Independent Research Project

Lucy Hanigan 

Independent Research Project

Tutor: Matt Dallas

Tutorial: Thursday 3.30-5.30

The  data above has been taken from the Season Finale of Australia’s Next Top Model, which is a reality television series broadcast on FOX8. The objective of the series is to find a hopeful but undiscovered Australian model and reward her with the opportunity to boost a successful career within the modelling industry. The segment is a brief 3:58 clip that has been extracted from the finale, and captures the interaction between host Sarah Murdoch and the two remaining contestants, Kelsey Martinovich and Amanda Ware. The exchange highlights a live television disaster, when the finale ends with an unanticipated twist as host Murdoch announces the wrong winner for Season Six of Australia’s Next Top Model.

Host Sarah Murdoch announces the wrong winner due to a miscommunication from backstage producers. After an incredibly close public vote, polls were still being calculated during the 90-minute finale. However, at the time of the announcement there appears to be a technical difficulty and Murdoch is fed the wrong name. Kelsey Martinovich is ecstatic and is enjoying her moment of glory, thanking her family, friends, and fellow contestants, when Murdoch reluctantly interrupts her. Murdoch amends her mistake on live television, making an embarrassing apology to both contestants, as well as the live audience. Amanda Ware is then awarded the winning title.

While there is evidently an element of structure to the show, a number of aspects support this particular interaction as being labelled “naturally occurring”. Being part of a “live” 90-minute filming means that there is no editing of the footage, and the audience is receiving the data directly as it is executed. Technical difficulties between Murdoch and producers cause an unsalvageable error, and it is evident from Murdoch’s shaken facial expressions, the reactions from both contestants, and the response from the audience that this was undeniably an accident.              

Goffman (1971) plays a momentous role behind the theoretical orientations within this data segment, and many of his sociological constructs can be examined. Goffman’s face-work theory (1955) is apparent throughout the entire interaction, with evidence of both saving face and losing face. Saving face plays a significant role in this segment, as one would expect from a live broadcast gone terribly wrong. Murdoch starts to lose face as she becomes utterly embarrassed, teary and flustered after realising the mistake and the detrimental effect that this would have on the contestants and the audience. This is evident in Figure 1 and Figure 2 below. She handles the situation well for someone in this position, and with the help of sincere contestant Kelsey she saves face enough to continue the show.

Figure 1. Murdoch realises her mistake.

Figure 2. Murdoch breaks the bad news to contestants Kelsey and Amanda.

Runner-up Kelsey is sympathetic and understanding towards Murdoch, saying, “It’s OK, it’s an honest mistake, it’s fine, it’s alright.” The concept of positive and negative face is also apparent throughout the interaction. Brown and Levinson’s (1987) politeness theory introduces these two aspects of face. Positive face refers to an individual’s need for social approval, connection, and inclusion (Miller, 2005). Negative face refers to an individual’s need for autonomy and independence that allows an individual to be free of impediments in social interactions (Miller, 2005). Kelsey’s positive face helps to hide Murdoch’s negative face in this instance. Masumoto, Oetzel, Takai, Ting-Toomey, & Yokochi (2000) refer to facework as “the communicative strategies one uses to enact self-face and to uphold, support, or challenge another person’s face.” This is evident in the data segment, with Kelsey supporting Murdoch in an attempt to uphold and save her face. Kelsey saves face as she is stripped of the winning title, handling the situation with grace and demeanour. Kelsey could have broken social and moral order by having a tantrum on live television, but she accepted runner-up and congratulated new winner Amanda with “it’s OK” over and over. There is a level of “social death” (Goffman, 1967) during this interaction as Kelsey now faces the humiliation of being stripped of the title as Australia’s Next Top Model. Although she saves face and congratulates her opponent, there is unquestionably a strong sense of embarrassment and mortification. This interaction illustrates that it is challenging but necessary to save face on live television.

