Journal of Entertainment and Media Studies. Vol. 2 Issue 2 (2016) 2
Online Music Television: New Media, Same Celebrity
Jordan McClain Drexel University
Amanda McClain Holy Family University
Abstract
This article explores celebrity construction in online music television, considering the Web’s transformation of television and the rise of online video consumption. A discourse analysis examined celebrity in the first 20 episodes of Pitchfork Weekly, an online video series created by influential music criticism/journalism website Pitchfork. Findings address six themes that support celebrity ideology and help the site construct music celebrities: setting, rating system, audience/fans/performance, artists’ products, hard work, and celebrity references. The article concludes that although Pitchfork is known for its independent-minded approach to music coverage, it still bolsters the celebrity- machine that dominates mass culture. Pitchfork Weekly may epitomize a new form of music television, but there is little new about the way it works and the messages it constructs about celebrity.
Music and television have been intrinsically linked since the early years of popular television and together have helped create innumerable celebrities. From
American Bandstand to MTV’s Total Request Live and American Idol to Glee or Empire, music and television have become a thriving, symbiotic pair—they illustrate and engender cultural ideals related to gender norms, beauty stereotypes, youth culture, and more. Television, ubiquitous in global culture, informs viewers about the society in which they participate, as well as norms and behaviors of other cultures or subcultures.
Thus, television’s structure and content—whether viewed on a box in the family room or Journal of Entertainment and Media Studies. Vol. 2 Issue 2 (2016) 3 on a website in a dorm—are important to study in order to explore and analyze current ideology maintenance and to reveal components of modern culture. This includes examination of celebrity, such as those who represent and embody and transmit normalized ideals, which television—in particular music television—plays a major role in creating and sustaining. While television transforms due to the Web’s influence, these factors play out in news ways and on different screens. As conceptions of television shift, research must address such issues.
In a special issue of Journal of Popular Music Studies that examined popular music on television, Delmont and Forman (2013) pointed to the medium’s evolution and import, stating, “while many of the distribution technologies have changed, screens continue to be primary sites of pleasure and profit for cultural engagements with popular music” (p. 293). Ultimately, the authors argued that “music has been crucial to every era of television, providing profitable content, pioneering new televisual technologies…” (p.
298). Indeed, music and television continue to intersect online, with the potential to affect culture profoundly. For instance, one of the Web’s most interesting and influential contemporary opinion leaders is Pitchfork Media’s Pitchfork.com (1996-present)1, which claims about “7 million monthly unique visitors” and to be “read daily by the most passionate music fans” (“Advertising | Pitchfork,” 2016). The site is devoted to multimedia coverage of new music across genres, is a self-defined “leading voice in independent music and beyond” (“Advertising | Pitchfork,” 2013), and has described itself accordingly on Facebook: Journal of Entertainment and Media Studies. Vol. 2 Issue 2 (2016) 4
Pitchfork is the web’s most popular independent music resource, with expansive
daily coverage of indie rock, hip-hop, electronic, pop, metal, and experimental
music.
Publishing daily reviews, features, and interviews, as well as real-time music
news coverage, Pitchfork has developed one of the web’s most devoted and loyal
followings, in the process spawning Chicago’s annual Pitchfork Music Festival
and the online music video channel Pitchfork.tv. (Pitchfork About, 2014)
Addressing Pitchfork’s influence, Time magazine (2011) called the site “the Pravda of indie rock, steering opinion (and sales).” Pitchfork is known for its often sensationalist reviews and the notion that “a rave review on the site can practically guarantee a band’s success,” when proclaimed by “indie rock’s biggest tastemaker” (Lowery, 2011). This research explores how Pitchfork’s Pitchfork Weekly online video series is a powerful representation of music television’s latest forms, providing exposure for select artists and thereby setting an authoritative agenda for various forms of musical taste and helping construct celebrities via new media.
This article uses a discourse analysis to locate and analyze themes of celebrity in
Pitchfork Weekly content. The purpose is to understand what celebrity-related ideological underpinnings characterize online modern music television as audiences supplement or replace traditional consumption with more Web-based consumption. This research furthers our comprehension of how, in a rapidly evolving media landscape, prominent websites like Pitchfork and programs such as Pitchfork Weekly form and reflect our social world. This is valuable since little research has investigated the concept of celebrity construction in relation to online music television. To understand such Journal of Entertainment and Media Studies. Vol. 2 Issue 2 (2016) 5 phenomena, this article considers research about television studies and celebrity, then interprets the case of Pitchfork Weekly in the context of music television. Ultimately, the article concludes that Pitchfork Weekly may epitomize a new form of music television, but there is little new about the way it works and the messages it constructs about celebrity.
History, Context, and Literature
To examine this case of the Pitchfork Weekly online video series—conceived here as a contemporary form of music television—the following sections provide history, context, and literature about the influence of the Internet on TV consumption and the general significance of TV, what has defined music television, and how this all relates to the notion of celebrity in society.
Television and the Internet: Beyond the Box
Television content has moved beyond its previous encapsulation within a stationary box inside the home. TV is now also online. This shift has expanded the boundaries of what television is or can be. Today, someone might view television content on a small-screen mobile device carried in a pocket around the world, on a desktop computer at the office, or via a laptop connected to a TV display. Content produced for conventional television is available online through digital media stores like
Apple’s iTunes Store, apps like HBO GO or HBO NOW, and websites like Hulu.
Additionally, original online content often imitates series formats modeled after television—popular digital video streaming services have embraced and are substantially investing in production of new TV-like content, such as Netflix’s Arrested Development
(post-FOX-network episodes, fourth season and beyond) and House of Cards or Journal of Entertainment and Media Studies. Vol. 2 Issue 2 (2016) 6
Amazon’s The Man in the High Castle and Alpha House (“Customers Have Spoken,”
2013; Stelter, 2013).
Consumption of online video and television content has significantly grown in recent years. A report by The Pew Internet and American Life Project stated that 52% of all adult Americans had watched online videos (Purcell, 2010). The report attributed such ubiquity of online video to “broadband access, the increased use of social networking sites… [and] the popularity of video-sharing sites” (Purcell, 2010). In 2012, according to a Cisco-sponsored study, professionally produced video content was the most-watched category of web video, with the average broadband subscriber watching over 100 minutes per week. Of those subscribers, “seventy-four percent… watch their favorite TV shows online at least weekly” (Tribbey, 2012). Reports like these emphasize the remarkable increase in consumption of online video and television content, and thus the importance of studying emerging online models (like online music television) with consideration to established offline models (like historical music television). As television evolves due to the influence of the Internet, it is apparent that TV content remains a major part of popular culture.
