Disney Plus Data and Chill ;)

On December 12, 2019, Disney unveiled its streaming service, Disney+, to the world. It received significant attention, both good and back, from the press—which makes sense, because over 10 million people signed up in the first day.

Twitter was also abuzz with conversations about Disney+ (see this string-of-tweet “news story” about Twitter activity on the first day). Several pointed out that shows, including new ones like The Mandalorian and oldies like Darkwing Duck, were trending soon after Disney+ was launched.

But what would activity look like after the first day?

To answer this question, I used Mike Kearney’s rtweet package to look at tweets posted from 11/14/19 to 11/18/19 that had one of the following keywords: disneyplus, disney plus, disney+, and disney +.

Timeline

As with any long-term (> 1 day) popular topic (like elections), tweets about Disney+ had a natural seasonality. People tweet less after midnight and pick back up at 6 or 7 a.m. the next day. While activity was still pretty high on the 14th, people tweeted less and less about it over time (as would be expected). There was a little over a million tweets in the corpus (n = 1,107,413).

Topic Modeling

I also ran an LDA topic modeling, which highlights the variety of conversations on Twitter about Disney +.

Noticeably, The Mandalorian, Hannah Montana, the Simpsons (which is on Disney+ in its original 4:3 format), and Bad Girls Club were talked about frequently enough to be (mostly) stand-alone topics. The Mandalorian hashtag (#themandalorian) was also a popular keyword in the corpus.

But we also see a variety of other topics, including one about the Nickelodeon and Netflix deal (which many people viewed as a response to Disney+’s explosive popularity) and another comparing Disney+ to other streaming services (like Netflix, Hulu, and HBO). In fact, Netflix was the third most frequent term in the dataset (behind Disney and Disneyplus).

(Some of the topics were obviously noisier than others. Topics with the little red “n” are “noisier” than the others, meaning that a large number of tweets with a high beta in that topic were not related to the topic labels. Many tweets in the “Bad Girls Club” topic, for example, don’t actually have to do with that show.)

Sentiment-Laden Words

I did a quick sentiment analysis as well, using the tidytext package (specifically, the bing sentiment lexicon). This allowed me to look at frequently used, sentiment-laden terms.

tweet_sentiment.png

As with any sentiment analysis that is based on a lexicon, there are obvious limitations. The bing dictionary, for example, includes “trump” as a positive word, but it would count any mention of Donald “Trump” as well.

We can see a similar phenomenon here with the word “chill”, which Bing treats as a negative word. If you recall from the topic modeling results, “Disney+ and Chill” was a topic in-it-of-itself. In addition to using the specific phrase “Disney+ & Chill” (which is a snowclone from “Netflix & Chill”), we see people trying to come up with their own variants, including “Disney+ and Thrust” and “Disney+ and Bust”.

For a quick and dirty analysis, this was a pretty fun corpus of tweets to go through! You can check out my code at my Github.

Armchair Linguistic-ing: ~sparkle~ or sPoNgEbOb sarcasm?

 Today, I’m going to play the role of “armchair linguist” (which is fun and something everyone can do. Everyone can be an armchair linguist.) As much as I would love to pull some data and analyze some fun text, I’m deep in analyzing my dissertation data and should really focus my computing energy towards that. 

However, I was thinking about sarcasm recently when writing about the phrase, “the internet is serious business.” This is a sarcastic remark (and an early meme) that pokes fun at people taking online discourse too seriously. In my little memo, I went back and forth between two constructions of sarcasm:

(1)    Even if the internet is not ~serious business~,…
(2)    Even if the internet is not sErIoUs bUsInEsS,…

Both are typographic markers of sarcasm that people frequently use in online communication. The first is an example of sparkle sarcasm, sometimes described as the “sarcasm tilde.” In  Because Internet, McCulloch describes the tilde as having an exaggerated rise and fall that mimics the tonal features of sarcastic language. Even single-syllable words like “thaaaaaaaanks” and “soooooo” can be elongated for sarcastic effect. Many moments in South Park’s Sarcastaball episode show off this elongation.

