Creating+Images,+Creating+Knowledge

=Week 6 (2/23, 25): //Creating Images, Creating Knowledge//=

“Dumb Dumb Bullets” by T.X. Hammes details the crippling pitfalls of PowerPoint in its role of decision-making in today’s world. In his essay, Hammes critiques the widely used Microsoft program saying, “it has fundamentally changed our culture by altering the expectations of who makes decisions, what decisions they make and how they make them.” Hammes criticizes “The Art of Slide-ology” for its inability to wholly convey complex issues to a decision-making audience. Hammes goes on to say that PowerPoint has created a culturally deficient thought process centered on bullets and charts that have decreased both the quality of information presented to the decision maker and further, have negatively impacted the culture of decision-making overall.

In my research of the effects of PowerPoint and its role in today’s society, I discovered some intriguing and useful areas of information on the topic. While looking through the information below, keep these questions in mind:

PowerPoint Reflection Questions:

 * **Do you control your PowerPoint culture, or does PowerPoint control you? For many organizations, what appears to be a situation under control is in fact a system that’s out of control. //(How to Gain Control of Your PowerPoint Culture by Cliff Atkinson [])//**


 * **When organizations seek to control information by encouraging the use of bullet points on PowerPoint slides, do they scatter their intellectual assets into unmanageable fragments, resulting in a loss of control of information? Or, is PowerPoint truly an effective means of presenting information? //(How to Gain Control of Your PowerPoint Culture by Cliff Atkinson [])//**


 * **As a college student, how do you feel PowerPoint affects your level of learning?**

=

 * "Death by PowerPoint"** is a criticism of slide-based presentations referring to a state of boredom and fatigue induced by information overload during presentations such as those created by the Microsoft application PowerPoint. **//([])//**======

The phrase was first coined by Angela R. Garber in an article published on SmallBusinessComputing.com ([]). Many suggest PowerPoint is a convenient prop for poor speakers that attempts to reduce complicated messages to simple bullet points. Many also say it elevates style over substance; and that these three things contribute to its popularity.**//([])//**


 * “PowerPoint hell”** was a term coined to describe the tedium some people report on sitting through PowerPoint visual presentations that are too long or where presenters fall foul of other pitfalls, such as overly complex slides, excessive use of the software's features or reading of the text from the slides. **//([])//**


 * In this article by Cliff Atkinson* published on sociablemedia.com //(http://www.sociablemedia.com/articles_culture.htm)//, Atkinson addresses the issues present in today’s dejected PowerPoint culture and offers his outlook on a future resolution.**


 * A Broken PowerPoint Culture**  By Cliff Atkinson

By the fruit of their PowerPoint labor you shall know them. That's one painful truth that emerged from the final report of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board. In its analysis of the accident's organizational causes, the Board viewed "the endemic use of PowerPoint briefing slides instead of technical papers as an illustration of the problematic methods of technical communications at NASA."

The report included a Boeing PowerPoint slide with a withering analysis by information design expert Edward Tufte, who showed how the use of bullet points had filtered, compromised and misrepresented information. "In this context," said the Board, "it is easy to understand how a senior manager might read this PowerPoint slide and not realize that it addresses a life-threatening situation." Unfortunately it's not just NASA and Boeing that find their cultures both reflected and crippled by this seemingly benign presentation graphics tool. Like huge mirrors hanging on the walls, PowerPoint is an open secret that lays bare the inner thoughts of every organization. For anyone who has the eyes to see, every title, bullet point, image, transition and animation reveals volumes about the tone and tenor of the organization, its openness to creativity and innovation, and its tolerance for thinking and presenting inside and outside of the organizational box.

It is because no one really sees PowerPoint clearly that it has become such a problem today. Corporations struggling to make their finances more transparent are finding that PowerPoint is making their job harder, not easier. Schools fighting to keep their students' attention are discovering that PowerPoint is actually putting them to sleep. And if PowerPoint's many critics are right, the behavior the tool produces is a direct assault on every aspect of healthy organizational culture.

Yet few organizations have the will or capacity to change their PowerPoint culture. The rapid adoption of PowerPoint has laid bare the fact that our culture's visual critical thinking skills are anemic. The past century we were effectively trained to be media consumers. But in a short 16 years, 400 million PowerPoint users are now media creators. At some organizations, PowerPoint has eclipsed written documents as the second most-used communications tool after e-mail. Every day we micro-cast an estimated 40 million shows across a vast unrecognized media network of projection screens in boardrooms, classrooms and courtrooms around the world. Yet we wield this media power with little to no training in audio-visual communication skills.

