Bark like an Egyptian? #Bones poses with the statue of Ramesses II on campus. #photoaday
In our recent readings and exercise dealing with the rapid emergence of data and statistics as a driving new force for journalism, it emerged for me how the use of available data and the visualization of this information could be a significant component for the development of the GayGaze blog.
Considering that the very nature of GayGaze is pertaining to television and how gay men are typically incorrectly or inappropriately respresented therein, it’s significant to consider how inportant visualization and statistics are specifically when it comes to visual media and television in particualr. Words and opinions are important when it comes to a sensitive subject such as stereotypes for any branch of society that might be affected by stereotypical portrayal in the media. This is one important need that the blog provides–a place for me to write about what I see (and especially feel personally) about what strikes me as errant where gay men on television are concerned and for others to respond and participate in the discourse.
But inevitably, it’s not all about words and feelings.
Numbers and visuals must be used to portray the actual premise for the blog. And that is where the quickly emerging field of data-driven journalism comes into play.
The television industry has long been one driven by numbers. With such companies as Nielsen providing a long history of ratings and demographic information to the television industry for television consumption and viewing habits, it’s clear that for this particular arm of the media, numbers are pivotal. (It’s no small coincidence on that note that I was just again selected as a Nielsen “tv research home.” Their work and their numbers are real–I’m living proof!)
But how can these numbers and data play a role on GayGaze? It’s simple. One of the most effective ways to demonstrate the evolution of the portrayal of gay men on television is through compiling this statistical data provided by Nielsen and, more specifically, by GLAAD.
This is where data use and visualization concerning an electronic medium should be fairly easy and very beneficial. GLAAD is an advocacy organization that has specifically monitored the portrayal and inclusion of gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgenders in the media. According to its website, the organization “amplifies the voice of the LGBT community by empowering real people to share their stories, holding the media accountable for the words and images they present, and helping grassroots organizations communicate effectively. By ensuring that the stories of LGBT people are heard through the media, GLAAD promotes understanding, increases acceptance, and advances equality.”
Fortunately for those who are concerned with portrayal of the gay community on television (such as on my beat blog) and as a function of GLAAD’s above quoted mission, the organization annually releases reports of findings about gay representation in this setting. Its publications such as the “Network Responsibility Index,” “Where We Are on TV” specifically monitors and compiles data to represent representation. These publications are exhaustive and replete with percentages of portrayal by network and break down all the statistics pertaining to gay coverage in television entertainment programming and are available for free download from the organization’s website. This will be a major source of and component of data for the GayGaze blog. While potential blog users could likewise access this information themselves, the GayGaze blog will pare down the information and making it simpler and more visual to the specific topic of gay MEN on television.
Also and as a result of our recent mapping assignment in class, I envision how mapping could also play a role on the blog. While the central topic of the blog is focused on the furtherance of the presentation of heteronormative gay men on television, I’ve included a cultural section on it as well where I provide information for other men like myself to know about cultural aspects that are more to their tastes and comfort levels than perhaps typical gay bars. By doing hands on research, much like I have already documented on the blog, a developing map of whatever city I may live in or drawn from the experiences of others in other cities can provide men who might be same-sex-oriented but who want to know that hard-to-find information about whether to either meet other men like themselves in a social setting or even religious institutions or service providers who may cater to them more appropriately.
Essentially, then, it’s clear how data management from television studies and possibly even mapping services can provide prerogatives for my beat blog in ways that I might never have considered at the blog’s inception.
Assignment: Find an additional academic journal article on social media (you can choose a particular network or site) uses and gratifications to briefly summarize in your journal blog.
This weeks’ reading highlighted age, social class, gender-related and cultural implications of uses and gratifications pertaining to social media. I found an academic article that added another fold to the layers–professional athletes’ use of Twitter.
Not surprisingly, I’m not much of a sports fan. But finding myself suddenly intrigued to such an extent by uses and gratifications pertaining to social media, this 2010 article by Hambrick, Simmons, Greenhalgh and Greenwell showcasing a content analysis of Twitter use by professional athletes was compelling reading.
The authors conducted a study to see how sports communication in general and particularly that of athletes themselves might be evolving via Twitter, when professional athletics has traditionally been a hearty user of media to communicate with its publics. Essentially, the authors found that Twitter use has veritably changed the nature of this communication and demonstrates itself in six specific topic areas:
- Diversion: pertaining to non-sports-related information provided by the athletes themselves on topics such as family, movies and restaurants
- Interaction: involving direct communication between fellow athletes and with their fans
- Information sharing: providing insight into the teams or sport in general and often pertaining to practice/training
- Content: provided pictures, videos or blogging
- Fanship: divulging opinions or observations on the athletes’ own sports likes
- Promotional: involving discussion or perpetration of sponsorships, games, events and giveaways
The Tweets for the content analysis were drawn from sportsin140.com, a website devoted to identifying verified athlete Twitter accounts. The authors wrote, “rather than sanitized, impersonal communications about the latest game filtered through a team’s public relations department, professional athletes tweets tend to be more direct and address topics beyond sport.” This humanizes the athletes and, to some extent, allows fans to enjoy a more accessible and interpersonal relationship with them. Much like what others have discussed about Twitter use in the black community, the authors found that professional athletes likewise largely use Twitter to communicate directly, whether it was from athlete-to-athlete or from athlete-to-fan in an unfiltered and personalized manner rather than in the more publicly communicative sense typically associated with general Twitter use.