Television is a powerful medium that shapes the world in which we live. Fiske
(1987) explained that “television-as-culture is a crucial part of the social dynamics by which the social structure maintains itself in a constant process of production and reproduction” (p. 1). Television conveys culture through its content, thus teaching audiences about their world. Through TV consumption audiences may learn about norms related to race, class, gender, and much more, as content depicts cultural standards and socializes youth (Tuchman, Daniels, & Benet, 1978). In this sense, television is a Journal of Entertainment and Media Studies. Vol. 2 Issue 2 (2016) 7
“cultural agent” and “provoker and circulator of meanings” (Fiske, 1987, p. 1), functioning to help hegemonically sustain dominant societal ideologies, such as those related to celebrity, consumerism, commercialism, or capitalism (Hall, 1980/1991;
Marshall, 1997; Miller, 1988). TV accomplishes this through depictions of recognizable codes of meaning that refer to such status quo ideals, thus ultimately naturalizing them
(Fiske, 1987; 2000). For these reasons and more, studying television can tell us much about culture and provide a path to explore and analyze ideologies that regularly characterize it.
Music Television & Celebrity
Trendsetting American Bandstand was one of the first popular programs to link music and commercialism through televised sound and images, as well as help create celebrities out of musical guests and influence youth culture (Delmont, 2012). Pioneers like The Ed Sullivan Show had demonstrated the extent to which musicians appearing on television could lead to media attention and enhanced celebrity (e.g., Elvis, the Beatles).
MTV, the most well known channel dedicated to music television, came to rely heavily on the celebrity of pop stars and the video jockeys themselves. For years, the network’s popular music videos helped create celebrities and, in turn, stars like Madonna and
Michael Jackson grew MTV’s ratings and audiences. While the nature of MTV’s programming has shifted over the years, the network’s essential link between music, commerce, and celebrity is still forceful. Appearing on MTV still promises to augment a performer’s image and heighten popularity. Online, Internet television channels such as
VEVO TV continue this by imitating MTV with “broadcast-style music and video” content that is “Just like TV!,” but “available anywhere and everywhere” (Cerda & Journal of Entertainment and Media Studies. Vol. 2 Issue 2 (2016) 8
McVehil, 2013). Recent TV shows like American Idol, X Factor, and The Voice have spotlighted the rise of the unknown performer to superstar, inviting TV viewers to participate in music celebrity construction through voting. The ostensibly transparent depiction of the star-making process illuminates the notion of manufactured music celebrity and the potential of television to help engineer such fame. Many scholars (Bell,
2010; Jenkins, 2006; McClain, 2011; Meizel, 2011) have examined the way that
American Idol, for example, exploits relationships between purported audience agency, consumption, and celebrity.
A major thread through the history of music television has been the construction and normalization of celebrity. While celebrities have long existed (for historical analyses of celebrity, see Braudy, 1997; DeCordova, 1990; Dyer, 1986/2004), modern media like radio and television brought about a new type of music celebrity. Boorstin
(1961/1992) defined a celebrity as a “person known for his well-knownness” (p. 57).
This does not hinge upon talent or any intrinsic quality, but is more about merely receiving attention. Turner (2004) defined celebrity as both “a genre of representation and a discursive effect” (p. 9). He discussed three distinct ways of understanding celebrity: as a product of discourse, as a means of accomplishing social functions, or as a commodity (p. 9). In other words, a celebrity might become famous by gaining media attention, resonating with an audience because he/she embodies dominant social norms like coolness or beauty, or appearing in advertisements or performing on television or stage.
Celebrities embody and normalize incarnations of ideology, which “structures the common understanding of the nature of the world that is shared by members of a society” Journal of Entertainment and Media Studies. Vol. 2 Issue 2 (2016) 9
(Hertog & McLeod, 2003, p. 144). Because dominant ideology may be accepted without much challenge, it can be viewed as “commonsense of the culture” (Hertog & McLeod,
2003, p. 144). People make sense of their world through the lens of dominant ideologies
(Williams, 1981). Various ideologies, such as capitalism, democracy, beauty definitions, social standing, and coolness may be inherent within the notion of celebrity. Marshall
(1997) noted that due to the implicit ideology within the creation and maintenance of celebrity, the “system of veneration… is more important than what any one of the individual celebrities represents” (p. 11). That is, the concept of celebrity, and its implication that one person is better or more fashionable than average people, has significance beyond what a famous person does or looks like. Because media assert that some celebrity musicians are talented or beautiful or somehow otherwise special, audiences may buy their merchandise and pay more attention to them, helping to sustain the system of veneration and its consequences. Thus, the existence of the celebrity industry, including media that endorse and build fame for musical celebrities, upholds the current social structure and its accompanying economic systems.
According to Marshall (1997), musicians are a particular type of celebrity. They may be accorded fame based on a unique combination of musical talent, performance style, and supposed authenticity. Along these lines, Gamson (1994) contended that two narratives of fame exist: fame earned by merit or fame earned by media mechanisms.
While celebrities may emerge from either talent or media, a music celebrity seems to combine aspects of both. The music celebrity has an ostensible skill that warrants celebrity and likely gains fame produced by media professionals such as journalists, public relations experts, or other talent managers (Gamson, 1994). These “cultural Journal of Entertainment and Media Studies. Vol. 2 Issue 2 (2016) 10 intermediaries” help cultivate the public persona available for consumption (Rojek, 2001, p. 10).
For example, Hollywood movie stars, typically reliant upon cultural intermediaries, have often had successful music careers in addition to appearing on screen; these careers link the stars to commodification of self and the promotion of consumerism (DeCordova, 1990). Celebrities like Marilyn Monroe, Dean Martin, and
Frank Sinatra sang on- and off-screen, selling their image and commodifying their fame.
Today, we see the same from people like Jennifer Lopez, Justin Timberlake, and Selena
Gomez. Historically, celebrities have relied on media to establish and maintain fame.
This is still true today, but now unceasing public discourse, accomplished through a potent mixture of traditional and new media—from Twitter and Instagram to TMZ or
Pitchfork—is a major part of celebrity construction. Thus, this article examines new media content from Pitchfork Media to study such issues.
