This is a really good way of putting it. It differentiates the two concepts which I think often get tangled together

This seems like a never-ending vicious cycle that needs to be broken. You don't want authors to avoid certain characters or topics because they are worried about backlash (this may turn into a form of self-censorship).

This is a really important point to consider. In the research that we've done for our podcast, a couple articles (including the one Hannah suggested we look at) made it clear that allies need to do their own research and stay up to date with issues that are occurring. They were saying that you cannot always rely on the minority groups to do all the heavy lifting for you if you are supposed to be supporting them (but it's a fine line between speaking with them, as opposed to for them which we need to keep in mind).

This extra step in the editing process makes people even more hyper aware. To me, authors cannot afford to make these mistakes when there are so many people who are paying close attention. But again, not everybody is going to like you/your work so I would think it makes it difficult to decide what should really be put out there with your name attached.

It's fascinating to me that people have been able to commoditize sensitivity reading and their past experiences. In theory I think this is a great idea, but I still have my skepticism. Is it a sustainable practice and does it really catch all of the potential harmful passages? Or will it differ between minority groups?

Censorship and free speech seems to get complicated when the internet is involved. I can see why this conflict arose because of seeming copyright issues yet Penny Arcade viewed it as censorship. When do people/creators cross that line from satire or parody into copyright? And does this depend on the content and where it's shared?

Just like Palmer's article mentioned, this levelled the playing field a little. By lowering the barriers of entry form the 'original' comic book industry, more creators etc are able to enter into the competition and therefore contributing even more to the different niches that exist in webcomics.

It allows artists to connect with a larger niche community more directly. Just as Palmer pointed out in the other article, there have been numerous things such as the internet that have impacted how creators/producers are able to interact with their audiences. When you have a more direct market and creators are originating from the fandom, it deepens the ties of the community.

Seminar Leadership Discussion Questions

(page 237) “Although seemingly taken for granted, and despite its mundane and invisible aspect, distribution is critical to understanding what ultimately gets created, printed, sold, consumed and studied. Fundamentally, how, where and when something is made available for purchase influences who will purchase it.”

Q1 Do you agree with the author that distribution should be credited as a major factor to radically changing and upsetting the comics industry despite its “mundane” role? If not, what are your thoughts on what actually affects content?

(page 243) “The group did not view comic books as disposable but instead as desirable and sometimes expensive collectibles.” –referring to fandoms as well.

Q2 Leading off from the first question: Based on the comic book industry’s nature of physically or digitally OWNING the published work, does this affect the role that distributors play? Does the significance and influence of the retailer and distributor vary drastically between industries and mediums? What other areas of the publishing industry can we draw similarities from regarding this idea of owning the ‘product?’

(page 242) “In an attempt to head off possible governmental regulation and in light of existing ordinances and restrictions, the industry turned to self-policing.”

Q3 The main reason the Comics Code Authority was established was to self-regulate so the government did not need to step in. When should (or shouldn’t) the government intervene in cultural industries? Despite some criticisms for how the Comics Code handled the industry and skewed the audience and content of comics, do you think it was a better choice than government regulations?

(page 242) “For a time, the very real threat of being denied distribution compelled publishers and creators to restrict allowable content and served to limit experimentation.”

Q4 When government, self-regulating bodies or aspects of the actual business or industry start imposing or phasing out specific content or forms, when does this begin to overstep on creative freedom or even become censorship? In some cases people view it as a political move to not distribute or publish something. How do you think you would feel if something you enjoyed and followed closely became heavily regulated, or even discontinued because of content regulation?

Do you think the independent or smaller publishers were considered in this? Or were there not many independents during this time due to a less crowded industry (compared to today)?

It's interesting to see the major overlap between the comics book industry with today's companies/organizations that use these same strategy tools. This is very unlike some (if not most) of the other publishing mediums and tools that we've been looking at.

To me, this is such a unique aspect of the comic book industry. The mentality of OWNING the piece of work is such a big part of the experience. Sometimes they may not even read it much but it becomes a prized possession that I would argue is not common for any other mediums (i.e. podcasts, newspapers, manifestos etc). It's similar to the book that way in regards to owning it, and to a certain extent fandom tendencies.

