NewsHounds: What Is News?

.
WHAT IS NEWS?
(See pp. 36-37 in Harrower)

NEWS IS . . . .
. . . timely (new!)
. . . nearby (proximity: 1. geographic; 2. what other kinds?)
. . . about prominent/important people/things (who is “important”?)
. . . about human beings (human interest; children, baby ducks and puppies)
. . . about conflict, tension, competition, disagreement.
. . . about novelty—the weird, novel and unusual (“Gee whiz!” Man bites dog, etc.)
. . . about consequence—So what?—impact; it is relevant/important/useful to people’s lives (discuss selective perception; “News you can use.”)

When Writing News: Use THE FRED RULE (Explanation to follow)

Questions to ask yourself in deciding what’s news: What do you know? So what? What’s most important? (WHY?) Rank-order the information in descending order of importance.

WWWWWH

WHO did WHAT? WHERE? WHEN?
(WHY?) (HOW?)

End-of-Semester Straight Talk

.
NOTE: Jacob Neusner, a former professor of religious studies at Brown University, now at Bard College, and a noted Judaic scholar, wrote the following article for the Brown Daily Herald in the early 1980s as a commencement address he knew would never be delivered. He was offended by the erosion of standards in higher education, he explained, not only among students but among faculty members who could restore academic excellence, but won't. It has been my habit since I first saw this piece reprinted in 1983, to submit it to the campus newspaper where I was teaching at commencement time, as a caveat to those who would teach as well as to those who would learn.
T. Pease

So go, unlearn the lies we taught you

By Jacob Neusner

We the faculty take no pride in our educational achievements with you. We have prepared you for a world that does not exist, indeed, that cannot exist.

You have spent four years supposing that failure leaves no record. You have learned at Brown that when your work goes out poorly, the painless solution is to drop out.

But starting now, in the world in which you go, failure marks you. Confronting difficulty by quitting leaves you changed. Outside Brown, quitters are no heroes.

With us you could argue about why your errors were not errors, why mediocre work really was excellent, why you could take pride in routine and slipshod presentation. Most of you, after all, can look back on honor grades for most of what you have done. So, here grades can have meant little in distinguishing the excellent from the ordinary.

But tomorrow, in the world in which you go, you had best not defend errors but learn from them. You will be ill-advised to demand praise for what does not deserve it and abuse those who do not give it.

For four years we created an altogether forgiving world, in which whatever slight effort you gave was all that was demanded. When you did not keep appointments, we made new ones. When your work came in beyond the deadline, we pretended not to care.

Worse still, when you were boring, we acted as if you were saying something important. When you were garrulous and talked to hear yourself talk, we listened as if it mattered. When you tossed on our desks writing upon which you had not labored, we read it and even responded, as though you had earned a response.

When you were dull, we pretended you were smart. When you were predictable, unimaginative and routine, we listened as if to new and wonderful things. When you demanded free lunch, we served it. And all this why?

Despite your fantasies, it was not even that we wanted to be liked by you. It was that we did not want to be bothered, and the easy way out was pretense: smiles and easy Bs.

It is conventional to quote in addresses such as these. Let me quote someone you've never heard of, Professor Carter A. Daniel, Rutgers University:

College has spoiled you by reading papers that don't deserve to be read, listening to comments that don't deserve a hearing, paying attention even to the lazy ill-informed and rude. We had to do it for the sake of education. But nobody will do it again. College has deprived you of adequate preparation for the next 50 years. It has failed you by being easy, free, forgiving, attentive, comfortable, interesting, unchallenging fun. Good luck tomorrow. (Chronicle of Higher Education, May 7, 1979)

That is why, on this commencement day, we have nothing in which to take much pride.

Oh, yes, there is one more thing. Try not to act toward your co-workers and bosses as you have acted toward us. I mean, when they do not give you what you want but have not earned, don't abuse them, insult them, act out with them your parlous relationships with your parents. This, too, we have tolerated. It was, as I said, not to be liked.

Few professors actually care whether or not they are liked by peer-paralyzed adolescents, fools so shallow as to imagine professors care not about education but about popularity. It was, again, to be rid of you.

So go, unlearn the lies we taught you. To life!

Note: Neusner is now Distinguished Service Professor of the History and Theology of Judaism, and a Senior Fellow, Institute of Advanced Theology, at Bard College in Annandale-on-Hudson, New York.

Film Project—Research Tips

.
Katie’s Research Tips

Kate Reeves is TA in Professor Cooper’s section of Smarts. She offers the following tips that might be useful to you in researching your film projects and papers. TP

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I know some of you are having a hard time finding good information about the real events that your movies are based on. Here are some places that you can find good information that will be helpful. You want to be using good, reliable information, not personal blogs or websites.

Google (www.google.com):
If you know nothing about your topic, I’d suggest doing a couple of simple Google searches with the title of the movie or the main character so that you understand the basic background of the historical event. You don’t necessarily need to cite all of this, you can just use it for background so that you understand what happened.

