Terri Senft

tsenft@gmail.com — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 17:27:50 GMT

I am in the middle of writing something about the global reception of the "Neda" video last June. Building on the theory of 'paranoid reading' (where you see in something what you want to see), I've constructed five different positions from which people have made the statement "I am Neda" after viewing the video of her murder. These scenarios are fictional but based on reading blogs and watching YouTube.

I'm posting them here because I am interested in whether anyone can think of critical ones to add beyond what I've come up with. I'm trying to display a range of positions related to gender, age, nation, diaspora, political leanings.

I AM NEDA: THE RESPONDENTS

• Like all protesters in Iran, I am Neda. Like her, I took to the streets of Tehran and faced state-sponsored violence. True, she was killed for her actions and I haven’t been, but the fight is long from over. For all I know, I may find myself joining her. Neda is a martyr for resistance in Iran, and though the images of her death are shocking, we need them to circulate as widely and graphically as possible, to counter the Iranian government’s white-washing, denial and lies about the incident. 

• Like all Iranian citizens who hope for an end to this unrest, I am Neda. This video represents an orchestrated sacrifice by the West of an ordinary Iranian girl in order to turn international sentiment against the current government.. Neda is a martyr to the West’s murderous need to enforcement of its own geopolitical aims, and to circulate these images is to co-conspire with the murders themselves. 

• Like all members of the Iranian diaspora, I am Neda. I’ve been following what’s been going on in Iran over the news and via Twitter, so I knew there was violence. But watching the video was a very different experience, very galvanizing. There is something so heartbreaking about Neda’s face as she looks into the camera for the last time. If my parents hadn’t left Iran, Neda would have perhaps been me. I think this material needs to circulate as a wake up call to the world that something important is going on in Iran and can’t be ignored. 

• Like all feminists worldwide, I am Neda. Neda stands for every woman in the world who has been targeted by masculine rage in times of political unrest. Here, what we see is a women gunned down for walking in a relatively quiet section of a street, outside of the main protests. The only threat she could have possibly posed to anyone was her symbolic presence as a young female who didn’t choose to wear hijab as she walked towards the protests. Neda was martyred for her nascent feminism, a far bigger threat to Iran than the Green Party could be.

• Like all decent people who believe in democracy, I am Neda. I don’t follow politics very much, but I linked to the video on my blog because I think it’s important people know about it. I guess I sometimes forget that there are countries where people gun down one of their own in cold blood! I don’t think anyone should watch the video more than once, though. We need to circulate this footage with sensitivity.

Something I am going to talk about in Copenhagen on November 25-26

tsenft@gmail.com — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 13:28:31 GMT

Love in the time of Snuff: Social Media, Intimacy, & the Death of Neda Agha-Soltan

Theresa Senft, Programme Leader & Senior Lecturer, Media Studies, University of East London, UK

On a hot June day of protests in Tehran, a young woman named Neda Agha-Soltan is murdered while walking towards her car in broad daylight. A doctor rushes to save her, while a friend of the doctor’s videos the event. After she dies, the doctor uploads the video YouTube. The forty-second video sweeps across the net, galvanizing both activists and casual viewers of Iranian politics. There is something about this video--a beautiful woman, staring into the camera as blood pours from her orifices, legs splayed open--that impossible to forget.

In this presentation, I plan look deeply at the production, consumption and internet-based recirculation of the Neda video. I am particularly interested in interrogating a claim that at least part of the Neda video’s impact on its viewers has to do with the fact that it is constructed like a perfect ‘snuff’ film. Using Susanna Passonnen’s writing on affect and pornography, Judith Butler’s work on the politics of photography at Abu Graib and Jacques Ranciere’s thoughs on ethics in the age of the ‘emancipated spectator’, this talk will consider my own love of social media as a tool of political change against the ‘snuff aesthetics’ of the Neda phenomenon. I argue that in order to produce an ethically robust theory of digital intimacy, we must first account for the fact that online or off it, intimacy is composed of a range of constituent localized parts including (but not limited to) affect, arousal and abjection.

iPhone!!!!

tsenft@gmail.com — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 14:38:52 GMT

This changes EVERYTHING!