When looking at the cultural or creative industry, I definitely think people often look past the logistics of production, finance, distribution etc. From what I see, the editor and the writer/artist are recognized more for the work as opposed to the previous list of roles. In most of our other examples we have talked a lot about some mediums that have eliminated or surpassed a distributor because it can be self-published.

Essentially means that they're willing to put up with the high likelihood of risk or even potential failure 'on their shoulders'

I didn't realize how tight knit the relationship was between these specific industries. Radio was probably an intriguing challenge for those in the theatre industry because they are not able to rely on visuals; they need to set the stage for listeners by way of sounds and voice.

Does this help with the transition process for audiences if people sense or see familiarities with the new media trend?

WiFi/data has definitely changed the landscape for podcasts. I think that contributed to the barrier of why I did not listen to them beforehand. It was a hassle to get podcasts when I could just download music on iTunes or torrent instead. Now, with streaming services and easy downloading for offline access with your phone, it is SO much easier.

I totally agree with this statement. It also plays a part in people wanting to participate in discussion (i.e. watching or listening to the same things so that they can discuss it together and not feel left out)

Podcasts is also a really great opportunity to 'find your niche.' There seems to be a podcast for a wide variety of topics and audiences which is awesome! Radio is more restricted to specific channels.

Despite what people generalize about youth being apathetic, this text reminds me that that isn't completely true. I think the past few generations have been incredibly active and political, it has just taken different forms.

It's interesting to see what the author views as effects of zine-ing. I would not have originally though this to be related but at the same time, she is right. It is a result of zines. Without zines, people probably would not have done the research etc.

I appreciate this description of what a zine constitutes as. Especially when it says it's a democratic approach.

We've seen these in other examples too but I really like the correlation of the alternative media "production" that coincides with support and a community. Of course this product wouldn't be successful by any means without a community or audience, but that's what makes it stand out!

This is another example where an alternative medium struggles due to lack of funding and/or other factors. In this case, I bet the government was happy with watching the publication falter...

Massive companies have certainly deduced their audience into data mines. That's probably why there is such an increase of importance to develop personas and encourage the 1-on-1 experience so that customers aren't treated like numbers.

I'd say this has a lot to do with what the company was originally labelled as a game changer in that industry. Maybe a similar example would be Disney which produces and funds much more than movies and theme parks but that's what we know it best for.

Again, I feel like this is such a blanket statement... People are not oblivious to this situation. Some are trying to make a difference while others are choosing to support the oil sands. Then there's the portion of people who sit in the middle and/or sit in silence.<br> It's a contentious issue that people will sometimes avoid because of the divide in opinions but I would not say that people do not notice it...

I think there are a lot more factors that come into play here above and beyond just trying to "think about something else." Unfortunately, this topic is divisive and its difficult to get a consensus between the opposing views. I don't want to make excuses because I agree that something needs to change in regards to our climate change conversation, but by dismissing those with opposing views to you as without reason, they probably won't even try to understand your view.

I love the mixed mediums of type, images, email addresses that were included and drawings. It gives a unique approach and honestly made it a lot more gravitating to me.

"how to make a pink or grey pinstripe satin fin" pg. 15

This reminds me of the current example of the pussy hats!

"W're only 'invisible' if you don't know how to look for us." (pg. 8) I may be interpreting this wrong, but is this suggesting that those who think femme sharks are invisible are those who don't know any better? I mean based on the descriptions the author has used, it seems like it would be quite hard to miss femme sharks because they consist of a wide variety of people that they may come across everyday.

This is a good reminder of the risk involved for those who are standing up for something or when somebody speaks up. It's definitely easier said than done.

This makes it seem like the publishing sector had a checklist as a way to satisfy public requests/demands. They think that as long as they have one "token" individual, they have properly represented them and sufficed their potential diversity goals, which is not necessarily true.

This is a recurring theme in multiple industries... It's a tricky line to navigate because the corporate giants have a lot of influence so you don't want to anger them, but at the same time that amount of power and control can affect the overall narrative or mainstream (which is what radical publishers are battling anyways).

This is a really interesting thought! I have not viewed it in this way before. Do you think this is still the case? I guess it is consistent with the previous chapter where it mentioned the misconception of "assuming that cultural space, once won, is incapable of being reclaimed." The work is not over until it's over...