Faced with millions of users with a serious lack of training, organizations don't know where to begin, so they default to the only solution they know: the PowerPoint template. But this visual cure is worse than the disease, because there's nothing more toxic to an ecology of critical thinking than forcing ideas into a cookie cutter. The price every organization pays for bad PowerPoint is incalculable, in the form of lost productivity, diminished creativity and evaporating intellectual assets.

It will take nothing less than radical action to transform PowerPoint and make it a reflection of an organization's positive attributes. If NASA wants to make sure it never sees another ineffective slide like the one in the report, NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe should immediately ban the use of bullet points in PowerPoint. And every CEO and president should follow suit. After this surgical strike, every organization needs to give its people the right tools, techniques and training, and then get out of their way. The power of media is now in the hands of the people. The smartest organizations will figure out ways to channel this potential into systems that encourage creativity and reflect best practices. Most organizations can benefit by simply holding PowerPoint to the same quality standards as every other product and service in their organization.

The Columbia PowerPoint slide was only a mirror that reflected NASA's culture; a visual microcosm of the cultural macrocosm. We will know that all of our organizational cultures are starting to improve when we begin to see into our own PowerPoint mirrors a little bit clearer.

* // Cliff Atkinson is an acclaimed writer, popular keynote speaker, and a consultant to leading attorneys and Fortune 500 companies. He designed the presentations that helped persuade a jury to award a $253 million verdict to the plaintiff in the nation's first Vioxx trial in 2005, which Fortune magazine called "frighteningly powerful." Cliff’s book Beyond Bullet Points (Microsoft Press, 2005) is an Amazon.com bestseller that expands on a communications approach he has taught at many of the country's top corporations, advertising agencies, law firms, government agencies and business schools. //


 * This multimedia slide show done by PCWorld blatantly illustrates the pitfalls of PowerPoint that Hammes outlines in his essay. As you will see, even Bill Gates is not immune.**

PowerPoint Hell: Don’t Let This Happen to Your Next Presentation by PCWorld **//(//**[|**//http://www.pcworld.com/article/161912/powerpoint_hell_dont_let_this_happen_to_your_next_presentation.html//**]**//)//**


 * These are some useful tips and insight on PowerPoint use by students in schools from Professor Doug Johnson*. //([])//**


 * 1. PowerPoint doesn't bore people: people bore people.** As an old speech teacher, I have a bias that PowerPoint falls under the category of visual aid -- with //aid// being the operative word. If we are teaching kids how to use this software, it needs to be within the context of good speaking skills, not in a computer class. (But of course //all// technology skills should be taught within the content areas.) Yup, the old stuff like eye contact, expression, and gestures are still important. As is having something worthwhile to say. All the flying bullet points in the world won't make up for an interesting message and a compelling delivery style.


 * 2. The sins of the overhead user shall be visited upon the computer user.** Edward R. Tufte, in his booklet //The Cognitive Style of PowerPoint// (Graphics Press, 2003), makes a compelling case that complex information is not best shared using this software. He argues persuasively that PowerPoint makes it far too easy to reduce complex topics to simple bullet points. He argues that some graphic information is too detailed for the low-res graphics of the computer screen. I'm just not sure choosing the wrong tool for the wrong job is the tool's fault.

Students need to learn that multimedia presentations should be used to highlight their important points, clarify concepts through well-designed or well-chosen graphics, and as a means of helping organize their talk in the audience's mind. They are not simply a script writ large to be read to the group. (Something I wish more adult conference presenters would remember as well.)


 * 3. There are more visual learners than meet the eye.** Cautions aside, good visuals can be exceptionally powerful, and our kids need practice in harnessing that power. Too bad more teachers themselves don't have at least a fundamental knowledge of good design principles, knowledge of typography, and photocomposition. Before ever attempting to teach a multimedia program (or desktop publishing or web page construction), teachers should read Robin Williams' //Non-Designer's Design Book// (Peachpit Press, 2003) -- and then immediately delete all PowerPoint templates and cheesy clip art.

In the best of all possible worlds, an oral presentation accompanied by a well-designed slide show that helps inform or persuade an audience can be one of the products of a good research unit. I get the feeling a goodly number of our kids will one day be giving multimedia presentations as part of their jobs. They may as well do it skillfully. Just keep in mind "Johnson's Rule of Technology Neutrality": Tools are neither good nor bad. The same hammer can both break windows and build cathedrals.

