In the McQuail reader, Joli Jensen discusses fandom as we generally perceive it: the image of “an obsessed loner, suffering from a disease of isolation,” or a “frenzied or hysterical member of the crowd … the screaming, weeping teen” (McQuail 344-345). Jensen points out that very seldom do we refer to fandom as a normal, everyday part of life, as most of us manage to be fans of something without feeling the urge to get hysterical over it. Our perception of fandom ultimately overestimates the fan, just as our perception of the media tends to overestimate its power.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/teen-television-show-dexter-inspired-kill/story?id=9252620
Though this article is from one year ago, it is simply an older example of a still-current issue. This article covers the story of a teenager from Indiana who felt “inspired” to kill his brother after watching the Showtime original series, Dexter. In the show, the character of Dexter is a “good guy” serial killer who often identifies his inability to feel emotions, referring to himself as “not human” and describing a need to kill that is comparable to an itch needing to be scratched. Of course, the show deals with the psychological traits of a serial killer even from childhood, citing behaviors like isolation, inability to feel, and the desire to kill small animals as early warning signs of a psychological derangement. Though the show is fictional, the psychological behaviors given to Dexter’s character are based on what psychologists believe to be the reality of a killer’s mind.
Isn’t it possible, then, that this teen was already experiencing those symptoms and therefore felt comforted by the ideas behind Dexter? While articles would, of course, suggest crazed fandom as a viable explanation for this teen’s decision to murder his younger brother, certain social theories (along with our personal experience) would suggest that the media simply does not have the power to do this on its own.
As we discussed last week both in class and in our previous blog entries, people can generally tell you why they use the media they use. Based on the uses and gratifications theory, we can readily assume that this teen was using Dexter as a tool for self-identification and companionship, as I doubt that he ever spoke to anyone about his desire to kill. We can also infer from the McQuail’s reader that the teen’s fandom was used for “psychological compensation,” also referred to as “an attmpt to make up for all that modern life lacks” (McQuail 347).
But of course, the information-processing theory holds water as well, and is very relevant in a case like this. It is scientific fact that humans only perceive a fraction of the things going on around them, and therefore only perceive a fraction of the media. But even then, however, the media we perceive may not have an actual effect on our behavior, for we simply don’t have the means of slowing the media down, reviewing it, and truly studying its meaning when we are viewing it in real time (Baran and Davis 251).
As someone who has been watching Dexter since its very first episode in 2006, I can say that I have watched each season multiple times without ever feeling the urge to kill anyone. Of course, this isn’t the only example of “crazed fandom” that we find. Leonardo DiCaprio issued a restraining order against a crazy fan claiming to be carrying his baby, a Twilight fan killed a man and drank his blood, and we’ll forever see girls crying at Justin Timberlake concerts. Though we tend to talk about these fans as people from afar, have any of you ever found yourself exerting this kind of excessive fan behavior? What do you think you get out of it? And lastly, whatever it is you’re a fan of, is it that thing in particular that makes you lose your mind, or are you a fan of something for some greater reason?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI'm glad this topic was brought up. The idea of the killer media is not a new one at all. Going back to the initial release of Grand Theft Auto 3 and further, lazy Americans have always been quick to point the finger at racy media for all of society's problems.
ReplyDeleteHere we have a classic case of a kid who sees something on TV and goes and does it. Why did this happen? My stereotype of lazy American would just point the finger at the media itself. Jess points out the idea of psychological compensation being a reasoning for fandom. In Jenson's essay, it is stated that a fan will "seek celebrity contact in the hope of gaining the prestige and influence he or she psychologically needs, but cannot achieve in anonymous, fragmented modern society," (Jenson, 347). Utilizing this statement, I developed a theory on Mr. Conley. Conley was a disturbed individual prior to the premier of Showtime's Dexter. He had disturbing thoughts that were repressed by societal norms, causing an inner sense of guilt and delusional turmoil. Once Dexter comes around, it becomes a conduit to Conley's thoughts. The beauty of Dexter to him is not that he sees someone killing, but rather that it is broadcasted on national premium television. To him, this portrays his actions as societally acceptable, allowing him to carry them out with ease. Instead of getting his needed psychological influence from a referral to a professional therapist, he turned to all that was available- media. It's not the media's fault, this is an example of misuse. His mind had been lost long before Dexter graced his TV screen.