This is an interesting point. I think that it's true; despite progress that may have been made, it seems like we still have to work to maintain it...

systematic bias perhaps?

Would they be using it to sell their publications? Or is it to cover a possible mandate where they strive to include these marginalized voices? In any case, are they publishing these stories for the right reasons or in the right way?

It's incredibly difficult to share a particular voice or oppose the mainstream when the entire publisher is influenced/owned by an overriding corporate body. Is it worth risking some editorial freedom for the safety net of financial backing?

These engagement strategies also help communicate and connect the affected community. A conversation can actually be held!

This reminds me of the discussion we had about what an outside or marginalized publisher may need to survive and how often it seems that they work with somebody else's privilege to be heard (i.e. Maisie's "whiteness"). In this case, do you think the fact that this publisher was at the mercy of a man's financial contributions and partnership or is this irrelevant?

In regards to movements like this, I think they are totally right. Intersectionality is key and you need to include and represent those whose voices should be present. Otherwise there are too many missing pieces and the overall movement loses a bit of credibility, in my opinion. If you're fighting for something like a change in women's rights in regards to publishing, should you not consult a more representative group of women who are all affected? After all, it's not an exclusively elitist problem.

When we typically refer to writing and literature created by a marginalized group or others excluded from the mainstream (often white) exclusive circle, we mostly refer to literature created by the people, for the people. In this case, they were striving for a more connected and united approach; "to educate the white population... would be non-denominational"

The fact that an entire community could feel so defeated against a basic right is shocking. It furthers the feeling of degradation when it gets to a point where "the thing is not worth it." It puts to light the impression of the government deeming what they think is important, which is more often than not their agenda.

Yes! I really like this because it shows the determination, despite the debilitating society that the white people/Europeans had created in Canada.

A chance for them to utilize writing/publishing to upend the decisions regarding their land. It took the government years to even begin to understand the severity of how they treated First Nations...

This goes to show the power of congregated voice rather than a single voice! It takes one person to spearhead or lead a movement or change, but other people need to step up and be the first followers to help mobilize movements. I really like "we must act as one" because to me it reinforces community and shows the difference a community can make together.

This is an evident account where they exchanged perspectives, viewpoints and experiences as kids. Sometimes people forget to take into account the experiences that make up somebody's viewpoints; we all have unique perspectives and need to acknowledge others who differ from us rather than "othering" them.

I honestly don't blame them. The systematic bias and past exclusion of women from certain industries/power positions would be discouraging (especially if they are outright denied)

Does this contribute to the importance of being a critical consumer of media/published works, as well as recognize that most newspapers and journalists have some sort of ulterior motivation? At the end of the day, I do view journalism as a 'business.' It's unfortunate that these elements cannot be separated, but if there is no audience for a particular story or message, they would not be able to attract or retain readers.

Unfortunately, I would argue the journalism industry can still be considered a "boys' club" but it has improved slightly. Personally speaking, I was unaware of the Watts' contributions which is a sad reality for many women who defied the norms in their day (or I am not aware of the role of journalists of the Spanish Civil War like Watts)...

This may also contribute to why Canada (at the time) did not send out many correspondents like their English-media counterparts.

This may also contribute to why Canada (at the time) did not send out many correspondents like their English-media counterparts.

It's interesting to see the societal shift that we've seen, especially within the media. News media has been criticized for being too' left-leaning' yet in the early 1900s this content was radical and definitely not mainstream. I guess this is again a situation where if the mainstream publications won't publish your work, create it yourself or look for a publication that will.

This makes sense. They have to make numerous decisions regarding funding, the importance of the story and ultimately the safety of their reporters. It might be a case by case basis too, because networks like CNN has often sent reporters into the thick of things in the past. However, then mainstream news media are reliant on what foreign agencies report on and depict. I wonder if this dependence ever results in twisted, exaggerated or mixed up stories? As well, by reporting on international wars in a domestic space, it brings the war right into people's living rooms.

This quote really stuck out to me. The rise of information access and the ability to read and write for an increasing number of African Americas proved a shift in power relations and control.

It's unfortunate that this seems to happen often. People are shunned from participating, yet the public views publishing and writing as something that should be open, respectable and "civilized." In this case, Europeans did not want to hear these views or view these particular printed texts as legitimate, but that feeds into further censorship and even oppression.