How Social Media Is Ruining the Way We Watch TV Shows

 

In the past, watching television was a pretty personal activity. You watched the episode, discussed it with friends afterwards, and allowed the plot to develop naturally. Social media has drastically altered the experience in the modern day, and not always in a positive way. Twitter / x, take, talk, Instagram, and other platforms are increasingly influencing how shows are reviewed, analyzed, and evaluated, often before viewers have had a chance to engage with the text correctly. In many respects, social media now actively disrupts television rather than merely reacting to it. 

Spoilers are one of the most obvious ways that social media “ruins”  television. Major story surprises or revelations are revealed minutes after an episode airs because algorithms encourage speed rather than civility. Trending hashtags, memes, or even thumbnails often expose viewers, even those who try to avoid spoilers. This weekend, storytelling reduces narrative tension, especially for serialized plays that depend on emotional buildup and surprise. For example, the new Stranger Things man you were excited about coming in was ruined by social media and people exposing what goes on before others could get to it. 

Reaction culture, and which shows are evaluated promptly and collectively, is also fostered by social media. The audience's perception of the entire series might be shaped by a single episode, or even a single scene, that causes viral outrage or admiration. Once again, The Stranger Things season finale can be seen as an example of this, with many fans speculating about a new episode because of how it ended. In contrast, others enjoyed how the ending was finalized. Viewers are frequently influenced by prevailing web narratives rather than developing their own opinions (“ this show fell off,” this character is problematic The Writer's ruined everything”). As a result, substance is discouraged, and complicated texts are reduced to trendy ideas intended for likes and retweets.

The emergence of toxic fandoms is another problem. Online communities can help people connect, but they can also put writers, performers, and other fans under pressure. Viewers who interrupt the show differently are ridiculed or attacked, writers are accused of quote betraying " fans, and actors are harassed over fictional character choices. For example, The Bear, Game of Thrones, and Euphoria show how artistic purpose may be overshadowed by online reactions and potentially affect future decisions.

 Lastly, social media transforms TV series from cultural texts into content factories. Shoes are frequently classified as‘good' or ‘bad' depending on how well they perform online rather than on how well they tell a story, and scenes are assessed based on mean potential rather than on narrative value. This commodification is consistent with the general capitalist logic, and engagement metrics, rather than meaning, are used to commodify cultural items. 

Eggo Waffles and the Power of Nostalgia in Stranger Things

My wife and I re-binge-watched the entire Stranger Things series leading up to the anticipated release of the final episodes over the holidays. It produced two key takeaways: 1) a comically long (though unwritten) list of things we’d entirely forgotten from our original viewing; and 2) a deep anticipation of the two-hour New Year’s Eve finale.

The latter was so strong, we decided to snag tickets to watch it in a theater rather than from the comfort of our couch, and even ordered shirts for each other so we could participate in the fan craze (full-on Scoops Ahoy costumes fell way out of our agreed-upon price range).

As 50-somethings, we expected to be among the oldest people at the show. We were not. And pop culture has almost everything to do with that.

Stranger Things was a cultural phenomenon with a grip on fans of all ages. As of this writing, its closing Season 5 had logged more than 105 million English language views—putting each of the series’ five seasons among Netflix’s top 10 most-watched shows of all time.

Sellnow defines popular culture as being comprised of the everyday objects, actions, and events that influence people to believe and behave in certain ways. Series creators the Duffer Brothers, Matt and Ross, managed to blend a barrage of ’80s pop culture artifacts into a magical trip down Memory Lane for our demographic that also offered more than enough action, drama, and “kid power” to mesmerize young fans, too.

Importantly for study purposes, those ’80s pop culture artifacts are not just nostalgia for entertainment’s sake. They work rhetorically to help the audience feel a certain way about themes like friendship, connection, and simplicity.

