Media Ethnography: Public Radio Listeners

For my Media Ethnography, I studied a group I consider myself a part of: public radio listeners/members. I’ve been a listener since college, and since then, hardly a day goes by where I don’t listen for at least a short time. Mostly I listen to the NPR news station (91.1 FM), but occasionally I listen to The Current or Classical. I’ve found I’m in good company, because most of my friends, co-workers, and acquaintances listen frequently to public radio and consider it an important part of their lives and, to some extent, of Minnesota culture. Based on the testimonials I’ve heard during the pledge drives, many listeners feel strongly about public radio. Some even go so far as to say they can’t imagine life without public radio, and there are often testimonials from people who have moved out of state and still listen to MPR online. For this assignment, I wanted to take a closer look at some of the people who invite public radio into their lives.

These were the questions I asked:
1. How long have you been listening to public radio? How did you get started?
2. Do you listen mainly alone or with others? Do you feel a sense of community among public radio listeners? Explain.
3. Do you in any way “advertise” your public radio appreciation (bumper stickers, t-shirts, etc.)?
4. Are you a member of your local station? Why or why not?
5. How often do you listen to public radio? Where do you listen most? Are there any particular people/programs you listen to regularly?
6. Do you also use the NPR/MPR websites? If so, for what purpose(s)?
7. What do you think your public radio listening reflects about your identity?

Public Radio and Community-Building
Although my interviewees usually listen to public radio alone (esp. in the car), they also expressed the idea that MPR builds relationships because of discussions of the stories with others. It’s common to start conversations with, “I heard on NPR…”and then to dialogue about it with someone who heard the same story.

I think there’s a reason why contributors to public radio are called “members” instead of “donors.” The station attempts to build a loyal following that considers itself a sort of team, not just donors to a cause. There is also a reason why many of the member thank-you gifts are products with the MPR logo—they create “advertising” and a way for people to mark themselves not only as public radio listeners but financial supporters. Some of my interviewees show their loyalty by using car stickers, mugs, shirts, etc. with the MPR logo.

One interviewee pinpointed “A Prairie Home Companion” as a show that she believes builds community. She says, “It takes a certain kind of character to not just enjoy but really understand” that show. It creates a community of insiders: people who live in Minnesota, especially in the outlying areas, will appreciate the humor and understand the references made. APHC sets this community apart from other areas of the country.

Public radio has a Facebook and web presence that helps to build community. Most of my interviewees don’t use the websites often, but I’ve noticed that the MPR NewsQ website has a daily question where people can write in their responses and some are shared on air. The station also frequently employs call-ins, a low-tech but effective way for listeners to dialogue on important issues. MPR also has a group of approximately 94,000 listeners, the Public Insight Network, who sign up to share their experiences related to certain topics (for instance, “What’s going on with housing in your area?”). I think these outreach measures are important in building community. It shows that public radio, true to its name, values the beliefs and experiences of everyday people and wants to democratize its news process. Public radio is unique because it invites people to actively contribute to a dialogue. While my interviewees typically just listen, they often initiate a dialogue simply by discussing stories and topics with others.

Public Radio as Ritual
For my interviewees, public radio listening is an important part of their daily routine. For me, public radio is the first thing I hear in the morning (besides the alarm)—I always have it on the bathroom radio as I get ready. All the people I interviewed stated that they frequently listen while driving to and from work. One of my interviewees even has a nightly ritual of listening to the BBC on NPR with her husband before going to sleep.

For my interviewees and myself, some of our listening is purposeful (really paying attention), and other listening is passive, mainly for background noise. But some of my interviewees have certain programs that they regularly tune to, on schedule, as if they were TV shows. At least two of my interviewees subscribe to the podcasts of their favorite shows so that they can listen whenever they choose.

Public Radio and Social Marking
Doing research online, I learned that the typical National Public Radio listener is highly educated (65% have a bachelor’s degree), white (86%), and middle- or upper-middle class (median household income is $86,000). Many listeners are white-collar workers. These findings were not surprising to me because they match up with what I’ve observed throughout the years, but it would be interesting to find out why these results are the way they are. Most of the people I frequently associate with are college-educated, and most of them listen to at least some public radio. I’ve sometimes wondered if there is a “keeping up with the joneses” effect going on—I’ll admit that part of the reason why I have listened all these years is so that I know the same things others know and can understand what they’re talking about. I don’t want to be out of the loop.

http://www.wqub.org/media/NPR%20Profile%20stats%202009/NPR%20demographics.pdf


Public Radio and Identity
I asked my interviewees what they believe public radio listening reflects about their identities. One said it shows she is “nerdy but not boring” and is interested in a variety of topics. Another said that it shows she is intelligent and wants to stay informed about news and events. Another added that her listening to public radio shows that she leans to the left on political issues. The demographics I found in my research did not report on listeners’ political affiliation, but it’d be interesting to see if most listeners fall into that category.