Wowee wow

tsenft@gmail.com — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 11:18:23 GMT

People, it is the PERFECT fall (people here say autumn) day! It's crisp enough for a sweater (people here say jumper) but not so cold you want to go indoors. I'm sitting outside on a picnic bench typing away with free wifi. There is a coffee the size of my head next to me. If Denzel Washington showed up to offer me a date and a bag of money, that would make the day better. Otherwise, it's perfect as it is.

The most informal survey EVER, re. celebrity and fanfic

tsenft@gmail.com — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 10:59:43 GMT

Hi Pals,

I'm in the middle of thinking about three separate, though often overlapping, groups of people:

1. People who read (or sneak peaks in the supermarket) at celebrity-based magazines like People, Us, or in Heat (in the U.K.)

2. People who look at celebrity-oriented websites like PerezHilton.com

3. People who participate in making fan fiction (writing or film-based)

I'm wondering where people fit into these categorizations?

Personally, I get a kick out of celebrity magazines and websites, but don't really engage in fanfiction much.

I'm really interested in hearing from fan fiction folks on this one. I have this belief that the fanfic people are radically different from 'regular' celebrity followers, but I could be very wrong on this.

People who want to weigh in to tell us they never, EVER would do something like read celebrity stuff are welcome to chime in, but nobody is going to believe you (kidding, okay?)

Thanks in advance for responses!

T

does this work?

tsenft@gmail.com — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 17:07:43 GMT

Video posting?

tsenft@gmail.com — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 16:47:52 GMT

Hey, does anyone who reads the technical forums know if there are any plans to include videocam posting abilities into LiveJournal? I know I can embed media from other sites but it would be nice to do it on the fly from here...

The public, the private, the passionate.

tsenft@gmail.com — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 14:55:48 GMT

Okay, as promised, here I am!

I'm ready to write, ready to read other people, and generally, ready to come back into the fold. Did you miss me? I missed you. Lots.

Before I write anything I regret later, I wanted to talk about the sort of material I generally make public on this journal, versus what sorts of things I hide from pubic view, and make available only to folks who have access.

Like lots of people here, I like to write, and I like to be read. For me, though, the best part of all this is when I write, someone writes back, then someone responds to that responder, and so on, and so on. I get most excited when my journal starts to feel like a a conversation between like-minded folks. That's how it worked for me when I was hacking my way through my last book. That's how it works for me every time I ask for help brainstorming a syllabus. That's how it online writing works for me when it works.

In my experience, no blogging service facilitates back and forth among users better than LiveJournal. Sure, I'd like the pages to look better, I'd like the archiving to be manageable, I'd like for people to not instantly assume my interests include fan fiction, cutting and the goth lifestyle, based solely on the blogging service I use. But for me, these are small prices to pay for the consistency and community I get from LiveJournal (and let's be honest--I am interested in goths, cutting and fandom from time to time.)

In this spirit, if you would like to be on my Friends List, and you are not right now, let me know. Basically, I am a more the merrier type of person.

On the other hand, if you burn with hatred for LiveJournal and its rule that you must sign up with its service just to read locked posts of others, I get that, too. I don't work for LiveJournal; I just use the damn thing.

For those who would like to read my pre-publication stuff and don't want to go through the hassle of signing in to LiveJournal, I'm happy to put you on an old fashioned one-way mailing list I'm building. Just let me know.

I know some people who have positively byzantine filtering arrangements set up on their LiveJournals, but I basically see things fitting into three categories:

<lj-cut>

PUBLIC STUFF

Public stuff is, well, public.

FRIENDS ONLY (READERS' FILTER)

This would be for pre-publication writing, which I will be doing lots of this year. I suppose I'll keep everyone on my current Friends List on this filter, like I did for the Camgirls book.

