third Eye Blind had taken its place. Since then, it has all been downhill.

In the end, the result is something that gives hope to those who love music. Although we are "being fed the same 40 songs every fucking day," if you look hard enough, there are plenty of local music scenes with musicians who care about the music and love making it, not for the sake of money or fame, but for the sake of the music. One band member says that he knows there will not be a large crowd the first time that he plays in a new city, but as long as there is one person up front, enjoying the music, then that is enough.

In summary, one musician in the film was asked, "How would you market this (your music)?" His answer was simple. "You wouldn't."

George Lopez: The Kind of Change Obama Can Believe In

Here's the George Lopez commercial with President Obama that I mentioned during today's discussion.

In class, we talked a lot about the significance of appearances in the media, especially in the context of political campaigns. We focused on Nixon and Kennedy and the first televised debate, and on McCain and Obama. Both examples reinforce the importance of appearances, and the value that the American public puts on appearances. In both cases, the young, charismatic, attractive candidate came out on top, and although their appearances were not the only reasons for their successful campaigns, they most certainly played a role.

This commercial is a prime example President Obama trying to keep up his appearance in the media, well after his campaign and well into his first term as president. In the commercial, President Obama endorses George Lopez's new late night show on TBS, calling it, "The kind of change I can believe in." My gut reaction to this was that it was somewhat inappropriate to use his profound campaign slogan of "change," a slogan that holds so much significance to so many people, in reference to a late night television show. I understand that President Obama is trying to maintain his down to earth, accessible image, but at a certain point I think people begin to wonder where his priorities lie. The comments on the YouTube video certainly enforce this criticism. Many of them sarcastically comment that Obama is clearly working hard for our country.

Overall, with appearances in commercials like this, Obama, and any politician for that matter, runs the risk of coming across as too concerned with his/her appearance in the media and not concerned enough with important political issues. I am by no means against the president making an effort to be relatable to the everyday American, but I am frankly a little disappointed, and even embarrassed by Obama's choice of words in this particular commercial.

The Death of the Album

As we talked about in class today, virtually no one buys a complete album anymore.  Not only is the physical act of going to a record store and purchasing an album lost, but so is the age and appreciation of the cohesive album.  When cohesive albums were appreciated, artists were defined more by their albums than by their singles.  Just look at the series of albums recorded by The Beatles during the 60s.  This progression of albums defines The Beatles' and the development of their music.  

I realize that technology has moved away from CDs and more toward Mp3 files, but even if the act of purchasing an actual CD is now obselete, that doesn't mean that the cohesive album should be lost.  A couple examples of cohesive albums from the 60 are the Beatles' Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, and The Who's Tommy, the first rock opera.  These two albums were meant to be listened to in order, from start to finish, and each album was very carefully put together.  

Today, albums are nothing but a group of singles, most of which have no relation to each other what so ever.  In my opinion, it is too bad that "the album" has lost its meaning.  Gone are the days when you would go to the record store, buy an album, and listen to it from start to finish.   Whether you think this change from consumers having collections of cohesive albums to consumers having a random assortment of singles on an ipod is good or bad for music, it is certainly a significant development in the music realm; one that needs to be noted.  

Billboard Hot 100: Not About the Music

Here are the top 20 songs and artists from this week's Billboard's Hot 100, as well as the record label for each.  Brace yourself....

1.  I Gotta Feeling, The Black Eyed Peas : Interscope Records

2*. Down, Jay Sean Featuring Lil Wayne : Cash Money Records

3*. Party in the U.S.A., Miley Cyrus : Hollywood Records

4. Run This Town, Jay-Z, Rihanna & Kanye West : Roc Nation

5*. Whatcha Say, Jason DeRulo : Beluga Heights/Warner Bros

6. You Belong With Me, Taylor Swift : Pacificcoastmusic.com

7*. Paparazzi, Lady Gaga : Interscope Records

8. Use Somebody, Kings of Leon : RCA Records

9*. Obsessed, Mariah Carey : Island Records

10. Empire State of Mind, Jay-Z + Alicia Keys : Roc Nation

11*. Cowboy Casanova, Carrie Underwood : 19 Recordings Limited

12. Forever, Drake Featuring Kanye West, Lil Wayne & Eminem : Interscope Records

13. She Wolf, Shakira : Epic Records

14. Hotel Room Service, Pitbull : Mr. 305/Polo Ground Music/J Records

15*. Sweet Dreams, Beyonce : MusicWorld/Columbia Records

16. Best I Ever Had, Drake : Young Money Entertainment

17. Good Girls Go Bad, Cobra Starship Featuring Leighton Meester : Fueled by Ramen

18*. Throw It In The Bag, Fabolous Featuring The-Dream : Desert Storm/Def Jam

19. Knock You Down, Keri Hilson Featuring Kanye West & Ne-yo : Mosley/Interscope

20*. Break Up, Mario Featuring Gucci Mane & Sean Garrett : J Records

*The asterisks indicate "Titles with the greatest airplay and sales gain this week," which, after watching Money for Nothing, we know means absolutely nothing as far as the quality of music goes.  All it means is that these songs and artists have been promoted and backed by the large corporations.  They simply have the most money behind them.

Here are the companies that own the record labels of each artist in the top 20:

Walt Disney Records: 

Miley Cyrus

Warner Music Group: 

Jason Derulo

Universal Music Group: 

Drake

Jay-Z

Mariah Carey

Jay Sean

Black Eyed Peas

Lady Gaga

Fabolous

Keri Hilson

Sony Music Entertainment: 

Shakira

Kings of Leon 

Pitbull 

Beyonce

Mario

Carrie Underwood

Big Machine Records (Independent, records distributed by Universal Music Group): 

Taylor Swift

Fueled by Ramen (Independent, records distributed by Atlantic Records, which is owned by Warner Music Group)

Cobra Starship

As you can see, a startling 14 of the 18 different primary artists in the top 20 of the Hot 100, are signed with a record label that is owned by either Universal Music Group or Sony Entertainment.  These two companies are clearly dominating the popular music market, and because of their dominance, are able to use popular music to serve their own purposes.  

The commercializing of music, turning it into a purely money-making industry run by people who know next to nothing about music, has devastated popular music.  The corporate monopolization of the public airways has made it virtually impossible for independent or up and coming musicians to have their music heard by a widespread audience, and as a result, there is very little variety in today's popular music.  Also, the focus has turned from musical talent and innovation to marketability.

Just look at the number one songs from each week of the Billboard Hot 100 from any year between 1959, the inaugural year of the Hot 100, and 1979, and you will see a great variety of music, a number of different artists, and most importantly, quality music that has a message and uses the media of music as it deserves to be used.  When the airways were public, DJs had a say in what songs to play, and the choices they made depended on the quality of the music, what the DJ deemed worthy of playing, and what the people wanted to hear, not which corporation had the most money.  

Let's take a quick look at the Billboard Hot 100 from 1973. (a random choice)

The list can be seen by clicking HERE.  

In 1973, the Hot 100 included everything from The Rolling Stones to Stevie Wonder.  It included lasting hits, hits that are still popular today, including Superstition, Crocodile Rock, Love Train, Let's Get it On, and more.  

Now take another look at this week's Hot 100 and ask yourself if any of these songs will be anywhere near relevant 36 years from now.  My guess is NO.  

The popular music industry needs to see a complete overhaul in order for popular music and the Billboard Hot 100 to actually mean something again.  Until then, I will continue to distance myself from the popular music of today, knowing that it is being used primarily as a source of income for a handful of large corporations.