Pitchfork.com, Pitchfork.tv, and Pitchfork Weekly
Pitchfork Media’s Pitchfork.com is a daily online publication dedicated to coverage of “independent” music and more. To many fans of contemporary music,
Pitchfork is understood as “the music Web site that is our era’s Rolling Stone”
(Molotkow, 2012, p. 53). According to The New York Times, Pitchfork is “the most prominent brand in online music journalism… widely believed to have the power to pluck a band from obscurity and thrust it into the indie consciousness, and to push it out just as quickly" (Caramanica, 2010). The site is frequently noted for this so-called
“Pitchfork effect,” the remarkable power of its coverage to help noticeably popularize an Journal of Entertainment and Media Studies. Vol. 2 Issue 2 (2016) 11 act or hinder success (Itzkoff, 2006; Lowery, 2011; Rogers, 2006; Thomas, 2006). While it is sensible to question the actual extent of such media effects and proposed influence over related consumers and industries, there is little doubt that Pitchfork has become a powerful tastemaker. Considering Pitchfork’s perceived weighty influence and its growth alongside the impact of new media on popular culture, Molotkow (2012) argued that Pitchfork “made its name initially by writing obscurely about the obscure. Now it makes itself indispensible by doing the opposite: by interfacing between genres and across all levels of fame” (p. 53).
Pitchfork.tv (launched in 2008) is a video-centric subsite of Pitchfork.com (Kot,
2008; Van Buskirk, 2008). Comprised of original programming broken into what it labels “shows,” Pitchfork.tv features various types of content: interviews, live performances, music videos, a weekly news program, documentaries, and other formats. In this way, it is Pitchfork’s “version of MTV” (Kot, 2008). In 2012
Pitchfork.tv established its own YouTube channel, formally partnering with the behemoth, Google-owned video site to “[bring Pitchfork’s] vision of music coverage to a wider audience” (“Presenting Pitchfork.tv,” 2012). As a result of the partnership,
Pitchfork.tv boasted broad accessibility and advanced professional technology, such as high-quality video and audio. In acknowledgment of such work, Pitchfork.tv won the
2013 Webby Award—which honors “excellence on the Internet” and is presented by the
International Academy of Digital Arts and Sciences—for the best Entertainment
(Channel) in the Online Film and Video category. Winning this, Pitchfork beat prominent competitors like Nerdist Channel and Sony’s Crackle (“Entertainment
(Channel),” 2013). Likewise, Pitchfork.com won the 2013 National Magazine Award for Journal of Entertainment and Media Studies. Vol. 2 Issue 2 (2016) 12
General Excellence in Digital Media (“National Magazine Awards 2013 Winners
Announced,” 2013). This award recognizes print and online content “that consistently demonstrate[s] superior execution of editorial objectives, innovative editorial techniques, noteworthy journalistic enterprise and imaginative design” (“About ASME,” 2013).
In particular, the Pitchfork.tv show Pitchfork Weekly (started in 2012) is a video series that highlights music-related news, interviews, reviews, occasional performances, and more, typically covering artists also featured by the text-based portion of
Pitchfork.com. Pitchfork Weekly is well understood as the hybrid spawn of modern
Internet culture and early The Week in Rock/MTV News programming. Similarities with the latter abound, but one main structural difference is that Pitchfork Weekly lacks a constant central host/anchor à la conventional TV news. Overall, Pitchfork Weekly is the more visual incarnation of the careful selection and critical evaluation for which
Pitchfork.com has become notorious.
The Pitchfork Weekly series is an important case study because Pitchfork is recognized as a significant content producer and the site embodies key issues related to new and traditional media, popular culture and subcultures, and online celebrity. With this in mind, the following analysis examines Pitchfork Weekly episodes to explore such issues. Given the contextual background of changing technologies affecting the television and music industries, as well as the compelling culture of celebrity, this study asked the following research question: How does Pitchfork Weekly construct celebrity?
Method
A discourse analysis methodically examined the first 20 episodes of Pitchfork.tv’s
Pitchfork Weekly program. Comparable to a season of traditional television, this Journal of Entertainment and Media Studies. Vol. 2 Issue 2 (2016) 13 collection involved enough episodes and time range to explore meaningful patterns. To answer the research question the authors accessed the Pitchfork Weekly episodes via the
Pitchfork.tv website (Macia & Bentler, 2012), between June 1, 2012, and June 1, 2013.
The 20 episodes ranged in duration from about 5:30 to 14:30, averaged about 10:30 in length, and dated from February 17, 2012, to June 29, 2012. Analysis of this content aimed to understand if and how Pitchfork Weekly constructs the celebrity ideologies commonly supported by traditional incarnations of music television (e.g., American
Bandstand, MTV, American Idol, etc.).
Discourse research may analyze language, visual images, verbal or non-verbal communication in order to ascertain how discourse reproduces and maintains social identities and systems of knowledge (Fairclough, 2000). Such discourse, spoken or written, is considered a “central and constitutive feature of social life” (Wood & Kroger,
2000, p. 4). In this way, discourse helps construct the world we inhabit, as opposed to simply reflecting it. Via discourse, audiences consume and build knowledge, thereby learning about societal significations (Barthes, 1977). Television content typically includes commercial discourses, which position audiences as consumers, receptive of intended messages (Strinati, 1995). Discourse often advocates a particular point of view and may be used to position authority, like that of experts, advertisers, or celebrities.
The process of discourse analysis involves searching a text—its language, imagery, music, and more—for patterns or themes, particularly noting repetition or omission to understand “how the discourse is structured or organized to perform various functions and achieve various effects” (Wood & Kroger, 2000, p. 95). In this undertaking it is important to consider context, which “includes the physical setting in Journal of Entertainment and Media Studies. Vol. 2 Issue 2 (2016) 14 which the communication takes place and everything in it,” and encompasses “shared cultural knowledge” (Gee, 2011, p. 6). Shared cultural knowledge privileges those who are aware of and familiar with inside information; Pitchfork Weekly communicates in this way by assuming background knowledge from audiences and routinely eschewing explicit statements about a featured performer’s typically-expected credentials (e.g., name, biographical details, credibility). Consequently, viewers either need to possess contextual information already, watch and then seek such context, or miss essential messages. For each episode in this study, the authors made sense of the content through pertinent cultural knowledge and additional research. Together the authors watched the full video, discussed the content, rewatched and took notes on the patterns and themes, then rewatched the most notable segments of the episode to transcribe and compile key quotes and evidence related to the research question.