Goffman’s concept of dramaturgy is evident throughout this data segment, with a number of dramaturgical elements being present in the interaction. Maintenance of expressive control refers to the need to stay “in character”. The performer has to ensure that they send out the correct signals and hide the occasional compulsion to convey misleading ones that might detract from the performance. According to Goffman (1971), the audience “may read an embarrassing meaning into gestures or events that were accidental, inadvertent, or incidental and not meant by the performer to carry any meaning whatsoever” (p.59). In this data segment, presenter Murdoch relies on the audience to behave accordingly and support her mistake. The audience has high expectations of the host, but in this instance they remained in utmost silence and allowed Murdoch to collect herself. The announcement was perceived as accidental and Murdoch’s expressive control remained relatively intact. Misrepresentation refers to the danger of conveying the wrong message. The audience tends to think of a performance as genuine or false, and performers generally wish to avoid having an audience disbelieve them. In this data segment, Murdoch is aware that her mistake on live television would affect the opinions of the entire nation, as well as the contestants of the show. She attempts to shift the blame to the producers, to save face and repair the damage of the interaction. According to Goffman (1967), “all of these general characteristics of performances can be seen as interaction constraints which play upon the individual and transform his activities into performances… the image he constructs, however faithful to the facts, will be subject to all the disruptions that impressions are subject to.” (p.65).

         Impression management is also evident within the interaction. According to Newman (2009), impression management is an “act presenting a favourable public image of oneself so that others will form positive judgements” (p.184). Newman also states a person’s “relative position in society can also influence impression management” (Newman, 2009, p.172). In this data segment, Murdoch’s reputation as a successful international model, TV presenter, actress, producer and advocate may have helped her impression management. Murdoch is a well-respected and prosperous Australian figure who has had a positive impact on many Australian women with her fruitful campaigns. Giddens (2005) suggests “people are sensitive to how they are seen by others and use many forms of impression management to compel others to react to them in the ways they wish” (p.142). This is seen in the interaction when Murdoch shifts the blame to the producers, and receives sympathy from the confused contestants. There are a variety of social implications within impression management, but not all social implications are positive (Norris, 2011). Murdoch received severe criticism for her blunder, and she has since resigned from the television series. According to Sinha (2009), "Impression management is an active self-presentation of a person aiming to enhance his image in the eyes of others" (p.104). Murdoch and the two contestants elect to handle the situation professionally and prudently, instead of objecting to this live disaster. There is a moment when the camera scans the audience and focuses on Australia’s Next Top Model Judge Alex Perry, gauging his reaction as the announcement is made. Perry, Australian fashion icon, remained speechless as he too realised the mistake that had been made. Murdoch uses her professionalism and experience to deliver the inconceivable news that there has been a mistake in the announcement. “It has been so close… it was literally down to a couple of votes, it kept going back and forwards, back and forwards, and we’ve ended up with Amanda as the winner”. She delivers the news with charisma and dedication, despite the circumstances of the situation.        

Goffman (1971) makes an important distinction between “front stage” and “back stage” behaviour. As the term implies, “front stage” actions are visible to the audience and are part of the performance. People engage in “back stage” behaviours when no audience is present. Relative to this data segment, Murdoch endeavours to sustain her performance at front stage level, however, with the producers in her earpiece we hear her distressed undertone comment to them after the wrong announcement, “I can’t hear anything, I can’t hear!” It is here that an element of back stage performance is noticeably introduced. Once the mistake had been realised, Murdoch’s performance is disrupted with unexpected elements of back stage performance, for example, “This is what happens when you have live TV folks, I’m so sorry.” Murdoch is well aware that she is still being filmed and viewed nation-wide, so she attempts to remain professional and handles the situation with grace. In terms of back stage, Murdoch steps out of front stage character when she announces to the contestants, “I’m so sorry. It was fed to me wrong.” Kelsey accepted the news graciously on camera, but Amanda was stunned and was later heard muttering, “What the f**k was that?”     

