Analysis of Spectacularization as Social Interaction

in You Tube: Brodcast Yourself

Abstract
With the advent of the Internet, the notion of spectacle has been
transformed in practices of reception of cultural consumption and social interaction.
You Tube: Broadcast Yourself, as matrix of spectacularization, is a clear example
of how the Internet imposes new forms of social interaction, reception and
production of meaning in notion, form and content of spectacle to which are added
the characteristics of cultural industry. Through a pragmatic semiotic study of
textual construction and reception the categories of spectacularization as social
interaction in the You Tube site may be analysed, along with the mechanisms of
cultural and technological interaction produced by spectacles. These include the
shift from public to private (and viceversa: moebius culture); instantaneity and de-
territorialization; the spectator as producer, editor, censor and protagonist; the
trivial, the ephemeral, realist fiction, scandal, voyeurism, exhibitionism and
superficiality; contextual nomadism in the process of production, distribution,
consumption and socialization: indeed, the spectacle as “self-production”: “the
spectacle is you”.

You Tube: Broadcast Yourself constructs an individual and collective matrix

of spectacularization as social interaction immersed in the logic of cultural and
spectacle type industry which is expanded by the Internet. The analysis shall
emphasize that the problem of spectacularization in contemporary culture is due to
and constructed from “textual conversation” through the exercise of a “near-
mediatic interaction” of the user as “producer” and “editor” of texts of “himself”,
“of others” and “of the other”.

Key terms: You Tube: Broadcast Yourself, Matrix of Spectacularization, Social

Interaction, Theory of Spectacle, Textual Conversation, “Near-mediatic
interaction”, Internet, Self-Production.

“Our era, without a doubt, prefers image to things, copies to

originals, representations to reality, appearance to beings. Illusion
is sacred, while the profane is truth. Moreover, sacred is made
more so whilst truth diminishes and illusion grows, inasmuch as the
 maximum of illusion is the height of the sacred”.
Feuerbach

(Prologue to the second edition of La

Esencia del Cristianismo) (cited in
Debord, 1967: 9)

“Humanity has now become a spectacle of itself. Its self-alienation

has reached a degree which permits it to live its own destruction as
aesthetic delight”

Walter
Benjamin
(cited in Debord, 1967: 9)

Introduction

• Objective
The objective of this study is to carry out an analysis of the You
Tube, Broadcast Yourself website http://www.youtube.com, as a “matrix of
spectacularization”, to define its mechanisms of interaction, socialization and consumption,
the categories of virtual near-mediatic interaction and the types of classification of contents
of spectacle in the website.

• Justification
The Internet, as an interactive matrix of contingency and instant-site,
imposes new practices of use and cultural consumption along with new processes of
reception, production, distribution and socialization of texts. The dynamic of consumption
in the Internet conditions the phenomenon of traditional spectacularization and attributes
new characteristics of temporal use of space, new formulas of textual construction and an
unprecedented social magnitude in terms of circulation, production and consumption. You
Tube, Broadcast Yourself provides an exemplary case of the new culture of spectacle as
social interaction in the Internet age, based on “self-production of spectacle” and “trash
clip culture”, growing to 100 million hits per day and with an economic value of 1.6 billion
dollars within the past two years since its inception in 2005.

• Theoretical framework
The theoretical approach with which we shall describe the
mechanisms of You Tube is provided by three sources: the textual conversation model of
Gianfranco Bettetini (1984), the theory of “near-mediatic interaction” from John Thomson
(1997), and critical theory of spectacle from Guy Debord (1967).
 • Methodology
From the textual conversation model of Bettetini, as reformulated from
Person-Computer Interaction by Carlos Scolari (2004), we shall describe the qualities of
“interactive textual conversation” in You Tube. The theory of “near-mediatic interaction”
by Thompson (1997) shall also be used in describing the categories of interaction and the
types of texts published in the website. From Guy Debord´s critical theory of spectacle, we
shall provide a description of the sociocultural characteristics of the spectacle as social
interaction in You Tube, as a means of “self-production” and mediatic emission of the
“you”, as product of cultural consumption under the capitalistic values of spectacle:
banality, fame, the ephemeral and the culture of waste.

• Special Considerations
This study is an initial approach to the phenomenon of spectacularization as
social interaction in the Internet using You Tube, Broadcast Yourself as object of analysis.
The analytical methodology is experimental, the focus critical, its angle toward the
interdisciplinary construction of a sociosemiotic for analysis of spectacularization and
mediatic interaction in the Internet. You Tube itself, as well as its content, is an ever
changing phenomenon, prefiguring the so-called “post-television” system. You Tube is
constructed within the logic of the capitalist culture of spectacle, where its interactive
qualities are under privately administered content control. It responds to the rules of the
market and to the dynamic of a contemporary culture which is characterized by the
ephemeral, by banality and instantaneity. Hence, this theoretical-methodological analysis
of a long-term research project, in an attempt to reach greater scope in the topic and its
derivations is proposed as multidisciplinary and international.

1. Semantics of You Tube: Broadcast Yourself

You Tube: Broadcast Yourself, was conceived in February 2005 by Chad

Hurley, Steve Chen, and Jawed Karim. It was purchased by Google in November 2006 for
1.6 billion dollars. It has diverse commercial agreements with companies such as CBS,
BBC, Universal Music Group, Sony Music Group, Warner Music Group, NBA, and The
Sundance Channel.