Wikipedia (www.wikipedia.org):
Do NOT cite Wikipedia in your project. Do NOT quote from it! But, if you know very little about your topic, it is a good starting place. Type in the name of the film, the name of the main character or the topic i.e. “Rwandan Genocide.” At the bottom of the page there will be links to legitimate sources. Use those links. It might help you discover what you want to look for in your research.

Library Databases (http://library.usu.edu/main/inabs/index.php):
USU spends thousands of dollars each year to purchase access to online databases. You should be taking advantage of them. For this project I would recommend the Academic Search Premier, Ebsco Host, or Lexis Nexis (if you want news articles). These will link you to academic journals and news articles. Since all of your topics are historical you should be able to find information about the real events and possibly some information about the movies.

New York Times Historical (http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?RQT=302&COPT=U01EPTYmSU5UPTAmVkVSPTImREJTPTFBQ0Q@&clientId=1652&cfc=1):
Everything printed in the New York Times from 1851-2005. If you are looking for materials after 2005 you can find it on Lexis Nexis.

Library Catalog (https://129.123.124.103/uPortal/Initialize?uP_reload_layout=true&uP_tparam=props&uP_sparam=activeTab&activeTab=1):
Most of your historical events happened 15-100 years ago. People have written entire books on your subjects. Look on the Library Catalog and see if the USU library has a book that on your topic. You don’t have to read the entire book, but they can be very valuable resources.

I hope this helps you get an idea of where you can get information.
—Katie

Film Project—Presentation Outline

.
Film & History Project: Presentation Outline

A detailed outline of your team project and presentation is due at the time of your in-class presentation. Please follow this basic guideline (additional supporting materials may be attached, if you like). Please also hand in your video exhibits/clips with the outline.

Team name:
Team members:
Title of movie analyzed:

1. Brief synopsis of the person, event, conflict on which the film is based.
A.
B.
C.

2. Major themes of the film.
A.
B.
C.

3. Major differences between historical record, coverage in The New York Times (or other newspapers) & film translation.
A.
B.
C.

4. Major similarities between historical record, coverage in The New York Times (or other newspapers) & film translation.
A.
B.
C.

5. Relate to media effects theories and media literacy concepts. How does the film construct a specific version of reality and what is the significance of the Hollywood version? In other words, whose stories are told? Whose stories are omitted? What is the significance of how the story is framed? What ideological perspectives are reinforced or challenged?
A.
B.
C.

6. Team member names and role each played. Be specific.
A. Preparation for the presentation
B. Roles, characters played during the presentation

7. List of References: Complete citation list for all sources.
(APA or MLA style required)

Film Project—Team Evaluation

.

Team Evaluation: Journalism, History & Hollywood

Directions: Each team member must complete this evaluation form and submit it to Professor Pease on the date of the team presentation. This is designed to provide you with the opportunity to rate your team members’ contributions and participation in the project. All evaluations are confidential.

Please rate each team member, including yourself, in terms of substantive contributions to the assignment and final product. The total must add up to 100%. For example, if you have five team members and feel that each contributed equally to the assignment, then you would assign each team member 20%. If, however, of the five team members, one member did much more work than others, you might assign 40% to that team member, and 15% to the other four team members.

Team name:__________________________________________

Your name_______________________________ Percentage of work:_______

Team member name_________________________ Percentage of work:_______

Team member name_________________________ Percentage of work:_______

Team member name_________________________ Percentage of work:_______

Team member name_________________________ Percentage of work:_______

Smarts Movie Analysis Project (F08)

.
FINAL PROJECT: Media, History & Hollywood

PROJECT GOAL: To identify how events, people, issues and media ethics are framed and depicted in Hollywood films. Film research demonstrates that when history is translated to the silver screen, the events and people depicted are often diluted, distorted and fabricated, privileging the stories of men over women, Caucasians over people of color, and privileging and reinforcing the dominant power structures of American society. Filmmakers choose what to include and exclude from history, thus films work to reshape and reinterpret social reality and historical memory. Working with your teams, you’ll analyze how mainstream Hollywood films have depicted some of these events and people by comparing the Hollywood film version to historical accounts and news stories.

Assignment: This is your major term project. Working in teams, select three films as a possible focus for your project. Write me a memo as a team pitching your three picks, describing them (blurb) and explaining briefly why you think each would be an interesting choice for analysis. This memo is due in class Thursday, and each team will make a presentation to the whole class on your picks and rationales so we can discuss as a group. Pick movies from the list below, or propose other films that you think might work.

As a team, you will research the historical epoch and events depicted in your movie; analyze your selected movie, identifying the movie’s major themes and compare them to historical facts. How does the film frame historical events? How do the facts privilege or distort the historical record? Do the film narratives work to privilege or challenge the dominant ideologies underlying all levels of American society? How? What issues related to media ethics can you relate to the film’s construction of reality?

Team Presentations: Develop a 20-minute team presentation on your film and the historical record. In thinking about your team presentation, please remember that you will need to use examples from your film, but the entire presentation cannot just be showing video clips. Select scenes that illustrate the key points you want to make. At the time of the presentation, each team hands in a detailed outline describing 1) the major points of your presentation, 2) the role each team member played in the project, and 3) all sources used in researching the film. NOTE: Teams must pick presentation dates; see below.