Results and Discussion
This study asked how Pitchfork Weekly constructs celebrity and found six overlapping themes that individually and holistically support celebrity ideology: setting, rating system, audience/fans/performance, artists’ products, hard work, and celebrity references. The following sections provide explanations of each theme and representative examples from segments in various episodes.
Setting
Setting is one of the most noticeable patterns throughout the programs. Unlike a studio-based news show, Pitchfork Weekly conducts segments in various locales, enabling place and environment to play an important role in constructing the show’s Journal of Entertainment and Media Studies. Vol. 2 Issue 2 (2016) 15 messages. Episode segments are often set in exclusive (e.g., onstage or backstage) or prestigious (e.g., the exterior of Carnegie Hall before a performance there) locations that connote significance, cachet, or worth, while constructing celebrity.
In episode one a female singer introduces herself through place association: “I’m
Grimes, and we’re at New York Fashion Week.” A glamorous and elite event, New York
Fashion Week is far removed from most people’s average day. Famous people interact, designers display couture fashion, and celebrity status is established through exclusive attendance and participation. Pitchfork Weekly portrays Grimes, who says she was invited by a designer and describes her recent life as “a whirlwind,” squarely in the midst of this experience and its omnipresent photographers. Through the exclusive setting at
Fashion Week and exterior shots placing the activity at The Metropolitan Opera House, the event’s prestigious attributes are associated with Grimes and add to her celebrity.
Likewise, part of episode 12 takes place at what Pitchfork calls Maybach Music’s
Epic Press Conference, where rapper Rick Ross announces joint ventures between his
Maybach Music Group record label and rapper/actor/entrepreneur Sean Combs (also known as Diddy, Puff Daddy, etc.), plus others. The many commercial parties sponsoring the press conference validate the artists’ significance. Corporations attempt to affiliate with recognized or predictable market winners for their own benefit. Introduced by Combs, Ross and his team sit in front of a backdrop that lists a variety of corporate logos, including Warner Brothers, Def Jam Recordings, Maybach Music Group, and
Cîroc, a vodka for which Combs and Ross are both “brand ambassadors.” Additionally, the audience of press and other music industry professionals justifies interest in the event’s players through their attendance, widespread recording devices, and assumed Journal of Entertainment and Media Studies. Vol. 2 Issue 2 (2016) 16 subsequent media coverage. The newsworthiness of the event substantiates and reiterates the importance and fame of those involved. The press conference setting supports the link between music and celebrity, venerating the music industry as well as other commercial ventures, aiding in the manufacture and confirmation of fame.
Rating System
Another theme in the series is Pitchfork’s infamously critical review rating system
(out of 10.0). The website uses ratings to assign value and hipness, making them a powerful instrument in Pitchfork’s taste-making process. While the site’s “reviews have individual bylines… they represent the Pitchfork hive-mind” (Caramanica, 2010). As such, Pitchfork.tv reinforces Pitchfork.com content through inclusion of identical subjects, supplemental portrayals, and both high and low ratings on Pitchfork Weekly.
Indeed, “finding the next wave of stars remains Pitchfork’s primary goal” and thus
Pitchfork’s stars “typically receive high ratings on the Web site” (Caramanica, 2010). In these ways, the rating system works as a crucial tool for Pitchfork’s construction of celebrities.
But whether the review is generally good or bad, high or low, inclusion in the rating system still contributes to fame construction. Essentially good reviews merit attention, as well as granting a reason for audiences to seek the album or song, attend a concert, and in the age of digital media, share content with others. Essentially bad reviews still help construct fame by directing attention to an artist or product, but also define an artist or product’s degree of worthlessness. Through contrast, the bad review’s rating reinforces the power of a good review to award consequential value. The rating Journal of Entertainment and Media Studies. Vol. 2 Issue 2 (2016) 17 system works by indicating which musicians are more worthy of consumption and celebrity, and which are less so.
In particular, the site’s “Best New Music” and “Best New Track” designations indicate an artist’s supposed importance. On episode seven, a song by the Chromatics receives a Best New Track designation, while Madonna’s latest album receives a poor score of 4.5 out of 10. The two reviews immediately follow each other, juxtaposing the praised, lesser-known Chromatics with criticized, world-wide superstar Madonna. This not only places the Chromatics on a level with Madonna, but elevates their musical prowess higher than hers. “Pitchfork is still happy to take down a big name every now and again,” as Caramanica (2010) noted. Denigrating Madonna with a poor rating can gain publicity for the site, corroborate its independent spirit, and bolster the credibility and celebrity of the musicians who receive better ratings.
With its rating system, Pitchfork tries to establish significance—why and how much something matters. Because simple inclusion in the rating system connotes a certain level of fame, a disconnect exists between talent and renown: talent is ultimately unnecessary for celebrity. Just like Paris Hilton can become famous merely by appearing on reality TV and without exhibiting a certain talent, being reviewed or appearing in
Pitchfork Weekly is enough to help construct fame.
Audience/Fans/Performance
This theme incorporates three interlocking components that help construct celebrity: audience, fans, and performance. Celebrity requires audience (lovers and/or haters); without excited fans and other spectators comprising a crowd, the perceived level of celebrity may be diminished. Individuals come together to form an audience that Journal of Entertainment and Media Studies. Vol. 2 Issue 2 (2016) 18 validates, through their presence and consumption, a performer’s celebrity.
Performances offer a chance for audience members to engage with a musician’s celebrity in person. This is done by consuming the music, participating in a concert experience, or documenting the performance with various technologies. Audience use of mobile media is especially prominent on Pitchfork Weekly; amateur and professional photography (or videography) are both noticeable. When such content is shared, documentation broadens audience size and performer fame. Taken as a whole, the audience/fans/performance triad promotes the ideology of celebrity by validating the fame of the performer through the message that many eyes are watching. Pitchfork Weekly regularly shows its subjects appearing before crowds; performing for an audience of fans who watch and care contributes to a subject’s celebrity status.
In episode 12, a live performance by Atlas Sound (a solo project of Bradford Cox) effectively builds celebrity through the audience/fan/performance triad. In Manhattan, the musician strums a guitar and sings at an art exhibit for acclaimed photographer Ryan
McGinley’s work. Initially, the musician plays on the art gallery’s roof, serenading the crowd on the street. Pitchfork Weekly viewers see fans congregate for the performance, joining together as an audience, watching and photographing the event. Police halt Cox’s outdoor concert, so the performance moves inside the art gallery. The indoor setting also constructs celebrity, as a spotlighted Cox continues the performance amongst a crowd of attentive photo-snappers and walls of prominently displayed larger-than-life portraits.