According to the website´s own definition: “Anyone can see and share
original videos throughout the world through the Web”. You Tube “allows you to upload
and share video clips through the Internet, websites, mobile devices (phones and palms),
email and blogs. The website offers the opportunity to “see current events and happenings,
find videos about hobbies and personal interests, and to even discover the unusual”. While
people capture special memories on video, You Tube shall convert these people into the
broadcasters of tomorrow”.1

1
Information from www.youtube.com / recovered: 05/06/2007.
 The “You Tube: Broadcast Yourself” construction provides multiple
meanings. As a metaphoric and highly polysemic expression that points to the “you”,
You Tube can be translated to “You as receiver or transmitter of television diffusion”,
given that “Tube” refers to the device or tube (“picture tube”) of electrons where the
televised image is generated. It also suggests the notion of the “you” becoming a
“transmitter”.

Additionally, Broadcast Yourself can be defined as “Diffusion of yourself”

or “Transmit yourself”. Broadcast is a generally applied word in the field of
communication with diverse applications whose synonyms in English are advertisement,
air time, announcement, newscast, performance, program, publication, radiocast, show,
simulcast, telecast, transmission. 2 These terms are also associated with the construction of
the concept of “Spectacle” in the field of communication.

Thus, from the very construction of its name, You Tube: Broadcast
Yourself, the website proposes a “spectacularizing self-transmission”, or rather, a pragmatic
of the spectacular diffusion of the “you”, to “transmit yourself” in the conceptual
framework of the notion of “electronic, mediatic, communicative spectacle”.

2. Theory of spectacle and near-mediatic interaction in You Tube

Diverse spectacular functions which are characteristic of interactive media

in a virtual space can be found in You Tube. It is important to take into consideration
that the website does not allow a “direct” interaction in real time with other users since
it does not include the possibility of chats or virtual forums. Rather, it is about a
delayed or differed interaction, where users may send commentaries, upload videos and
carry out other operations, thereby leaving evidence of their visit which can be inserted
into the “scene” of the interface at the moment of being updated. The “other” users are
able to see these operations or contributions in delayed time. Thompson (1987) refers
to this characteristic of differed interaction as “near-mediatic interaction” with which
we shall deal more in depth later in this study.

2
Definición encontrada en www.dictionary.com recuperado: 5/006/2007.
 The keys for You Tube as a cultural matrix of spectacularization as social interaction
are:

VIRTUAL
MEMORY

SOCIAL SPECTACLE INTERNET

INTERACTION

Community WEB SITE / INSTANT

AUDIOVISUAL MOMENT
of users
share
socialization,
“Oriented UBIQUITOUS
not in real toward
“Common
time activities”
spectator”

“Media Events”
“Simulated
common “Fictional
activities” Action”

Fig. 1.Keys of Cultural Matrix of Spectacle as Social Interaction in You Tube.

This “quasi-mediatic interactive” of the You Tube website confers peculiar

characteristics at the moment of describing the spectacular function of the site.
Presently, and in keeping with Sonesson´s (1999) contributions, we shall attempt to
describe the traits of the spectacular function in You Tube.
To begin, we shall say that there exists a semiotic function in the website,
given by the relationship of expression/content and a spectacular function in the
relationship between scene/public. We shall understand “scene” in You Tube as the
interactive, virtual interface.
 You Tube: Broadcast Yourself
Semiotic Function
Expression/ Content
YOU TUBE Space Time Expression Content

Expression/ Ubiquitous current Interface Texts

Content De-territorialized +Texts • Written
(semiotic function)
Virtual • Audio
• Video
• Fixed image

SPECTACULAR MATRIX
You Tube: Broadcast Yourself
Spectacular Function Asymmetric Interaction / Not in real time
Scene / Audience
YOU TUBE Space Time Scene Audience

Scene/Audience Ubiquitous Not in real time Interface Users

(Spectacular function) Web site Moment / instant +Texts -“Community
Virtual (scene) ”
-Socialization
- Authors
- Readers
“Mix Interaction” Current
Asymmetric Not in real time

Fig.2. Inspired by Hildebrand, referred to by Sonesson, 1999.

The semiotic function is carried out in You Tube with the following characteristics:
• Space is ubiquitous, de-territorialized, virtual.
• Time is current, and responds to the need of updating the website for
readership/listenership or contributions.
• Expression is given in the Interface and the texts it contains.
• Content is expressed in the Interface and the texts it contains: videos,
writing, audio, fixed image.
 The spectacular function in You Tube incorporates the following
characteristics:
• Space is ubiquitous, de-territorialized, virtual.
• Time is current, responding to the necessity of updating the site for
readership/listenership or contributions.
• It establishes a relationship between users; that of “author” and
“reader”, alternately and indiscriminately.
• The interaction between users is differed in time and space. This is
“near-mediatic” in the words of Thompson (1997), and the contribution
or intervention is actual-differed, that is to say, it shall necessarily take
place while the Interface is connected, and this intervention shall show
the “other” as differed and not in real time as You Tube does not have
chat possibilities at the moment. (Wed. June 6, 2007).
• The “scene” is the Interface and the scenarios are the different
audiovisual texts.
• The public is the universe of users that participate interactively as
“authors/announcers” or “announcers/empiric readers/listeners”.
• The website combines the condition of being perceptive and subject to
contemplation.
• The website has a predominately visual component. (Sonesson, 1999)

We may further nourish this theory of spectacular function (Sonesson,

1999) with Theory of Spectacle by Guy Debord (1967), from his extraordinary reflection
from Society of Spectacle.