//*Doug Johnson has been the Director of Media and Technology for the Mankato Public Schools since 1991 and has served as an adjunct faculty member of Minnesota State University, Mankato since 1990. His teaching experience has included work in grades K-12 in schools both here and in Saudi Arabia. He is the author of four books -- The Indispensable Librarian; The Indispensable Teacher's Guide to Computer Skills; Teaching Right from Wrong in the Digital Age; and Machines Are the Easy Part; People Are the Hard Part. His regular columns appear in Library Media Connection, Leading & Learning and The School Administrator magazines and his articles have appeared in more than 40 books and periodicals. Doug has conducted workshops and given presentations for more than 130 organizations throughout the United States as well as in Malaysia, Kenya, Thailand, Germany, Qatar, Canada, the UAE and Australia. He has held a variety of leadership positions in state and national organizations, including ISTE and AASL.//

media type="youtube" key="Rp8dugDbf4w" height="344" width="425"

= =

=So, how do YOU see PowerPoint best used in everyday life, if at all? How do you think PowerPoint effects the presentation of information now and in years to come?=

= =

="One excuse given for using PowerPoint is that senior leaders don’t have time to be pre-briefed on all the decisions they make. If that is the case, they are involved in too many decisions. When the default position is that you are too busy to prepare properly to make a decision, it means you are making bad decisions." <-- Does Hammes have a point here?=

= =

=Where do YOU stand on the "power" of PowerPoint?=

=**Reading into “The Medium is the Message” and “Dumb-dumb bullets”**=

Marshall McLuhan‘s chapter “The Medium is the Message” attempts to drive home one single point: that the true force of any medium lies not in its varied content but in the medium itself; “the medium is the message” (McLuhan, 107). He repeats this phrase, coming at it from a variety of angles until the somewhat abstract concept, complicated by its own simplicity, begins to clarify. A medium’s true power, he writes, lies in how it changes the structure of our lives. "Many people would be disposed to say that it was not the machine, but what one did with the machine, that was its meaning or message," he writes. "In terms of the ways in which the machine altered our relations to one another and to ourselves, it mattered not in the least whether it turned out cornflakes or Cadillacs” (McLuhan, 107).

From the point of view of one steeped within a particular technological medium, the content is the message. A regular reader of the news will undoubtedly value the facts he obtains through his daily reading more than the very incident of being able to read it. But, this is like the four blind men and the elephant, each one claiming to have found a different animal. When we view the world from this close-up, broken-up, piece-by-piece perspective, we are under the "spell" of the media around us. But, when we attempt a comprehensive view, a synthesis of parts again into the whole, our focus can relax to see that it is //not// the individual television show that effects the masses, but the very fact that the television is so central to their lives that shapes society as a whole.

In this way McLuhan suggests that while the content of something may be what is made possible through it, for instance "brain surgery or night baseball" might be "the 'content' of the electric light," the actual "content" is ultimately unimportant to the structuring of human interaction. "The content or uses of such media are as diverse as they are ineffectual in shaping the form of human association. //Indeed, it is only too typical that the ‘content’ of any medium blinds us to the character of the medium//**"** (McLuhan, 108, emphasis mine).

McLuhan also counters the “not the gun but the person-shooting-it” mentality of good and bad. "Suppose we were to say, 'Apple pie is in itself neither good nor bad; it is the way it is used that determines its value.' Or, 'The small-pox virus is in itself neither good nor bad; it is the way it is used that determines its value'" (McLuhan, 109-110). Clearly, attributing values only to the specific uses of a tool ignores the larger ways in which a tool changes our lives for good or bad. He goes on to write that we cannot simply choose to ignore the effects of media. "The spiritual and cultural reservations that the oriental peoples may have toward our technology will avail them not at all. The effects of technology do not occur at the level of opinions or concepts, but alter sense ratios or patterns of perception steadily and without any resistance."

T.X. Hammes’ article “Dumb-dumb bullets” reinforces many of the points that McLuhan makes. Hammes argues that the individual uses and content of a medium does not change the overall effect of the medium on society. He claims that PowerPoint as a medium has degraded our ability to effectively communicate complex information. Hammes seems to agree with McLuhan’s stance on the good and bad of a medium, stating early on, "Make no mistake, PowerPoint is not a neutral tool--it is actively hostile to thoughtful decision-making" (Hammes, 2nd paragraph). He does not just criticize the average content of the PowerPoint medium, but also the medium itself for "altering the expectations of who makes decisions, what decisions they make and how they make them." In essence, he is agreeing that "the medium is the message," and in this case the message is that critical, in-depth thought is no longer necessary to solid decision making.

