Online Assignment #2

When it comes to whether or not filmmakers are obligated to re-present the truth of historical events in movies, I am “on the fence”.  The reason I believe they should reveal the complete truth about history is because society will potentially learn important historical events from the movie.  Their learning is indirect and sometimes left unnoticed.  For example, I have not studied or researched anything about the horrible tragedy of the Titanic.  I only know about this due to the movie titled, Titanic.  Even though I watched the movie for entertainment, I implicitly learned about this historical occurrence; and therefore, I believe what I saw on the movie (minus the love affair between Jack and Rose.)

On the other hand, I do believe it is also acceptable for filmmakers to fabricate the truth to a certain extent in order to make the movie more appealing  Filmmakers’ main objective is to attract society to watch their movies, and to do so, they must create their films to be as appealing as they can be.  In some re-presentations of crucial historical events, filmmakers have added certain scenes or even taken out certain events/ occurrences to fulfill the filmmaker’s “vision” of the movie.  I believe this is okay just as long as they verify in the beginning of the film that the movie does not completely reflect the actual events 100% accurately.  It is common for filmmakers to mention in the beginning of their film “based on true events”, and this is respectable in opposition to “based on a true story”.   

Overall, I do believe filmmakers have an obligation to produce accurate re-presentations of historical events in their movies depending on the situation and the movie itself.  Filmmakers need to be aware that society will most likely learn something from these movies, so if they do fabricate the truth, the filmmakers must identify when and how they do so.

Online Assignment #2

       Unfortunately I have not seen any of these movies, but I have heard only great things about them and plan on seeing them soon. However, I did see “The Hurt Locker” and although I was disappointed in this movie and found it extremely dull because it lacked a meaningful plot, I thought it was very interesting how the director portrayed this movie. My uncle was on duty in Afghanistan and was on one of the teams in charge of disabling bombs.  He said that the way it was depicted by the director was very inaccurate. He elaborated by saying that the equipment used was pretty much the same, but the procedure and lack of evacuation of citizens was severely misconstrued.

         I understand that many people disagree with me, but I don’t have a problem with movies, or many other forms of media, altering the cold hard facts to make a better and more intriguing story. My favorite book, Uncle Tom’s Cabin, was based off multiple people’s true stories in which the author decided to combine them all into one fictional character’s life. Another form of entertainment that I have no problem with stretching the truth for a story is theatre. I have no problem with Mike Daisy and how he went about his story because there is a greater story and message he was trying to convey. I think it is a shame that so many people blew this out of proportion by focusing on the small details of the story that were false. The message is still true from his performance that the working conditions for the Apple workers at Foxconn. Only in America would people twist this story to avoid confronting the problems with the coveted image of Apple to avoid guilt for supporting them.

        I believe that films, television shows, books and other types of media that do not involve reporting are not liable or expected to be 100% accurate in their reports. Radio, newspapers, and news stations are all reporting news and should feel pressure to have all the facts right, but I do not believe all forms of media are held to this standard. Films come with a certain freedom of the producer to portray different contexts how they please. Films are made as a form of entertainment and so unless it is a documentary, I do not believe filmmakers have a sense of responsibility to be entirely accurate in everything they portray.

Brian McNair, Journalistic Objectivity, and Personal Subjectivity

Brian McNair received his PhD in sociology from the University of Glasgow in Scotland and is the Head of Discipline and a Professor on the Creative Industries Faculty, School of Media, Entertainment, Creative Arts, Journalism, Media and Communication at the Queensland University of Technology in Brisbane, Australia.  Among the topics for which McNair’s writings are most well-known are popular culture, political involvement in journalism, and sexuality.  

Besides contributing to the book from which our reading this week was taken (Making Journalists), McNair is also the author of the following books:

• An Introduction to Political Communication, which examines how contemporary politicians, commerce groups, terrorist groups, and others use the media.
• News and Journalism in the UK, an overview of how Great Britain and Northern Ireland media outlets have responded to changing technologies and some of the challenges currently facing journalism in the UK.
• Cultural Chaos, which draws on events such as the September 11th terrorist attacks, the War in Iraq, and Hurricane Katrina to examine how news outlets are responding to increasingly globalized media.
• Striptease Culture, an examination of pornography, how sexuality is represented in the media, and sexuality in contemporary art contribute to public awareness of sexual health and gender differences.

