KCB206 Assessment 3- An Academic Approach to the James Charles Scandal

In the life of any follower of the Youtube beauty community the name James Charles has been a familiar one for a few years now, but in the last month it is safe to say he has been on the minds of many more people because the internet has been positively buzzing with his latest social media fail.

For those who are unfamiliar, Charles is a beauty guru/influencer who has recently faced a very public feud with his mentor and long time friend Tati Westbrook. The feud began with an Instagram story posted by Charles in which he promoted the popular vitamin company, Sugar Bear Hair, the main rival of Westbrook’s own comapny, Halo Beauty. This was followed by an Instagram story on Westbrook’s account which did not directly name Charles, though fans were quick to guess that it was a response to Charles’ story. The next move in the budding dispute came as an Instagram story response from Charles apologizing:

But this was not enough to stop the drama, in fact it only proved to make things worse by prompting Westbrook to post an extensive (now deleted) video explaining not just the situation of the vitamins but also directly accusing Charles of sexual misconduct. James soon posted a short apology video dedicated to Westbrook in which he addresses both the advertisement as well as the allegations against him. As well as losing 2.6 millions subscribers in just three days, the situation was further exacerbated as other influencers (namely Jeffree Star) began to take sides and reveal more information about both the ad situation and the misconduct. In all of the drama Westbrook gained a significant amount of new followers and released a video which explains why she decided to public shame her former friend Charles. Nearly one month after posting the advertisement Charles posts another video in which defends himself in totality. This video served it purpose in ending the feud considering Westbrook tweeted the next day vowing to stop speaking about the situation and Charles tweeted a thanks, officially ending the feud.

The power of influencers such as Charles and Westbrook which is found in “their ability to position themselves as ‘relatable’ throughout their arsenal of social media content,” makes them ideal candidates for more specialized and inconspicuous marketing which in turn discredits the ‘relatability’ (Serazio & Buffy, 2018). Meaning this was not only an offense toward Westbrook,  but a disruption of the trusting relationship Charles had developed between himself and his fans.

The reason why this minor infraction was able to reach beyond their usual reach can be understood through the idea of networked publics. Considering networked publics are both “the space constructed through networked technologies and the imagined collective that emerges as a result of the intersection of people, technology, and practice” the publics of this feud would be considered the various social media platforms used throughout the situation (Instagram , Youtube, and Twitter) as well of the communities that Charles and Westbrook are part of (the beauty community as well as the community of their respective followers) (Boyd, 2010). The platforms facilitated the interactions by providing different mediums (video and text) and levels of accessibility (Instagram stories are available for 24 hours unless saved by the account while Youtube videos and tweets are available until specifically deleted). Had all the communications been over one platform the feud would have lacked the mysticism it developed by making followrs seek out information in various forms and places, constantly checking to ensure they did not miss an update. The communities were important as they were able to spread the drama to those who would otherwise have been unaware of the issue by simply sharing the links in their personal accounts: “the potential audience can be far greater and from different contexts” (Boyd, 2010).

Spreading the new of the feud can then be seen as an act of participatory culture. As followers of Charles not only began to unsubscribe/unfollow his accounts, but also destroyed his collaboration palette with makeup brand Morphe and post video evidence in an act of protest, they displayed the need to personally become a part of the debate despite the lack of physical benefit (and in the destruction of palettes they purchased, financial loss) an identifiable sign of the participatory culture developed through social media (Fuchs, 2014).

These fan reactions only served to inflate the news of the feud and cause problems for Charles. For many people the “socially oriented performances” of posting on social media “must carry meaning for multiple publics and audiences without sacrificing one’s true sense of self” and as a influencer Charles must maintain the image he has developed for his fans to wield power on the web (Quinn & Papacharissi, 2018).The drama surrounding Charles tarnished his image and reminded fans that Charles’ social media presence is merely a self-representation, not a true representation of him and, therefore, contains whole which are filled only by his physical self (Rettburg, 2018). More than acknowledging his willingness to sell them products for his benefit, fans were faced with the fact that they can never truly understand their idol. As a result of this revelation, not only did Charles lose many followers in an industry that deals in attention as its primary commodity, but the backlash benefited his then rival since Westbrook was provided with new opportunities as she gained new followers (Boyd, 2010).