Bikes, arcades, shopping malls, walkie-talkies, Levi’s jeans, Eggo waffles, games of Dungeons and Dragons played face-to-face at a table … these aren’t neutral artifacts surfaced solely to jog our memories of them. They compel us to feel things like:

• Human interaction > digital communication
• Imagination and physical presence are key elements of a “good” childhood
• Positive emotions can come from everyday consumer items

Sellnow argues that we can be influenced through “subtle messages proposing a particular perspective about what is ‘appropriate’ and ‘inappropriate,’ ‘desirable’ and ‘undesirable,’ ‘good’ and ‘bad,’ and so on.” The sincerity of the interactions, innocence of the characters (even foul-mouthed, late-season hero Derek), and simple sense of community throughout Stranger Things is clearly held up as a contrast to a complex modern world where technology dominates, isolation and loneliness are becoming an epidemic, and interactions can seem less authentic. The “good” and “bad” are obvious in this portrayal.

Nostalgia was the big winner thanks to Stranger Things (well, perhaps a close second to Prince and Kate Bush, whose music rocketed back up the streaming charts after being featured in the series). A question this might raise: Are there any dangers to consider when a pop culture phenomenon like Stranger Things uses an idealized past to critique the present?

We’re going to ponder it over an Eggo.

Tate McRae: The Sound, Style, and Spirit of a New Pop Era

One of the best pop artists today is Tate McRae. Her fans love her music and the way she represents young pop artists. Tate McRae represents the current generation. People want artists who are real, honest, and flexible.  

What distinguishes Tate McRae from other pop artists is her training as a dancer. She is a great singer, but she also acts and tells stories through her dancing. In today’s world, HoTikTok and other visual platforms are the most influential. Fans love to see the emotions in her music. She has developed a strong connection and a loyal fan base.

Songwriting can oftentimes be a very intimate and personal experience by turning thoughts and feelings into words, and McRae is very in tune with this, easily able to capture a sense of emotional longing, reminiscent of another Gen Z artist, Olivia Rodrigo. Tate writes songs with deep and complex emotional overtones, making it highly relatable to Gen Z immigrants. McRae’s songs inspire strong feelings; emotional complexity, sadness, and uncertainty reinforce deep emotional overtones and create a sensation of longing. The modern-day listener is seeking a sense of emotional honesty. The songs “greedy” and “you broke me first,” illustrate direct emotional honesty and connection with listeners. Many people appreciate that McRae is a real and honest person. Knowing and admitting to a lack of omniscience is a powerful and necessary way to connect intimately with listeners and foster relationships, and McRae possesses this ability. Listeners appreciate that she is still discovering her perspective along the way, just like her audience.

McRae has a powerful and unique ability to capture her audience’s attention. Social media makes the disconnect of show and tell between the artist and the listener obsolete. Fans appreciate witnessing a very real and relaxed version of McRae, in the form of rehearsal glimpses, impromptu dance breaks, and informal singing videos. She balances her content creation perfectly to retain the authenticity of her artist persona. Her audience appreciates the authenticity and, in turn, the genuine relationship. People are increasingly sensitive to the transparency of music, and Tate makes it.

Tate McRae not only follows the latest fashion trends but stays true to herself. Tate McRae can mix her clothes to look different types of clothes, but sporty, cool, and easy to wear clothes just like how people in pop culture look, clothes should be comfortable and unique. She usually chooses clothes that are comfortable and real, which makes her fans like her more.  

McRae’s place in pop culture is staying adaptable. She can dance to fast and fun, slow and sad, and she can dance to any popular song that’s going viral and she’s not forgetting her own true self. Pop culture changes quick and those artists that keeps up with it stays in the game the longest. Tate is that pop star that social media is her thing, she feels deeply and has the talent. She is not just copying what current pop culture is. She is unique in her own way and creates what makes real pop culture. She is our real time pop culture. She is our current culture. She is the real thing. She is what we need.

