Audience Addressed Invoked Involved Enraged Provoked Erin Karper

Audience Addressed, Invoked, Involved, Enraged, Provoked Erin Karper, Niagara University Computers and Writing 2016

Key Questions • How can we categorize audience response(s) to social media posts? • Why do some audience members react to content on social media by submitting posts to “shaming” sites? • What implications does this have in our classrooms?

Audience Response and Social Media • “Many […] easily forget that when they post something on the Web they may encounter unwanted audiences. ” • “Student[s] experience the Internet and many of its sites as fairly private, when the reality is that audiences are there all the time, browsing, searching, engaging, responding, sometimes accusing. ” (Lunsford and Ede, 2008)

Some Relevant Theories of Audience • Audience addressed/Audience invoked (Lunsford and Ede) • Audience involved (Johnson) • Audience enraged/audience provoked

What is the enraged/provoked audience? • Audience involved: audience interaction through likes, upvotes, or comments. • Audience enraged/audience provoked: pathosbased reaction outside of the existing post.

What are “shaming sites? ” • Sites whose primary purpose is to publish user -submitted screenshots or other content captured from social media sites. • Content is posted without permission of the original poster. • Identifying information such as usernames is often redacted. • Discussion of the content often takes place in comments on the site.

Some Shaming Sites • Stand-alone sites: Lamebook, Fail. Blog • STFU sites: STFU Parents, STFU Believers • Sub. Reddits: Cringe Pics, Old People Facebook

Lamebook

STFU Parents

Old People Facebook

Why shame your “friends? ” • Facebook allows direct audience reaction/interaction; • Facebook also allows people to hide content and block users; • Why would people submit something to a shaming site instead of engaging directly or blocking/hiding content?

Differing expectations • Different expectations about “appropriate” content for Facebook posts.

The “Real World” Theory • Facebook “friendships” are supposed to mirror actual friendships. • Our “real identities” are expected to be used on Facebook.

Therefore… • “If you couldn’t say it to their face, you can’t say it to them on Facebook. ” • Where can one go with one’s outrage, then?

Why should we care? • Is “shaming behavior” inappropriate? • What about privacy expectations from users whose content is shared? • How do we keep audiences engaged and not enraged?

What about the classroom? • How can different models of audience – invoked, addressed, involved, enraged – help students understand model audience expectations and reactions?

References Alexander, Jonathan. “Media Convergence: Creating Content, Questioning Relationships. ” Computers and Composition 25. 1 (2008): 1 -8. Ede, Lisa and Andrea Lunsford. “Audience Addressed/Audience Invoked: The Role Of Audience In Composition Theory And Pedagogy. ” College Composition and Communication 35. 2 (1984): 155 -171. -----. “Representing Audience: "Successful" Discourse and Disciplinary Critique. ” College Composition and Communication 47. 2 (1984): 167 -179. -----. “‘Among the Audience’: On Audience in an Age of New Literacies. ” Teaching Audience: Theory and Practice. NCTE: 2008. Jenkins, Henry. Convergence Culture: Where Old And New Media Collide. New York: New York UP: 2006. Johnson, Robert R. “Audience Involved: Toward A Participatory Model Of Writing. ” Computers and Composition 14. 3 (1997): 361 -376. Reiff, Mary Jo. “Rereading Invoked And Addressed Readers Through A Social Lens: Toward A Recognition Of Multiple Audiences. ” JAC: A Journal of Composition heory 16. 3 (1997): 407 -424. Images were taken from Someecards.