The scandal, at its peak, was quite complicated, but it is my understanding that the key ‘fail’ in this situation is the photo apology pictured above as it is the last step before the drama began to get out of hand. I believe it would have benefited Charles to communicate with Westbrook in an open discussion via Instagram Live with her in order to better understand the conflict and publicly display the strength of their friendship. I believe this would be sufficient to end the feud because As Tarleton Gillespie notes, the attitude of the internet is “if I want to say something, whether inspiring or reprehensible, I want to say it where someone, maybe even everyone, might hear me,” so it would be safe to assume that since Westbrook felt the need to publicly comment on Charles’ actions, she would be willing to resolve the issue just as publicly (2018). As a collaborative project, this solution would fulfill both the need for honest communication in Charles and Westbrook’s real-life friendship as well as possibly allowing Westbrook benefits in exposure as part of a, now more easily resolved, scandal.

 

References

Amanda Lundgren. (2019, May 20). Wondering if That James Charles/Tati Westbrook Feud Is Really Over? We Gotchu. Retrieved June 3, 2019, from Cosmopolitan website: https://www.cosmopolitan.com/entertainment/celebs/a27484210/james-charles-tati-westbrook-youtube-drama-timeline/

Boyd, Danah. (2010). “Social Network Sites as Networked Publics: Affordances, Dynamics, and Implications.” In Networked Self: Identity, Community, and Culture on Social Network Sites (ed. Zizi Papacharissi), pp. 39-58.

Fuchs, C. (2014). Social Media as Participatory Culture. Social Media: A Critical Introduction. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446270066

Gillespie, T. (2018). Regulation of and by Platforms. In J. Burgess, A. Marwick, & T. Poell, The SAGE Handbook of Social Media (pp. 254–278). https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473984066.n15

People. (2019). James Charles Loses 3 Million Followers Amid Tati Westbrook Feud [Image]. Retrieved from https://people.com/style/james-charles-tati-westbrook-feud/

Quinn, K., & Papacharissi, Z. (2018). Our Networked Selves: Personal Connection and Relational Maintenance in Social Media Use. In J. Burgess, A. Marwick, & T. Poell, The SAGE Handbook of Social Media (pp. 353–371). https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473984066.n20

Rettberg, J. W. (2018). Self-Representation in Social Media. In J. Burgess, A. Marwick, & T. Poell, The SAGE Handbook of Social Media (pp. 429–443). https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473984066.n24

Serazio, M., & Duffy, B. E. (2018). Social media marketing. The SAGE Handbook of Social Media. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 481-496. Retrieved from https://blackboard.qut.edu.au/bbcswebdav/pid-7846336-dt-content-rid-23083701_1/courses/KCB206_19se1/Serazio%20and%20Duffy%2C%202018.pdf

 

If I Ever Have Kids I’m Going to Raise Them in Wales

I read the essay “The Overprotected Kid” by Hanna Rosin and it was magical! She talks about the magic of childhood before all of the modern rules led to the fall of the empire that was the world of wondering children and even as a product of the world of childhood rules I felt connected to very bit of the piece. I considered the way my parents would complain that I would not ride around the neighborhood on my bike, yet insist on holding my hand as I crossed the street. Rosin also contrasts the modern ideal of protecting children from any and all dangers with pictures and stories from an adventure playground in Wales that let children run wild and take risks. The essay spends a great deal of time explaining why parenting has changed and how those changes have either failed to accomplish their goals or even negatively affect children. It was honest and real as the author herself watched her young son play in the adventure playground and she had to stop herself from ruining his fun, allowing him to grow and become more independant.

A Response to Consider the Lobster (a subject I would not like to consider again)

David Foster Wallace certainly takes his readers on a ride with the essay “Consider the Lobster”. The essay begins with a quick and dirty explanation of the possible excitements of the 2003 Maine Lobster Festival before effortlessly slipping into a complaint about the unfortunate conditions of the festival: tight benches, flat soda (a mortal sin), and (possibly worst of all) wild children attempting tasks far beyond their capabilities.  This transition is the beginning of the end for anyone looking for reasons to make the trip to the next MLF. From the the reader is subjected to a contemplation on the realities lobster “preparation”.

