As ARMY, we have very few news outlets that we trust to do a good job with the articles they produce about BTS. It isn’t easy to find articles that hit all the notes we want them to; articles regularly focus more on how cute the boys are as opposed to how musically talented they are. In other cases, these articles boil their success down to economic and marketing choices, while discounting what is more important: their genuine tone and the message behind their music.
When we find a source that represents BTS fairly, without reducing them to statistics or cutesy boy band aesthetics, it’s refreshing, and we latch onto it. There’s a collective sigh of relief among ARMY when there’s a source that we feel does them justice, because it is so rare to find one.
Unfortunately, however, this relief is often followed by disappointment. More often than not, an article will disappoint us rather than delight us, and so it is a treat to find a gem hidden in the dust. Articles, whether good or bad, tend to unite ARMY in a show of support or demonstration of disdain.
Which is what makes the subject of this analysis so intriguing.
In early October, journalist Rebecca Davis released an article with Variety titled “BTS: How Its Fans, ARMY, Could Change the Music Industry.” Variety has, in the past, been very favorable to BTS and has represented them fairly, so ARMYs were going into this new article with the expectation that this article would be more of the same.
Depending on who you follow on Twitter, however, after the article was released, you might see two very different sides to the story. Lines were drawn distinctly and quickly in the sand, separating ARMY essentially down the middle, with one side outraged or disappointed in the article and the other side pleased and grateful. Comments on Davis’ tweet ranged from relaxed praise to tense expressions of frustration on a variety of issues that the readers found.
This division within ARMY isn’t necessarily an unprecedented reaction, but it certainly is unusual, with no clear majority coming out ahead. Some readers were upset by certain comparisons that Davis made, while others were disappointed that she included so-claimed “unnecessary information” in the article. Davis did address some of these comments on the original tweet, recommending books to further develop her statements and encourage ARMY learning — at the very least, this should earn her some respect points, considering she actually listened to ARMY concerns, unlike other journalists who have loudly expressed their negative opinion of ARMY after being questioned about their writing, regardless of how articulately the concerns were expressed. Davis, on the other hand, was very respectful in her replies, which shows something of character and intent.
However, this doesn’t change the fact that there were some real concerns that ARMY expressed. A sizable portion of ARMY had problems with this article; just as sizable of a portion was fine with it as it was written. So what’s going on? Where did it all go wrong? Is there a “right” way to look at this?
Before diving in too deep, there’s one important fact that’s worth noting: Davis’ article had two parts. Part 1, about how ARMY could change the music industry, was released on Oct. 1, 2020. The second part — an interview separated into several articles — was released the day after. Looking at the first part, however, it was not abundantly clear that there was another part coming behind it, and that in itself may be part of the problem. It’s not surprising that ARMYs might be disappointed with the first part of the article if they didn’t know about the second, and it’s an understandable response.
That being said, even with the interview section now being available, there were plenty of constructively-expressed criticisms about the first half that it’s worth some exploration. While it would be impossible to cover each complaint that’s been expressed, we chose to cover the ones that we saw pop up most frequently so that we can try to investigate the article as a whole in the most effective way possible.
One complaint that came up was the concept of “idol worship” and comparing ARMY to a religious organization. Some ARMYs were less than thrilled with this representation, stating that it felt like a “religious scam” or something equivalent. Specific attention was called to the quote from Kathryn Lofton, author of the book Consuming Religion and Yale University professor, which states that the BTS-ARMY bond is different because “BTS’ driving commitment is to their relationship to the fan group, to the manufacturing of their communal joy for you to participate in.”
One construct of the genre in which the boys perform is that they are called “idols.” This is through no fault of their own because K-pop groups and solo artists are called idols as part of the genre. The word “idol” was originally used back in the 13th century for a representation of an object of worship, according to Merriam Webster, so in a linguistic sense, it may be logical that religious terms might come up. However, religion is inherently one of those “gray area” topics that can be unsteady ground in conversation. What might be comforting for one person could be upsetting for another, especially as ARMY is a diverse group which includes a number of different ideologies and schools of thought.
ARMYs also took objection to the use of the word “manufactured,” which could imply a certain mass-produced falsity that doesn’t fit with the BTS-ARMY experience. One of the things about BTS which draws people in is how remarkably genuine they are, and it is worth noting that Davis touches on their selfless behavior and how that is very different from the Western formula of having main “frontmen,” referencing 90s boy bands like *NSYNC, and that the level of engagement BTS has achieved thus far is “on a scale that no Western artist has ever achieved, despite decades of radio promotion and the best retail strategy.” Perhaps, in this case, using “manufactured” was not the best word choice, and “creating” would have been better received. But it’s worth keeping in mind that this is used in a quote from someone else, and not from Davis herself.