These portrait subjects are celebrities too, starring in artwork and imagery that attracts attention. Standing amid the portraits positions Cox in their ranks, as McGinley and the crowd raptly watch and listen to the music. As the performance concludes to applause Journal of Entertainment and Media Studies. Vol. 2 Issue 2 (2016) 19 and cheers, we see the audience’s flashing cameras document Cox and McGinley embracing. The segment, titled, “Ryan McGinley <3 Atlas Sound,” constructs celebrity by linking the attention given to Cox and McGinley by the audience and fans of each artist.
In an example from the first episode, rapper A$AP Rocky performs at New York
City’s Irving Plaza, bouncing around the stage for fans and their many glowing device screens. The audience, packed together and moving in unison with Rocky, waves their hands in the air. Backstage after the show, an interviewer supports the performer’s merit by saying that A$AP Rocky “killed it.” During the interview, Rocky discusses his and his peers’ upcoming releases. He wears heavy gold rings and bracelets while sitting with producer AraabMuzik, who also sports ostentatious jewelry and whose success Rocky describes as “Hollywood.” Together, this sequence positions Rocky as a celebrity, performing for lively and adoring fans, promoting his products, and associating backstage with other wealthy celebrities.
In episode nine, an energetic audience watches rapper Lil B give a speech at New
York University. He is shown entering from backstage, through a red curtain and onto the stage as he is trailed by what appears to be an official event photographer, indicating
Lil B’s importance. After the lecture about Lil B’s life philosophy, the audience coalesces into a seething mass that spills onto the stage. The scene becomes chaotic and uniformed police officers have to manage the crowd. Audience members brandish camera phones and other recording devices while the rapper signs autographs and poses for photos with fans. As a whole, Pitchfork Weekly’s portrayal of the rambunctious audience’s attention Journal of Entertainment and Media Studies. Vol. 2 Issue 2 (2016) 20 to Lil B builds his celebrity by positioning him as performer for an audience that venerates his presence, like no one else’s, to the point of commotion.
Artists’ Products
Another theme present throughout the series discourse is that of artists’ products, or the featuring of creative work by those depicted or addressed on the program.
Represented both actively and passively, artists’ products are physical evidence of their celebrity and differentiate them from the typical audience member who probably does not have a professionally produced album to sell. Moreover, musicians are in the privileged position of appearing on Pitchfork Weekly to discuss their work. The artist’s mere presence on the show constructs celebrity. Those featured on the program continually promote their own products, actively exhorting the audience to consume their work in the hopes of building a fan base. While celebrity is actively constructed through the celebrities’ explicit discussion or promotion of albums, products are also passively featured. This is conveyed through songs heard in the background, music video clips played but not discussed, or brands/names visually perceptible in the background of segments.
In an episode five segment at music festival South by Southwest, musician
Santigold discusses the process of making her new album. Her presumed engagement with and performance at the musical festival also signifies her celebrity, while Santigold verbally promotes her music and it plays in the background. As she discusses her album,
Santigold name-drops many music celebrities involved in making the album, correlating the quality of her work with their fame. Clips from her recent music video are also featured. This segment, plainly titled “Santigold Talks New Album @ SxSW,” Journal of Entertainment and Media Studies. Vol. 2 Issue 2 (2016) 21 communicates Pitchfork Weekly’s assessment of the singer’s music as important and worth seeking out or purchasing, thus supporting her fame.
Hard Work
Another prominent theme throughout the series is hard work, demonstrated through two types of stories: those about recording music and touring. Each celebrity’s hard work adds to his or her perceived authenticity as a worthwhile musician, while justifying attained fame. This corresponds with Gamson’s (1994) narrative of fame deriving from merit, as opposed to fame construction based upon nothing of value.
In episode 19 Dinosaur, Jr. band members J Mascis, Lou Barlow, and Murph discuss the recording process of their album I Bet on Sky. As viewers see the influential alternative-rockers talking and performing in the studio, the band notes that they have been recording for 83 days. Barlow explains their laborious process of production and revisions: recording an instrument’s part, listening to it, recording it again. The explanations of their meticulous and time-consuming work assist in building the band’s credibility and validating their celebrity.
Another component of the work efforts portrayed in Pitchfork Weekly is stories about touring. By revealing the challenging endeavors behind the concerts, musicians build perceived authenticity. In episode six, the band War on Drugs tells tour stories about car troubles, a 16-hour drive, small concert audiences, and a revolving cast of band members. This grassroots-level work developing their career and popularity indicates, like the stories about recording, that the band deserves to be featured on the program and has earned their fame.
Celebrity References Journal of Entertainment and Media Studies. Vol. 2 Issue 2 (2016) 22
Another key part of celebrity construction is reference to and affiliation with other celebrities, a common occurrence throughout the series. Just as advertising works by allocating attributes from one concept to another (Williamson, 1978)—such as Kim
Kardashian appearing in a Skechers shoes commercial that attempts to transfer her name recognition, glamour, or sex appeal to the promoted product—affiliation between public figures can result in the transfer of qualities from one artist to another. On Pitchfork
Weekly, one featured artist talking about another presumably well known individual can transfer attributes such as a higher level of fame, musicianship, credibility, or cool factor.
Associative name-dropping validates celebrity, conveying that the speaker knows famous people and thus is also famous. Such celebrity references function to build or maintain celebrity.
In episode 12 bonus footage, Mike D of the Beastie Boys, praised hip-hop icons, explains an art exhibit he curated at the L.A. Museum of Contemporary Art, an opportunity few obtain. Pitchfork Weekly presents Mike D as a celebrity by acknowledging his ability to curate a show at a respected museum, showing him in the exhibit while describing the show’s details, and showing him discuss his collaborations with other famous performers. The musicians he selected to perform at the exhibit include friends and people he’s “just a fan of,” such as Santigold, Diplo (a producer and
DJ), Nigel Godrich (a producer known for working with Radiohead), and James Murphy
(of the band LCD Soundsystem and co-founder of DFA Records). Here, Pitchfork
Weekly sustains Mike D’s fame through affiliation with the museum and the contemporary trendsetters he discusses. While some of the performers may not be as well known as the commercial superstars the Beastie Boys, to a certain audience they Journal of Entertainment and Media Studies. Vol. 2 Issue 2 (2016) 23 connote elite hipness. By association, Mike D can gain qualities related to the people
Pitchfork Weekly shows him discussing, and in turn those people can gain some of his celebrity status.