 

Who Gets a Rose? The Unifying Division of Pop Culture

     Throughout my first year of college, I religiously watched weekly episodes of The Bachelor, despite having significant issues with the franchise itself. I often found the show frustrating, predictable, and at times ethically questionable. Yet every Wednesday night, I still tuned in. This routine was not driven solely by enjoyment of the show’s content but by a desire to belong. A group of girls I had befriended would walk home from campus together each Wednesday and spend the entire walk discussing the most recent episode in detail—analyzing contestants’ behavior, speculating about drama, and forming strong opinions about who deserved the final rose. I quickly realized that if I failed to watch an episode, I would be excluded from the conversation altogether and lose social currency–ensuring my “death by Harry Potter,” as Klosterman puts it. 

    In many ways, keeping up with The Bachelor functioned like receiving a rose on the show. Watching the episode ensured my place in the group, signaling that I belonged and could continue to the next week’s conversation. Without that cultural knowledge, I was effectively “sent home.” Much like the contestants on the show, social participation depended on demonstrating that I had done the necessary work to stay relevant. Being “in the know” granted access, while being uninformed resulted in quiet elimination from the shared experience.

    This example illustrates how popular culture serves as a persuasive force, not only in shaping opinions but also in influencing behavior. Sellnow and Brummett argue that popular culture is inherently rhetorical because it influences how audiences think, feel, and act. My decision to continue watching The Bachelor supports this claim, but it also expands it. The persuasive power of pop culture extends beyond the messages embedded within media texts and into the act of consumption itself. I did not merely engage with the show’s narratives; I altered my routine to secure my metaphorical rose. Popular culture, in this sense, persuades individuals to consume media as a prerequisite for social belonging.

    In many cases, what we watch, listen to, or follow is less about personal preference and more about social survival. Mediated pop culture becomes a common language—one that allows people to connect, bond, and signal membership within a group—being culturally “in the know” grants access to conversations, community, and validation. As my experience demonstrates, choosing not to engage with popular media can come at a social cost, even when that decision is intentional or values-driven.

    At its core, mediated pop culture is popular precisely because a large segment of the population enjoys it. However, this widespread participation also creates boundaries. Those who are unaware of or choose not to engage in certain cultural phenomena are inevitably positioned as outsiders. Viral trends, hit shows, and cultural moments create an in-group of those who understand the reference and an out-group of those who do not. While individuals may sometimes choose to place themselves in the out-group, there is no true “unsubscribe” or opt-out button from pop culture entirely. Its presence is pervasive, shaping conversations, identities, and social dynamics whether we actively participate or not. Ultimately, pop culture unifies by offering connection, but it also divides by quietly deciding who gets a rose and who gets sent home. If staying socially relevant requires constantly earning a cultural “rose,” at what point does participation in pop culture stop being a choice and start becoming a requirement?

Resisting Pop Culture Messages

 

    I've always wanted to be like Spider-Man, specifically Toby Maguire's version of Peter Parker (he's the best.) Not only of course being able to have super natural powers like climbing walls or slinging webs, but because of the social power it can bring to one's behavior and beliefs. A notable quote said by Uncle Ben was "with great power comes great responsibility." This is an example of a pop culture message that can positively influence one's beliefs, behaviors, social norms, and outlook on life. Throughout all movies, TV shows, music, and more, there's always someone you want to be like. Whether it's their style, attitude, demeanor, or success, pop culture messages are always there to influence us to want to be like the main character. However, some pop culture messages extend far beyond amusement and positive traits in oneself. Some messages quietly normalize harmful ideas, unhealthy behaviors, and negative attitudes about life itself. These messages, just like the more positive ones, reach millions of people everyday, which can be emotionally and mentally damaging. Even the positive messages bring unrealistic ideas, such as becoming a superhero or becoming the "main character" in life. Because of this reality, I pose the question. - Should we resist pop culture messages entirely?    