We can also look at this through a different lens of the entertainment theory. In the Baran & Davis readings, it is stated that "[Entertainment theory] seeks to understand what entertaining media content does to us- often without our awareness...Entertainment theorists assume that most of us don't think enough about this content to have very useful insights about it. We're just doing what feels good," (Baran & Davis, 249). Looking at Conley through this theory, we can see even more disturbing possibilities of psychological neglect. To him, it was "what feels good" to watch Dexter because it enacted a cathartic release of his repressed thoughts. However, he most certainly did not consciously think that what what it was doing to him. He most likely stood up and exclaimed "I'm just like him!" This however, constructs a false reality- Dexter is a fictional character. In reality it is the other way around- Dexter is like him. His fandom served as his form of comfort, an odd yet potentially common way to look at entertainment. However, the media itself most certainly did not MAKE Conley insane. Jess stated that she is a devoted fan, yet you don't see her running around killing people. This again leads me to believe that Mr. Conley had some pre-existing disturbances. This theory commonly shares a gray area with uses & gratification, separating on the sole factor of conscious knowledge of use and intent. It is consciousness that separates uses from effects- a very hard distinction to make, in my opinion.
Whichever way you look at Conley, it boils down to one true culprit. The fault lies not with the media we show. It lies with us as a society. An apparently disturbed individual was left to choose fandom and identification with a fictional murderer because of lack of options. A psychological delusion is not like a physical ailment. The deranged will be living in a constructed reality in which they see things through the lens of their disease. It is a bit harder to get them in for treatment than someone with a broken arm- they know something is wrong. I'll assert again that it is not an effect of the media that causes murder. However, couple this neglect of the deranged with our racy media and you have a recipe for disaster.
This topic is very interesting as we seem to discuss it a lot in every Media Studies class here at Quinnipiac. After reading the Jensen article and doing my Theory to Practice, I kind of disagreed with her and her ideas of fans. I do agree that there are some people who are either the obsessed individual of hysterical crowd (Jensen 344). We do hear about the insane fan who goes out and murders the person he or she is obsessed with or re-enacts something they see in a movie but is this something that occurs frequently? We also see the young girl screaming and crying at her favorite boy band’s concert, but can we categorize this as the average fan?
ReplyDeleteI believe that the average fan is unlike the fan described by Jensen. I believe the average fan is someone who is interested in a person or a team or a movie or whatever it is. Some people may pay close attention to these things are root for them to do well, but how many people are actually obsessed? I would say the hysterical crowd is a bit more frequent, because people feel an emotional attachment to their favorite football team or their favorite movie star.
From personal experience, I know I am neither the hysterical crowd nor the obsessed individual. I am a fan of different athletes, coaches, celebrities, and teams. When the Red Sox don’t make the playoffs I am not up all night in tears about it. It just doesn’t affect me that much.
Going back to the question of whether or not we can blame media for violent acts, I still do not think we can make this argument. There are so many factors which can cause a person to commit a violent act. Also, there are millions upon millions of people who take in the same type of media who do not go out and commit these acts. Furthermore, Baran and Davis talk about the information process theory (251) which Jess discusses in her post. As media consumers most of us are not taking in everything the media actually shows because we are concentrating on so many different things at once.
I think that in a sitaution such as this, for a boy to kill his own 10 year old brother, a mental instability was already in place and destruction was inevitable at some point in this kids life. What I thought was interesting about the whole situation was that the news team interviewed the killers girlfriend and she said that the boy couldn't be happier the night the murder occurred. The way the pathological fan is described in the McQuail reader is a loner, and an isolated individual. You wouldn't think that the type of kid to strangle his 10 year old brother and put his head in a plastic bag would be involved in a happy relationship.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with Jess in saying that yes this teen already experienced symptoms of a killer, and I do not think that the show and the media made this boy carry out this tragic event. In the McQuail reader, Joli Jensen says that, "we dare not turn too quickly away from these 'creatures' who lead 'mad existences' because the forces that move them also move within ourselves, in some much milder manner" (McQuail, 344). From this argument, we can say yes, there was no doubt that the show may have had some type of influence on the boy and he definitely identified himself with the main character, but the drive within the boy was already present. It just so happened that the media may have pushed him over the edge, but for me, it was always going to happen to this individual it was just a matter of time until something inside him snapped.