The accomplishment of humour, irony and sarcasm is evident within the interaction. It seems somewhat ironic that Amanda’s magazine cover appears during Kelsey’s acceptance speech (1:35). Traditionally, the winner’s cover shoot is displayed as a backdrop after the winner is announced. The cover normally remains as the backdrop for the duration of the finale proceedings. However, in this instance, the runner-up Amanda’s cover shoot appears unexpectedly during the discourse. This is suggestive that there were technical difficulties behind the scenes and that maybe the producers were not entirely aware of the front stage happenings. Amanda’s cover appears before Murdoch reveals that a mistake has been made in the announcement, reinforcing the indication that there was a communication error between Murdoch and producers. Because of the mistake, runner-up Kelsey was awarded a cover by Harper’s Bazaar, $25,000 prize money and a trip to New York, seemingly defeating the purpose of the entire season of Australia’s Next Top Model. The blunder has gravely undermined the credibility of the Australian reality television series, and host Murdoch has since resigned from the television series. Humour is added to the interaction when Amanda responds with a seemingly sarcastic victory, “Woo” (2:55) and some fist pumps after realising she is in fact the winner, but all the attention is still on Murdoch and Kelsey. The crowd responds with laughter and cheering for the new winner, followed by a hug from Kelsey and laughter from host Murdoch.    

This interaction became known as a global blunder, and the YouTube video has had millions of views. It is an example of a macro-interaction that has been under constant media scrutiny, with the breaching of social order, the losing of face, and the visible back stage behaviour. Goffman plays a significant part in the analysis of this data segment, with the theoretical orientations being based primarily around his work. In conclusion, this data segment demonstrated that elements of an interaction can be challenged, breached, upheld, lost, or saved, and it is essential that we recognise these elements of the interaction. Social interaction is a way of life, and without effective methods of communication, this interaction would not occur effectually.           

References

Brown, P & Levinson, SC 1987, Politeness: Some universals in language usage, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Giddens, A 2005, Sociology, Cambridge, UR, UK: Polity Press.

Goffman, E 1955, "On Face-Work: An Analysis of Ritual Elements in Social Interaction," Psychiatry: Journal of Interpersonal Relations, vol.18, no.3, pp213-231.

Goffman, E 1967, “The Nature of Deference and Demeanor,” pp47-96 in Interaction Ritual; Essays on Face to Face Behaviour, New York: Pantheon Books.

Goffman, E 1971, “Performances,” pp28-82 in The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Masumoto, T, Oetzel, JG, Takai, J, Ting-Toomey, S & Yokochi, Y 2000, A Typology of Facework Behaviors in Conflicts with Best Friends and Relative Strangers, Communication Quarterly, vol.4, no.48, pp397+.

Miller, K 2005, Communication Theories: Perspectives, Processes, and Contexts (2nd ed.), New York, New York: McGraw-Hill.

Newman, DM 2009, Sociology: Exploring the architecture of everyday life, Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.

Norris, AR 2011, "Impression Management: Considering Cultural, Social, and Spiritual Factors," Student Pulse, vol.3, no.7.

Paardekopski, 2010, “Wrong Winner Announced for ‘Australia’s Next Top Model’ Finale (HD)”, accessed 4/09/2012, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqVe1iJfrZU

Sinha, JB 2009, Culture and organization national behavior, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Computer Mediated Communication

I came across a reading by Zhao, Grasmuck & Martin (2008) called Identity construction on Facebook: Digital empowerment in anchored relationships.

http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.uow.edu.au/science/article/pii/S0747563208000204

The study looks at identity constructions on Facebook, and explores the online environment. According to Zhao, Grasmuck and Martin (2008),

“As the corporeal body is detached from social encounters in the online environment, it becomes possible for individuals to interact with one another on the Internet in fully disembodied text mode that reveals nothing about their physical characteristics.”

An important characteristic of this emergent mode of identity production is the tendency for people to play-act at being someone else or to put on different online personae that differ from their "real life” identities (Stone, 1996; Turkle, 1995). They use the example of,

“in the online world, a man can pretend to be a woman, a nerd to be a star athlete, and an introvert to be an extrovert.”

The control users have over the privacy settings of their accounts enables them to separate their Facebook pages into many "back” and "front” regions (Goffman, 1959). This allows them to stage different identities for different audiences.