    McNair’s chapter in Making Journalists, titled “What is Journalism?” examines the changing role of journalism and journalists within our technology-centric, globalized society, focusing on the importance of maintaining objectivity in reporting.  Some of the factors that McNair cites as challenges to objectivity include falling into the trap of the public’s desire for spectacle and drama (the public being the consumers of the news), and situations that challenge the moral righteousness of objectivity, such as the September 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks.  He also mentions the quandary of publications needing funding and sometimes having to rely on state taxation or religious groups and therefore being censored.  Even privately owned media outlets can be challenged in the pursuit for objectivity because, as McNair says “if news is business, it is owned by businessmen” (p 34).  This statement is consistent with the critical theory view of media, which says that owners of large media outlets have the power to legitimize some cultural values and delegitimize others by projecting their personal beliefs on their networks.
    The importance that McNair places on the pursuit of objectivity and truth in reporting is perhaps defined most clearly by his assertion that their needs to be a degree of detachment and independence from the topic by the reporter.  However, it is important to note the disctinction that McNair creates between objective reporting and personal weblogs unassociated with news outlets.  This is particularly interesting in McNair’s case when looking at his twitter and past reporting experience.  From what I could gather, McNair’s book Striptease Culture and his contributions to other books on gender roles and LGBTQ culture are informed by personal experience working with and interviewing porn stars.  His twitter feed is riddled with pro-gay tweets, for example: “funny riff on gay stereotypes - 20 Things Lesbians Are Tired Of Hearing http://t.co/3LnaNK3ZVV via @buzzfeedlgbt,” “hypocrisy is the sin, not homosexuality - how Britain's Catholic leader fell from grace http://gu.com/p/3e6y5/tw  via @guardian,” and “This is now. Gay marriage: MPs vote in favour leaves Cameron adrift from Tories http://gu.com/p/3dt8v/tw  via @guardian.”  Though McNair strives for objectivity in reporting, he recognizes the freedom for expression of personal, subjective beliefs on personal news outlets and the importance of utilizing them to disseminate information and opinions.




Sources:
http://staff.qut.edu.au/staff/mcnair/
http://books.google.com
https://twitter.com/Brianmcnair

This is NPR. This is News.

This is NPR is an important article that focuses on the standards, requirements, and expectations that NPR has for all of its articles, journalist, and employees.  Since the author is NPR itself, the main goal of this publication is quite obvious.  It is to convince the audience that when NPR publishes an article or cites a fact on a radio program, the audience can be rest-assured that the information given is both reliable and trustworthy.  According to a study cited in Poytner.org, NPR is considered to give its readers and viewers the most accurate and informed information than new sources such as MSNBC, Fox News, and other large news outlets.  This makes the listener or reader feel more comfortable reading or listening to the program that results in more revenue for NPR.  In addition, this article was published as written form of expectations of the quality of work that journalists, personality hosts, and employees working for NPR must adhere to.  If a person does that adhere to these standards that are listed in this handbook, there will be significant consequences. 

The handbook that this article was written in was revised in 2010, which turned out to be a year of controversy for NPR.  An NPR new analyst Juan Williams was fired in 2010 amid racist comments he made against Muslims on the Fox News program “The O’Reilly Factor.”  It is safe to assume that this handbook and this article was revised in response to the Williams’ controversy which left a black eye for the NPR news organization.  Another pressure that might have constituted this handbook and article being written is the issue of funding for the NPR program.  NPR does funding of some type from the federal government.  Because of the economic recession, government officials are looking for programs to reduce funding for.  This article might have been written as a way to state the importance of the NPR new network as a reliable, excellent, and trustworthy news source worthy of continual funding from the government. 

There are many techniques that are used in order for this article to appeal to the readers.  The article has somewhat of a declaration and constitutional feel to it, which may appeal to the taxpayers that, in part, fund NPR.  The article uses terms such as “must” and “will” that appeal to the reader in ways that make the reader feel confident that NPR means what it says and will uphold each and every element of the organization to the highest standard. 