When thinking about what public radio reflects about my own identity, I think it shows that I am rational, thoughtful, and curious. By listening, I’ve learned about topics I’d never heard of before, and that’s what I like about it; I’m constantly amazed at the variety of stories. I also listen for entertainment, and my choices reflect my interests and personality. My favorite is The Splendid Table cooking show. (If I met Lynn Rosetto Kasper, I would squeal like a preteen at a Justin Bieber concert). But even The Splendid Table goes beyond the typical cooking show and delves deep into issues with food: where it came from, who’s making it, how it affects our lives. It’s a lot more than just cooking technique.

For news and information, I prefer public radio because I think it is more thorough and balanced than other sources. For instance, instead of playing a short, controversial soundbite from a politician or celebrity, public radio often features long interviews that ask insightful questions and put comments into context. This applies not only to politicians but also musicians, writers, and other people who are just generally interesting to hear from. My choice of public radio for news reveals my values of open discussion and logical thought. Based on what I learned in my interviews, many listeners value public radio as a way to keep us intelligent, informed, and thinking deeply about important issues.

Link to my Voicethread

(It's actually written comments--some of it is copied from the blog post below, which I did before we got Voicethread working again)
Media Representations of Las Vegas

My Use of Facebook and iPhone

Throughout my adult life, I have lagged behind when it comes to technology. I've never been interested in having the newest gadgets, and I only use technology on basic levels because I haven't taken the time to really learn more sophisticated methods. This class is my first step toward shedding my nickname: "Web 1.0"



CELL PHONE


This summer, I finally got a smart phone, an iPhone to be exact (3G, because I decided I really didn't need to pay extra for 4G, especially if it doesn't work yet). I did want to get a smart phone of some kind, but I only "settled" for the iPhone because my husband has one and we finally got ourselves on the same phone plan. After years of struggling with an old-school phone that could barely send text messages, I found the iPhone fairly easy to use, but I don't really love it. The iPhone is useful because I can finally send text messages easily, and it is really convenient to have access to email, Facebook, and the internet all the time. I feel much less attached to my computer now, which is nice.

Texting is useful to me, but I don't use "text-speak" and neither do most of my friends. I use fairly standard puncutation and avoid a lot of abbreviations. The iPhone makes it easy to type so it's not a hassle to spell out actual words. I have no major objections to "text-speak," it's just not my style, and most people I text feel the same way.

I see my phone as being somewhat a reflection of me. I have downloaded several apps that show my interests in cooking, reading, news, movies, etc. I have pics of people I know and places I've been. Even though I'm not really that attached to my phone, it does show some aspects of my identity.


FACEBOOK


Not surprisingly, I was a relative latecomer to Facebook. I got my account at the age of 26 or 27, well after most of my friends got it, because I realized that I was missing out on things due to not being on it. I finally decided to sign up for it, and I'm glad I did.


The first thing I did on Facebook is adjust the privacy settings so that I'm not searchable to the public and most of my content is restricted to "friends only." Privacy is a huge concern for me because of my teaching career. I don't want my students (or my boss) to see what I post on Facebook, and I want to try to maintain a life that is not always school-appropriate! I'm now toying with the idea of having a Facebook page for my "teacher-self," but I just have concerns about what could go wrong.

I have 81 friends on Facebook, which is a low number, relatively speaking. (I think my husband has over 250). Almost all of them are people I know personally and see at least occasionally. A few of my English department colleagues are my Facebook friends, which I really enjoy. They become a source of support when my status update reads like it did on Sunday: "Finally finished grading tests...having started at 8:30 a.m." (posted at about 7:00 at night). I can trust my colleagues, so friending them on Facebook was not a concern, but I would never friend my boss or go seeking out a bunch of colleagues as friends.


I use Facebook mainly as a way to stay informed about what's going on with people who are at least fairly close to me. My life is uneventful and I don't post a ton of stuff, but I do enjoy reading about my friends' lives. When my friends post pics of their vacations, I look at them. When they are in need of encouragement or sympathy, I comment on their statuses. I often use the "like" button because it allows me to express acknowledge someone without having to write something. I also use Facebook as a casual way to reconnect with people I haven't seen in awhile. I post a wall comment or send a private message and try to set up an in-person meeting. In sum, I use Facebook the way most people do: to keep in touch with people I already know.