The study by Debord reflects a critical theory inherited from the Frankfort
School, and foreshadows how the logic of power in the capitalistic system invades spheres
of daily life through the spectacle culture as a method of ideological domination. You Tube
is perfectly described in the values that correspond to this logic; those of banality,
mercantilism, instantaneity, ephemeral fame, voyeurism and construction centred in the
“you”.

We shall summarize the foundations of the Theory of spectacle in the words

of Debord (1967) which describes You Tube, Interface, content and users, from a critical
focus, as a cultural matrix of spectacularization as social interaction:
 YOU TUBE
CULTURAL AND SOCIAL MATRIX OF SPECTACLE (AFTER DEBORD)
You Tube in Society of Spectacle User of You Tube Subjects of the Interface
in You Tube
Instrument of apparent union Media social relations Accumulation of Spectacles

Divorce between reality and image Objective view of the Representation

Unity sense based on separation
Truth is a moment of falsehood
Social economic product:
Use of time and culture as
merchandise
“What appears is good, good is what
appears”
world
Monologue about the Appear with mediatic versions
self
Extensive imitation Tautologic Style
Inner Spectator Predominately Audio-Visual
trapped in a flat
universe limited by the
screen
False readers who feed Categories of viewing
it, one way direction

Monopoly of appearances Need for representation Interactive virtual map

Ubiquitous in space and in time

“ There is no sunset in the empire of “Painful feeling of Spread spectacularity multiple and
modern passivity” being on the periphery superabundant
of existence”
Philosophizes reality Invades privacy The unlimited artificial

Specialization of power Surveillance and self Technical specialization

surveillance

Ideological system: banality, poverty, slavery and denegation of real life

Evanescence between the notion of truth and falsehood
Real presence of falsehood that assures organization of appearance
Discourse uninterrupted of current order
“Perpetuity based on change, instantaneity and eternity of cyberspace”
Dreamed activity of idealism with technical mediation of the signs and signals which ends in
materializing an abstract ideal:
The “democracy of dreams“

Fig. 3. Scheme Based on Critical Theory from The Spectacle Society, Debord (1967)

You Tube, as a cultural and social matrix of spectacularization, from a

critical perspective, is an uninterrupted discourse of present order, offering the virtual
eternity of cyberspace and socialization, a glimpse of “others” through instantaneous access
of the audiovisual image. It responds to the logic of culture as merchandise and to the
blurring of lines of distinction between falsehood and truth, given the real presence of
falsehood as guarantee of the organization of appearances.

In the words of Debord (1967):

“The spectacle, which is the disappearance of the distinction between the

“I” and the world by the destruction of the “I” besieged by the presence-absence of
the world, is also the disappearance of the distinction between truth and falsehood
through repression of all truth lived in benefit of the real presence of falsehood
guaranteed by the organization of appearances. (Ibid,: 175)”

For Debord, the restoration of the truth of the world can be carried out only
through dialogue of individuals who are directly linked to universal history, not through
atomized individuals submissive to manipulations; that is to say, it claims the right of
dialogue and language as instruments in social construction.

Perhaps You Tube shall become an instrument of dialogue in the near future,
given its technical and socializing possibilities. It is yet to be today. Its administration is
business-like, it exercises strict control over content, users contributions are “filtered”, as
decisions are ultimately taken by the website owners. It offers an apparent platform of
“self-production” with moral limits which respond to the logic of the market to which it is
offered. “Self-production” in You Tube has social, moral and political limitations which
are convenient for maintaining its political-mercantile hold.

“Excess” is not convenient to the system. Under the protective shield of

author rights (copyright), there stands an instrument of censorship which imposes the moral
logic of the capitalist system: supply and demand always within the margin of what is
morally and politically correct, while maintaining the status quo of the business project.
You Tube inherits the thematic contents and commonplace content treatment
which capitalism requires for cultural industry of cinema, television, radio, music, press
and Internet. To the technical resources of the virtual platform (Internet) – instantaneity,
real time, territorial ubiquity – are added contents established in thematic categories and
audiovisual treatment (textual strategies); these are characteristic of the dominating cultural
industry in the modern day capitalist world.

3. Textual interaction in You Tube

Gianfranco Bettetini (1984), from a semiotic-pragmatic perspective,

proposes a model of textual conversation in a framework of audiovisual language theory
that can be extended to interactive virtual media. (Scolari, 2004: 58 y 155). Bettetini´s
model goes beyond the semantic values present in a text.

Bettetini establishes that a text proposes a symbolic communicative

exchange. In this case, You Tube is a text (and “as a textual structure”) and interactive
interface that suggests the creation of meaning and reading matter for the user:
 “The text fulfils an act of supplementary performance with respect to its
semantic depth: the text also introduces a symbolic communicative exchange, a symbolic
“conversation” into the play. The representation of semantic values is at the same time
framed in the representation of its moving between two subjects that the textual device
constitutes as phantom images; he who transmits and he who receives. A text, in synthesis,
also includes the representation of its rules of use, of its modes of access to meaning
through its semiotic articulation. (Bettetini, 1984: 101/cited by Scolari, 2004: 54)
The textual “conversation” model presupposes the existence of an announcing
subject and an ennunciatory subject. All texts include a “Project of communicative
relationship”, as Bettetini points out, “a program of development of interaction with the
public”. The spectator, on the other hand, receives the text as a “Project of interaction with
the semiotic articulations that the textual discourse suggests”. (Ibid,: 110/Ibid,: 55)

In Person-Computer interaction, taking from Scolari (2004), the following can

be held for You Tube´s interactive site:

• Interaction in You Tube maintains a virtual and symbolic nature of the

textual conversation.