Hammes points out early on some of the pitfalls of PowerPoint. One of these, a reaction of thoughtful individuals to the misuse and half-thoughts of bullet-points, is the paragraph bullet, often read aloud. "People need time to think about, even perhaps reread, material about complex issues," writes Hammes. "Instead, they are under pressure to finish reading the slides before the boss apparently does. Compounding this problem, the briefer often reads these slides aloud while the audience is trying to read the other information on the slide. Since most people read at least twice as fast as most people can talk, he is wasting half of his listeners' time and simultaneously reducing comprehension of the material" (Hammes, “The Art of Slide-Ology”). In this way, while the message of the PowerPoint medium may be composed mainly of the older medium of print, the new format drastically reduces the efficacy of the message by placing more emphasis on the presentation than on the content.

Hammes does acknowledge the use of PowerPoint as well as its draw backs. “PowerPoint is not entirely negative,” he writes. “It can be useful in situations it was designed to support — primarily, information briefs rather than decision briefs” (Hammes, “PowerPoint’s Proper Use”). Unfortunately, because PowerPoint has become the standard for presenting information and arguments in the majority of situations, its value is overshadowed by its misuse. As Hammes astutely observes, “There is a reason students cannot submit a thesis in PowerPoint format." McLuhan might argue that with the PowerPoint medium, most people are caught under its spell and therefore unable to see its shortcomings. "And it is only on those terms, standing aside from any structure or medium,” writes McLuhan, “that its principles and lines of force can be discerned. For any medium has the power of imposing its own assumption on the unwary…But the greatest aid to this end is simply in knowing that the spell can occur immediately upon contact, as in the first bars of a melody" (McLuhan, 112).

=**Shaping the Web: Why the Politics of Search Engines Matter**=

Having worked for the [|company] that effectively runs the internet (on average, 20% of all internet traffic passes through their servers), it's interesting to see a different view on how search engines work, and how data is redirected (and the various influences that are played upon them). While the article lays in a few good points, it's important to note that it makes no mention of Google, ostensibly the largest search engine available, and also it references sites no longer available, such as Geocities (which was bought by Yahoo and then shut down. Does this strike anyone else as odd? Or perhaps just another example of a conglomerate exuding control on a medium). An update to the paper is suggested in order to reflect the changes in technology as well as the base underlying algorithms that have changed in the decade since this paper was presented.

The concern that we can see in the article is the same that we see with our other discussions of "old" vs. "new" media - do we allow for specific groups to control the medium at the cost of public rights - is the Internet, the last bastion of freedom doomed to follow the same path and will eventually be packaged up and sold between companies who limit what we are allowed to see? Or do we suggest that everything should be equal, free, and available to all? And for that matter, what's the difference between the different search engines? And why should we care?

" Search engines are not the only answer to this need but they still are the most prominent, the one to which most users turn when they want to explore new territory on the web. The power, therefore, that search engines wield in their capacity to highlight and emphasize certain Web sites, while making others, essentially, disappear, is considerable. If search engines systematically highlight Web sites with popular appeal and mainstream commercial purpose, as well as Web sites backed by entrenched economic powers, they amplify these presences on the Web at the expense of others. Many of the neglected venues and sources of information, suffering from lack of traffic, perhaps actually disappear, further narrowing the options to Web participants."

So how's it all work? Sites like Google, or Metacrawler - that we can easily call search engines will index websites and information free of charge. Most people use a search engine for studying, or shopping, or other related functions. Google. as an example, will scan websites, read HTML code, and then parse specific phrases, words, or even an entire website, and then use their own internal programs to search and examine the stored data, and free of charge. The alternative, is what is know as "Pay Per Click" search engines, which allows advertisers to effectively purchase those specific phrases or keywords, and then pay to receive and higher listings for those keywords. Most PPC sites don't store information, instead storing the specific information that users pay for. PPC's have a less of a research function instead, and are geared more towards shopping for goods and services. Traditional listings take time, up to days/weeks/months for the sites to appear. PPC listings appear almost immediately, BUT you have to pay for it.