If you are a student of mine: Historically, haven't included current students on my Friends List but I'm going to change that since I'm adding a new Personal Filter to which students won't have access. In general, I'm a big yes to students reading pre-publication work, and a big no to students reading me whine that I'm getting old and fat. Not that I do that, but Iike to know the opportunity is there should I need it.

'PERSONAL' FILTER

The personal filter will contain stuff about my mental and physical health, dark nights of the soul, etc. I think I'll keep this to people I know well, or anyone else who says they'd like to be on this filter.

(Interestingly, I've been using Facebook for this purpose over the last few months. I would like to write a bit about this, I think.)

Recap for those who scroll: If you want to be on my Friends list, give a shout. If you want to be on the Personal list as well as the Friends list, also shout. Finally, if you hate LiveJournal and would prefer to be emailed, give a shout. You can do it here or send me a lil email.

Okay, that's it and thanks if you've read this far. Seriously, few things are more dull personal filtering policies, and yet as we grow up, they wind up being necessary evils, don't they?

Hello, world!

tsenft@gmail.com — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 16:17:02 GMT

This time, I'm really really really going to start writing in here again.

I have three different book projects I am hashing out, and I miss talking with LJ people and getting feedback on things.

Is anyone reading here anymore?

How has your summer been?

This weekend, I went swimming for the first time ever in England.

It was, uh, bracing.

More to come tomorrow morning (really)!

Role model.

tsenft@gmail.com — Sat, 23 May 2009 09:38:26 GMT

This is my partner. Two days ago, he donated his kidney to his sister.

Both brother and sister are doing quite well, now.

I think he is amazing. I love him more than anything in the world.

There is a man on the ward who has been waiting for a kidney since 2001.

If you haven't marked 'organ donor' on your driving license, please
do consider it.

Most people in the world don't have a brother like Mike.

Media Studies 2.0

tsenft@gmail.com — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 16:56:11 GMT

I'm only a year late to their party, but I'm really enjoying the conversation between William Merrin and David Gauntlett on "Media Studies 2.0" at:

http://twopointzeroforum.blogspot.com/

Wondering: why aren't more MS programs doing this sort of work? What would it take to get my program refitted along these lines?

Any media or comm. program recommendations?

tsenft@gmail.com — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 15:16:15 GMT

Do you know of any media or comm. programs that try to integrate theory, practice and activism? Any specific teachers who do things like David Silver does inhttp://silverinsf.blogspot.com/2009/01/digital-media-production-spring-09.html ?

I'm open to any and all thoughts, here...

Streaming now: Conference on YouTube and the 2008 Election Cycle (US)

tsenft@gmail.com — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 15:14:07 GMT

The conference "YouTube and the 2008 Election Cycle in the United States" is
streaming live for the duration of the conference at the following URL:

http://youtubeandthe2008election.hosted.panopto.com/CourseCast/Student/Default.aspx

User: guest
Login: youtube

A complete program is available here:
http://www.umass.edu/polsci/youtube/final_program.pdf

You need to return to the home page, refresh and launch the stream for each
speaker.

Final questions on Micro-Celebrity

tsenft@gmail.com — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 16:10:42 GMT

(Quick note: I started to get a little tired, so some of these are far more flip than they ought to be. I doubt anyone's been reading this far, but big thanks if you have!)

Does micro-celebrity threaten traditional celebrities? Does it cheapen them in some way?

I certainly don’t see the process of micro-celebrity as threatening the culture industries. If anything I’m a bit alarmed by the idea of armies of people busy doing the industry’s dirty work for them. It reminds me much like kids working for ‘street teams’ today to bring in information on the latest clothes and sounds, only to have that information packaged and sold back to them as commodity by giants like Sony and MTV.

think in the future, people who want to become bonafide celebrities will be expected to operate as their own promotion machine long before they are managed by places like Hollywood. Tomorrow’s starlets aren’t going to be ‘discovered’ working at the corner store; they’ll already have MySpace locales, online portfolios, and networks of viewers long before Hollywood finds them.