• The interaction allows a direct intervention from the user through the
interface in the production of meaning.

• The announcing subject is identified with partially structured

knowledge, given that it is governed by potential strategies that must
be updated by the user.

• The enunciatory subject/user assumes a simulated, symbolic body,

visible on the screen by way of the cursor in order to enter into the
text. The semblance of the user´s body appears on screen in the form
of a cursor.

• The enunciatory subject/user is constructed in diverse manners,

according to the tools of interaction that the site offers and rules.

• The interaction presupposes a “knowing-being”, a “knowing-doing”

and also “acting” by way of the competencies of design and use.

• The communicative exchange in You Tube is not carried out between

two empirical subjects, but between symbolic structures (text,
subject, announcer, enunciatory/receptor/user).

• The announcer in You Tube is presented as a semblance of the

transmitter installed within the discourse (interface) that regulates the
user´s types of approach to the text.
 • The You Tube interface initially acts as an organizer of the symbolic
processes of the virtual texts it contains.

• You Tube is presented as a semblance of a transmitter, and this

semblance is “an absent device, producer and product of the text
which leaves its computer trail all over meaningful
materials” (Bettetini, by Scolari, 2004: 155)

• The enunciatory subject, the user, is the implied receiver of the

enunciation which is present in all texts, with potential instruments of
interactive intervention in the text that must be updated.

YOU TUBE Interspace

INTERACTION User-
Computer-User READING Computer
“Invisible” Action
Agreement/ “Visible”
Communication Contract Action
Reader-use
“production”
Reader- use
“production”

I I
N Static N
Static indices
T Indices of of reader T
E Author Narrative and comment E
R indices of author Video R
Video Comments F
F Comments Social Interaction Rank
A Flag A
Rank
C Flag Copyright C
Copyright Dynamic indices of lector notice E
E Block users
notice
Block users Tags
Tags
Dynamic Realization

Fig. 4. BETTETINI´S TEXTUAL CONVERSATION MODEL (1994), in Scolari (2004: 58),

applied to interaction in You Tube: Broadcast Yourself. Model modified by J. Bañuelos (2007)
 Interaction presupposes a “reader contract”, a “communication pact”, “an
interaction contract”. Both the announcing subject and the enunciating subject leave a
static trail after their contribution, as well as more dynamic prints (narrative and
commentaries) during their dynamic interaction in the realm of the updated interface. Such
“prints” are signs of actions that are revealed in the dynamic of consumption (Bettetini
cited in Scolari, 2004: 56). Both subjects construct prints, “signs” and evidence of behavior
of a symbolic interlocutor, “that gradually acquires form during the progressive meeting of
the communicative interaction of ´reading´ (Ibid,: 56).

The announcing subject and the enunciatory subject in You Tube have the same
statute as users-producers. The author of a text is also a reader of his/her own text in the
plot of the site and the user-receiver has the same possibilities of production as the
transmitter. This interactive capability of the site indiscriminately converts the transmitter
into a reader, and the reader becomes transmitter in terms of his interactive possibilities.

In You Tube, a “model author” sends a text to a “model reader”. (Eco, 1979).
Both “models”, author and reader, must move to construct a text – the author doing so
generatively and the reader doing so interpretatively. Nevertheless, it is not enough to
simply wait for the model reader to “cooperate in textual updating”. The model author
must “move the text to construct it”. For his part, the empirical reader must delineate “an
author´s hypothesis, deduced from the details of the textual strategy”. Both the model
author and the model reader are constructed as “textual strategies”. For this reason, textual
cooperation in You Tube “is a phenomenon that occurs between two discursive strategies,
and not between two individual subjects” (Eco, cited in Scolari, 2004:157).
“Communication” is carried out when both follow a contract that regulates the exchange,
an “interaction contract” governed You Tube´s rules of interaction.

“From a semiotic perspective, communication is an action that a subject exerts

over another, a symbolic exchange that refers to ideas of conflict, stipulations and
conquest”. (Scolari, 2004: 156). Such “acts” of conflict, stipulations and conquest are
carried out through the dynamic intervention of the interactive updating of You Tube,
uploading, saving favourites, sharing, responding with a video (post video), classifying
inappropriate content (tagging), sending commentaries (posting comments), rating,
marking inappropriate content with a red flag (red flagging), blocking a user, notifying
violations of author rights (copyright notices), accepting or declining commentaries (kinda)
and of course, carrying out different types of searches.

You Tube incorporates an interactive dimension to the exchange, constituting a

semblance of user(s) that functions as a proposal for interaction in terms of the empirical
user who is seated in front of an interactive screen and who ultimately decides to accept,
decline or intervene. (Ibid,:157)

The You Tube empirical user accepts an interaction contract in order to enter a
site with his own grammar, an environment in which he will need to interact with devices
and carry out the anticipated technical operations (and he will not be able to carry out
others such as downloading videos to his computer).
 The symbolic interaction and exchange in You Tube presupposes the existence
of an announcing subject (producer and product of the text) and an enunciatory subject
(produced by the announcer and the text). However, the “dialoguing semblance of the
receiver will be very different from that of the enunciatory act that the text attempted to
produce. Above all, the model announcing subject produced by the receiver is not easily
commensurable with the announcing subject, the programmed origin of the textual
discourse-conversation” (Bettetini cited in Scalari, 2004: 56)

4. Categories of spectacularization and discursive strategies in You Tube

Two levels of textual reading must be distinguished in You Tube:

 The site´s interface as a text that proposes a spectacularizing textual

discourse (scenery/scene/public), and a series of potential interaction
strategies for approaching texts.