The topic on mediated identity was of great interest to me as it is sparking public concern in the world of Facebook and other forms of CMC. It is interesting to see first-hand how people manipulate their identities through CMC  like Facebook with the intention of creating a “socially desirable self”.

I agree with Zhao, Grasmuck & Martin (2008), “identities are what we convince others to think of us as; it matters not whether that happens online or offline, or whether they are anti-normative or socially desirable.”

Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday.

Stone, A. A. (1996). The war of desire and technology at the close of the mechanical age. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the screen: Identity in the age of the Internet. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Zhao, S., Grasmuch, S., & Martin, J. (2008). Identity construction on Facebook: Digital empowerment in anchored relationships. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 1816–1836.

Profanity Presentation Week 11

Last week Claire and I did our presentation on Profanity. Here is the link to our powerpoint. Enjoy!

http://www.scribd.com/doc/110175343/Lucy-and-Claire-Group-Presentation

Mediated Identity

In response to Kate McAtee’s post “The Internet has become a weapon”.

http://katemcatee1.blogspot.com.au/2012/10/the-internet-has-become-weapon.html

Statistics have suggested that each day, 55 million status updates are made. I find this incredible, and to think that 55 million people have disengaged themselves from the moment to present it to others who are absent seems ridiculous. Why do we update our status? Why do we check in at the beach? Why do we suddenly hashtag everything that comes to mind and sight? It all comes down to mediated identity.

I will agree with Kate, I am guilty of it too. The guilty pleasures of an iPhone. It is all too simple to take a snapshot, choose a filter, upload and bam – you have a hipstomatic photo complete with a check-in, emoticons, hashtags and a box for comments. The obsession with Instagram in this day and age is ludicrous, with people posting images from pets to picnics, and everything in between. We spend so much time making sure our meal looks good in our Instagram photo that it is usually cold by the time we eat it.

In April 2012, Facebook acquired Instagram for approximately $1 billion. Instagram was Facebook's strongest competitor and would have taken over the world of mobile photo sharing. Smart move Facebook.

So Kate, I couldn't agree with you more. Social networking is consuming us one check-in at a time, and it is sad to think that there will be no turning back..

The real question is do people really care about what we are eating for breakfast?  

Where the Bloody Hell Are You?

The $180 million Tourism Australia advertising campaign “Where the bloody hell are you?” was banned worldwide and caused an uproar, especially in Australia.

Here is the television commercial that was banned, which features scenic images of Australia and its beautiful landscapes, rainforests, oceans, cities, beaches and deserts. 

The television commercial was first banned in the United Kingdom in 2007 because of the use of the profanity “bloody” in the commercial. What a double standard coming from a country where they allow the FCUK billboards!

In a reading by Hong, she talks about how Australians use “bloody hell” in their casual conversation. But from an intercultural point of view, saying “bloody hell” may be perceived differently. 

I personally do not find the word “bloody” or the phrase “bloody hell” offensive in any way. I grew up on a cattle station in a very remote area and I have become accustomed to certain profanities due to the nature of my father’s work and the environment in which I grew up. Dad is your typical Aussie farmer – laidback, friendly, and hard-working. Most of the time he is using “bloody” as an intensifier, like “What the bloody hell was that?” or “I saw that bloody stray cat earlier.”

I do, however, understand that different cultures perceive the word as offensive, just as we perceive some gestures in other cultures as offensive. Hong mentions that the word “bloody” may be considered impolite in other cultures, however it has been part of Australian culture for longer than we can remember. 

I agree with Hong, that the phrase “bloody hell” is part of the Australian culture and it should be respected as one of the common and casual phrases. The Tourism Australia advertising campaign should never have been banned, as it would have done wonders for the tourism industry in Australia. 

References

Hong, M 2008, "Where the bloody hell are you?": Bloody hell and (im)politeness in Australian English. Griffith Working Papers in Pragmatics and Intercultural Communication, vol.1, no.1, pp33-39.