Assignment 1 – Blogging IS important!

Due to the shift of the media platform to the internet, it is important that we understand ways in which we can express our ideas and thoughts freely to the universe, as you would with a magazine or newspaper.

Despite the fact blogging was a prerequisite for Media One in 2015, this semester in Networked Media, I have truly begun to properly understand both the theoretical and practical aspects of blogging and how they intertwine.

As mentioned in my Week 1 Reading Blog, I refer to the idea of blogging and the importance of having a place within the online community, stating that “I think that it is so important that I continue to use my media blog throughout my degree, as it is a public document that showcases my folio of work.” Blogging “also enables me to become a part of the “larger community” (Miles, pg. 67) whenever I contribute or others comment on my work”, which in turn, is also relevant to the ideas presented in Week 4 about Hypertexts and Hypermedia.

By acknowledging the works of others, we not only become network literate but we can make our writing intertextual; “we must write with an awareness that we are writing in the presence of other texts” (Landow, pg. 77). Whilst it could be said that it is very hard to be original, the opinions we offer on the various ideas within the docuverse are original. We each have our own set of thoughts and blogging allows us to express these opinions, whilst linking back to the work of others.

As seen in my ‘Am I Lazy?‘ post, I have also begun to develop an understanding of general licensing practice and more specifically, Creative Commons. Below each of the photos within this blog post, I have included a clear caption that cites where the screenshots have been taken from. Whilst it is important to show a clear link to the opinions of others, it is important to give credit to the original owner, especially in order to avoid plagiarism and the legal consequences of plagiarising. In my opinion, it is also important to cite others works, as you are clearly showing evidence surrounding your topic of choice. Furthermore, I like to relate my ideas to the ideas of others, as I can show that I am placing my work within the wider docuverse, and proving my online presence.

I have placed a Creative Commons license in my blog’s sidebar which allows anyone to read and distribute my work as they please, as long as I am credited. Without this license, it would be a lot harder for others to comment in their own spaces about my ideas, thus making my opinions more ‘closed’ to the wider network community. The use of Creative Commons “facilitates sharing, building and remixing on top of content, where the authors opt into this more balanced and rational copyright system and supports the idea of remix or participatory culture” (Lasica 2006).

Now that I have a deeper understanding to the real reasons we blog, and the best ways to do it, I feel that I am really beginning to enjoy it. I have never been much of a writer but because of the theory presented to me each week in regards to blogging, I am becoming more and more aware of the ways in which work can be presented online. It is clear to me that these theories are relevant even to professionals in the media industry (as seen in the blog posts of this blog linked in my blog roll: Refinery 29), so I feel that I am becoming more professional too!


Miles, Adrian 2006, Blogs in Media Education: A Beginning [online], Screen Education, No. 43, pg. 66-69.

Landow, G 2006, Hypertext 3.0, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, pg. 69-85, 107-124.

Lasica, J 2006, Prof. Lawrence Lessig Explains Creative Commons Licensing, accessed April 6, 2016, from <>.


Television Cultures – Blog Post #1 (Deadset)

When reality television and zombies combine, the British television show ‘Deadset’ comes into play. The show is essentially a spoof on reality TV set both on the inside and outside world of the UK version of ‘Big Brother’. A zombie apocalypse rocks Britain and the last people standing happen to be the participants of Big Brother.

The show was premiered on October 27, 2008 on E4 and was shown consecutively for the five days leading up to Halloween. The ‘scary hype’ that surrounds Halloween, perhaps suggests the reason for this “flesh-eating genre for the smallscreen” (Clarke, 2008, pg. 30) raking in E4’s biggest audience since 2002 with 1.4 million viewers for the 10pm premiere. According to E4, the show had an average audience share of 5.8% compared with an average of 1.8% at the time slot. And perhaps the fact that this show was approached like a “feature film” according to Charlie Booker and featured the real host of the U.K. version of Big Brother, Davina McCall (which is interesting considering the real meanings behind the show), is the reason it was a success.

Deadset encompasses everything that falls under the horror genre with the use of “rapid edits and a range of shots that cut back and forth between the ‘threat at a distance’ and the abstracted close-up of the bloody attacks” (Venzo, 2009, pg. 95) providing the audience with a “gore-fest” (Venzo, 2009, pg. 95). But the show delves further than a typical horror drama, where it begins to explore the idea of audience consumption (represented by the zombie apocalypse).

Charlie Booker has called the audience to question the concept of reality TV and to consider the “capacity of humankind to consume itself, via the media’s obsession with representing back to us the (supposedly) everyday experiences of the Western middle classes” (Venzo, 2009, pg. 93). This is shown through the reality television genre where we see the use of stereotypical and highly constructed characters that express their common human emotions and are faced with ‘un-scripted’ situations which are often relatable to audiences. Therefore, these characters and situations can teach us important things about the society in which we live.