In episode 16 Luke Jenner of the band The Rapture discusses having met Robert
Smith of celebrated British group The Cure. Reverentially, Jenner describes getting to talk to Smith backstage at a music festival: “I talked to him for a solid seven, eight minutes.” Getting to meet and spend any time with the esteemed and venerable rocker is presumably rare—access allowed by fame and linking the speaker to the admired gothic rock pioneers. This privilege indicates Jenner’s celebrity; the topic’s use in such a brief segment on Pitchfork Weekly further highlights the significance of celebrity references in the program’s process of celebrity construction.
Conclusion and Implications
Through discourse analysis, this study found six themes in Pitchfork Weekly content. These themes support the ideology of celebrity in various ways and indicate much about online music television. Television, as a medium, has changed and continues to evolve. Not stopping at the written word, Pitchfork Media engages audiences through its own iteration of television. Pitchfork.tv exemplifies the Web’s transformation of music television and the reshaping of mass communication via new media. As “the highest-profile advocate for music criticism online” and “the most prominent brand in online music journalism” (Caramanica, 2010), Pitchfork is setting standards for the new Journal of Entertainment and Media Studies. Vol. 2 Issue 2 (2016) 24 media version of music television, and thus is important to study as a harbinger of the structure and content related to changing platforms.
Pitchfork.tv’s Pitchfork Weekly is reminiscent of other notable music television purveyors because of its creation, sustenance, and dismissal of music celebrities.
Pitchfork exploits the music celebrity presumably to attract and build an audience, while concurrently naturalizing the status quo of connected ideologies. Indeed, “stars represent typical ways of behaving, feeling and thinking in contemporary society, ways that have been socially, culturally, historically constructed” (Dyer, 1986/2004, p. 17). Celebrities epitomize dominant cultural ideologies, communicating norms and standards (Marshall,
1997; Rojek, 2001). By examining Pitchfork’s celebrity creation, we enhance our understanding of contemporary society—its norms, how they are maintained, how they are adapted.
As in the world of traditional television, the music celebrity is alive and well in the landscape of independent online television. This article’s findings indicate that
Pitchfork constructs, supports, and reiterates celebrity ideology in ways that fit with prior music television models. Sometimes this is direct through explicit veneration of celebrity or overt promotion of artists’ products, other times it is insidious through setting or passive promotion of artists’ products. As noted by Caramanica (2010), this is because
“it is in the interest of Pitchfork—the editorial concern and the business concern—to cultivate its own galaxy of stars,” which explains why “finding the next wave of stars remains Pitchfork’s primary goal.” Pitchfork, while a longtime-independent entity within the music industry and known for its independent-minded recognition of the artists it covers, still bolsters the celebrity-machine that dominates mass culture. This is despite Journal of Entertainment and Media Studies. Vol. 2 Issue 2 (2016) 25 the potentials and promises of new and digital media; whereas the Internet was originally viewed as a bastion of free speech, equality, and democracy (Rheingold, 1993/2000), some would critique Pitchfork as yet another economic media tool acting to sustain the ideology of celebrity.
Regardless of the Internet’s supposedly democratic nature compared to television,
Pitchfork Weekly is still a reincarnation of the same gatekeepers and tastemakers—from
Bandstand to Idol—who have historically defined music TV. Throughout the past century, countless examples of music television have supported ideologies about celebrity. The Pitchfork.tv model, from its production conventions to its branding, is overtly and creatively informed by such traditional models of music television. Over the past few decades the structures and business of the music and television industries have changed and continue to do so; the typical orientation of popular content’s ideology, however, remains remarkably similar.
While the Internet has become further industrialized and commercialized,
Pitchfork increasingly embodies many prominent mainstream ideals (celebrity, consumerism, commercialism, capitalism), despite the site’s independent roots and growth into a successful and reliable alternative to mainstream media coverage.
Considering this tension, however, the site’s content represents many notable exceptions to mainstream standards.
Pitchfork Weekly content may support mainstream views of celebrity, but when at its most independent-minded, it also serves as a strong alternative to mainstream music journalism. At the surface level, this means exposing audiences to artists who get minimal mainstream coverage and not pandering to narrow mainstream interest in chart- Journal of Entertainment and Media Studies. Vol. 2 Issue 2 (2016) 26 toppers. On a deeper level, it means depicting individuals and groups who are underrepresented in mainstream coverage. For instance, Pitchfork Weekly features many female musicians. This is notable in its frequency and style of representation—women are not as grossly outnumbered by men or limited to easily-accepted pop stars (e.g.,
Taylor Swift, Demi Lovato, Britney Spears, etc.) as is often the case in mainstream coverage. In this way, Pitchfork Weekly is an important contributor to widespread portrayals of female musicians and others often excluded from or minimally included in popular music journalism, such as non-white rock musicians. Even though Pitchfork supports celebrity construction, often the site is an early advocate for and/or helps create alternative types of celebrities who are, viewed in sum, a more inclusive contrast to conventional mainstream celebrities (e.g., Frank Ocean, Bon Iver, Death Grips, M.I.A.— although M.I.A. has criticized the site (Thompson, 2007) and other music journalists for framing her work as male-masterminded and woman-as-puppet projects). In other words,
Pitchfork engages in the same types of conventional conversations about best-of and year-end lists common to other entertainment media, although some—but far from all— of their picks challenge mainstream trends and stereotypes. These observations indicate the ways in which Pitchfork does demonstrate democracy on the Web: by gaining ostensibly independent power in the music industry and by challenging stereotypes
Pitchfork adds a valuable voice to the conversations of music journalism, although this is potentially undermined by the site’s style of engagement in conventional celebrity construction.
