Spectacularizing Politics: Barack Obama

          

       Graeme Turner, author of “Understanding Celebrity”, maintains that the modern politician is product of a network of coaches, handlers, stylists and make-up artists who work to construct a public persona similar to that of the entertainment or sports celebrity (130). Over time, the credentials of a desirable political candidate have dramatically altered, as presentation and appearance have come to substitute policy and principle; and style has come to replace argument as a vital aspect to voter decision-making (Street, 436). This shift has marked the emergence of a new type of politician deemed the “celebrity politician”, “[one who uses the forms and associations of the celebrity to enhance their image and communicate their message]” (Street, 436). In surveying the crop of North American politicians (most notably those in the United States) it is easy to identify these celebrity politicians. However, what are more difficult to identify are the reasons for this shift in political practice that has “[marginalized] issues of political substance in favour of irrelevant gestures and superficial appearances” (Street, 439). In my opinion, one of the contributing factors to this political transformation is modern society’s fixation with visual entertainment mediums such as television, film, and the Internet. All of these visual mediums present a host of opportunities for modernizing political campaigning, as well as contribute the creation of a public image because of the sheer volume of exposure they provide. A prime example of this modern approach can be seen in the U.S. presidential campaigning of now-president Barack Obama.

            Critical theorist, Douglas Kellner, argues that modern politics are shaped by the intense competition for audiences’ attention, which demands a certain amount of sensationalism or “media spectacle” (716). “Media spectacle refers to technologically mediated events, in which media forms process events in spectacular ways” and Barack Obama built his campaign around the spectacles of hope, change, colour and youth (Kellner, 716). The primary stages of Obama’s campaign saw the birth of the spectacle, as he, the first African American candidate squared off against the first serious female candidate (Hilary Clinton). This opposition, which was heavily covered by the media, created a “clash of the titans” type aesthetic by juxtaposing two cultural minority heavyweights that both represented the promise of a different kind of future for American citizens. In this way, both Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton had already achieved an “achieved celebrity” status for accomplishing something spectacular.

Barack Obama’s surpassing of Hilary Clinton, and eventually John McCain can be attributed to his employment of visual mediums in his presidential pursuits. In conjunction with multiple television interviews (on Larry King Live, the Today Show, the View, etc.), Obama’s camp also made use of social networking mediums such as Facebook, MySpace and public video-posting website, Youtube to relay their messages and establish supporters. These popular sites are powerful tools for reaching voters, however they also were instrumental in creating Barack Obama’s celebrity persona as a younger, more modern presidential candidate. True to John Street’s definition of the “celebrity politician”, Obama and his camp utilized mediums conventionally used by entertainment or sports celebrities to “enhance [his] image and communicate [his] message” (436).

Furthermore, Barack Obama had the support of many entertainment celebrities such as Jennifer Aniston, George Clooney, Will.I.Am and Oprah. These celebrities represent certain qualities and possess large amounts of star power, which inconspicuously transferred onto the image and persona of Barack Obama. In a sense, we can compare this to the practice of celebrities endorsing products or brands, in which there is a certain level of “borrowed equity” transmitted from the endorser to the endorsee. By publicly associating himself with these celebrities (i.e. taking advantage of photo opportunities, television appearances, etc.), Barack Obama became a sort of “attributed celebrity” as he was seen through the media as an accepted member of this elite grouping.

This fabricated persona not only helped establish a following of supporting voters, but it also created a grouping of people who acted in ways similar to the celebrity fan. Some fans expressed their fixation by creating graffiti renditions of Obama in public spaces, while others conveyed their passion via Youtube. In all cases, these fans utilized new media outlets to express their fandom in a way that is usually more characteristic of the entertainment celebrity fan. These examples also demonstrate the ways in which Barack Obama’s modern media approach to campaigning reached a younger generation of voters who perhaps needed the element of spectacle to arouse their interests.

Click here to see "Obama Girl"

"Obama Will Change Everything" - Fan Graffiti

Turner cites the arguments of Richard Schickel, who claims that elections have become “a contest between personalities” and that voters are interested in the candidate’s personal appeal (130). Although Schickel is cynical of modern political practices, the sheer ubiquity of media platforms come to mandate the creation of public persona as a prerequisite for success. Barack Obama utilized different media platforms as facilitators of media spectacle that helped establish his image as modern, youthful embodiment of hope for the future. In modern times, society is fixated on the visual and being entertained, and so politics has catered to that aesthetic in order to remain relevant. It is my contention that the politicians like Barack Obama, utilize traditional celebrity mediums as a means of gaining public attention to proliferate compelling media spectacles, and because of this, the media attributes them with the same status as entertainment celebrities. In response to Dr. Quail’s question (“do you think politicians need to become celebrities in order to be successful?”), Barack Obama is proof that being a “celebrity politician” wins elections. 