You ask whether the process of micro-celebrity ‘cheapens’ traditional celebrity. Let’s be clear on what celebrity is not, and what it is. Celebrity is not an impartial declaration of merit or talent; it is an economic mechanism designed to keep consumers from asking questions about media ownership, control, and taste-making.

Earlier I noted that celebrity runs on two contradictory messages: fame can come to anyone, yet only some people will be famous. Some people engaged in the process of trying to become celebrities figure this out, while others never quite get it. One of the things that fascinates me about micro-celebrity is the degree to which it helps people ‘get’ the culture industries quicker than they ever have before. As Mark Twain once said, “You learn some things swinging a cat by the tail you learn no other way.”

Is there a way to commercialize micro-celebrity? Are companies trying or are the audiences too small to effectively hawk commercial products?

Today, thanks to Google Adsense and programs like Amazon’s “power sellers’, no audience is too small to hawk commercial products.

What role does discovery play in all of this? Do audiences get upset when their micro-celebrity gets discovered?

That’s a really good question but I don’t have enough data to give you a quotable answer. I’m going to ask people for feedback on my LiveJournal on this one…

Do you think reality television is related to this phenomenon?

I think reality television is related to nearly every significant media-based performance of identity of the last decade, but that’s just me.

Do you see any political undercurrents to micro-celebrity culture?

I certainly do! But this is the topic of my next book, so you’ll have my fully formed thoughts on the matter when I do.

Questions 7 and 8 on Micro-Celebrity

tsenft@gmail.com — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 15:23:34 GMT

Is micro-celebrity being studied in the academy? Is there any prejudice directed at studying micro-celebrity? Are there any other academics working on micro-celebrity?

I get about one or two pieces of email a week from students interested in writing about micro-celebrity. I can recommend two excellent academics doing this sort of work: Alice Marwick from New York University (see http://www.tiara.org/blog/) danah boyd from Microsoft (see http://www.danah.org/) There are probably lots and lots of other people out there. I often don’t know what’s being researched until someone’s standing next to their book at a conference!

Is there more of a proprietary feeling among audiences of various micro-celebrities than there would be with fans of actors or more traditional celebs?

This is a hard question for me to answer, because I don’t study fan communities in depth, but I think it says something that I bristled a bit when reading the word ‘fan’ used in combination with micro-celebrity (even though I’ve used it myself!) Take my own case of micro-celebrity: there may be people who think of themselves as my fans, but the idea of it sort of weirds me out. That wouldn’t be the case were I trying to position myself as a bonafide celebrity.

This talk of a ‘proprietary feeling’ is interesting to me, as well. We feel proprietary when we own something (or want to own it.) Again, while some folks probably do feel proprietary feelings for people engaged in micro-celebrity, I think a far more common feeling is a demand for accountability and connection to ones community. We don’t expect Jennifer Aniston to email us back, but many of us do feel sort of left out if we comment on someone’s LiveJournal and they don’t respond to us.

Questions 4, 5, 6 on Micro-Celebrity

tsenft@gmail.com — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 15:09:55 GMT

(continued from the reporter's questions)

Does the rise of blogs and Youtube democratize the celebrity-selection process?

Yes, to the extent that celebrity can ever be thought of in the same breath as democracy (see my remarks on P. David Marshall, above.) I prefer the term ‘popularize’.

What about the fact that the celebrity of micro-celebrity seems based around people who aren’t that talented or who only have one talent, does that prevent them from going mainstream?

People engaged in micro-celebrity tend to reach certain audiences because they give interesting perspectives, offer what others see as useful information, seem quirky, or present something that touches others emotionally. They may strike viewers as professional, attractive, funny talented, gifted and so forth. However, and as one million episodes of Star Search have shown, none of this means these individuals have what it takes to enter today’s film, recording, or advertising industries.

The means of production is inexpensive, but do you think that the various stages on which micro-celebrities are performing (like youtube) are becoming more commercialized?