But is it worth it? The average amount of time a person spends looking at a website is around 10 seconds. That's it. Most people, when looking at a search engine, already know what they are looking for, or have a general idea and are just looking to refine it. So web designers now are trying to get your attention in a burst-like span in order to keep you on the page. So they now have to not only keep your attention, but also make it so that their site stays within the top rankings to maintain it's presence. The ranking system itself appears to be almost akin to trench warfare, with multiple people battling it out over links, keywords, and page code - all in attempt to get you to view what they want you to see, as opposed to what you are actually looking for. Both sides are attempting what is called [|SEO] or "search engine optimization" in an effort to bring organic, as well as automated processes into line to jockey for position at the head of the pack.

In a market economy, (to coin the Marxist view) it's tough to figure out is the seeker the Base, and the search engines the Superstrucure, or is it the other way around. Which is the mode of production? Tough call. One could say that they both are - that no matter which way you look at it, they are so dependent on one another that one cannot function without the other. The problem, as it stands, is that the general public does not know (or care) about how the internet works - they care simply that it does. So how do we fix that? How do we get the consumers to become more active participants? On the other side, that of the search engines, how do we level the playing field? How do we get it to become more of a free market?

"In considering the effects of a biased indexing and retrieval system, our attention first was drawn to the seekers. It is from the perspective of seekers that we noted the systematic narrowing of Web offerings: there would be fewer opportunities to locate various types of information, individuals and organizations, a narrowing of the full range of deliberative as well as recreational capabilities" - Are we harming ourselves offering privileged status? Or will that drive the market into competition, and thereby giving us, as web seekers an actual bigger pool to choose from?

Links: [|Search Engine Journal - reporting of search engine news & the sharing of Search Engine Marketing knowledge & tactics.], [|Search Engine marketing and optimization]

___ ="Creating Images, Creating Knowledge" are themes very much present in chapters 3 and 4 of Laura Grindstaff's book //The Money Shot//.=

While talk/late night/reality show producers and guests are both trying to find/bring the money shot, they are both creating images and knowledge. in chapter 3: //Talk as Work//, Grindstaff describes the artful process of luring the right guests and the right emotions out onto the stage in a way that is very much routine and predictable for those working backstage, but at the same time, a total shocker for the audience and at-home viewers. Grindstaff writes: "The exact nature of the relationship between producer and guests is less important that the mere fact that a relationship exists."

It's hard to recruit the right people for the right segments with the right kind of personality. It seems uncommon that people as freaky as those who appear on daytime talk shows would ever want to reveal these deep dark secrets, but Grindstaff makes it clear that the lure of makeovers and a flight+hotel do the trick for most of the white trash guests who appear on these shows. But of course this is not the only kind of guest present...

A graduate thesis, "BEHIND THE SCENES: UNCOVERING THE STRUCTURES AND MANIPULATIONS OF TABLOID TALK SHOW WORKERS, GUESTS AND AUDIENCES," written by Kelly Thompson Losch Deshotel from Louisiana State University claims that there are four categories of talk show participants: "evangelicals, moths, plaintiffs and marketers." The evangelicals, “address injustices and remedy stereotypes." Moths, "describe guests who are drawn to the celebrity of being on television." Plaintiffs ofter are those coming forward "to plead their cases against people who had victimized them” And marketers are "those who eagerly seized the chance to hawk a book or business venture."

Guests are recruited from all kinds of places--Grindstaff reports that producers often reach out to support groups (AA, health clinics, or incest survivor groups, for instance) as an easy way to rope in as many emotionally troubled potential guests possible in one easy phone call. There's also the trick of using "plugs" for upcoming show topics to get potential guests to call in saying that xy&z has happened to them and that they'd be perfect to guest on the show. Grindstaff says that this actually rewards routine watchers because they get the insiders chance to call it and maybe get flown out for "star treatment." For reality shows, however, audition tapes are key when it comes to recruiting. Recruiting for //The Real World//, now in its 23rd season, has become increasingly difficult because--over the past nearly 20 years--hopeful contestants KNOW what producers are looking for in the casting process. Grindstaff describes that producers are aware of the fame-seekers, and have to search through the tapes to weed out the people who are hiding their real personalities behind a role, one that they think will get them on MTV.