 Audiovisual texts (videos) contained in the site that the interface

organizes, administers, develops and makes visible, which users
produce and classify.

The You Tube interface allows interaction for the following rules of
intervention:

• Uploading videos
• Classifying (tagging)
• Save favorites (no downloads)
• Sharing: sending a recommended link by email
• Responding with a video (post video)
• Sending comments (post text comment)
• Rating with the star system
• marking inappropriate with a red flag (red flagging)
• blocking a user
• notifying violations of author rights (copyright notice)
• accepting or declining commentaries (“kinda”)
• carrying out diverse searches:
o Most Recent, Most Viewed, Top Rated, Most Discussed,
Top Favorites, Most Linked, Most Featured, Most
Responded, Watch on Mobile
o Search by time: date, day, week, month
o Search by category: vehicles, comedy, entertainment, film
and animation, gadgets and games, howto and DIY,
music, news and politics, people and blogs, pets and
 animals, sports, travel and places.
o Search by language: English, French, Spanish, Arab,
Chinese, Japanese, German
• Creating channels and groups
• Participating in diverse types of audiovisual contests (mainly
promoted by multinational companies such as Samsung, Heinz,
Malibu, for example.)

Content is classified by categories, terms (key words) tags, related terms,

associated search methods and the author-producer of the text:

 Cars and vehicles

 comedy
 entertainment
 film and animation
 gadgets and games
 howto and DIY
 music
 news and politics
 people and blogs
 pets and animals
 sports
 travel and places

We return to the concept by Thompson (1997) on “near-mediatic interaction”, noting

the exception that You Tube acquires differed dialogical possibilities.
 You Tube
General interaction vs. “Mix Interaction” qualities
General qualities of interaction “Mix interaction” qualities in You Tube
Multiple Contexts: extended availability of
Temporal-space time and space:
constitution (ubiquitous, virtual,
instantaneous, actual)
Symbolic signals Small number of symbolic signals: text
written, image, video, audio
Action orientated Oriented toward non defined number of
potential recipients
Dialogic/ monolgic Dialogic/monologic/ “not in real time”
Hybrid
“mix Interaction”:
“mediatic interacction” + “near-mediatic
interaction” (Thompson, 1997)
Fig. 5. General interaction vs. “Mix Interaction” qualities” based on Thompson (1997)

Thompson´s descriptions (1997) on interactions and “near-mediatic

interaction” allow us to understand that the interaction in You Tube is a “mixed” type, since
it includes a differed dialogic and monologic. You Tube interaction implies the
understanding of a virtual space and time, and with it the separation of the contexts in
which the participants are found. You Tube establishes an interactive structure depository
of symbolic forms (textual-audiovisual) that consists of two ore more regions separated in
space and time.

En You Tube, the regions in the receptive sphere do not affect the structure of
production. The “structure of interactive reception” in You Tube can be used as a
framework for “near-mediatic interaction” and eventually as a framework for “mediatic
interaction” (with the possible inclusion of a chat/web cam) and “face to face interaction”
as a setting for a socializing receptive activity whereby users come together by the site´s
interface. (Thompson, 1997: 125).

You Tube “narrows” the scope of symbolic signs as it reduces the formal
possibilities to written and audiovisual texts (videos) oriented toward an indefinite number
of potential recipients through the Internet. The transmitters and receivers in You Tube are
under no mutual obligation to take into account the responses of others.

Thompson (1997) shows the transmitter acting for others in four ways;
You Tube acquires the form of “audiovisual self-production” as a type of intervention in the
site and which we identify here as textual strategies of spectacularization in You Tube:

• “orientation toward the receiver”

• “daily mediatic activity”
 • “daily simulated activity”
• “mediatic events”
• “fictional action”
Textual Stratigie
“Orientation toward the
spectator”
“Common mediatic
activities”
“Simulated common
activities”
“Media events”
“Fictional action”
You Tube
Textual Strategies of Spectacle construction in You Tube
Mediatic Act Example or Case
When the transmitter Monologue in front of the camera:
talks and looks at the
camera
• Tony Blair (Views: 349,181)
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6Cu9187tCY
• Lonely Girl 15 (Views: 1,425,906 )
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZN-Wye4rDE
• NumaNuma/ (Views: 3,506,565) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60og9gwKh1
• Noah/ (Views: 6,106,672) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6B26asyGKDo
• CNN-You Tube Republican Debate (July 22 – November 28, 2007)
http://www.youtube.com/contest/RepublicanDebate (3,000 videos)
http://youtube.com/debates
Shows normal daily Daily Life:
activities.
• Edgar se cae (Views: 1,902,736)
The “actors” would • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b89CnP0Iq30
know if they are
recorded or not. Surveillance / self-surveillance
Mexico City Underground:
Individuals participate Simulated common act:
in ordinary activities
with the objective of
• Evolution of dance (Views: 50,185,791)
being recorded. • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMH0bHeiRNg
• News/
• Spencer Tunick México (Views: 1,902,736)
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDC0dqyn1tE&mode=related&search=
Planned events Media events:
constructed specially
for media.
• Olympic Games
• Football
• Concerts/ Freddie Mercury (Views: 72,040)
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4yjbsYCupQ
Narrative fiction Fiction:
broadcast production.
• Advertisements/ (Views: 40,319)
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7WleXpzmZA
Thin line between
fiction and non-fiction. • Films
• TV-series
• Soap-opera
 • Musical Videoclips
• Clips
• Documentary Fiction
• Docudrama
• Columbine High School (20,777) http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=361wevQhEuE&mode=related&search=
• Sex
Fig. Textual strategy scheme. Information: June 9, 2007 (3¨00am)