Even so, I am pretty judicious about what I post on Facebook and whether it will be public or private. If the message is mundane and doesn't warrant others' input, I'll send a private message. Since everyone can see wall posts, I try to only post on people's walls if it's something actually interesting or that others might latch onto--for instance, if it's someone's birthday, I'll post a happy birthday message on the wall, but if I want to remind my husband to pick up a gallon of milk, I'll send a private message.

Sometimes I write and rewrite my status updates to try to find just the right wording to capture what I'm thinking/feeling. I think hard before I post, just as I think hard before I speak. If what I'm putting out there is a reflection of myself, I don't want to sound like a moron.

I do not use Facebook to rant about my political/religious ideas. Most of my friends avoid controversial topics as well, but one friend (one of my neighbors from college) posts about religion all the time and it drives our mutual friends nuts. Literally her every status update has to do with her religion, and several of us have discussed (in person) how we don't think Facebook is meant for espousing our beliefs. Clearly religion is a huge part of this friend's life, but many people are uncomfortable with that type of display. I avoid posting links/comments that could be controversial simply because I don't want to start a battle over issues that shouldn't be argued online.

Oddly, I don't swear on Facebook, even though at home I swear all the time. (I think it's a byproduct of having to censor my speech all day long). I use abbreviations or substitute calmer words if I feel the urge to swear in my status update. For some reason, I think of Facebook as a fairly civilized place and I am much more cautious on Facebook than I am in "real life." For the most part, the interactions I have on Facebook are positive, and I wouldn't want to ruin the vibe with a bunch of harsh words. I also wouldn't want to offend some of my more conservative friends and relatives. I guess I do censor myself, but that's what you need to do in a public forum where your tone/words may be taken out of context.

Facebook is a fairly important part of my life now. It's funny how much I rely on it, considering how late I was to the party. I find myself joking with friends about how life events like engagements, breakups, etc. are "only official when they're on Facebook." I enjoy having such a quick, easy way to keep updated on people who matter to me, and at the same time, I can withdraw myself as much as I choose to. Even just reading what's on there is satisfying to me.


TECHNOLOGIES I DON'T USE


-Twitter. I seriously don't understand how to read/follow the conversations. My friend was trying to explain it to me the other night, and he ended up laughing hysterically at my ignorance. All the @ symbols and the layout...I just don't get it. But I want to, because I would like to follow some people's Twitter feeds, but I haven't taken the time to understand it.

-Posting my own movies or videos. I've only operated a videocamera a few times, and I have no desire to put movies online or edit them. (My husband, on the other hand, is huge into movie editing. He hads taken extensive footage on all our ski trips and is now editing it into a full-length movie with music and narration). I have basically no experience with movie editing, but after trying iMovie in class, it didn't seem too hard. I actually enjoyed the process of trying to create meaning based on how I set up the shots. I hope to practice this more, especially since I'm teaching Art of Film for spring trimester.

-Blogging for personal use. I have this blog and one for the Creative Writing class I'm teaching. (I post assignments and journal topics on there, but that's about it). I just feel my life isn't interesting enough to blog about. Some of my friends have blogs that I follow--one friend started a blog about her adventures as a medical school student and mother of two, and another friend has an awesome and somewhat- nationally publicized Gopher Basketball blog. I like the idea of it, but I don't really have anything that unique to put out there. Perhaps one day I'll change my mind.

Vegas on the brain (I’m going there next Thursday after class, woo hoo!)

Media representations of Las Vegas

For this assignment I chose to study depictions of Las Vegas, which is depicted in the media as a luxurious place that’s in continuous party mode. The famous sign welcomes people to “fabulous” Las Vegas, a word that has connotations of glamour and class.

I myself was susceptible to the media representation of Vegas. I went there for the first time several years ago and expected to feel like an underdressed frump everywhere I went. Given the city’s party-hard image, I expected to stay up all night and laugh at the antics of young people on bachelor/ette parties. When I arrived, though, I was somewhat let down by the reality of Vegas. People sitting in the casinos were wearing pajamas (at best), chain-smoking at the slots all day long. Many of them were old, not the young and hip people shown in the ads, TV shows, and movies. It really wasn’t that surprising, but I was a little disappointed that Vegas didn’t live up to the coolness I had in mind.

The city's brilliant advertising campaign shaped the image that everyone has of Vegas. The line "what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas" implies excitement--all the vices, including gambling, drinking, and casual sex--and offers the guarantee that the city will keep your secrets. It is portrayed as basically an alternate universe where everyone is single, young, wealthy, and attractive.

