An Important Convergence Message from Mike Huckabee
March 3rd, 2008 by Dianaa fan artifact presentation by Diana Pozo and David Pupkin
Easy Version:
Read the Jenkins Articles.
Watch “HuckChuckFacts.”
Scroll to the bottom and read the Important Questions to Consider.
Hard Version (not for the faint of heart):
In his article, “The Cultural Logic of Media Convergence,” Henry Jenkins discusses new trends in Internet publication such as blogging as they apply to politics, saying, “popular culture becomes the venue through which key social and political issues get debated. What models of democracy will take roots in a culture where the lines between consumption and citizenship are blurring?” Certainly, independent Internet commentators influence the way politics are run in the U.S. today from political blogs all the way through the CNN YouTube debates run for both the Democratic and Republican primaries. However, with convergence culture, the influences are never only one-way. Though “grassroots” Internet political activism may influence politics, politicians are also likely to use Internet culture to further their own goals.
2008 Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee uses convergence culture to appeal to a more diverse constituency than his traditionally conservative base by adopting the celebrity of Chuck Norris, a television actor and martial artist featured in Walker, Texas Ranger. Chuck Norris had, since 2005, been canonized over Internet messageboards and in the MMORPG World of Warcraft through a phenomenon named “Chuck Norris Facts.” Each “fact” credits Norris with one of an array of improbable superpowers and special abilities, such as “Chuck Norris can sneeze with his eyes open,” and “Chuck Norris does not sleep, he waits.” Though Chuck Norris’ television celebrity has led him to even create his own style of martial arts, and his well-publicized conservative politics were what led him to endorse Mike Huckabee’s candidature, Huckabee uses Norris’ Internet celebrity, and not his television celebrity to back up his campaign through an ad called “HuckChuckFacts.” In the ad, footage of Huckabee reciting “Chuck Norris Facts” is juxtaposed with Chuck Norris reciting facts of his own about Mike Huckabee’s policies. This ad gained so much publicity that Mitt Romney responded with his own Chuck Norris-themed video, criticizing what he claims to be Huckabee’s weak stance on crime, and claiming Norris’ attitudes as his own. However, this video received far less publicity (Romney’s ad received under 100, 000 views on YouTube, as opposed to the over 1 million views of just one posting of Huckabee’s Chuck Norris video).
Huckabee makes several important claims in “HuckChuckFacts.” First, his use of Chuck Norris to endorse his political campaign appeals to fans of Walker,Texas Ranger, a show beloved by social conservatives due to its appeal to a sense of “moral values,” its genre (the Western), and its glorification of traditional individualistic modes of heroism, as well as of the justice system. Second, Huckabee also draws on Chuck Norris and Walker, Texas Ranger’s campy appeal, through the use of his final frame, “Chuck Norris Approved,” in which a freeze frame of Norris’ face is combined with over-the-top “western” motifs, including a fist-shaped burn hole where Norris has punched the screen. Third, Huckabee lays claim to a sort of Internet panache through his use of popular Chuck Norris Facts familiar to many technologically-inclined Americans. Though contemporary Internet front-runners would say that a 2005 phenomenon such as Chuck Norris Facts is remarkably out-of-date, the large majority of Internet-savvy Americans would most likely recognize Huckabee’s appeal to a sense of being “in touch” with modern technology and younger constituents.
Jenkins’ theories about convergence culture center mainly around what he sees as an upcoming struggle between producers and consumers over rights to the use of major media products. In his chapter, “Quentin Tarantino’s Star Wars,” he seems to advise commercial producers that it would be in their best interest to allow fan producers almost free reign over media products, since their efforts often do more to promote the product in question than to challenge its validity or diminish its appeal. Jenkins also touches on the ways in which medial conglomerates try to harness and control the flow of fan productivity so that fan producers’ work becomes their property (Lucasfilm’s Star Wars web space, ex.), or so that they can police what content is allowed to be published (J.K. Rowling’s struggle with Harry Potter Lexicon author Steve Vander Ark, ex.). However, he spends much less time elaborating the ways in which major media producers can create their own products in traditionally fan-dominated media, such as digital video, using references derived from Internet popular culture, such as Huckabee’s reference to Chuck Norris Facts. Jenkins discusses how aspiring filmmakers such as George Lucas In Love co-creator Joseph Levy use the aura of a large media franchise like Star Wars to draw attention to their films, but he does not mention that big fish like Huckabee may be drawn to Internet culture icons like Chuck Norris in order to establish themselves as relevant to the everyday lives of a certain group of media users.