Some characteristics of reception in You Tube, as outlined by Thompson (1997) that

the mediatic messages acquire:

You Tube
Reception characteristics
Reception in You Tube Qualities Example
“Discursive creation” Elaborate, refined messages, Comments, written
Critiques, tributes and text and video
commentaries by receivers

“Extended mediatization” Mediatic responses referring to a Videos that are

text or various related mediatic “replicas”, inspired
texts: high degree of self- by a previous video,
reference, mediatic texts referring uploaded to the site
to other mediatic texts or related and taken as model
events.
“Application/Appropriation” Mediatic texts may go beyond Publicity related
their initial primary activity, as an with some original
extended reception process, in videos in the site
other contexts.
Some television
channels such as
Antena 3 (Spain)
have program space
where “preferred”
videos taken from
Internet sites such
as You Tube are
shown.

5. Contexts in You Tube

In You Tube, as in any other Internet site, context is “multicontextual”. An

initial classification can be made in the following manner:
• Linguistic and audiovisual context
 • Situational context, set of data that gives participants access to
a “conversation” or “exchange” in the immediate physical
surroundings.
o Territorial context (the time and space of necessity, the
place of the user)
o Intracontext, the Interface (time and space of the site in
Internet)
• Sociocultural context, set of data coming from social and
cultural conditioning on “verbal”, “visual”, “sound” behaviors
and adjustment to different circumstances. (Reyes, 2000: 20)

Three types of contexts which turn Internet sites into complex contexts for
socialization operate simultaneously in You Tube. The sociocultural contexts actively
contribute to the interpretation of statements. You Tube functions as context given the rules
of intervention, consumption, exchange, as based on “self-production” and the exploration
or visualization of “the other”. Similar to legal, religious, political and medical language,
You Tube establishes its own rules for reading, updating and interpretation, all of which are
focused on spectacularization, as well as the interpretation of texts in its context that
operates as a “sociocultural frame”. You Tube is a “techno-sociocultural frame”.

You Tube as a “reference frame” or “frame” acts as a “metacommunicative

framework” that allows for the organization and classification of the text, the situation of
reception and exchange, as well as the role of its participants. You Tube permits users to
generate expectations and presuppositions that let them produce and interpret texts.
(Reyes, 2000: 20)

You Tube, Broadcast Yoursef as a “metacommunicative framework” has

the following qualities:

• It is a “selfproducction framework” focused on the “you”:

“Broadcast Yourself”
• It is a framework of interactive socialization, allowing active
participation in the construction of the site: by sending videos,
recommending, classifying, judging, writing to comment on
videos which produce a sense of individual and community
appropriation of the site.
• It is a referential framework of audiovisual reading about the
other: “the others”, “ the other”, the “alter ego”.
• It is a “spectacular framework in which all text and reading
expectations take on qualities of “fun”, “entertainment”, “short
lived” and “spectacularization”.
• It is a “framework of instantaneity” or “framework of
 update”, where “instantaneity” is the “real time” consumption
experience, where space is the site and where time is the very
instant it operates as contingency matrix in the framework of the
Internet.

You Tube is created as a “metacommunicative frame”, as a “sociocultural

community” that shares cognitive codes and structures stereotypical of the spectacular type,
about situations and concepts which allow association of meanings.

In You Tube, one can carry out ritualized communication situations

(shared), where the texts´ value of truth is of lesser importance, and where the context or
“metacommunicative frame”, “collectively” constructed under the rules of consumption
and textual production of the site, is what really determines meaning.

6. Limitations of You Tube

As has been pointed out, the Internet site of You Tube is subject to the logic that
lays its very foundations: the ephemeral, banality and permanent change. Our study was
carried out during the month of June, 2007. Undoubtedly, the site will experience operative
modifications in content and usage through time. We must not omit the possibility of its
disappearance or its eventual conversion to a post-television formula. For now, we have
seen its evolution from being a site offering greater freedoms – with lesser censorship and
content control – with the possibility of video downloads by users and absence of
advertisements, to a You Tube of today that was acquired by Google where there is greater
content control, more advertisements and publicity, and where there is no possibility of
downloading videos directly to the user´s terminal, among other changes.

The main limits to You Tube come from the website´s own administration.
We may classify the main boundaries in which users also participate:

• Content control and censorship by website administrators with

moral and legal nature.
• Content control by users and “self-censorship” having a moral
nature. Administrators are responsible for checking videos
having been red flagged by users. Users are unable to remove a
video or written text themselves.
• Vigilance over not violating author rights to registered contents,
with intellectual property and rights for lucrative uses.
• No copyrights for users.
• Final responsibility of any content uploaded to the site is given
to the user, not to site administrators.

As can be observed, in terms of copyright protection, there are moral and

legal limits. As for morality, the site has very clearly established a “Code of Conduct”
http://www.youtube.com/t/community_guidelines), “Terms of Use”
http://www.youtube.com/t/terms), and “Safety Tips” http://www.youtube.com/t/safety).

