This module focuses on “The (non) politics” of different aspects of society; some of these include, every day life, university life and pop culture, which are the three topics I shall be focusing on. Each group will be critically analyzed depending on how their presentation went; the advantages and disadvantages of the work they produced; what they could’ve done to improve their presentation and overall a comparison between each topic in the subject matter. Each presentation have to have used theory from each weeks lectures to back up the examples that they’ve chosen to use, and all should have chosen a precise topic to work on in terms of the subject they have been allocated.
Group 13’s use of examples in their presentation really highlighted the points that they wanted to make, they talked about “Napster” which was one of the first torrenting sites that arrived and defied the point of copyright by letting anyone who has the internet access musical content. They highlighted the problems the musical creators had with torrenting sites by talking about “Metallica” and the problems they had with people illegally downloading their music, which prominently means the industry has a loss of money and the artist themselves. They could’ve also talked about the film industry in terms of copyright instead of just mentioning the music industry, this way they could compare the politics of pop culture and not only focus on one aspect of the media industry, but another. Group 5 also used good uses of examples but took a darker tone by talking about controversial stories about sexual assault and the effects it takes on people in university. They used examples including “CarryTheWeight” in which student activists created a social media trend about a student that sexual assaulted another student, the victim carried a mattress for everyday the student who assaulted her was at the university (because the university didn’t do anything about it). This acts as a perfect example of politics as university life as it represents that students take matters in their own hands if something is needed to be done. They also provided a for and against slide if online activism is really effective, this is something group 9 and 13 both could’ve done in relation to if social media is a good/bad platform for society and if copyright is really effective today. By using a “for and against” strategy, in depth information can be covered quick and efficiently and also looks professional in the delivery of the presentation. Group 9 took a similar tone to group 5 from how they tackled the issue of bullying by using Amanda Todd as a case study to represent how social media can cause distress to people. Amanda Todd was explored in depth within the presentation but the effects of social media wasn’t really covered, which is quite a fundamental area to not discuss as they’re focusing on the non politics of everyday life, and social media is mandatory for a stereotypical young demographic in society today.
All three group presentations used theory, some more than others however. Group 5 in particular spoke about Jeremy Smith “Electronic mail has totally changed the way students do online activism” which then lead them to explore how online activism has been used in relation to Amanda Todd and how Smith’s theory is a prefect representation of how online activism with “CarryThatWeight” is used. They also covered neoliberalism and how its come to “dominate the contemporary world” but reflects that through the use of digital media and politics of university, voices can be heard. The group referenced Littler, J and the quote “Social media helps create equality through online profiles where classes and gender are not seen as separate”, which I don’t think works in terms of the point they’re trying to make. They’re trying to express that the female in the story was supposedly the victim of sexual assault, later however it came around that she lied and he was in fact the victim as he got a lot of verbal assault on social media, even though he hadn’t done anything. I personally don’t think the theory fits this situation as the man was targeted on social media and when it came out that he was victim, there wasn’t near as much publicity as there once was. People also argued that he really did assault her (when he didn’t) which could be seen as a gender stereotype towards males and therefore doesn’t promote gender equality via social media in the slightest.
Group 9 took a similar approach to group 5 in use of theory, they seemed to have used more and explored them more however. They mentioned David Gauntlett and referenced him to the fact that’s teens are active and understand the power of social media. Alike group 9, I feel that the use of this theory misses the intentional message that the presentation is supposed to give. In the presentation, teens bully other teens via social media and push them to their mental edge. I don’t think the theory is appropriate to this circumstance seen as teens appear not to know the power of social media, seen as they unknowingly pushed a teen to the point of suicide and therefore in my opinion the theory doesn’t seem relevant. A good reference they used, was Milner’s theory that “due to teens understanding their lack of power in terms of economy and politics, they use their “status power” to control their evaluations of one another.” Which in terms of social media and Amanda Todd, teens know they can intimidate others by using their status power which leads to bullying; the focal point of the presentation.
Group 13 completely contrasted the other groups by not using much theory within their presentation. They referenced Lawrence Lessig with “What you know is that there is no way for us to kill this form of creativity. We can only criminalize it.” Which is fundamental in the analysis of the copyright act seen as we aren’t able to stop people from copyrighting, but we can criminalize those that do. They could’ve mentioned Tim Drummond who said “The law itself is vague, leaving room for misinterpretation by users and exploitation by content distributors” (Drummond, T 2015) in terms of copyright, which would give them room for expressing how devious it is trying not to breach copyright laws and how they are sly in using the law to restrict people, which would’ve been a good reference to use in terms of the groups case study on YouTube. They also could’ve referenced Felix Stalder and talked about the back end with “All the trappings of conventional organizations, with their hierarchies, formal policies, and orientation toward money, which are supposed to be irrelevant on the front-end, are dominant on the back-end.” Which may have lead them to discuss the politics of pop culture more in depth and discuss new technology more which would’ve benefited them by illuminating their points with theory.
Within group 5’s presentation, most speakers spoke clearly and engaged the audience when they were talking, making the seem really professional. The slides included information about the politics of university but the members of the group didn’t read from the slides, which proved a good technique, as more in depth information was included. This contrasted the way group 9 dealt with their presentation however, because most of their members either read from paper or off of the presentation slides, the lack of communication with the audience seemed to make everyone less focused on the information provided and wasn’t as professional as group 5. They spoke loudly however, so everyone could hear, but the fact they didn’t make eye contact or look at the audience influenced the amount of focus the audience had to the presentation. Group 5 did have a member like this, who read straight off the paper in quite a bland and quiet tone, the information he said was relevant and interesting, but the communication in his speech let him down. Group 9 was similar to group 13 in this instance too, because nearly all of the members in group 13 spoke off of sheets and commonly read off of the board, like the others, this hindered the audiences interest in the presentation but the content they were delivering was interesting all the same. Two of the members on the other hand, were like group 5 in the way they delivered their presentation, speaking confidently and fluently, which in my opinion brought the overall standard of the presentation up. This group only joined the course in January however, so it could be argued that they might not be at the same level as the rest of us on the course, which may have influenced the delivery of their presentation
To conclude, I have found that group 5’s strengths lye within most aspects of presentation, especially with their use of in depth theory and communication to the audience which on a whole helped them deliver a professional presentation. Group 13 however seemed to struggle on the theory and the communication of their work, but thrived in their useful examples and relevance of information on the slides, by linking it to their select topic. Group 9 in my opinion was really strong on theory, using many different theorists, but I didn’t always agree with the theories they use with different examples. They linked it well to the examples and their overall topic and their communication wasn’t as strong as group 5 on the other hand, but was still better than 13’s from my perspective. All political topics were referenced with relevant case studies, and each groups presentations fully expressed their perspectives to a decent standard; some of which I agree with, but some not
Bibliography
Drummond, T 2015, ‘Understanding Copyright and Fair Use in the Music Classroom’, Music Educators Journal, 102, 2, pp. 48-53, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 29 February 2016.
Stalder, F 2013, “Between Democracy and Spectacle” [online] New York University Journal, pg. 249. Accessed 29th February 2016.
Jaime's Blog 