Certainly, and I suppose the convergences we are seeing between content in places like MySpace, YouTube and MTV is fueling lots of hopes among folks who would like to transmit their micro-celebrity activities to celebrity cash. Personally, I wouldn’t quit my day job.

Question 3 on Micro-Celebrity

tsenft@gmail.com — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 14:56:05 GMT

You mentioned that micro-celebrities are more ‘real’ than their celebrity counterparts, but isn’t their personality still a performance or brand? Aren’t we deluding ourselves the same way we are when we presume to ‘know’ Paul Newman?

The simplest answer to your question is “yes.” That said, aren’t we deluding ourselves anytime we think we know someone else completely?

Sociologist Erving Goffman has an argument I find very useful when we’re thinking about who or what is ‘real’, online or off. For Goffman, identity amounts to little more than a series of performances directed to particular audiences in our lives. If you think about it for a moment, it makes sense. The ‘me’ who is a student differs from the ‘me’ who is daughter, and the ‘me’ who is a girlfriend has similarities to (but distinct differences from) the ‘me’ who is a best friend. Different audiences, different realities presented.

If we use Goffman as a starting point, the question switches from “Are people engaged in micro-celebrity practice just as unreal as Hollywood-style celebrities” to “what audiences are being addressed by each group?” The audience address of a Hollywood celebrity is quite specific: their sole function is to service a paying customer of some sort. The audience addressed by someone engaged in micro-celebrity is much harder to pin down.

When I was studying camgirls (women who webcam from their homes, attempting to gain a modicum of fame in the process), paying customers were often a consideration. When I study academics trying to reach students beyond their university by building themselves into a brand, money might or might not figure into the equation. When I was studying young girls circulating YouTube videos of their dancing to friends inside their high school cliques, money didn’t figure in the equation at all.

It’s important to remember that celebrities are commodities masquerading as people, while individuals engaged in micro-celebrity are people experimenting with branding themselves as commodity. We can never ‘know’ the Jennifer Aniston we want to know, because frankly, she’s not a person, she’s a product. In my experience, the same is not true of people engaged in micro-celebrity, who tend not to have things like managers, public relations assistants and other sorts of ‘handlers.’

Because they are human, people engaged in micro-celebrity are just as capable of one-sided presentation, spin and outright lies as are the rest of us. The difference between these people and bonafide celebrities is that for the latter group, misrepresentation is not a accident or a strategy: it’s a structuring fact of existence.

Question 2: In what ways does micro-celebrity resemble conventional celebrity? How does it differ?

tsenft@gmail.com — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 14:10:55 GMT

(Continuing reporter's questions in this series...)

P.David Marshall writes that celebrity embodies two contradictory ideologies within American culture: democracy (in which everyone is equal) and capitalism (in which some of us are more equal than others.) Micro-celebrity likewise reflects this tension: while all sorts of people can engage in the practice of micro-celebrity, only some will get the sort of attention and notice they desire. Having said this, I think the differences between celebrity and micro-celebrity are more significant than the similarities.

Celebrity describes a product of the culture industries, and has gradations that are a direct reflection of the market: this is why we can speak of minor celebrities, niche celebrities, subcultural celebrities and so forth. On the other hand, micro-celebrity describes a process by which people express their identities online. If you ask whether someone is a micro-celebrity, you’ve missed the point. Micro-celebrity is something you do, not something you are.

Micro-celebrity looks like celebrity-fashioning, but it’s not, in part because there is no ‘man behind the curtain’ orchestrating our look, our lines, our communication for the world. Certainly, there are those engaged in the practice of micro-celebrity who may well want to become bonafide celebrities of one sort or another, but it’s certainly not the desire for most of us who engage in the practice.