However, it is important to note that the Internet media that becomes profitable both for large media conglomerates and for grassroots producers themselves comes from a relatively small fraction of the overall Internet “population.” Jenkins’ chapter on Star Wars videos mentions the often gender-based disparity between producers of Lucasfilm-sanctioned “parody” videos, and Lucasfilm-condemned “fanfiction” videos. Similarly, the Chuck Norris Facts phenomenon was largely perpetuated by what Henry Jenkins calls “early adapters,” the members of the population most likely to respond to technological advancement. These early adapters are among the most privileged members of American society, since their financial resources and digital education allow them access to the latest hardware and software, as well as the know-how to use them in creative ways. It was these “early adapters” that moved Chuck Norris Facts from Conan O’ Brian Show segment, to messageboard joke to World of Warcraft application, and then rejected the phenomenon as out-of date. Jenkins may be arguing for more power to be placed in the hands of “consumers,” but which consumers will receive that power? Would this be a substantive change from the patterns of power and weakness observable more generally in American society?
***
Important Questions to Consider:
1. Is Huckabee’s use of Chuck Norris Facts an expropriation by conservatives of a movement that was originally designed to poke fun at traditional ideals of heroism? If so, does media convergence actually undermine the revolutionary potential of oppositional (fan) readings?
2. Among the Republican candidates for the presidency, Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney appealed to Chuck Norris’ Internet following, while Rudy Giuliani and John McCain did not. Is there something about a candidate that would make him/her more likely to publish ads on YouTube and make reference to Internet culture than others?
3. We mentioned the CNN YouTube debates above as another example of how politics and Internet media collide. In what ways have you experienced the influence of Internet media or Internet culture on the world of politics? Do you believe the Internet is making significant changes to the way politics is reported to or received by the public?
Posted in Convergence Culture, Fan Artifact Presentations, Politics, Vids | 11 Comments »
I think it is important to consider how different this year’s election has played out compared to even 2004.
Viral marketing/advertising has played a bigger role in this election than it ever has. Just look at Obama’s use of facebook and Myspace or John McCain’s McCainSpace. Hillary has been doing video blog updates with pertinent policy info since at least last spring.
Huckabee’s use of Norris’ internet celebrity is effective because it targets youth audiences by appealing to a familiar theme and juxtaposing it with his policies. I imagine that his campaign people saw it as an ‘edgy’ way to get the word out without spending the six figure prices for primetime commercial slots.
This election has been played out as much on the internet as it has been on the actual campaign trail. Obama’s fundraising has come primarily from small, online donations and I imagine each of the nominees are seeing similar results. Huckabee’s use is just another example of appealing to people on a platform which is more effective and relevant than radio, print and TV ads.
Another aspect of the use of internet in this campaign is that it is much more direct. In 2004, most of the online hype went to Howard Dean, and most of the donatations came in through MoveOn.org. This campaign season has the politicians appealing much more directly to the voters via the internet. Mass e-mailing from the politicians rather than mass mailing also seems to play a much larger role this election season.
In the article on convergence, Jenkins mentioned how the internet could potentially take away the middle men and have a more direct method of selling product/idea to people. It seems to me that the presidential candidates are doing just that as a campaign stratedy.
What is the World of Warcraft / Chuck Norris connection?
There was a World of Warcraft mod created in 2006 that generated random Chuck Norris Facts, as found on chucknorrisfacts.com.
http://wowui.incgamers.com/?p=mod&m=3652
This fact generator was one of the ways that Chuck Norris became a running joke all over the Internet a few years ago.
See also the flash music video for Lemon Demon’s “Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny” (http://www.ultimateshowdown.org/), which shows Chuck Norris descending from the heavens, only to crush Indiana Jones’ head between his thighs.
I think this ad is clearly an attempt to attract younger voters. I don’t there are many people our age (who vote) that aren’t familiar with the Chuck Norris facts phenomenon. By appealing to this and reciting some “facts”, Mike Huckabee comes off as cool (inasmuch as that’s possible).