            

    Like we see in this week's material, there are certain characters in the film industry that people click to.  These characters could be positively or negatively portrayed depending on the show, yet some may embrace their attitudes and mindset. Whether that be Homer Simpson sharing his outlook on marriage and having kids, or wanting to be a hero in order to win over the Disney princess, these pop culture messages are quietly influencing negative behaviors and outlooks through characters that are humorous or relatable, making it easier for people to embrace their mindsets. One of the most prominent fictional characters I could think of to provide an example comes from the legendary Walter White, from the TV show Breaking Bad. See, I naturally thought of him as legendary, in a good way, because he is of course. Believe it or not, I just watched this show for the first time last summer, and boy did I miss out. Fans of this show or people who watch this show widely support and view Walter as a positive character through certain messaging. Some view him as a man who was pushed too far, from his cancer, financial struggles, lack of respect, etc, justifying his transformation to the iconic Heisenberg. Walter/Heisenberg of course is full of greed, pride, envy, is power hungry, and destroys his family and associate Jesse Pinkman in the meantime. Not to mention he kills people and cooks meth throughout the entire show. If you were to look at Walter through an objective lens, you would view him as nothing short of a monster. Yet, many do not perceive that of Walter, because of the messaging that is present throughout his transformation. A example of this comes from his "I am the one who knocks" speech. This speech is incredibly famous and is embraced by many in a positive way, even though it asserts dominance, control, power, and narcissism. 

    As we saw in this week's content, some people may take on the behavior of these fictional characters, such as the U.S. soldiers who embraced the show 24. Because of the potential side effects, it's worth asking if we should dismiss pop culture messages as a whole, both the good and bad ones, due to the unrealistic and harmful ideas they promote through relatable characters.

Adorno Is Right... And Wrong

 We're all way too familiar with Theodor "Fun Sponge" Adorno (pictured right) at this point. According to His Eminence, if we're not listening to six-part Bach Inventions on our morning commute we are mindless drones enslaved to the sinister culture industry. Clearly, Adorno is just another old guy with a distaste for new ideas. Unfortunately, I don't think this is entirely true. 

Adorno argues that popular music is a low-class jumble of recycled, generic material. To him, all popular music is made from a standardized mold hat makes it digestible to a fault. The listener doesn't need to exert any effort to enjoy a popular music composition. He says, 

"The composition hears for the listener. This is how popular music divests the listener of his spontaneity and promotes conditioned reflexes. Not only docs it not require his effort to follow its concrete stream; it actually gives him models under which anything concrete still remaining may be subsumed." 

I think Adorno makes some good arguments here. There have certainly been many times in my life that I heard a song on the radio that I considered absolutely lifeless. One example is this song by Ylvis called "What Does The Fox Say?" While this song certainly has some comedic value, it's not helping the listener improve themselves in any way. To Adorno, that is simply unacceptable. 

The example in the slides of the "Four-Chord Song" all but proves that certain chord progressions and styles of songwriting are replicated over and over again. I also believe that as streaming services become more prevalent, musicians are being encouraged to create shorter songs and albums. Audiences are being conditioned to expect and respond to a certain type of music. 

I don't want to pick on Adorno too much, because I think it takes a lot of guts to tell the whole world their taste in music sucks. However, I think Adorno is missing some key points about popular music. 

Firstly, I think his idea that edification is the only form of cultural value is just plain wrong. I believe there are many different types of cultural value, and entertainment value is a completely valid example. Even the "Fox Say" song has some educational value for a young child. Hopefully that's enough to satisfy Adorno's elitist views. 

Secondly, I think that the intricacies of music theory and music production are something that Adorno isn't factoring in. Many songs seem simple at first glance, but are actually made with great care and attention to detail. Consider "Pet Sounds" by The Beach Boys. While it might sound at surface level like a somewhat pop composition, Brian Wilson is actually challenging the listener by including lots of atypical sounds and harmonies. 

Finally, I think while it's true that some popular music is highly generic, there are other artists that operate far outside the norm, and are celebrated for doing so! I mentioned earlier how streaming services like Spotify are encouraging the streamlining of new music to make it more palatable to a large amount of people. The positive side of a large library of music is that there are many artists trying to differentiate themselves and break whatever formula the listener expects. Here's an example of a "weird" artist that have found a lot of success collaborating with Anderson .Paak and even performing on NPR's Tiny Desk series. 