One noteworthy limitation of this study is its minimal commentary on genre or genre conventions. Someone might sensibly wonder if and how musical genre relates to Journal of Entertainment and Media Studies. Vol. 2 Issue 2 (2016) 27 the issues of celebrity addressed in this article. For example, to what extent do representations of celebrity differ based on musical genre? While future research could productively explore that idea, this article instead emphasizes investigation of Pitchfork as an important producer of so-called “shuffle culture” that targets modern audiences whose tastes often disregard or transcend genre boundaries and are less likely to identify simply as “rock fans” or “rap fans” but more as fans of independent music. (The site’s annual Pitchfork Music Festival in Chicago is a good example of the brand’s intentional approach to curating musical mélange, as a recent lineup included the alternative rock of
Beck, the pioneering disco of Giorgio Moroder, the metal-shoegaze of Deafheaven, and the rap of Pusha T.) Another limitation is this study’s focus on celebrity. Prior research
(Marshall, 1997; Rojek 2001) has shown that celebrity is often tied to related issues like consumerism, commercialism, and capitalism. While this article acknowledges such ties, additional discussion would be valuable but is outside the project’s scope, which focuses on celebrity to deeply explore and analyze the evidence without having to sacrifice this depth for breadth. To begin, future studies could consider Pitchfork and consumerism, which is often dominant in the Pitchfork Weekly content—such as episode 10’s record shopping trip with the group Best Coast.2
Future research should aim to expand on several issues raised by this article.
Researchers could continue examination of Pitchfork content by analyzing additional
Pitchfork.tv series. Future research could also compare this article’s findings about
Pitchfork Weekly content to other online music television content, specifically with regard to the issue of celebrity. Furthermore, future work should examine Pitchfork
Media’s influence on celebrity construction by conducting interviews with musicians, Journal of Entertainment and Media Studies. Vol. 2 Issue 2 (2016) 28 journalists, other music industry professionals, and audiences. Considering the potential impact often ascribed to Pitchfork’s messages, it would be valuable to discuss the
“Pitchfork effect” with people who have created or received such messages and gauge the actual impact of the website’s influence on success and fame. Finally, researchers should continue investigating the phenomenon of online music celebrities, as the Web is a potent home for this modern type of fame. As boundaries of TV continue to blur, it is important to keep reflecting on the implications of the past, present, and future of music television and what this tells us about celebrity in our modern mediated world.
Journal of Entertainment and Media Studies. Vol. 2 Issue 2 (2016) 29
Footnotes
1. In October 2015, Pitchfork Media was acquired by media company Condé
Nast (Condé Nast, 2015; Somaiya, 2015), publishers of “print, digital and video brands” that are “some of the most iconic titles in media” (Condé Nast, 2015), such as Vogue,
Vanity Fair, Glamour, GQ, The New Yorker, and Wired. Pitchfork explained, “[Condé
Naste’s acquisition] will allow us to extend our coverage across all platforms while remaining true to the ideals that have made Pitchfork the most trusted voice in music”
(“Pitchfork acquired by Condé Nast,” 2015). Many skeptically saw this as “news that the most influential music publication to emerge in the Internet age, one closely associated with the word ‘independent,’ was being bought…” (Kornhaber, 2015), although
Pitchfork Editor-in-Chief/Founder Ryan Schreiber maintained the change would not impact the site’s editorial voice or independent spirit (Littleton, 2015). Implications of this extend beyond this article’s scope (see Footnote 2) and should be tracked for future research.
2. A tangential limitation is that this article preceded Condé Nast’s October
2015 acquisition of Pitchfork Media and must be interpreted as such, a study of
Pitchfork’s content from a time when the site was on course from indie success story to corporate acquisition.
Journal of Entertainment and Media Studies. Vol. 2 Issue 2 (2016) 30
References
About ASME. (2013). American Society of Magazine Editors. Retrieved April 30, 2013,
from http://www.magazine.org/asme/about-asme
Advertising | Pitchfork. (2013). Retrieved June 27, 2013, from http://pitchfork.com/ad/
Advertising | Pitchfork. (2016). Retrieved January 20, 2016, from
http://pitchfork.com/ad/
Barthes, R. (1977). Introduction to the structural image of the narrative. In Image music
text (pp. 79–124). New York: Hill and Wang.
Bell, C. (2010). American idolatry: Celebrity, commodity and reality television. New
York: McFarland.
Boorstin, D. (1961/1992). The image. New York: Vintage Books.
Braudy, L. (1997). The frenzy of renown: Fame and its history. New York: Vintage
Books.
Caramanica, J. (2010, July 14). Upstart music site becomes establishment. The New York
Times. Retrieved June 26, 2013, from
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/15/arts/music/15pitchfork.html?pagewanted=all
&_r=0
Cerda, M., & McVehil, D. (2013, March 12). Announcing VEVO TV. VEVO.com.
Retrieved July 11, 2013, http://www.vevo.com/c/EN/US/news/announcing-vevo-
tv
Condé Nast. (2015). Condé Nast acquires Pitchfork Media, Inc. [Press release]. Retrieved
January 20, 2016, from http://www.condenast.com/press/press-
releases/2015/10/13/conde-nast-acquires-pitchfork-media-inc Journal of Entertainment and Media Studies. Vol. 2 Issue 2 (2016) 31
Customers have spoken: Amazon greenlights five original series. (2013, May 29).
Hollywonk: Inspired by Amazon Studios. Retrieved April 30, 2013, from
http://hollywonk.com/post/51640298918/pilots-greenlit
DeCordova, R. (1990). Picture personalities: The emergence of the star system in
America. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Delmont, M. F. (2012). The nicest kids in town: American Bandstand, rock ‘n’ roll, and
the struggle for civil rights in 1950s Philadelphia. Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press.
Delmont, M., & Forman, M. (2013). Sonic visions: Popular music on television. In M.
Delmont & M. Forman (Eds.), Journal of popular music studies, 25(3), (pp. 293-
300).
Dyer, R. (1986/2004). Heavenly bodies: Film stars and society. (2nd ed.). New York:
Routledge.
Entertainment (channel). (2013). 17th Annual Webby Awards. Retrieved April 30, 2013,
from http://winners.webbyawards.com/2013/online-film-video/video-channels-
and-networks/entertainment/pitchfork-tv
Fairclough, N. (2000). Critical analysis of a media discourse. In P. Marris & S. Thornham
(Eds.), Media studies: A reader (pp. 308-325). New York: New York University
Press.
Fiske, J. (1987). Television culture. New York: Methuen.
Fiske, J. (2000). The codes of television. In P. Marris & S. Thornham (Eds.), Media
studies: A reader (pp. 220–30). New York: New York University Press. Journal of Entertainment and Media Studies. Vol. 2 Issue 2 (2016) 32
Gamson, J. (1994). Claims to fame: Celebrity in contemporary America. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press.
