Feedback November 2002 (Vol 43 No 4)

confirmed…For me, perhaps the most interesting aspect of my research related to mysecond hypothesis that offensive coverage would be sparse. Media coverage before thegame predicted both offenses would be boring. Apparently, I underestimated thecommentators. Ravens’ quarterback Trent Dilfer, who did not complete half of his passattempts, though he made some accurate long throws and had no interceptions,emerged from voice overs sounding like a star, by the end. A critical moment in thepositive tone of Dilfer coverage occurred with 12:14 remaining in the third quarter,when he was forced to leave the field for x-rays after a hard sack by the Giants’ MichaelStrahan. Dilfer did return to the field and was complimented for his durability becauseof a number of hard hits he endured all day from the Giants’ relentless rushing defense.To my surprise, with 6:20 remaining in the game, Dilfer was strongly suggested by thecommentators to be worthy of Most Valuable Player, despite the awesome defensedemonstrated by his teammates, holding off the Giants’ offense all game long.Ultimately, Ray Lewis of the Ravens’ defense was named MVP. I think the habitcommentators always have of wanting to credit offense for wins over-rode betterjudgment when they began eulogizing Dilfer. Of course, Lewis had a long shadow castover his performance due to highly publicized, though finally resolved, problems withthe law; still and all, his on-field play was unqualifiedly superior. I noticed thatcommentators can invent and embellish a storyline, and it actually could contradictwhat we saw for ourselves.”Instead of simply counting comments about defensive and offensive play, as heoriginally intended, Neil took an important further step, by recognizing that spins,particular points-of-view, might have power to reverse audience beliefs and even distortaudience recollection of what actually happened. Neil uncovered what he called “asignificant imposition”, meaning that visual and verbal information functioned inopposition and, thus, created what he spoke of as an “ironic twist.” He determined thatcommentators, in this instance, imposed an idiosyncratic departure onto actual gameplay. Therefore, unless viewers were alert, Neil said, they could be disconnected fromwhat they had witnessed for themselves.Concerns that Neil and Karabi and others raise in our classroom researchpresentations about the Super Bowl increase our collective knowledge about types ofintersections between form and content, as well as enhance students’ ease andconfidence in interrogating researchers’ analyses. In this way, we establish some usefulcritical practice for critiquing published research reports in the course pack moreanalytically and for formulating our own future text and viewer response research; next,we would be tackling explorations of news and, finally, dramas.I conclude this essay by emphasizing that collective research, as illustrated above,demonstrates to students a need to give attention to intersecting aspects of text, and anappreciation for airing diverse ideas about such matters as producer intentionality andresearcher interpretation. Repeatedly, we addressed the impacts of researchers’ choicesand presumptions on interpretations, all the while reinforcing the sound academicpractice of dialogic re-consideration of evidence. Unpacking the Super Bowl illustratedthe complexity inherent in all televised text and viewer response. In this regard, giventhe prevalence of mass audience polls that regularly appear in newspapers and tend tolump public reactions to received text into two or three large categories, students hereconcentrate upon subtle, distinctive variations in viewer response; this awareness couldBEA—Educating tomorrow’s electronic media professionals 43