Michael Jackson: Does it matter if you're 'black or white' ?

           Michael Jackson, best known for his iconic music videos, revolutionary dance moves and innovative sense of fashion was aptly deemed music’s “King of Pop”, as he reigned supreme as an international superstar who artistically and aesthetically changed the music industry and who appealed to all audiences. Starting his career at a young age with the Jackson Five, Jackson moonwalked his way into the hearts of fans all over the world and led an illustrious career spanning over 30 years. Even two years after his death, Michael Jackson still holds the record for the best selling album of all time for Thriller and is currently nominated for a Grammy for his post-mortem single, “This Is It”. Although Jackson is remembered for his contributions to the music industry, he is also known for his eccentricities and ever-changing appearance; once clearly distinguished as a black man, Jackson continued to appear more and more white over the span of his career (see photo below). In accordance with James Monaco’s celebrity taxonomies, Michael Jackson was a “star”, more famous for his public persona than his professional profile (at least this was the case in the latter years of his career).  However, this categorization does not necessarily encompass the way in which all Michael Jackson fans view the King of Pop.

Before and following the death of Michael Jackson, people have been in continuous debate about the enigma that is Michael Jackson’s appearance. With rumors that Jackson was bleaching his skin, many wondered and still wonder if his changing appearance signified his betrayal of the black community.  Cheryl Contee, who writes for a blog centered on black politics called “Jack and Jill Politics”, was quoted as saying, “I think [it] troubled a lot of people that he left his skin colour behind and seemed somehow to be ashamed of who he was [when] he was born” (Alban 2009). In opposition, Mark Anthony Neal, a professor of black popular culture at Duke University’s Department of African and African American Studies, claims “[Michael Jackson] was somebody who most of his career [audiences] read as being asexual. And I think that many of the changes to his face, particularly his skin tone, he was almost trying to achieve an a-raciality” (Alban 2009).

In 1993, Jackson was interviewed by Oprah Winfrey and denied the rumours that he was bleaching his skin, and insisted he suffered from the skin disease vitiligo, a disorder that destroys skin pigmentation. Throughout the segment, Jackson continuously questioned, why  his changing appearance matters. What Jackson and others have failed to realize is to a majority of the black community, Michael Jackson is not just a “star”, but is considered to be a “hero”.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jE6WCWnRcg&feature=related

Segment from Michael Jackson’s interview with Oprah Winfrey

Monaco defines the celebrity “hero” as someone who has done something spectacular (Turner 2004). The Jackson Five were a group of black working-class boys, sporting Afros and bell-bottoms and were still capable of achieving mainstream success. Jackson was the first African-American to perform on MTV, and paved the way for other black artists to have their music videos shown on television. Reverend Al Sharpton was quoted as saying, “Michael Jackson made culture accept a person of colour way before Tiger Woods, way before Oprah Winfrey, way before Barack Obama. Michael did with music what they later did in sports and in politics and in television” (Alban 2009). Sharpton also spoke at Jackson’s televised memorial in which he exclaims, “[Michael] broke down the colour curtain” and  “it was Michael Jackson who brought blacks, and whites, and Asians and Latinos together”. To many, it was Jackson’s contributions to the progression of the black community that made him spectacular.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MAKLq865bk

Al Sharpton’s speech at the Michael Jackson Memorial

So, why does Michael Jackson’s changing appearance matter? Michael Jackson’s relationship with his black fan base goes beyond a para-social relationship of fabricated intimacy (Turner 2004). For African Americans, Michael Jackson, the entertainer, signified an accomplishment for black culture as he was one of the first and the most successful African-American performers to be considered a global icon. Consequently, what makes Michael Jackson’s appearance of such great importance is the fact that many African Americans feel they are losing an important black icon to the central system of domination; white males.

At the BET Awards in 2009, Jamie Foxx spoke about the King of Pop and said, “We want to celebrate this black man. He belongs to us, and we shared him with everybody else”(James 2009).  This quote speaks directly to the idea that Michael Jackson’s changing appearance was not merely a target for media spectacle, but was and continues to be a site for portrayals of race relations and hierarchies. Jackson’s increasing “whiteness” (encompassing the changes in his skin tone, surgeries to his nose, lips, etc.) came to signify a cultural imposition onto the black culture, as if the white man were stealing one of black history’s most important figures.