Gee, J. (2011). How to do discourse analysis. New York: Routledge.
Hall, S. (1980/1991). Encoding/decoding. In S. Hall, D. Hobson, A. Lowe, & P. Willis
(Eds.), Culture, media, language: Working papers in cultural studies, 1972-1979
(pp. 128-138). New York: Routledge.
Hertog, J., & McLeod, D. (2003). A multiperspectival approach to framing analysis: A
field guide. In S. D. Reese, O. H. Gandy, Jr., & A. E. Grant (Eds.), Framing
public life: Perspectives on media and our understanding of the social world (pp.
139-161). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Itzkoff, D. (2006, September). The Pitchfork effect: How a tiny web outfit became the
most influential tastemaker on the music scene. Wired. Retrieved April 26, 2012,
from http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.09/pitchfork.html
Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. New York:
New York University Press.
Kornhaber, S. (2015, October 13). Pitchfork, the reluctant men’s magazine: Conde Nast
says it bought the eclectic music-reviews site for its "millennial males." What?
The Atlantic. Retrieved January 13, 2016, from
http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2015/10/conde-nast-buys-
pitchfork-for-the-millennial-men/410341/
Kot, G. (2008, March 4). Pitchfork to launch its own version of MTV. Chicago Tribune.
Retrieved April 26, 2012, from http://leisureblogs.chicagotribune.com/turn_it_up
/2008/03/pitchfork-to-la.html Journal of Entertainment and Media Studies. Vol. 2 Issue 2 (2016) 33
Littleton, C. (2015, October 13). Q&A: Pitchfork founder Ryan Schreiber on Conde Nast
sale, indie roots and expansion. Retrieved October 14, 2015, from
http://variety.com/2015/biz/news/pitchfork-founder-ryan-schreiber-qa-conde-
nast-1201616909/
Lowery, T. (2011, August 1). Pitchfork media: Peek inside indie rock’s biggest
tastemaker. Time out New York. Retrieved April 17, 2013, from
http://www.timeout.com/newyork/music/pitchfork-media-indie-rock
Macia, P. (Series producer), & Bentler, R. J. (Executive producer). (2012). Pitchfork
Weekly [Online video series]. Brooklyn, New York: Pitchfork Media. Retrieved
from http://pitchfork.com/tv/youtube/11-pitchfork-weekly/
Marshall, P. (1997). Celebrity and power: Fame in contemporary culture. Minneapolis,
MN: University of Minnesota Press.
McClain, A. (2011). American ideal: How American Idol constructs celebrity, collective
identity, and American discourses. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
Meizel, K. (2011). Idolized: Music, media, and identity in American Idol. Bloomington,
IN: Indiana University Press.
Miller, M. C. (1988). Boxed in: The culture of TV. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University
Press.
Molotkow, A. (2012, April 8). There is no longer any honor in musical obscurity. The
New York Times Magazine, 52-53.
National Magazine Awards 2013 winners announced. (2013). American Society of
Magazine Editors. Retrieved April 30, 2013, from Journal of Entertainment and Media Studies. Vol. 2 Issue 2 (2016) 34
http://www.magazine.org/about-asme/pressroom/asme-press-
releases/asme/national-magazine-awards-2013-winners-announced
Pitchfork About. (2014). Pitchfork – About | Facebook. Retrieved February 11, 2014,
from https://www.facebook.com/pitchforkmedia/info
Pitchfork acquired by Condé Nast. (2015, October 13). Pitchfork.com. Retrieved October
14, 2015, from http://pitchfork.com/news/61621-pitchfork-acquired-by-conde-
nast/
Presenting Pitchfork.tv on YouTube. (2012, February 13). Pitchfork.com. Retrieved April
26, 2012, from http://pitchfork.com/news/45405-presenting-pitchforktv-on-
Purcell, K. (2010). The state of online video. Pew Research Center’s Internet & American
Life Project: Washington, DC. Retrieved April 17, 2013, from
http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/State-of-Online-Video.aspx
Rheingold, H. (1993/2000). The virtual community: Homesteading on the electronic
frontier. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Rogers, J. (2006, November 23). Site seers. The Guardian. Retrieved April 17, 2013,
from http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2006/nov/24/popandrock1
Rojek, C. (2001) Celebrity. London: Reaktion.
Somaiya, R. (2015, October 13). Pitchfork Media becomes part of Condé Nast stable. The
New York Times. Retrieved October 14, 2015, from
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/14/business/media/conde-nast-buys-pitchfork-
media.html?_r=1 Journal of Entertainment and Media Studies. Vol. 2 Issue 2 (2016) 35
Stelter, B. (2013, March 4). Don’t touch that remote: TV pilots turn to net, not networks.
The New York Times. Retrieved June 26, 2013, from
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/05/business/media/online-only-tv-shows-join-
fight-for-attention.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Strinati, D. (1995). An introduction to theories of popular culture. New York: Routledge.
Thomas, L. (2006, June 14). The Pitchfork effect. City pages. Retrieved April 17, 2013,
from http://www.citypages.com/2006-06-14/news/the-pitchfork-effect/
Thompson, P. (2007, August 3). M.I.A. confronts the haters. Pitchfork.com. Retrieved
August 31, 2013, from http://pitchfork.com/news/27349-mia-confronts-the-haters/
Time Staff. (2011, April 4). The 2011 TIME 100 poll. Time. Retrieved April 17, 2013,
from
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2058044_2060338_
2060224,00.html
Tribbey, C. (2012, December 18). Study: Consumer streaming keeps outpacing
downloading. Home media magazine. Retrieved April 17, 2013, from
http://www.homemediamagazine.com/streaming/study-consumer-streaming-
keeps-outpacing-downloading-29129
Tuchman, G., Daniels, A., & Benet, J. (1978). (Eds.), Hearth and home: Images of
women in mass media. New York: Oxford University Press.
Turner, G. (2004). Understanding celebrity. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Van Buskirk, E. (2008, March 5). Pitchfork.tv takes a stab at music videos. Wired.
Retrieved April 17, 2013, from
http://www.wired.com/entertainment/music/news/2008/04/pitchfork_tv Journal of Entertainment and Media Studies. Vol. 2 Issue 2 (2016) 36
Williams, R. (1981). Politics and letters: Interviews with New Left
Review. London: Verso.
Williamson, J. (1978). Decoding advertisements. London: Marion Boyars.
Wood, L., & Kroger, R. (2000). Doing discourse analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.