This article also may reveal a trend in magazine production: mismatched captions. When the print version of the Variety issue became available and ARMYs received it in late October, the captions on the images immediately were called into question, and rightly so. In particular, Jin and RM’s captions focused on their upcoming military service and ability to speak fluent English, respectively. While these aren’t categorically wrong, they are a) not in line with the other captions for the rest of the group and b) focus on something that doesn’t have anything to do with their role within BTS. Based on the information in the TIME bookazine, which we covered in a previous “Check Yourself: Facts,” it seems like captions are added by someone else after the article is written. This begs the question: who does these captions? Why are they not more thoroughly checked, or even checked at all? It seems likely that Davis herself did not contribute to the writing of these captions, so in the context of article analysis, it’s difficult to find a place where this fits, but it does perhaps reveal a troubling trend which should be addressed as a whole so that the captions on images are better used and serve a purpose.
The economics behind BTS were also heavily discussed, and some ARMYs pointed out that this made it feel as though the boys’ energy was being boiled down simply to economic choices or statistics without taking into account their musical talent. It is fair to say that the music does not come up a whole lot in the article, and when it does, it’s tied in with a statistic, such as how many units “Dynamite” sold and how fast. However, as one comment from user Zaza_DC said, “discussing the business of BTS without discussing the art of BTS misses what motivates the fans and animates the business.” While Davis does mention that BTS was “envisioned as a collective to heal the alienation that ails us in the digital age,” with most of the focus on economic impact, there is still something missing. What about this group could encourage healing? There is something beyond the statistics and economic choices — the men behind the name, lending their talent and hearts to the music that they make.
The genuine nature of BTS is what makes them so relatable, and part of that is the emotion that they put into their music. To not have that variable in the equation somewhat makes it unsolvable, like a beginner’s algebra problem on a math test, but the teacher forgot to fill in some of the blanks. The BTS-ARMY experience is so multifaceted that it would be almost impossible to cover everything in one article, but not mentioning the most important driver of their economic impact — their music — seems like a sizable gap.
Just like it would be difficult to cover every aspect of the ARMY experience, it would be impossible to address every comment and concern expressed. For this article, we chose to explore the topics that seemed to be on most ARMYs’ minds, and in this exploration discovered a few important takeaways.
In a large number of cases, articles coming out of the “general public” miss a lot of things. Sometimes they’re even categorically wrong in the information they present. When that happens, it’s easy to determine whether or not an article is “good” or “bad.” Then, in other cases, we have an anomaly — where the line is blurred and a final “yes or no” determination is difficult to make. An article like this one is a good reminder that sometimes, objective analysis is more about pointing out that there is no right or wrong way to look at something. The key here is about perspective — having your own opinion while remaining open-minded to the perspectives of others (as long as they’re well-articulated and constructive).
In all, is this article perfect? No. It definitely had some points that could have benefited from being fleshed out or revised to take a more holistic approach to the study of the BTS phenomenon, and there were parts where the word choice was not as well-thought-out as it could have been. Additionally, it would have been beneficial for the electronic versions of the article to have some mention that there were multiple parts for us to view — either as a “Part 1” in the headline or “to be continued” at the end.
Important to note, this article included constructive discussion in which the author took part. That’s more than we’ve had before with other authors to whom we’ve expressed our concerns. Discussion that is respectful and well-articulated is important in making our opinions known so that they are impactful and effective in the industry.
Part of ARMY’s goal is, indeed, to help change the music industry (and the world, if we can). Change is a process, and part of that process is constructive criticism and discussion, listening to new perspectives, respecting others’ opinions even if they don’t match our own, and allowing a conversation to blossom. Looking at this article and the intelligent discussion surrounding it, it seems like we might be stepping forward in the right direction towards mass media that understands BTS and ARMY and what we can do. We may not be newly started, but we are far from finished.
DISCLAIMER: We do not own any audio & visual content in this video except for the editing. ALL RIGHTS BELONG TO THE RIGHTFUL OWNERS. No copyright infringement intended.
Written By: Anna Moon
Edit By: Esma
Checked By: Aury
Comments