Consequently, Michael Jackson’s relationship with the black community remains as ambiguous as the colour of his skin (James 2009). Many feel betrayed, and many stay loyal to their musical hero. As Stacy Brown, author of Michael Jackson: Behind the Mask, puts it, “either you loved him, you identified with him, you saw him as one of your own, as a black performer important to the black community, or you saw him as someone who basically, I don't want to use the term sellout, but ... as a creature and a creation of the white world” (James 2009). Although Jackson claims, “It doesn’t matter if you’re black or white”, it is evident that many members of black culture would disagree. For the black community it is important that the King of Pop, a man who changed the face of the music industry forever, be acknowledged as a product of black culture. 


Experience with Wikipedia
The Michael Jackson Wikipedia page is “semi-protected”, preventing anonymous and unconfirmed members (those signed up for four days or less) from contributing to the page. This semi-protection is likely the reason for this particular page’s “Featured Article” status, marked with a star to signify it is one of Wikipedia’s best articles because of its accuracy, neutrality, completeness and style.
Had I not been blocked, my contribution to the Wikipedia would have been centered on the Michael Jackson and Oprah Winfrey interview and the discussion about his changing skin colour. I also was interested in adding more information about Michael’s contributions to black history in terms of his accomplishments music. Particularly, I wanted to focus on the Michael Jackson's impact on MTV and the ways in which he opened the doors for other black performers to have their videos televised. While reviewing the Michael Jackson Wikipedia page I was surprised at the lack of acknowledgement of Jackson’s African American heritage and importance to black culture.

This all became extremely relevant to my discussion of Michael Jackson’s role in the discussion of race relations. Even on one of the most “accurate” pages on Wikipedia, contributors failed to recognize Jackson’s relationship and importance to the black community. This omission put the debate about Michael Jackson’s racial allegiance into perspective for me, as this Wikipedia page aimed at chronicling the history of Michael Jackson disregards the importance of his African American heritage and ultimately renders it insignificant to the discussion of “who is Michael Jackson”. 

Jackson's Wikipedia page makes no mention of the fact that he was the first black performer on MTV




"I'm a black American, I am proud of my race. I am proud of who I am. I have a lot of pride and dignity" - Michael Jackson

             

Shaving Away an Image

"Do I know my life is weird?"

"... It's all I've ever known"

-Britney Spears 

The image above is a familiar one, as it recognized by many as the most infamous scandal within a series of erratic behavior and tabloid-worthy incidents labeled by the media as the “Britney Spears Meltdown”.  Once known as music’s pop princess, Britney Spears’ personal life became something of a spectacle with a divorce from husband Kevin Federline, party binges with notorious socialites Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan, pantyless paparazzi photos, trips to hospitals and rehabilitation centers and of course, the shaving of her head (CBC News, 2008).  Between the years of 2006 and 2008, no tabloid was short of a juicy Britney Spears scandal.

In Understanding Celebrity, one explanation of celebrity that arises explains that a celebrity is one whose private life becomes of more interest to the media and general public than their public role (Turner 2004). This certainly was (and possibly still is) the case for Spears, as her music career sat on the back burner while her personal life became the target of multiple gossip magazines, blogs, columns, etc. According to Turner, celebrities are produced, distributed and consumed for the generation of profit (2004). Although the highly publicized “meltdown” was good for selling magazines, it ultimately became damaging to the Britney brand (which encompasses not only her music, but an accessories brand called Candies, a line of perfume and multiple endorsement deals). Understanding Celebrity explains that a persona can be used as a commercial asset (Turner 34), and the bald-headed, paparazzi attacking, vomiting image of Britney Spears was not exactly what you would call “marketable”.

Britney the night she attacked a member of the paparazzi
with an umbrella

Hence, from a public relations stand point, one understands the importance of “Britney: For the Record”, a documentary that includes footage of the pop star’s everyday life as well as multiple interview segments. This behind the scenes, intimate look at Spears aims to rescue the damaged image of the once legendary pop princess and becomes a date on a new timeline of events (and stroke of marketing genius), “The Britney Spears Comeback”.  