I also think that this situation is a good example of how each individual reacts differently to information given, especially in the sense of messages sent out by the media. In the Baran and Davis reading, they go into the information processing theory and describe that it says, "it assumes that individuals operate like biocomputers, with certain built-in information- handling capacity and stategies," (Baran, Davis, 250). From this, this is where I would depict the different types of fans. A normal fan of the show would watch the show, most likely for entertainment, maybe some information, but realize the realities of right and wrong and know that it is just made up television. Another individual, like the one in the news story, sees the show in a whole different light and can not descriminate between fantasy and the realities of social life and go on to do something terrible like killing his 10 year old brother.
During this week’s reading a very important part of media consumption was brought up. We learned that the as individual we can allow ourselves to sink into an obsession that can create conflict for that individual and for others as well. Having done an analysis of the fan site and the official site of one of my favorite celebrities, I can say I disagree with Jensen’s theory of fandom. I feel that Jensen is not taking into consideration that there are other factors that contribute to the obsessive behavior certain fans may have. Jensen states, “what is assumed to be true of fans-that they are potentially deviant, as loners or as mob members…” (McQuail 346) I do not think that this is necessarily true. The fact that an individual is a fan of someone or something doesn’t mean that they are members of a mob. I find that Jensen is stereotyping people and making assumptions that are not true. Just because I am one of Shakira’s fans doesn’t mean I am going to go around stalking her. I agree that that there are the occasional fans who exaggerate their passion for something but that a very small percentage of the population compare to the large amount of people who do not do that. In response to the question of blaming the media for the acts many commit, I do not think the media is to blame for the acts many individuals commit. I don’t think that the media can be blamed because people have choices of what they type of media they consume. Additionally, the Baran and Davis reading bring up a very important thing regarding this topic. In the reading Baran and Davis assert, the information- processing theory challenges basic assumptions there are about media consumption. Baran and Davis assert that people only process certain things they see on the media (Baran and Davis 251). Therefore, if somebody is imitating something from the media it is entirely because they choose to not because they are being persuaded into it.
ReplyDeleteI consider myself to be more of an aficionado than a fan. As Jensen says "there are two crucial aspects, the objects of desire and the modes of enactment". I consider myself more of an aficionado because I am more rational and not over the top in my fandom of certain things. While I do have some quirks such as growing a playoff beard when my team is in the playoffs, I find them to be harmless and fun, as compared to other stories I've heard.
ReplyDeleteI think the fact that these types of things do happen, deal with the information-processing theory as described on p.253 in Baran and Davis. They talk about how one pays attention to visual information rather than verbal information. When you see ads and pictures of fans going wild, usually they look angry and intense and look like they are very capable of hurting someone. Now it is likely that these fans are just caught up in the moment, but there is a certain minority that looks at this and sees this is how I need to act as a fan and definitely take it to the extreme.
A quote from Jess’ write up that I really liked was when she said, “Our perception of fandom ultimately overestimates the fan, just as our perception of the media tends to overestimate its power”. I feel that this quote is very well put and sums up a lot of what we as media studies majors are thinking. After reading the article itself and this blogpost, I was very shocked at the incident of a teenager feeling inspired to kill his brother after watching the television show, Dexter. This, to me, is incredible. I would say that the power of television depends on the person and how impressionable they are.
ReplyDeleteJess, I believe that, yes, the teen was already experiencing psychological symptoms. As listed in the McQuail text, the fan in this situation could have been “characterized as (at least potentially) an obsessed loner, suffering from a disease of isolation, or a frenzied crowd member” (McQuail, 345). Although the article states that the 17-year-old murder was relatively happy, the article also states, “the night before, Conley said he stopped at his girlfriend's home to give her a ‘sweetheart ring’”. This gesture of giving a sweetheart ring may have been one to ensure security in a relationship, a sign that Conley may have been feeling lonely, thus being all the more susceptible to criminal influence from a television show.
