Soundtracking Senator McConnell: Mobilizing Remix in Politics

Last night, Jon Stewart invited Daily Show viewers to join in the fun of setting a two and a half minute wordless campaign ad from Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) to music. As a moderate liberal democrat incensed by McConnells socially conservative republican leadership, Stewart regularly mocks McConnell on the show, often simply for his diction and appearance, which Stewart apes in the character of Cecil the Turtle from Looney Tunes.

Click the pic to see Stewart's call for remixing McConnell's campaign ad.

Aside from the obvious juvenile derision of a political adversary, Stewart's bit poses as pure Internet silliness--fun with remix culture. He shows the same few seconds of the ad with several different songs, showing how the music can change the message in myriad humorous ways. This suggests a fun and fruitful media literacy exercise lesson for any age group (hint: you don't have to use McConnell!). I'll offer some specific ideas and reflections on my experience doing similar remix activities with students (and Girl Scouts!) to develop media literacy after the jump. However, partisan political attacks aside, this Daily Show clip is more than just a call to mockery; buried in the lead is an important lesson on remix and convergence culture in politics. Stewart points out that McConnell most likely posted this 2m30s wordless ad in order to facilitate Super Pacs (political action committees) using and remixing the images in their own ads to support his campaign. Super PACs can collect and spend unlimited funds on political ads without disclosing sources of the money (as candidates must for donations over a certain amount), provided there is no collusion or communication between the politician and the Super PAC [Colbert did an absolutely hilarious series of segments exploiting and exposing how Super PACs work--a brilliant teaching resource on the topic]. Ask: How does McConnell's alleged strategy work? How does he intend to benefit? How do voters lose out in the process? So, McConnell offers these images to the public, affording him some direct control over his public image portrayed in remixed ads by the Super PACs supporting him without directly communicating with them.
[After the jump: More on this, w/ the Daily Show clip and ideas for soundtracking lessons for media literacy]

Limitations of the Medium: The Gettysburg Address Powerpoint

As I prepare for a few speaking engagements at academic conferences next weekend, I am keeping in mind lessons learned about what powerpoint presentations giveth, and what they taketh away from effective communication by sharing this classic by Peter Norvig--The Gettysburg Powerpoint Presentation.

Exploring various media in terms of their affordances and limitations is a classic approach to semiotics, and I wish all presenters considered how this powerpoint totally decimates the power of Lincoln's speech while still abiding by many principles for presenting clear information. It's a great piece to discuss with students before they design presentations, particularly in public speaking classes. What does the speech communicate that visuals do not? What makes the speech effective? Why are the visuals less effective? It also presents an opportunity for social studies students in middle school and high school to create a more effective powerpoint presentation for the speech. I'd introduce an audio recording or professional performance in a still shot on video, then show the powerpoint, and then show the clip from Ken Burns' Civil War--and ask students to shoot for something somewhere between Norvig's satire and Burns' film. Students could also go the other direction, and add all sorts of flashy visuals, video clips and preposterous image collages to create their own Gettysburg Address Powerpoint presentations that humorously show the limitations and common abuses of powerpoint features in public speech communication. Norvig has also posted a great story about the making of his powerpoint and the response he's gotten from it.

Back in 2003, Wired magazine hosted a "debate" of sorts pitting the view that "Powerpoint is Evil" from Yale Professor Edward Tufte, author of the Cognitive Style of Powerpoint monograph, against "Learning to Love Powerpoint" from new wave rock God and avant-garde artist David Byrne (front man of the Talking Heads). Tufte bemoans the use of Powerpoint in schools, arguing that the constraints of the software encourage poor visual communication. Byrne discusses how he moved from feeling limited by the software to exposing its limitations through mockery to transcending its constraints in art. Especially for college courses discussing multimodal composition, Tufte's tirade and Byrne's celebratory transcendence make for a fascinating contrast to approaching communication tools and how they shape our discourses. For any class, Byrne's art illustrates how playing with the affordances and limitations of media offers avenues for both critical commentary and self expression. DJ Alchemi posted a nice review of Byrne's powerpoint art in 2004 after arguing that the Tufte/Byrne "debate" was bogus. He also links to an NPR discussion with Byrne and some more presentation software art from DJ Spooky (using Keynote). I really like the idea of designing multimodal composition lessons starting with Tufte's critique and following Byrne's learning curve from mocking the medium in the medium as a means for learning its affordances and limitations, to transcending the rules and habits of communication imposed by the medium for artistic commentary, critique and self expression. So, there's an idea. Any takers?

And here's a bonus image for your Friday pleasure...

 I want a poster of this in my classroom.

"That's Not an Argument": Rhetoric & Writing with Monty Python

I would argue... It has been said... Four out of five leading dentists rhetoric teachers agree... You are an idiot if you disagree... We all need to know what makes up an argument, and better yet a good argument, in order to practice our own skills for making (and winning) arguments. From evaluating newspaper editorials to analyzing TV news pundits, from engaging in comment thread squabbles to posting a substantive essay on a controversial issue, learning and mobilizing argument techniques is key for citizenship and cultural participation. Since my first year of teaching English and media studies 15 years ago, I have turned to Monty Python for help in introducing what an argument is and isn't--and it turns out I wasn't alone. Below, I share some great resources on using classic Python sketches to teach argument from FactcheckEd at UPenn Annenberg and the Argument Research Group at the UMichigan. But first, the funny... Sharpened pencils ready to note: What messages about what counts and does not count as argument (or good argument) does the "Argument Clinic" sketch communicate?

I love the opening mishap where the character looking for an argument wanders into "Abuse"; how many times has that happened to you, on and off line? There are some poignant moments of actually defining argument, which I highlight in the script quoted below [full script available here].

M: An argument isn't just contradiction.
O: Well! it CAN be!
M: No it can't!
M: An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
O: No it isn't!
M: Yes it is! It isn't just contradiction.
O: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position!
M: Yes but it isn't just saying 'No it isn't.'
O: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!
O: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!
O: Yes it is!
M: No it ISN'T! Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.
O: It is NOT!
M: It IS!

While the sketch does not explicitly delve into premise/support/conclusion or stance/evidence/warrant, I've linked to some strong resources for teaching such concepts, both of which use the "Argument Clinic" sketch as an introductory clip. FactcheckEd at UPenn Annenberg also has a great lesson on logical fallacy built around the "Witch Trial" scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Here's that scene to whet your appetite for fallacious funniness:
In your comments, I'd love to see some arguments for/against using humorous pieces such as these (or this meta-essay on blog opinions from a prior ML4ML post), and some satirical use of logical fallacy--if you're up to it! I'll leave you with this nice quote from the Argument Research Group at UMichigan to underscore the broad applications for the skills and knowledge of argument techniques, which I argue we all benefit from knowing and practicing, and from teaching in an entertaining way:

The closing argument of a criminal trial, a formal proof in mathematics or a teenager's impassioned plea for a later curfew all require the speaker to take a position, offer compelling data, and explain the underlying assumptions that connect this data to the speaker's position.