Here is a clip of some recent audition tapes for the Real World 22:media type="custom" key="5417977" width="280" height="280" align="left"

Here are some examples I've spotted of contestants KNOWING what the producers want to hear, and directly showcasing that trait or physicality:

1. One girl is wearing a green bikini--obviously trying to appeal to male casting producers. 2. "Hi, my name is B.J., and yes that is my name, not my profession."--here is a guy who shows he is not afraid to talk about sex, a known plus for cast members. 3. Someone confesses to being bi-polar--a confession that would most likely not be made unless she knew she could leverage her condition for a spot on TV. 4. Of course some of these people auditioning are playing instruments--there always seems to be some kind of musician on the show, so of course this might up their chances. 5. "I have a penis."--again, another shocking secret that this female would definitely not be spreading around if she didn't think it could get her on the show. 6. A guy not wearing a shirt does a sexy dance and pulls his pants down a bit too low--again playing the sexuality card...everyone knows that SEX SELLS! 7. "All I gotta say is I'm f***ed up, I'm drunk as hell."--way to spell it out.**

Would you ever tell your deepest secret in order to get 15 minutes of fame??
Here's what some people replied:
 * For me, it would really depend on the show. I don't care what the issue is - I'm NOT taking it to Jerry [[image:http://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/2_bing.gif width="10" height="10" link="@http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/288192#"]]. But some of the other shows I might, if the topic applied to me. Maury and Tyra are bit into giving you a bunch or free stuff on a many of the shows.( http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/288192)
 * People like to be heard, they want validation. Oddly enough, society is more isolated than ever since the advent of the home ocmputer, so the need to be heard is even greater. (http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/288192)
 * **I'd be absolutely ashamed of myself, and wouldn't want the world to know what a s*** I am, if I had no idea who my babies daddy is. I've seen woman, if you can call them that, test 15 different guys. Its ridiculous and disgusting.(http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080224133708AAdbnlw)
 * I went on The Richard Bey Show to meet someone I'd met on the Internet.. Back in the early-mid 90's! I basically USED the TV show to get us together! (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080224133708AAdbnlw)
 * the shows about finding out who the daddy is are done because the mother can't afford to get a test from her own doctor. it's at least $500 to do that. these shows pay for your airfare and hotel stay. all you to do is be an idiot! (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080224133708AAdbnlw)

So how does all of this create IMAGES and KNOWLEDGE??
The images are created by hard-working producers who pair the right guests with the right audiences, all let to act and express themselves in a certain way thanks to FREE STUFF. The knowledge is then generated through conversations like this, and those on Yahoo! Answers, and the information shared in Grindstaff's research. We see the images and we watch--YES, at some point or another we've ALL watched--and we take from it what we will.

=//The Money Shot// and Reality=

Discussion Question: **Are talk shows considered reality because they are based on real life (things that do not happen in front of a camera) or because real life has become a parody of talk shows and reality TV creating a new alternate reality?**



Are talk shows reality? According to the [|Merriam Webster Dictionary] reality is: 1 : the quality or state of being real 2 a (1) : a real event, entity, or state of affairs  (2) : the totality of real things and events  b : something that is neither derivative nor dependent but exists necessarily 3 : television programming that features videos of actual occurrences (as a police chase, stunt, or natural disaster) —often used attributively  — in reality : in actual fact

According to this definition, talk shows are 100% reality. However, please continue to consider this: In //The Money Shot// it is continuously stressed how producers use timing and techniques to elicit specific responses in people, bring certain emotions to the surface, and exaggerate all to get the perfect emotional response at the perfect time; the money shot. Does this still make the guests responses realistic in the larger scheme of things?

In //Sex, Drugs, and Cocoa Puffs// by Chuck Klosterman, he asks the question of whether //The Real World// is reality (p. 25):

“I don’t know how I feel about MTV’s The Real World,” he said. “I mean, is it really real? How real is it, really? Is it a depiction of reality, or is it a reflection of what we perceive to be reality? They advertise this as ‘reality programming,’ but isn’t anything programmed inherently fabricated? How real is real, you know?” She said nothing. She continued smoking a menthol cigarette. Twenty seconds passed. “Well, what do you think?” he finally asked. “About what,” she asked, exhaling through her teeth. “About //The Real World//,” he repeated. “Do you think it’s real?” “Compared to what?” “Well…to…I guess compared to things that are completely real.” Twenty more seconds passed. “Is the show taped or edited in the Fourth Dimension?” she asked. “No.” “Are the characters robots?” “No.” “Can the episodic plotlines only be perceived by people who have ingested mind-expanding hallucinogens, such as lysergic acid diethylamide, mescaline, phencyclidine, ketamine, or psychedelic mushrooms?” “No.” “Well then,” she concluded, “it sounds real to me.”