Site administrators trust the “responsability of users” to make use of it, and
they underline that all irresponsible use falls into the hands of the users. You Tube is not a
“shock site”. It does not admit explicit videos dealing with sex, violence, death, child
exploitation, hate, gender bashing, racial slurs, gay bashing or attack of religion or
nationality. In addition, the site warns of “zero tolerance” for improper use of personal
information of users.

In terms of copyright, (see “Copyright notices”

http://www.youtube.com/t/howto_copyright ), You Tube warns that only originally made
videos by users are to be uploaded, or videos which possess a permission for use in full or
in part by the author or owner. This includes original music that accompanies a video. A
large percentage of videos in You Tube include original music used without permission by
authors. It would seem that the site chooses to ignore its own rules. Only those rules
which for You Tube are “politically and economically incorrect” are obeyed.

The limits of You Tube are dictated by a businesslike logic. Google paid
1.6 billion dollars for the site, and this underlies a market of approximately 100 million
potential users per day; it is a market that must be embraced according to an established
consumption profile. Any video or text that might alter the status quo of the consumer and
the market of You Tube must be taken off the site, censored.

Only those contents which alter or exceed the profile of consumers and
jeopardize the business plan of the site are discarded. The principle limit to You Tube,
then, is market logic, and the platform which guarantees market is that of
spectacularization.

As evidence, let us examine a video that was uploaded to the You Tube site
in April 2007 where a presumed member of the group “Los Zetas” is executed. The
Mexican newspaper El Universal published information regarding this video on April 2,
2007, describing the beheading of a man with a club and a cable.

This video only briefly appeared on the site; however, it was sufficient time
for press in Mexico to deal with the subject, which ultimately would have international
ramifications.

At present, the video in question is not found by search engines such as

www.google.com o www.yahoo.com, nor in any website. This indicates that without a
doubt there exists a rigorous control over contents on the web.

The exemplary punishment for improper use that the site imposes as a
penalty is to permanently prohibit the user who violates its rules from future use. It also
prohibits, perhaps in a more naïve way, that a user who has violated the rules shall use the
account of another. It warns that those who violate author rights shall be prosecuted. The
question becomes how to identify million of users who provide false names and
information on the site. Perhaps this could be the focus of another study in which the
subject of “computer policing” would necessarily require attention.

Thus, it can be said that “self-production” in You Tube has its limitations,
margins of the “politically and economically correct”, under a certain logic and a business
plan.

Might You Tube be capable of transcending this businesslike logic as a

spectacularizing social matrix, moving beyond to become a site with greater cultural scope
and capacity? Might it become a site where there could exist a true interaction, a true
freedom of “self-production” as a form of non-censored socialization, with a real self-
regulation by its users? These are common questions when a descriptive critical analysis
is made on You Tube from a pragmatic semiotic stance as this study has attempted to do.
Such questions respond to an initial promise that the Internet offers from its very origins;
the possibility of constructing a true “democracy of dreams”, a real forum of intervention
and social interaction, a borderless, limitless space for dialogue in the public realm, and not
a commercialized “democracy of spectacle”.

The medium invokes new uses and horizons. As with television, the Internet
is a technocultural instrument that allows the scope of knowledge to expand, an extension
of the capacity of socialization and the growth of the human being in society. New
developments in biosemiotics and Internet are already exploring this new course of
conjoined elements in the net for the maintenance and betterment of human life.

You Tube could be only the spectacularing social matrix that is already
visualized, its lifespan subject to market logic. The political potential of the site based on
its enormous audience can introduce new users of a more educational and cultural nature,
such as e-youtube, a channel broadcast by the European Union in You Tube which pursues
teaching and cultural purposes throughout the continent. It is safe to say that other
developments in Internet will undoubtedly give greater impetus to the construction of a
culture free of market logic, one politically more human and dialogic. Only in this way
shall it become less apocalyptic.

CONCLUSIONS

•You Tube is a mixed-interactive matrix of spectacle based on interaction, sharing, virtual -

not real time - socialization, where the author and the reader have the same interactive
possibilities under the rules of use established by site administrators.

•You Tube reproduces main qualities of the society of spectacle which are characteristic of
capitalist cultural industry, based on the strategy of “self-production” and limited by
market logic and the site´s business plan.

•The limitations of “self-production” in You Tube are the same limits imposed by market
logic and the business plan of website owners.

•Users look for a type of longevity in You Tube, consolidated in digital memory and
cyberspace, with a “promise of eternity” and promise of “being seen” by others
interactively in the net; ultimately, the promise of interactive visual memory.

•Truth is a moment of falsehood in You Tube where notions of certainty are diluted and all
is seen to be permeated by the sieve of falsehood, of uncertainty; that which is ephemeral
and trivial. Truth in You Tube is truth of the spectacular.

•The interactive possibilities may grow in You Tube if it can move away from market logic
and open an authentic dialogic socialization of a human nature.
Basic Bibliography:

"Scolari, C. (2004) Hacer clic. Hacia una sociosemiótica de las interacciones digitales,
Madrid, Gedisa.

"Ryes, G. (2000) El abecé de la pragmática, Madrid, Arco/Libros.

"Bauman, Z. (2004) Vidas desperdiciadas, Barcelona, Paidós.
"Debord, G. (1967) La sociedad del espectáculo, Valencia, Pre-textos.
"Thompson, J. (1997) Los media y la modernidad. Una teoría de los medios de
comunicación, Barcelona, Paidós.