The publication of this article is a promise to the consumers of NPR’s programs and articles that the information being displayed is accurate and reliable.  It makes the case that NPR is one of the only new sources that should be trusted to be objective in all stories and through in reporting both sides of the argument or debate.  In the conclusion of the article, the author states that this statement is “…intended not only to serve as a guide, but also to provoke ongoing discussion and deliberation….” I think this is true for almost all news organizations.  It is the one that can prove it effectively and consistently that will ultimately gain the most readership and subscribers.  

Sources:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130712737 (Williams Firing)

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-03-10-NPR10_CV_N.htm (Funding)

http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/174826/survey-nprs-listeners-best-informed-fox-news-viewers-worst-informed/ (NPR reliability vs other news outlets)

Discussion Questions on What Is Journalism

1.) The editor of the Guardian, a venerable newspaper company in the UK, has claimed that "the newspaper ... is a partial, hasty, incomplete, inevitably somewhat flawed and inaccurate rendering of ... [what] we have heard about." Many newspaper companies, protects and ensures the content of its newspapers by hiring reputable journalists and editors. Ergo, to what extent should we place our confidence in Rusbridger's claim? Should we be more evaluative and critical of what we read? After all, McNair calls journalistic objectivity an "aspiration."

2.) The digital revolution has brought on newer forms of mass media, e.g. blogs -- currently a popular source of information. However, blogs are usually not as reliable as newspapers, because it is often a one man job (blogs usually do not have editors). Accordingly, do you think that the public will continue to treat blogs with skepticism and use it as a secondary source of information -- why or why not? Or will readers eventually keep an open mind and use it as a supplement with newspapers?

3.) On a related note, especially with the proliferation of blogs and other new forms of mass media, to what extent is the quality of information that we receive being degraded? Or, rather, is it providing us with a fresh, unique set of ideas that traditional mass media sources will not provide? After all, blogs typically do not possess an ulterior motive, e.g. earning profits, so do not necessarily have to adhere to standard practises found in journalism. 

4.) McNair claims that most reputable mass media sources generally conclude similarly.* Though such conclusions are usually correct, in Kovach & Rosenstiel's novel Blur, the authors mentioned that in one instance, several reputable mass medias falsely reported the number of casualties in a mining accident in West Virginia. Therefore, how can we choose to avoid obtaining information just from journalists? Moreover, how should the public choose newspapers? Are we able to simply place our trust in respected, objective mass media as opposed to the less reputable/biased ones? 

5.) McNair claims that certain mass media sources are currently applying patriotic undertones in their articles, especially after 9/11. For instance, Rupert Murdoch directed the Fox News to apply patriotism in its articles/broadcasts when discussing the invasion of Iraq in 2003. How can we ascertain the truth, then? Has defining the 'truth' in articles/broadcasts become more difficult in recent times?

Appendix:

*For instance, McNair claims that the BBC and the ITV in the UK had similarly unbiased conclusions for the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

NPR Discussion Questions

1.      In Friday’s lecture, we learned about Mike Daisey and his misleading stories about his visit to China and the Foxconn plant.  NPR states that it treats each of its interviewees fairly.  If you worked for NPR and you were broadcasting this story, just like that Radio Station did of Mike Daisey we heard in class, would you be more apologetic to your listeners for broadcasting this story, or would you fully blame Mike Daisey for misleading your listeners?

2.     NPR states, “We take full responsibility for our work, so we must always be ready and willing to answer for it.”  If you worked for NPR and you broadcasted Mike Daisey’s story, how would you go about handling this situation?

3.      NPR has a lot of standards that they pride themselves by.  If you were a Journalist, would you want to work for NPR?

4.      “We do our best to report thoroughly and tell stories comprehensively. We won’t always have enough time or space in one story to say everything we would like or quote everyone we would wish to include. But errors of omission and partial truths can inflict great damage on our credibility, and stories delivered without the context to fully understand them are incomplete.”

·         If you were broadcasting live during the Sandy Hook Shooting, would you give out information as it came in, or would you hold off until the information is confirmed?

"Peer Reviews"

Ok so this thought came to me today in class.  Since we are not doing structured peer reviews I was wondering if anyone wanted to do student led peer reviews.  I, for one, woud love if someone looked over my essay and give me feedback.  Obviously, I would love to return the favor. 

If anyone is interested go ahead and either post on this blog or you can always email me at cdtownsend@wisc.edu and we can set something up.

Have a great weekend

Caleb Townsend