I saw another student in this class write about Kendrick Lamar. The fact that Kendrick is winning over more traditional and formulaic is proof that in the proving ground of culture, drivel doesn't always win. I think it takes effort to make good art, and it takes effort to appreciate it. If humans weren't willing to put in that effort, then maybe Adorno would be 100% right. But he's not. 

Even the Notion That "There is Nothing New Under the Sun," Is Not New

         I recently went to see the film Heretic, which tells the story of two LDS (Mormon) missionary “Sisters,” Sophie Thatcher as Sister Barnes, and Chloe East as Sister Paxton, who knock on the wrong door of a sadistic atheist, Mr. Reed played by Hugh Grant. Bedlam ensues.

This is a horror flick, but it is an odd horror flick. It is very talky. The action and gore are punctuated and happen mostly at the end. So much of it is lecture and demonstration by Mr. Reed as he leads the young women into his house of horrors. But this sets up an enormous amount of tension, and the effect is riveting.

When the “Sisters" arrive at his door, he courteously invites them in. They respond that they are unable to enter unless his wife (or roommate) is present – as long as it is a woman. He assures them that his wife is in the kitchen happily (and shyly) baking a blueberry pie.

With that, the trap is set and the girls enter. They are immediately locked in, but they don’t know it yet.

They sit with Mr. Reed in the cozy but creepy living-room, where a candle glows softly on the coffee table. After several minutes of talking, they sweetly ask to meet Mr. Reed’s wife.

Mr. Reed disappears to fetch her, and the girls discover the candle is a ruse for the wife. It is blueberry scented and they have been duped. There is no baking. There is no wife.

They try to leave, but it is then that they discover that not only have they been lied to, they have been locked in the house. So they are forced to venture deeper into the lair.

Mr. Reed then uses his trap to make a point about the faith of these girls. There was no wife. That had become more and more apparent, but the girls went along with the notion that, at any moment, she would step into the room to join them.

They were told something and they believed it without question, even as the evidence against the thing that was told to them piled up. Might the same be true of their religious ideology? Is this something they had even pondered? He ensnared them and then used their ensnarement to build a metaphor that attacked their faith.

Interesting.

He leads them further into the house, and lectures them about the many, MANY iterations that occur in pop culture. He begins by playing the song, “The Air That I Breathe,” by The Hollies, and asks the girls if they have ever heard it before. They respond that other than hearing it a moment ago when he had played it, no they had never heard the song prior to this moment.

He disagrees. He tells them they absolutely have heard the song before. Then he begins to sing “Creep,” by Radiohead. Immediately, the audience can hear it. No wonder that was so familiar!

Mr. Reed then relates this to the story of Jesus Christ, and points to the many iterations of this figure and this story throughout different cultures at different times – the virgin birth, the sacrifice, the resurrection, etc. He notes that this is a regurgitated story. None of it is new to the man named Jesus. His story is not unique, it is a myth that has been assigned to many figures over millennia.

He further extrapolates to the three major Judeo-Christian faiths, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, and highlights that these too, are iterations of each other.

Adorno suggests that “standardization” is a product of pop culture and the content it churns out. To a certain extent, I agree. Although, it might appear that this is more a facet of human creation as a whole, rather than just what is mass-produced by our popular culture.

As I am writing this, the well-known phrase, “There is nothing new under the sun,” pops to mind. I attribute this phrase to Shakespeare, and indeed he said something similar in Sonnet 59:

If there be nothing new, but that which is
Hath been before, how are our brains beguil'd,
Which, labouring for invention, bear amiss
The second burthen of a former child!

But first (or at least previously), this was stated in the Book of Ecclesiastes, “…there is no new thing under the sun,” long before Shakespeare was born.

How perfect that even the notion that “nothing is new” has been regurgitated for millennia.

And how very meta that a current pop culture artifact (Heretic) makes a point about the mythology of several religions being regurgitated, while the point itself, “There is nothing new under the sun,” has been churned out almost as often as iterations of the story of a “virgin birth.”

What do you think? Is regurgitation and standardization relegated to pop culture artifacts only? Or is this more a facet of human creation as a whole?