General Bibliography:
_____________________________________________________________________

Berelson, B. (1952). Content analysis in communication research. NuevaYork: The

Free Press.
Bobbio, N. (2005). El futuro de la democracia. México: Fondo de Cultura Económica.

Callejo, J. (2001). Investigar las audiencias, un análisis cualitativo. Barcelona: Paidós.

Cobo, C. (2006) Web 2.0: un cerebro digital en crecimiento. Obtenido el 1 de Febrero,

2007 de
http://www.amicmexico.org/docs/ponencias_xviii_encuentro/nuevas_tecnologias_y
_si/web_2_0_final.pdf

Curran, J., Morley, D., Walkerdine, V. (1998.), Estudios culturales y comunicación,

Barcelona, Paidós,

De Kerckhove (1990). Rileggere McLuhan nell’era del virtuale, publicado en Mondi

virtuali, simulazione, relatà, fantasia. Actas del congreso homónimo. Venecia:
Fondazione Fortiny.

Fernando, A. (2007, January). Social media change the rules. Communication World,
24(1), 9-10. Retrieved February 5, 2007, from ProQuest Telecommunications
database. (Document ID: 1190701691).
Jenkins, H (2004). “The cultural logic or media convergence”. En: International Journal of
cultural Studies (vol. 1, núm. 7, pág. 33-43). Londres: Sage Publications.

Jones, S. (1999), Doing Research, Critical Issues and Methods for Examining the Net,
Thousand Oaks (California), Sage.

Lara, M. (2006). Nuevas tecnologías de comunicación: ¿Oportunidad o riesgo para la

esfera pública y la democracia? Obtenido el 31 de Enero, 2007 de
http://www.espacioblog.com/myfiles/alaic-internet/Miguel.pdf

Lee, G. (2006). Like Google and TiVo, YouTube is now a verb, and an adjective. Wall
Street Journal. Obtenido el 4 de Febrero de 2007 de http://0-
proquest.umi.com.millenium.itesm.mx:80/pqdlink?
did=1147111371&sid=1&Fmt=3&clientId=23693&RQT=309&VName=PQD

Lee, G. (2006) Will all of us get our 15 minutes on a YouTube video? Wall Street Journal.
Obtenida el 4 de Febrero de 2007 de http://0-
proquest.umi.com.millenium.itesm.mx:80/pqdlink?
did=1115008951&sid=1&Fmt=3&clientId=23693&RQT=309&VName=PQD

Liedtke, M. (2006) Now Starring on the Internet: YouTube.com. AP Bussines Press. USA
Today.http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techinnovations/2006-04-09-youtube-
popularity_x.htm Consultado 9/9/2007.

Marshall, P.D. (2004). New Media Cultures. Londres: Arnold Publishing

Neuman, R.W. (2002). El Futuro de la Audiencia Masiva. México: Fondo de Cultura

Económica.

Nielsen, H. J. (2005). New media and new roles of librarianship: illustrated bya literary
website o Danish libraries in New Library World. Vol. 106. Pg. 510; London.
http://0-proquest.umi.com.millenium.itesm.mx:80/pqdlink?
did=975085731&sid=1&Fmt=3&clientId=23693&RQT=309&VName=PQD

O`Brien, D., Fitzgerald, B. (2006). Digital copyright law in a YouTube world. Obtenido el
3 de Febrero, 2007 de http://eprints.qut.edu.au/archive/00005230/02/5230.pdf

Piñuel Raigada, J.L. & J.A. Gaitán (1995). Metodología general. Conocimiento científico e
investigación en la comunicación social. Madrid: Síntesis.
Rakow. L.F. (1999). “The public at the table: from public access to public participation”.
En: New Media and Society (vol. 1, núm. 1, pág. 74-82). Londres: Sage
Publications.

Roig, A. (2006) ¡Prodúcete a ti mismo! Televisión, Internet y la emergencia de la

“cultura de clip” Obtenido el 30 de Enero, 2007 de
 http://www.zemos98.org/festivales/zemos988/pack/produceteatimismo_latelevision
nolofilma.pdf

Vidali, P. (1995). Experiencia y Comunicación en los nuevos media en Bettetini, G., y

Colombo, F. Las nuevas tecnologías de la comunicación. (eds.) Barcelona: Paidos.

Vidali (1998). La ragione possible. Per una geografái della cultural. Milan.

Wolton, D. (2000). Las nuevas tecnologías, el individuo y la sociedad en Internet ¿Y

después? Pp 93-130. Barceona: Gedisa.

Wolton, D. (2000) Sobrevivir a Internet, conversaciones con Olivier Jay. Barcelona:

Gedisa.

Yantosh Jennifer (2007) One –Third of Frequent YouTube user are watching less TV To
watch videos online: YouTube users also do not want to see advertisements before
they watch videos. Harris Interactive Inc. Recuperado el 4 de Febrero del 2006 de
http://0web.lexisnexis.com.millenium.itesm.mx/universe/document?
_m=356667e1b5deb4ec5e418a56518d1f2c&_docnum=18&wchp=dGLbVlbzSkVA
&_md5=46f2dce0107c3d5d360dd3c263afabd8&StartMuseCookie=IIIV397441685
4%3D%22252mtyr%2C499512%2C45%2C110%2C0%2C0%22%3B+domain
%3Dmillenium.itesm.mx%3B+path%3D%2

Other Internet References:

www.youtube.com (consulted during the month of June, 2007).