I can only speak for myself when I say that the reason I found to keep reading, aside from the fact it was assigned for class, was the same desire felt to soak in every gory detail of a highway car accident. I had to know every detail about the various ways of killing and cooking lobsters and their various failures. I had to know why people were able to convince themselves boiling them alive was okay (the whole time remembering the scene from Julie and Julia when she tried to make lobster and the day my eleven year old self realized that cooking lobster is terrifying). I didn’t want to know what DFW had to say, but I Had to know.

I have never been much of a lobster person, or really a seafood person, so I can’t speak for someone who will need to reconsider their favorite food after this essay. I can only assume it is an even more uncomfortable read for them. Though, DFW does mention that he is not writing this to entirely discourage eating lobster, he is looking for people to understand the process and the moral, ethical questions brought up by it. I can relate to that I guess, I too find the process interesting though not entirely discouraging when I learn about food. In high school, I was friends with this girl who is a dedicated vegan and we often talked about the food industry and it’s many mistakes in animal treatment. The difference is I’m not so terribly affected by the truth to stop me from enjoying a burger afterwards.

I like to think there were many readers of Gourmet that read the entire essay fueled by anger about every word of complaint in it. It gives me joy to imagine a paid-clad blonde mother of three angrily reading through the article remembering the candlelit dinner she and her husband Howard had enjoyed for their anniversary just days before. Denying at every turn that there could possibly be anything wrong with the treatment of lobsters because, “They’re just stupid fish anyway!” and “They must die peacefully! We wouldn’t keep killing them like this if they didn’t!” even though she knows that she won’t be able to think about eating another lobster for a week or two now that she has read this. She makes me happy, because she is the reason why this essay is so well done, to spite her.

Response to “What Makes an Essay American”

Cunnigham’s Essay “what Makes an Essay American” can easily be identified as an argument to assert. Cunnigham addresses the ideas of fellow essayist John D’Agata and discusses the influence of  Emerson in modern American writing. He breaks down the many examples in D’Agata’s newest anthology and explains their failures to exemplify the spirit and truth of American essays. With Emerson, Cunnigham observes the influence of the classic sermon in essays and how they’re similarities are their sources of power in delivery. His discussion of these writers and analysis of their contributions to the field as a whole leads to his conclusion that in our essay and other aspects of our culture Americans look to conflict for creative expression.  This essay is more then the Crossfire dominating argument style because it acknowledges the validity of other positions, but asserts the importance of it’s own position. In an argument to dominate there would be no validity given to other arguments, this argument is much more civil.

Types of Podcasts

In case you didn’t know, there are a bunch of different podcasts. Here is a list of a few types:

• Storytelling
• Advice
• Investigative
• Informative
• Documentary
• Roundtable
• Comedy
• Faithbased
• Sports
• Fashion
• Business
• News

Short Form Interview with My Mother

I did a short interview with my mother. Her question was: What was your biggest mistake? and spoiler alert it wasn’t me!

The Best of The Interview Between Marc Maron and Terry Gross

The best question that Marc asked Terry was something along the lines of how much of this is wanting  to know about yourself? I loved this question because it was something I had not considered before it was asked, but as soon as I heard the question I understood that it needed to be asked. I believe that there are many things that people do without realizing that they are seeking a personal understanding as much as an understanding of the environment or others. Much of the human experience revolves around the need to understand ourselves as much as others so why wouldn’t interviewing be about both understanding the interviewee and the interviewer. I think it is also very important because it is a question that Terry wanted to ask Marc as much as Marc wanted to ask Terry which means it is a question that is at least considered by professional interviewers.

The best question that Terry asked Marc was if he takes his interviews to different places than he does when talking to his friends. This was a great question because one of the goals of an interviewer is to make their interviewee feel comfortable speaking with them and who is more comfortable talking to you than a friend? So why not ask the same questions in both situations? But, as Marc explains in his answer, the situation is a bit more complicated than that, there are different social rules for a conversation with a friends then there are with in an interview.