Source: Top definition for “~” on Urban Dictionary

Source: Top definition for “~” on Urban Dictionary

The second is (now) an outgrowth of the popular “mocking spongebob” meme, which produced the now well-known sPoNgEbOb cAsE (fun fact: R has a sPoNgEbOb cAsE package, which you can check out here). I’ll call this spongebob sarcasm. The primary purpose of this case variation is to mock the tone of an idea or opinion—this draws from the mocking intent of the original meme. “Spongebob case” is obviously not the first use of alternating caps—like sparkle sarcasm, it was grouped with the use to tildes and asterisks constituting sparkly unicorn punctuation (~*~*iSn’T tHiS gReAt?!*~*~). But under the Mocking Spongebob meme, it’s taken on a life of its own, in the way that sparkle sarcasm is now distinct from ~*~*more ornate*~*~ uses of tildes and asterisks.

An early case of spongebob sarcasm. Source: (Know Your Meme)

An early case of spongebob sarcasm. Source: (Know Your Meme)

So how is sparkle sarcasm different from spongebob sarcasm? In Because Internet, McCulloch notes a Buzzfeed reporter’s description of sparkle sarcasm: “somewhere between sarcasm and a sort of mild self-deprecatory embarrassment.” The use of sparkles suggests a type of “anti-serious” sarcasm that is “sing-songy.”

 In contrast, spongebob sarcasm is direct and biting—a type of “insincere” sarcasm. If sparkle sarcasm is self-deprecatory, spongebob sarcasm is mockery. A core aspect of its early use included mockingly repeating what someone else has said (that norm carries to its current usage, even if mocking oneself):

(Above: my favorite example of spongebob sarcasm this morning)

Having both types of sarcasm gives online communicators a greater variety of “sarcasm” to choose from. And, because it is denoted with obvious markers (tildes and alternating lower and upper case), both sparkle and spongebob sarcasm are less likely to be taken at face-value; whereas tonally-conveyed sarcasm could produce a misunderstanding.

If we think of sarcasm as a language microcosm of satire, we could also think of sparkle sarcasm as Horatian (playful and light-heartedly humorous) and spongebob sarcasm as Juvenalian (i.e., ridicule). I bring this up to highlight that these variations of sarcasm and language are not inherently new. But, we have found new ways to communicate those ideas in daily computer-mediated language, which I think is super cool.

(PS: I went with spongebob sarcasm: tHe iNtErNeT iS nOt sErIoUs bUsInEsS!1!1!!one!!1!1!!!)

New Semester, New Writing Approach

Hello!

Long time no chat, readers!

The summer has been a whirlwind for me (writing, programming, reading, and moving has fully consumed my last few months, not including traveling for AEJMC and appearing on CNN).

For whatever reason, this summer has been “The Summer of Unfinished Drafts.” I’ve had more unfinished ideas and drafts than I’ve ever had before. The ideas keep popping up and landing on top of one another (an experience that is simultaneously exciting and anxiety-inducing). I’ve had a couple drafts on the docket, but for various reason, I haven’t been able to post them to my blog. Sometimes I start an outline, but never complete it. In other instances, I tell myself I need to proof it again (and again and again and again), resulting it me never publishing it.

At the same time, I think my publication aspirations (I recently had my first single-authored piece accepted to Political Communication) and academic writing trajectory has paralyzed some aspects of my writing. In an attempt to be so polished all. the. time., I have lost a bit of my "natural voice”—my signature informality.

This became all the more evident while reading Gretchen McCulloch’s* Because Internet (a book I highly recommend). In it, she talks about how spellcheck and grammarcheck operates as a “linguistic authority” (p. 45), reinforcing archaic rules. She (admirably so) is upfront about her stylistic choices: when to adopt accepted 21st century norms (e.g., “lol” vs “LOL”) and when to bend to the norms of standard American English writing.

This matters a lot for me and this blog, because I realize the desire to write “really clean blog posts” is hindering my willingness to share new ideas and thoughts on this blog. I want this to be a place for me to be more free-flowing, and not be hindered by where my ggplot2 title should be 10 pixels to the right (or whether I have one typo in my post).

For this reason, my subsequent posts this semester will have fairly minimal editing (if any at all). This choice reflects the kind of work I am posting here—fresh, fairly raw, but also liberated from the rigidity of many other writing genres/registers that I use (e.g., AP style news writing, academic writing). Should you want to read my more formal writing, I encourage you to check out my CJR piece, and upcoming publications.

I hope you’re excited to take this writing journey with me! For those starting semesters on campuses across the world: Happy Fall 2019! (And happy continuing quarters for those on the quarter-system.)

———

* In her book, Mulloch points out that her name is often marked as erroneous for the more common “McCullough.” Funnily enough, this happened while I was written her name for this blog post (see screenshot below).

book_ss.png