Jess, I agree with you on an additional two points. I think that yes, it is very possible that Conley could have felt comforted by the ideas presented on Dexter, and the media does not have the power to create an act like this all on its own.
I found it interesting that in the ABC News article, the murderer compared the urge to commit this crime to the urge to eat a hamburger followed by a later claim from the police that during his interview, he was “emotionless”. This makes it clear to me that this crime was more than likely not planned and the motivation stemmed from the smallest influence. This is where I see the entertainment theory come into play. Baran and Davis define this as the theory that, “seeks to understand what entertaining media content does to us—often without our awareness…most of us don’t think enough about this content to have very useful insights about it. We’re just doing what feels good—after all, it’s only entertainment” (Baran & Davis, 249). I can relate to this in the sense that the media could influence me without even consciously thinking about it. When I am going shopping, I may pick out a certain style of clothing because I may have seen a celebrity wear a similar style. In retrospect, does the statement, “after all, it’s only entertainment”, ring true? My thoughts are that, no, entertainment is not just a ‘feel-good’ time. There is much more behind entertainment that can fuel people to go to extreme measures to live up to the ‘feel-good’-ness of entertainment.
I am not saying that Conley’s murder was entertaining for him, nor do I think that it made him feel good in the long run, but I do think that although we may only perceive a fraction of the media, that can effect people differently. For example, I do not consider myself to be or have been a huge fan of any media icon(s). My perception on media is relatively healthy and normal, because I get much satisfaction and gratification from just seeing the icons perform, I do not need to obsess over them to get the most satisfaction. If there is anything that I am a fan of more than an icon is the idea of appreciating what you have and there are many times when movies, songs, and television shows portray that. I guess you could say that if I was to be obsessed with anything, I would be obsessed with appreciation.
Kieran Wheeler
ReplyDeleteWhen we talk about somebody who is a “fan” of something, we can simply be talking about someone who enjoys a certain aspect or aspects of something and has incorporated those aspects into their life. We are not always talking about some crazed person who is going to watch their favorite TV show and mimic their favorite characters, or go out and stalk their favorite actors. A fan should not be defined by his or her actions, but simply by his or her likes. The fact that a man would watch a vampire movie and then go out and drink someone’s blood probably means that he is a fan of the movie. However, the mere fact that he went out and did something so absurd goes beyond his fandom, as there are countless people out there who are fans of movies or shows and are still able to differentiate between reality and fiction.
The types of fans mentioned in this blog are clearly psychotic. I personally feel that it is not the media that they watched that turned them into blood sucking psychos- although that media may have caused that specific behavior. I think that these types of people were already certifiably insane to begin with, and it was not realized until they exhibited these particular behaviors. When referring to Horton and Wohl’s theory on fandom in chapter 32 of the McQuail reading, Joli Jensen says, “These extreme forms of fandom, they claim, are mostly characteristic of the socially isolated, the socially inept, the aged and invalid, the timid and rejected” (348). This suggests that there are “extreme” forms of fans. These fans do not act in the same manner that other fans do because they have other social and psychological difficulties in their life- not because they are simply “huge” fans of something.
In the Baran and Davis reading, when referring to the entertainment theory, it says, “It argues that a predominant motivation for using entertainment media is to moderate or to control our moods” (256). I feel that this is the case for most people- if I am in a bad mood, than I will usually turn to a show or movie that is going to put me in a good mood. This is the case for most people. However, I do not think that this will affect those who already have their own mental issues regardless of the media they consume. These are the people who some consider “die-hard fans.”
I have personally never exhibited the type of crazy behavior expressed by some of these “fans.” I am simply a fan of certain things like the New York Giants because I like football and I am from New York City. I am a fan of shows like The Office, because they make me laugh and put me in a good mood. I do not feel that these things completely alter my mood or take over my life- I just simply enjoy them.