A Proposed Solution for the Problem of Misinformation Due to the Abuse of Wikipedia

Everyone is aware of the problems with bad editors on Wikipedia. It is so easy for anyone with a computer to simply press the edit option on Wikipedia and write in whatever they want. The opportunity is both a blessing and a curse for those poor unfortunate souls that believe every word they read on the internet. Unfortunately, not everyone using Wikipedia is on a mission to provide the public with all the facts, some of them have a different agenda. In order to end this madness my solution is simple: Check Your Facts, Kids. This is not to say that every time you scroll through Wikipedia your are required to check every reference, but if you plan on using that information as absolute fact, check it out.

It is up to us readers of Wikipedia to be cautious about what we are reading. As Audra Schroeder proves in her article “Are Plastic Surgeons Nip/Tucking Ads into High Profile Wikipedia Articles?”, the efforts of established Wikipedia editors is not enough to catch people changing articles for their benefit. Wikipedia relies on the contributions of the public and there is no way for them to police every article on the site. Therefore, it is the task of the reader to beware of the facts presented in Wikipedia.

On the other hand, it is not healthy to become obsessive about publishing the truth on sites as unpredictable as Wikipedia. For example, the man is Reply All’s  episode titled “The Art of Making and Fixing Mistakes” has dedicated far to much time to editing one grammar mistake throughout Wikipedia. Sure, it is a valiant effort, but does anyone really want to be that guy? My advice is to view Wikipedia as the Duct tape of internet information, it can give you a quick fix for just about everything and it’ll most likely work just fine, but you know it is not a full fix. So enjoy the many benefits but be sure to remember to take an extra second to check the facts when you know you need to be right.

Discussing an Article About the Battle Between Wikipedia and the Encyclopedia

As Stacy Schiff writes about in her article “Know It All,” with the introduction of the internet and Wikipedia, the public’s relationship with knowledge has changed from the days of the traditional encyclopedia. The days of prestigious scholars working on a set understanding of select topics to be distributed to the public as the one true fact, with minor errors, is over. The modern world has demanded a modern understanding of knowledge, meaning the power is in the hands of the public and anyone with the time and effort can become, if not an expert, knowledgeable about any topic they find interest in. In the world of encyclopedias, only a few thousand topics can be reported on in any given edition and as new information is discovered, the books become increasingly outdated. But, in the world of Wikipedia, any topic that anyone has interest in can be recorded and all of the information has the opportunity to be as updated as possible.

This new relationship is important to myself and my peers because we as a generation have been raised with the internet and the ability to have answers at our finger tips, leaving us impatient when it comes to traditional encyclopedias and their outdated information. Since the rise in technology like the internet, the entire world can communicate in a matter of seconds so the world is constantly changing and (though not all of the information is correct) we are constantly becoming more informed. Our generation also has passion for socializing through the internet and, in doing so, giving a degree of power to everyone instead of leaving all of our decisions in the hands of a select few as seen in the rise of sites like Twitter, Facebook, and of course, Wikipedia.

A Short Analysis of the Use of Research in a Podcast

The podcast The Mystery Show, the host Starlee is hired to solve mysteries. In Case #3: Belt Buckle, Starlee is tasked with finding the true owner of an interesting belt buckle her client found years before. Her journey leads her to a variety of people including a paint instructor in California and a number of chefs across the country. Everywhere she turns there seems to be even more mystery surrounding the owner of the unique buckle. In the end, Starlee travels to Phoenix and meets a chef who is able to connect her with the owner of the belt buckle. The owner was an older Swiss chef named Hans Jordi.

One of the very first types of research used in the podcast is a blog post that mentions the name of the man she is looking for. She uses the information in this post to begin creating a profile for Hans Jordi as well as confirming his career as a chef. This blog post also helped Starlee find a subject to interview to help her further her investigation into the life and location of Hans Jordi.

The second type of research used in the podcast is conducting interviews. Starlee contacts a number of people in order to interview them for information about Hans Jordi’s time in their lives and any places she could possibly located him in order to return his belt buckle. She uses these interviews to understand Hans Jordi and try to piece together just who she is searching for. These interviews provide her with a variety of information on his appearance, manner, and location (past and eventually present).

The final type of research utilized within the podcast is an open message board asking about the location of Hans Jordi. This provides Starlee with a number leads: the person asking the for Hans, the person who responded, and the contact suggested to find Hans. Using this source Starlee is able to connect more points in Hans Jori’s life and track down a current friend that eventually leads her to the man himself.