The Counterpublic Returns
In late 1980 ’ s , the fan reaction to Keaton was enough to make headlines of newspapers ; in 2013 , the internetfueled bomb that exploded when the Affleck casting news broke sent vibrations through a multi-modal network of media which prompted Entertainment Weekly to acknowledge , “ Holy Backlash , Batman !” ( Breznican 14 ). The internet changed the rules , and while antecedent rhetorics help shape the ongoing discourse , the tempo of Batfleck rhetoric rages at the speed of Wi-Fi .
Our high-gloss , sound-bite existence has real consequences for deliberation--we want up-to-theminute news that takes as long to listen as soup does to microwave , and wewould prefer it to be entertaining , thank you very much . The very idea of congregating with others to deliberate social issues is not remotely in the purview of the average person , regardless of how informative and even inspiring that might be . If it does not fit on a bumper sticker , we look for something that does . ( Young 31 )
The Batfleck backlash demonstrates that internet discourse in such cases does not have to be academic or even particularly coherent ; its most important function is to garner attention and encourage others to further the debate . In theory , “ The cognitive quality of that attention is less important than the mere fact of active uptake . . . No matter : by coming into range you fulfill the only entry condition demanded by a public . . . The act of attention involved in showing up is enough to create an addressable public . But some kind of active uptake — however somnolent — is indispensable ” ( Warner 61 ).
59