Vegas is full of lights and fantasy, an image mainly perpetuated by the variety of themed hotels on the strip. (The ironic thing about this city is that it tries to make you feel like you’re somewhere else entirely. Most of the themed hotels are replicas of different places—Italy, Paris, Egypt, etc. Las Vegas is supposed to be an escape, but…to somewhere that’s not even the U.S.? Strange. Well, I suppose it’s cheaper than traveling around the world). The city’s brilliant façade and clever ad campaign hide its larger problems—high unemployment and depressed housing values for residents, and gambling/alcohol addiction for some residents or visitors. The idea of staying up all night gambling may sound fun, but if you can’t afford it, it can cause huge problems. And you can’t really avoid gambling in Vegas. The airport has slot machines, so you’re inundated from the moment you arrive, and the casinos are windowless caverns that shield you from the outside world. Gambling is portrayed in the media as a glamorous and sophisticated activity (I’m thinking of movies like Casino Royale and 21), and the casinos certainly look the part, but this image ignores the risks of gambling in excess…I actually think the city ignores pretty much all reality. I will admit, though, that’s one of the reasons why I enjoy going there.

When I go there, though, I can’t turn off my brain completely. (I don’t drink that much!). I find that in Vegas, reality sometimes clashes with fantasy in uncomfortable ways. Passing the guys on the street giving out calling cards for prostitutes. Dirt and trash on the streets. People gambling money that they really can’t afford to lose. But when I’m there, it’s easy to stay in my own little world and ignore the reality around me, which is exactly what this city wants me to do.

Using Marxist and feminist lenses with students

Using this ad, I would have my students discuss the following questions:

BEFORE VIEWING...

• Why do you think many companies use celebrities in their ads? Have you ever bought something because of a celebrity endorsement?

DURING/AFTER VIEWING...

• What type(s) of people do you see in this ad? What type(s) of people are not shown?
• What feeling does the background song give you? Why do you think this song was used?
• What connection do you think the company is making between guys playing football and the jeans? What are they supposed to have in common?
• What image of men is being projected in this ad?
• Why do you think Brett Favre was chosen as a spokesperson for Wrangler? Out of all the famous people (and all the NFL players, even), why Favre? [This question may require some prior knowledge about Favre]

Wrangler Jeans commercial w/Brett Favre - Marxist and feminist analysis

I look for any opportunity to rail on Brett Favre in general, but this commercial actually has a lot to pick apart.


MARXIST
This commercial is Brett Favre promoting Wrangler Jeans. He is shown playing football in a muddy field with a bunch of guys (regular guys in their 30s, not pro football players). They're also shown hanging out in a pickup truck with golden retriever. The background music is "Bad to the Bone." In this commercial, Favre is clearly trying to take on a "regular" guy persona; he's unshaven and wearing a faded t-shirt (with #4 on it). Favre states that he's comfortable in Wranglers, and he looks comfortable hanging out playing a casual game of football with these guys. Of course, it's not hard to spot the contradition, which is that Favre is a multi-millionaire. He is promoting a product that is designed for the no-nonsense, middle-class type of guy, but he is far from a "regular" person. [On a side note, this is the same reason why I hate that "Pink Houses" song by John Mellancamp. Or actually just any song by John Mellancamp].

In this commercial, Wrangler is trying to associate itself with a middle-class lifestyle. By positioning its product with "all-American everyman" things like football, pickup trucks, and dogs--while using a multi-millionaire celebrity spokesperson--Wrangler is able to create an image of their jeans that has nothing to do with the price, and to create a humble image for Favre as well. The price of the jeans is never mentioned, not even in vague terms, but because of the humble image they're given in the ad, we assume them to be widely affordable--the irony being that Favre is the last person who really needs his stuff to be cheap.


FEMINIST
There are no women or kids in this commercial, not even watching from the sidelines. The ad portrays men as athletic, rough-and-tumble, and competitive. One of the taglines is "Built tough"--referring to the jeans, but also to the image of the males in the ad. The background song, "Bad to the Bone," enhances the image of men as hard-core. At one point Favre passes to a guy who dives into a giant puddle. The competition looks friendly enough (Favre is smiling), but the level of activity is definitely sort of intense for a game among friends. The voice-over states that Wranglers are built durably and comfortably, suggesting that they'd hold up to an intense game without getting ruined. The men are tough, the jeans are tough. This ad shows a community of men that women--who according to the stereotype are weak and fragile--cannot be part of. It seems to suggest a strong dichotomy between the sexes.

A funny thing about this ad is that even though it's selling men's jeans and only men are shown, there is definitely a close-up of Favre's butt. Hmmmm.