I am pleased to say this: I have never, ever watched an episode of American Idol. Not a single minute.

I only watched a few seconds because the Bush Whacker was at my place last night and was itching to see who would be booted off. Otherwise, I, like Annette, was a American Idol virgin. ;-P}

You both are far more wise than I am for not watching the show, I suspect. But let me defend myself a little here on less frivolous grounds. As I indicated in my earlier entry on American Idol, only this year have I really even begun to watch television again. For years, I did not even turn it on. What spurred me on was teaching Cultural Studies this year. I figured I needed to know a little more about the mechanisms of mass culture and to allow myself to get inside that machine for a while so as to understand it. Ultimately what attracts me to this programme is the intellectual problem it exemplifies. Much cultural theory of the last 20 years has focussed on the way language crafts our perceptions of the world. In terms of the American Idol show, this would amount to assuming that the judges' opinions determine and create the voting results. Yet, there are fudge factors that skew things. Sometimes the results are suprising, evne to the judges, for instance. Does this mean that the show absorbs any resistance to the "expert" opinions? I suspect it does mean exactly this. What does say about the efficacy of resistance? This interests me. _Of course_ the programme is hype-driven and the talent is not high quality by most musical standards. But the programme does invite some very interesting questions about how the mass media create particular forms of, for lack of a better word, educational environments and manufacture ultimately artificial resistance to authority. What kinds of subjectivity get produced in this context and how does this determine the way we think about "voting" itself? While much (indeed most) television is schlock, there are complex ways that schlock impacts the social world. This, too, interests me and I think it's important to understand it. If I allow myself some frivolous pleasure along the way, I don't really think that detracts from the complexities at play. After all, it would be foolish to assume I can stand outside my own position as viewer to make a comments. Might as well acknowledge the guilty pleasures along the way!

I never watched it either... and although something quite similar to American Idol just happened in French Canada ("StarAcadémie"...there was a very good article in the Globe and Mail this week about it) and became an obsession for all Acadians, I didn't turn on the TV. And at this moment, I feel out of the loop. Even my English neighbours know about the sexy singing Acadian fisherman who made it to the top. For a few months, Acadians got to believe in Santa again. And then came the Shippagan incident... This, also, made the Globe and Mail... Oh! les hauts et les bas de la masse populaire!

FYI, Bush Whacker, I was definitely just poking a bit of fun at your guilty pleasure. I used to watch "Survivor" -- especially the first installation which say Rich win -- not so much because what was happening interested me as the fact that I was somewhat amazed at this phenomenon which strangely has been dubbed "reality TV." To this day, when I'm in procrastination mode, I occasionally watch shows like "Fear Factor" with the same fascination. I don't fully comprehend nor can articulate as well as you the whole phenomenon. I think, however, that it's imperative that a scholar in your area of expertise be in touch with these "cultural artifacts" as they are occurring. Remember that former faculty member we both knew who would make references to All in the Family well into the early '90s? Now THAT didn't cut it, did it! :->}