            The interview begins with the question, “Why did you want to make this film” in which Spears replies by explaining that recently, she has not been seen in the light that she has wanted to be seen in.  This already sets the stage for the product that we, the audience, are about to be sold. Unlike a movie star, making their rounds on a PR circuit promoting their latest film (Turner 2004) , this interview is attempting to sell us something far more complicated; an image. The interview and film take a “come clean” approach, in which the pop star attempts to explain and own up to her behaviour. Lines like “what the hell was I thinking?” and “I’ve grown up…big time” lend themselves to the ultimate goal of rehabilitating the star’s image (I use the word STAR strategically, as it is one of James Monaco’s Celebrity Taxonomies that describes a person who is more famous for their public persona than their professional profile). The interview also attempts to induce a certain amount of sympathy for Britney, painting the picture of a “broken pop star” as opposed to “crazed celebrity”. The interviewer asks, “How does somebody go from being a celebrated entertainer to being a victim of that success?" Even the interviewer is in on the act, placing the word “victim” in our heads as a means of making the audience feel a certain level of empathy and compassion. This consequently aids in the alteration of the media’s representation of the pop star. In response, Spears claims that the media are partly responsible for her dwindling reputation. She states, “I used to be a cool chick you know, and I feel like paparazzi has taken my whole cool slang away from me” which is later complimented by her claim; “I think there is a perception that is not even really me… I think people um…believe what they hear and what they read and that’s not even the truth”.  Pinning the responsibility on the media helps Spears and “her people” sell the audience on the idea that half of the antics they saw or read about were fabricated and that perhaps their initial perception of Britney’s meltdown was false. Despite Britney’s apparent sincerity in wanting to “be cool” and have people think nice thoughts about her, one must not forget that the main purpose of this interview is to rescue her image and to save the Britney brand so that she may restore her profit-generating value. Wasn’t it convenient that this made-for-TV documentary aired a few weeks before the debut of her sixth studio album, “Circus”?


A powerful tool within the interview is the appearance of pop icon, Madonna, whose segment acts as a sort of testimonial for the new Britney Spears image product. Graeme Turner introduces the concept of "celebrity as a commodity" (2004), and in this particular case Spears and her team have the help of pop royalty in the attempt to market the Britney Spears reinvention. Using Madonna, who is such a powerful influence within the music industry, as a means of promoting the message of the documentary makes the "quality" and "authenticity" of the product all the more believable and easier to subscribe to. 

In a review of the documentary, Andy Dehnert of msnbc.com claims that Spears’ answers were extremely vague despite the film’s opening moniker “No question was off limits. No question went unanswered”. Dehnert claims that Britney does very little to change the fact that people “don’t know a lot about [her]”, and provides little insight into the strange behavior following her divorce (2008).  Although this may be true, Spears’ non-committal answers are a good PR move because she acknowledges the undeniable strangeness of her behaviour, without sparing the details. Discussing each of the scandals in detail puts those popular media images back into the audience’s head, and ultimately damages the new set of qualities Spears and her people are trying to attribute to her reinvented image. As Turner describes it, the star is attempting to practice "image control", not expose her deepest personal stories and secrets. 

            So was Britney successful in her attempt? With her ability to come across as down to earth, funny and somewhat misunderstood, yes, I believe she was. You genuinely feel sorry for her when she breaks down into tears, explaining that her life is “too controlled” and “lacks excitement and passion”. In a sense, we begin to understand why such a beautiful young woman would shave her head (an event she describes as a “form of rebellion”).  As a passive audience member, you buy into the idea that Britney has been a misunderstood, victim of the media who just simply lost her way after the heartbreak of her divorce. Most importantly the film successfully conveys that Britney is ready to get back to work, and produce the same type of music that once launched her into super stardom.  Knowing that Britney is “on her way back” is a much more promising message for her fans, and an extremely marketable tagline for the launch of her new cd, music video, perfume, accessory line, magazine covers, etc.  This interview is successful on selling us on Britney’s new image, so that she may continue to sell us other products.  

The Britney Comeback in full swing

SOURCES

CBS News. (2008). Timeline: Britney's meltdown. Retrieved from http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/20/entertainment/main2495238.shtml

Dehnert, A. (2008, December 4). 'For the record', Britney reveals very little. Retrieved from http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/27931958/ns/today-entertainment/

Turner, G.T. (2004). Understanding celebrity. London: Sage Publishing Lt.

WATCH PART ONE OF “BRITNEY: FOR THE RECORD” here: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gv9MLJWEgjU

What's Your Claim to Fame?

For those of you reading, this is my blog that is intended to focus on past, present and possibly even future celebrity culture. Although the creation of this blog is inspired by my class assignments for Communication Studies 2BB3: "Introduction to Culture and Communication", I have to admit that my interest in the topic of what constitutes celebrity culture and what are the social implications of the modern world's inherent obsession with fame goes beyond the classroom.

I confess, I am a complete celebrity gossip junkie (most notably as an avid follower of  perezhilton.com and TMZ). With this, I intend to not only update my blog for my class assignments, but also with photos, news, or anything else I may find exciting about the world of celebrities. Furthermore, I intend to blog about celebrities who I find particularly interesting (past or present) and the effect they have had on the world. I also will not limit myself to mere gossip, I too have an invested interest in the entertainment industry as a whole. This encompasses news, opinions, etc. about music, television and film.

Enjoy, and please comment  ☮

"If I'm a Star...then the people made me a Star"

- Marilyn Monroe