In the same book (//Sex, Drugs, and Cocoa Puffs//), Klosterman has a section titled "What Happens When People Stop Being Polite" where he talks about //The Real World//, reality TV, and the effects he perceives this type of TV to have. Check out the chapter [|here] (p. 25-40).

I noticed many parallels between "Talk as Work: Routinizing the Production Process" in The Money Shot and "What Happens When People Stop Being Polite" in //Sex, Drugs, and Cocoa Puffs//. In //The Money Shot// Laura Grindstaff mentions how talk shows are recycling the same topics over and over again, to the point where topics are no longer original (p. 83). Throughout his article, Chuck Klosterman mentions a similar notion by in relation to the people appearing on TV. He explains how on //The Real World//, all of the people on the show have turned into one dimensional characters, and those characters are being replayed season to season (p. 39). In addition to playing often one dimensional characters, Grindstaff explains how people are also being forced to play caricatures of themselves (p. 94). There is a certain type of person that is desired to appear on a show (depending on the topic of the day) but the people that apply are usually to familiar with a show or that show’s format. At the same time, there is a certain level of familiarity the guests need to possess in order to reproduce the overall desired response (p. 96-97). On page 97 Grindstaff explains it like this:

“The dilemma here, according to Marsh, is that, while the applicant pool has grown larger over the years – the 1999 casting call alone occasioned thirty-five thousand audition tapes – finding the “right” teenagers has grown harder because applicants are increasingly savvy about the qualities staffers are looking for. Real World staffers face a paradox: given the mandate for authenticity, the ideal kids for the show are those unfamiliar with it, bit the vast majority of applicants have not only grown up watching the show on television but applied to be on it in the first place because achieving celebrity status is their ultimate goal.”

This idea is again echoed by Klosterman when he talks about how producers “were unintentionally creating it”, (it being the youth of America that the producers were seeking).

=//The Money Shot// and Ethics:= Discussion Question: **Is it ethical to produce talk shows?**

via videosift.com**
 * 

This might seem like a very simple question to some people, although I am sure that if a number of people were asked, their responses would vary. In 1961 a social psychologist named Stanley Milgram preformed an experiment on obedience. He had participants come to the study. Once there, the participants were instructed by an authority figure to shock a third participant in another room. The third person was actually a confederate, someone who was in on the study and not actually getting shocked. The actual participant was supposed to shock the confederate whenever they answered a question wrong. With each wrong answer, the participant was supposed to increase the level of shock. Each shock was answered with some sort of scream or sound of pain. The stronger the shock, the more pain was supposed to be expressed; this included people pleading to be let out.

Today, this study would never be allowed and is considered widely unethical. (To see the American Psychological Association //Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct//, [|click here].) No one was actually hurt during the course of the experiment, and at the end, the participants were debriefed and told what the study was actually about. Still, it is believed that the participants felt an extreme amount of stress and anxiety at being pressured to “shock” another person.

Of course talk shows are very different then licensed psychologists. However, in both of these situations, people are being manipulated in a way that suggests puppeteers are guiding them to make decisions they otherwise would never make. In fact, many of the things that producers of talk shows do in order to get guests to appear on their show and produce the money shot would not be tolerated in other settings. In //The Money Shot//, Laura Grindstaff gives examples where produces have played off people’s need for attention (p. 104), their socioeconomic status (they need something and the show will give it to them) (p. 111), or a manufactured personal relationship (p. 130). In scientific studies, sometimes compensation is provided, but it is never allowed to an amount that would encourage people to do the study against their judgment (for either moral or comfort reasons.) Talk shows however, use whatever incentive they can to make guests appear on the show. They will form fake “close and personal” relationships with guests and then use that leverage to coerce them onto a show. Grindstaff quotes one producer on this very topic:

“So here I was,” Tamara said, “basically playing psychiatrist, saying, you know, ‘This will be a really good thing for you, to be reunited with your child.’ And you know what? I don’t know if it’s a good thing. I don’t know the mental stability of these people I’m talking to. I really don’t. But it was Sunday, and I had a show to tape on Tuesday, and I still had – you know, major things were not in place. So I was just, you know, really –. ” She hesitated, and I finished her sentence – “in a tough spot.” (p. 140)