I think it’s safe to say that most young Americans who vote would vote Democrat. I’m also guessing that, at least at this point, more young people are voting for McCain as opposed to Huckabee. Therefore Huckabee is seriously lacking in the young vote and I think in this case he’s trying to remedy that.
awesome job!
I definitely agree this is an appeal to younger voters. I think the effect is to make the candidates themselves seem more youthful. I went to the Wikipedia (which we know is the font of all knowledge) to check the ages of all the Republican candidates to see if the internet references were an age based, with the younger candidates referencing it more. While it’s true that the two younger Republican candidates (Huckabee b. 1955, Romeny b. 1947) are the ones running the ads, there is not such a significant age jump between them (for example Giuliani b. 1944). This came as a surprise to me as I would have guessed that Romney and Giuliani were farther apart in age, so perhaps the attempt to make candidates look younger and more relevant is working? It probably helps Romney that he looks a lot younger too.
On the Democratic front I think that Ariel and Aaron have said some very interesting things about the Obama campaign and how it’s being run. I would also argue that the use of media/internet culture is very different between Obama and his supporters and Huckabee and his. The Obama movement seems to be people applying popular narratives to him, in a sort of bottom up movement, while Huckabee’s ad appears to give the narrative to people, a bit more top down. To me Obama’s feels more fannishly produced , more fanficy and coming from the masses if you will, while Huckabee’s feels more like a fanfriendly text, because it is coming from someone in a position of authority (this is also might be due to the way that the two candidates present themselves in their campaigns and my own biases). There’s probably a lot more subtlety to it than that, but those are my initial impressions.
While I agree that the use of the internet media and youtube is an appeal to younger voters, I think it is important to think about the ‘exclusivity’ of fandom and the discussions we have had recently in class regarding the fan protocol and the misuse of slash videos. Are these politicians really ‘fans’ or simply using it as a method of outreach to a possible voting population? I feel as though I would be skeptical if a politician started using Sydney Bristow from ALIAS as an appeal to get me to vote. I would probably find all the things wrong with the way they manipulated the show to make it represent themselves. It also kind of reminds me about a class quite a while ago when we had a small group discussion about music fandom and the way it is ‘misused’ in car commercials and such… Long story short, I’m not sure the use of Chuck Norris attracts fans in a positive way.
I think there is something very manipulative about this use of the Chuck Norris facts phenomenon and maybe not necessarily as relatable to fan communities as originally asserted.
There is no exclusivity here and as much as I am for the “everything is fandom” model (RE: my thoughts on sports fans) I think that while this is interesting marketing, it doesn’t seem to play into a specific fan archetype.
That’s why it’s convergence, though!
Certainly, the Chuck Norris phenomenon can be read as a fan movement of some sort, albeit with a sort of self-conscious, parody-like, almost anti-fan sentiment in the “facts” towards Norris himself.
Then, the fact that Huckabee takes up this fan-created image of Chuck Norris and uses it in his campaign when Norris has endorsed him, RATHER than using the “canonical” Walker: Texas Ranger version of Norris’ celebrity, is a move very much in the spirit of media convergence in that Huckabee, as a big time producer, takes work done by “fans” of Chuck Norris and uses it for his own profit.
This is possible, moreover, because of the massive distribution through the internet of the Chuck Norris “facts” in the first place.
Whoa, did I just reiterate my whole post above, or did that clarify in any way?
I was fascniated by the masterful co-option by Mike Huckabee of the youth cult (well, not really anymore) culture of liking Chuck Norris. Also, the fact that this is prominently on YouTube definitely gives this importance to the youth vote, or is TRYING TO at least. I find it really interesting that this ad is trying to make Huckabee appear very masculine, alebit in a semi-joking way. HuckChuck facts are very gendered. It makes Huckabee out to be a “man’s man” who “supports our second amendment rights” and is a hunter. While they are appealing to the youth, there’s also a sense (as Diana and David mentioned) of dominance and pioneering (a la the wild west). It’s very reminiscent of Teddy Roosevelt’s campaign image (but he lacked a TV star). It also seems to fit in with the current idea of what a President should be (Bush capitalizing on his Texan image). It gives the illusion of doing something tangible and “macho” through a medium of non-tangibility (and arguably non-traditionally masculine).