The reading material compiled for this week’s topic of Social Media Uses and Gratifications was by far the most compelling and interesting reading to me for the semester. Perhaps I might’ve considered a career in media psychology, because attempting to understand how and why people use their preferred types of media is quite intriguing to me. Add to this innate curiosity the reality that I have lived through the decades where contemporary forms of media did not exist and have had to evolve through my own sensibilities about my personal media uses and gratifications in both a pre-Internet and post-Internet reality. I’ve been a college student on both sides of that Internet fence as well. It all adds up to compelling ways of thinking.
Where new media forms are concerned, I’m truly enjoying being somewhat observant to the proverbial ground floor of uses and gratifications study. Indeed, reading through some of the selections (especially the Hargittai and Hsieh study), it’s likely the same experience as other students had when television first surfaced as a medium and academic study attempted to define its realities and how it would be used and/or its effect on society. This is historical research happening before our eyes, as it were. And if I live long enough, I’m confident I’ll look back on ideas and terminology like “dabblers” and “omnivores” and remember when they were first applied to social media–and that I was there when it all emerged.
Beyond the engaging aspect of the research and observation, though, what do scholars and industry professionals say about how social media is being used and for what purposes?
Repeatedly in this week’s selections and in other academic uses and grats studies, we consider the behavior of young people. Typically falling into the category of ‘early adopters‘ per Rogers’ diffusion of innovation theory, young person behavior with social media provides abundant insight–especially considering, as Boyd pointed out in her paper, some sites like MySpace and FaceBook were directly targeted to high school and college-aged users. As Boyd suggested, the Myspace/Facebook dynamic highlighted more than increased use by young people, but a larger demonstration that online activity reflects cultural tendencies even in social class-oriented-behavior. Appropriately pointing out that sometimes the media itself can set a tone for certain media by the way it characterizes them, Boyd’s contentions are that social media use is borne out of the social and cultural capital, attitudes, social network, geography, race and religion aspects in everyday life that identify us with our own social classes. Because of factors even as simple as visual appeal (where one site’s “blingy” appeal for some classes comes off as “gaudy” to others), she concludes that “in a society where we can’t talk about class, we can see [class struggle] play out online.”
This phenomenon is reified by Manjoo’s observation of ethnic use of Twitter. This piece was just a specific example of cultural/class-oriented social media use, but it’s compelling for me to read about this because it demonstrates a far different reality than my own use of Twitter and that of any of the dozens I have interacted with–as a white, gay man. Ethnic use of Twitter in the “oral-dissing” tradition of the black community and in the “call-and-response” tradition using what Manjoo dubbed “blacktags” is something I have only randomly witnessed among classmates and some coworkers but have never really acknowledged as such. Yet this is a perfect example of cultural social media proclivity, just as when Boyd suggests that latinos might have been more predominant on MySpace because of the vivid visual (aka “blingy”) nature of its online presentation. The use of Twitter in the black community as a means to talk to each other directly rather than broadcasting messages is a tendency that I also found interesting and that I can remember seeing before I understood it as a trend. This whole observation makes me curious if there can be enough discernible Twitter evidence to study trends of usage within the gay community. That seems like a great idea for a study. 😉
Considering, then, that certain groups of the population or maybe even underrepresented segments of the population have identifiable uses for certain types of social media, a piece by Brown aptly suggests the “civic value” for journalists to pay attention to this habits and behaviors. Essentially, targeting these previously or typically underrepresented groups in the new media realms where they interact most and knowing those ways of interaction can help bring about a sooner demolition that state of being underrepresented–in both coverage and reach.
Finally, as Hargittai and Hsieh pointed out, understanding not only the frequency and nature of social media use but also the diversity of it is imperative. As previously stated, I really appreciated this article because of its innovation and insight. While basic, it provides new semantics for uses and gratifications theory where social media are concerned. Whether on the “dabbler” end of the spectrum of use, where mainly one social networking site (SNS) is used and only randomly, or on the “omnivore” end where at many SNS’s are used and at least one to an extensive level, this article adds depth to prior considerations of age, race and cultural considerations that have been pushed to the forefront once again in the context of social media use. This depth reflects that sex even sex (with women being more intense users of social media than men) and even technical skill can play a role.
Indeed, this was a fascinating week to read for J7330. 😉