The use of zombies, which can be seen in a typical fantasy and/or horror genre production as well as the combination of the already built-up reality television drama ‘Big Brother’ (made out to be based on real life events), prompts the audience to begin questioning the difference between what is imagined and what is real life. We are essentially faced with an entertaining yet typical and familiar story, whilst also being shown something incredibly different to what we have ever seen before, leading us to question whether the consumption of hyper reality has been taken too far.

But I also think beyond this, the use of zombies in this television program leads us to consider what audiences see as their own ‘threats’ within the real world. It is not just their own consumption of reality TV and whether what we are shown is real or not, but the threats we are faced with every day on our news whether it be to do with terrorism or natural disasters. I think it is also important to consider the fact that within Deadset, it is not only the audience who become the zombies, but the producers of this spoof version of Big Brother, which perhaps suggests that the threats we are faced with are often home-grown and the people we believe give us reliable information, are perhaps also ‘threats’ to audiences. It becomes a question again, linking back to the idea within Deadset, of what is real and what is imagined and can we truly believe everything that we see on television?



Clarke, S 2008, ‘Television: Brit Auds Eat Up E4 Zombies’, Variety, vol. 413, no. 3, pp. 30.

Venzo, P 2009, ‘Reality Really Does Bite: ‘Dead Set’ and the Development of Reality TV’, Metro Magazine: Media & Education Magazine, no. 163, pg. 92-97.

/ Annotated Bibliography from Popular Culture /

So here is a post relating to the elective I am doing at the moment (Popular Culture).

I wrote this Annotated Bibliography to submit for the final assessment piece (we had to write 3 bibliographies).

I want to know what people think of the idea between Fan-Celebrity interaction. It was previously discussed in a lecture for Media 1 and I myself am definitely apart of this fan-celebrity culture which is why I am so interested in it.

Here it is below.. enjoy!

Ferris, K 2001, ‘Through a Glass, Darkly: The Dynamics of Fan-Celebrity Encounters’, Symbolic Interaction, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 25-47.


In this article, Kerry O Ferris examines the interaction between celebrities and their fans, further suggesting that perhaps there could be a theory developed for fan-celebrity interaction. The article explores the dynamic relationship between fans and celebrities, and the ways in which some “fans make and take advantage of opportunities for prestige encounters at public events” (Ferris 2001, pg. 25). However some fans actively pursue celebrities to create fan-staged encounters often blurring the line of being an, ‘active fan’ and showing similarities to ‘celebrity stalkers’. Whilst Ferris acknowledges the face-to-face contact between celebrities and their fans, she also brings attention to the interaction between fans and celebrities via mass media and the way in which it “can incorporate the fictional and the extraordinary into their real, ordinary, everyday lives” (Ferris 2001, pg. 25).


To form a deeper understanding of fan-celebrity relationships, Ferris collected observational and interview data over a two-year period from ‘active’ Star Trek and ABC soap opera fans. She describes active fans as “pursuing beyond interest, consumption and enjoyment of the television show”, whilst also “forming social bonds with other fans and participating in activities” (Ferris 2001, pg. 28). Collected were a series of twenty in-depth interviews with active fans (fifteen women and five males), who discussed their “television viewing habits and practices, personal histories of fan ship and fan-celebrity contact” (Ferris 2001, pg. 29).


The article provides a deep insight into the developing theory of fan-celebrity relationships, recognising that not all fans blur the line between ‘active fans’ and ‘celebrity stalkers’. Whilst also having collected subjective data from interviews, Ferris gathered notes whilst attending “conventions, autograph signings, and personal appearances at store openings” (Ferris 2001, pg. 29) in which fans can interact face-to-face with celebrities, providing an ‘in the field’ perspective. This enabled her research to have a multi-faceted approach supporting the theory of fan-celebrity relationships.


Whilst the article provides a range of data to suggest that there is a potential for a theory of fan-celebrity relationships, there are some limitations which include the fact that Ferris has used an unbalanced male to female ratio (15 females and 5 males) potentially giving an inaccurate result, as the results could be gender-affected. However, this ratio could perhaps suggest that there are in fact more female ‘active fans’ than there are male ‘active fans’, implying that further research within this area is suggested. Ferris also states that the data is focused primarily on fans, as it is “solely from the fans perspective” (Ferris 2001, pg. 30), giving no other outlook (that of the celebrity/celebrities involved). Nevertheless, this could also be seen as a strength of the data, as it is purely “naturalistic data” (Ferris 2001, pg. 30) which enables for the examination of “indigenous perspectives and meanings” (Ferris 2001, pg. 30) of these active fans.


The article is useful for individuals looking into the fan-celebrity interaction as it provides a multi-faceted approach to the developing theory of the contact between these two groups. Potential research into different fan-celebrity groups is however required as this article only looks at Star Trek and ABC soap opera viewers. In addition, it may also be necessary to gain a perspective from the celebrity’s viewpoint.