So, remember how I mentioned that there was an invitation-only even on Thursday were she'd be speaking? I went and there she was, the only woman in a 4-person panel that was supposed to have a conversation on the histories of technological rupture. She talked about what we talked about in class, vertical integration and content production, particularly comparing new media (such as Netflix) vs. Hollywood studios. She said that the battle now is in the control of the wires, because no matter how ethereal we think the internet is, if you want to stream something on Netflix, you have to plug at least one thing. Therefore, her future work entails even more analysis on the infrastructure of entertainment.
After the panel, I talked to her and discovered that she's really pretty cool and easy to talk to. I told her that we had just read her earlier stuff on class - oh and by the way, Prof., she sends her love - and I asked her if her work resonated well with policy makers (remember how we talked about her work lacking some more theoretical fierceness a la McChesney?). By the end of the conversation, she hugged me goodbye!!!!!! #girlpower (<-- yeah, yeah, I know it's problematic, whatevs)
How did she answer your question? Does she find that her work resonates with policy makers or people in the industry?
ReplyDeleteYes. She said that she tries and that she has been invited "by industry" to give talks or presentations and that she has done so (it kind of reminded me of Jenkins when she said all that). She added that she thought that sometimes not having such a strong vocal opinion gets you in the door because they are more willing to listen to you, compared to consulting McChesney - you already know what you are gonna get.
ReplyDeleteInterestingly, she did mention that, with the work she's doing right now, she's being a lot more political - that she almost couldn't help but be. So we'll see. Maybe we'll get saltiness from her after all.