Think of it this way: when I’m going to a party, I often put on my Marilyn Monroe dress. I don’t do this because I’m hoping to get discovered by Hollywood: I do it because it’s fun! Now, I’m not saying people who engage in micro-celebrity are blind to the allure of celebrity, of course not. I’m the product of a mother who thought Marilyn Monroe was glamorous, and I’m sure it’s rubbed off on me, which means Hollywood is having no small influence on my ideas about femininity, sexuality and so forth. But is this the same as saying that I dress like Marilyn because I want to be Marilyn? Certainly not.

Question: Did you coin the term micro-celebrity? Why that terminology?

tsenft@gmail.com — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 14:03:59 GMT

(I've been answering some reporter's questions on micro-celebrity. I'm going to post my thoughts in the next few posts. Feel free to read or skip!)

To my knowledge, I coined the term micro-celebrity. I was trying to describe what I saw as a newish cultural phenomenon: the desire to present oneself to others over the Web using tools formerly associated with celebrity promotion.

To understand the development of micro-celebrity, it helps to remember the early days of internet communication, when people usually conceptualized online identity as a place of play and anonymity. The classic example is the famous New Yorker cartoon in the 1990’s that featured two dogs and had the tagline, “On the Internet, nobody knows you’re a dog.”

Although anonymity still flourishes in plenty of online places today, it seems to me that identity in a time of “Web 2.0” functions differently. Some of us think of our online identity in terms of our avatars in online gaming, but far more of us think of it in terms of the fonts we use on our home pages, the blogs we’re asked to post to for on behalf of our schools and companies, the networked photos others post of us on Facebook, the follows we receive on Twitter, the serialization of our videos on YouTube. We present ourselves through media, we are experienced as media, and we often experience ourselves as media.

When I took classes on personal identity, I learned about the ‘big three’ (race, class, gender) which then expanded into sexuality, religion, nation, language, age, and ability. I think it’s time to add two new categories to this list: market and brand. To make media (and that is what we are doing when we go online) is to determine an audience—a market-- or one’s message. One of the most successful ways to signal a desired market is to brand. We now have the tools to do this, the desire is there, and often, the process works effectively. Why wouldn’t we engage in these behaviors?

Come hang out with me in June at U. of Salford!

tsenft@gmail.com — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 14:15:12 GMT

2nd Digital Cultures Workshop: Social Media Publics
4-5 June 2009, University of Salford, U.K.

Final Call for Contributions

Organizers
Ben Light and Marie Griffiths, University of Salford
Sian Lincoln, Liverpool John Moores University
Steve Sawyer, Syracuse University

Confirmed Speakers
Dr. Carsten Sørensen - Information Systems and Innovation Group, Department of Management, London School of Economics
Dr. Theresa Senft - School of Social Sciences, Media and Cultural Studies, University of East London

It is clear that the boundaries between the 'public' and the 'private' are becoming increasingly blurred within and amongst sites of home and work. Indeed, in the wake of reality television shows, national identity card schemes, increased social media usage and the like, publicity appears to be the order of the day. For this workshop we seek papers that discuss the issues raised for those living in environments where there is seemingly little room for privacy. As was the case last year, we intend for the workshop to be multi-disciplinary in nature, broad in the approaches participants take and issues they cover. If your work is about any aspect of digital culture, this is the workshop for you! The following are thus only indicative of potential topics that could be raised:

- How do people domesticate social media in their attempts to maintain a balance in publicity and privacy? Do they? Why do they, or don't they?
- What matters are raised by increased access to data about individuals and organizations?
- What does the blurring of boundaries between public and private mean for our knowledge and experiences of gender, sexuality, race, ethnicity and disability?
- How are ICT mediated spaces created and maintained at home, work and those spaces in between? For example, how are 'geek gamers' finding spaces to play now the only console in the house can be in the living room?
- How are ICT policies shaping public and private spaces throughout societies around the world?
- What privacy issues are presented by media convergence?
- What role are mobile and ubiquitous computing technologies playing in public and private spaces?
- How is the increased commodification of social media affecting our privacy?

Following from the first workshop we continue to see this workshop having three purposes. First, we seek to give voice and structure to existing new media, ICT and technology related research which may not readily sit within conventionally accepted areas. Second, we wish to draw in research on new forms of digital technology, ICT, computing, organizing and social interactions. Third, we want to continue discussions regarding potential futures for ICT related research which combine research as related to the evolving forms and functions of work organizations and the changing boundaries and relations between these organizations and their social milieus.
We seek abstracts (of up to 600 words) that focus upon some aspect of digital culture. We hope to have a special issue of a journal associated with the workshop as was the case last year (a special issue of the Journal of Information, Communication, Ethics and Society was published early in 2009 - Vol 7, Issue 1). Abstracts should be submitted to Ben Light at: b.light@salford.ac.uk

Important Dates
Abstract Submission Date: 28 February 2009
Notification of Acceptance: 31 March 2009
Workshop Dates: 4 and 5 June 2009

Workshop Arrangements
The fee for presentation/attendance at the workshop is £75 GBP. This will cover refreshments and meals throughout the workshop and a workshop dinner to be held on the evening of the 4th of June.
There is no fee for PhD students, however they still need to register for the workshop. PhD student registration includes refreshments during the workshop but excludes attendance at the workshop dinner (This is subject to a £25 GBP fee, payable upon registration).

You will be able to register for the workshop at: https://shop.salford.ac.uk <https://shop.salford.ac.uk/>
Further details regarding the location of the workshop will be posted nearer the time at: http://www.iris.salford.ac.uk <http://www.iris.salford.ac.uk/>

Today's Truman Show

tsenft@gmail.com — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 15:25:20 GMT

So a reporter from Newsweek is calling me to briefly discuss the ten year anniversary of The Truman Show. I thought it would be funny to take the call while broadcasting myself and tell him midway through that it's happening. Feel free to join in!

The Elaine and Terri show

tsenft@gmail.com — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 19:13:12 GMT

We are live and drinking wine, for all my American friends.
Come chitty chat behind the cut

Request for brainstorming help on classes/instructors

tsenft@gmail.com — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 12:26:49 GMT

Hi Folks

So, my book is supposed to be winging its way to my door and now I am in the process of preparing for marketing stuff. I hope you don't mind me sucking your brains but I have a request that needs many heads.

Basically, I am assembling a list of academics to whom I might send a book announcement, or even a desk copy of the book for their consideration for use in classes. What I would love help is the following:

IF YOU ARE AN STUDENT:

I'd love to hear any memory of a class you took in the past or you've heard of being offered at your school in the following areas:

--cyberculture or internet studies
--cultural studies
--women's or gender studies
--film studies (particularly contemporary uses of film)
--sociology and youth culture or social networks
--performance studies
--anything else you think might mesh with a book like Camgirls

If you could tell me who is teaching it and/or where it's been offered, I'll do the legwork and locate the contact info. And I certainly wouldn't mention your name when contacting the person unless you said that was okay. My intention wouldn't be to spam anyone, but rather to send offers of desk copies to appropriate folks.

IF YOU ARE A TEACHER:

I'd love to know of any colleagues you have in the above areas who might be interested in getting a desk or review copy of the book. Again, I wouldn't mention your name unless you expressly told me that was okay. I'm just looking for knowledge-sharing along the lines of "So and so does that at my school; they might be interested, why don't you write and see?"

I'm also very interested in hearing from people who might consider reviewing the book, both for scholarly journals, but also for blogs around the net.

As ever, I promise free beer and a big smooch to anyone kind enough to help a sister out.

THANKS!

p.s. If you feel shy about writing here, you can always email me: tsenft at gmail dot com

This is a test

tsenft@gmail.com — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 10:43:04 GMT

Hot camgirl action!

UK pals, thoughts?

tsenft@gmail.com — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 14:24:45 GMT

I'm trying to make a list of people's favorite UK publications, radio shows and tv programming in the areas of:

1. Tech culture

2. Pop culture

3. Women's issues

Can you help?

I'll start: <lj user=rhodri>'s Cyberclinic column for the Independent