• YouTube note: Just because the clip is available on You Tube does not mean it’s the beset option to support the points your team makes. Trailers are rarely useful.

Individual Research Papers: Working from your team analyses, each of you will write your own 10- 12-pp. term paper comparing your film and the historical record. These papers will focus on how film versions may have varied from what really happened, and explore both reasons why (who is privileged and who is not?) and how the film versions may have worked to skew audience perceptions of actual events, thus, perhaps, remaking history in the public consciousness. (More specific paper instructions to follow.) Individual papers are due on the day of your team presentation.

Tips for doing a critical film analysis: Your goal is to analyze the film in terms of how the historical events, issues and people are represented, not simply to do a plot summary. Here are some questions to help you identify the major ideological perspectives operating in the film narratives.
1. Search for historical information about the events and people depicted in the movies. Identify the differences between the historical and film versions. You may also include current events and issues related to the issues addressed in the movie (e.g., immigration, racism, homophobia, ethnocentrism, sexism, classism, etc.)
2. How does the director present issues related to diversity (e.g., gender, race, ethnicity) in the film?
3. Could the director have portrayed the events and people in a more responsible way (be sure to explain how you are defining “responsible filmmaking”).
4. What themes, characters, elements of the film provided new insight? What themes, arguments, elements of the story challenged your current way of looking at the issues raised by the film?
5. What does the film teach us about racial and ethnic diversity? Gender? International issues? Politics? War?
6. Use specific examples from the film to illustrate your major arguments and conclusions.
7. How does the film represent challenges made to dominant cultural ideologies?
8. How can you relate the principles of media literacy and media effects theories to the film narratives?

Some Dominant Ideologies & Concepts to Consider:
• Capitalism: Economic system of private and corporate ownership; distribution of wealth and goods determined by free market enterprise and competition.
• Christianity: Religion based on the Bible and teachings of Jesus Christ. (FYI: Approximately 33% of the world’s population practices Christianity).
• Democracy: Government of the citizens of a country, determined by majority rule, based on elected representatives.
• Ethnocentrism: “Our people are better than your people.” In other words, belief that one’s own culture, nation, or ethnicity is superior to all others.
• Heteroideology: Sexuality is natally ascribed, immutable and natural, and heterosexuality is an integral aspect of human intelligence and nature (Scheman, 1997).
• Patriarchy: “[A]ny kind of group organization in which males hold dominant power and determine what part females shall and shall not play, and in which capabilities assigned to women are relegated” to domestic realms and excluded from political realms (Dow, 1996).
• White Privilege: The “everyday, invisible, subtle cultural and social practices, ideas and codes that discursively secure the power and privilege of white people” the “discursive processes through which whiteness secures its normalized cultural dominance.” (Gorham, 1999; Shome, 1996).

Web Sources: Using online sources is fine, providing the sources are reliable and credible. That means that in addition to not using Wikipedia, info from blogs, etc., or other sources that can’t be confirmed is unacceptable. Sources for this assignment should include newspapers, news magazines, academic articles or books, film reviews from reliable sources (e.g., The New York Times). Britt Fagerheim in the Library can help you find sources.

All web sources web sites are NOT created equal. There is no screening process for web information, no fact-checking and no way of knowing how accurate the information you retrieve is. When you use a commercial search engine (like Google) the program will retrieve all sites that contain the words you have typed in, regardless of accuracy. It is imperative for you to access the web info you find. This is a (quasi) journalism course and, as we’ve discussed, nothing is more important to journalism than accuracy and credibility.

Dates:
TH Oct. 24: Teams select top three movie choices and present them and rationales to class
TH Oct. 30: Team Day: meet to work on project.
TH Nov. 13: Team Day: meet to work on project.
TH Nov. 20: Presentation Day—Team ANFSCD & Team PPs
T Dec. 2: Presentation Day—James’ Angels & Twizzle Wizzle
TH Dec. 4: Presentation Day—Team EDD & the Muckrakers

Films
(Summaries from www.imbd.com; www.rottentomatoes.com; www.metacritic.com)
Ali (2001). (R). A biography of sports legend, Muhammad Ali (Will Smith), from his early days to his days in the ring and the racism he encountered.
Black Hawk Down (2001). Based the 1993 U.S. Army mission in Somalia where nearly 100 Rangers were dropped by helicopter deep into Mogadishu to capture two top lieutenants of a Somali warlord.
Blood Diamond (2006). Fictional account of the civil unrest and trade in blood diamonds in Sierra Leone.
Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee (2007). Story of how American Indians were displaced as the U.S. expanded west during the 19th century.
Flags of Our Fathers (2006). Life stories of the six men who raised the flag at the Battle of Iwo Jima during WWII.
Erin Brockovich (2000) (R): An unemployed single mother who exposes illegal dumping of deadly toxic waste by Pacific Gas & Electric Company that contaminated water and poisoned residents and resulted in one of the biggest class action lawsuits in American history against a multi-billion dollar corporation.
Good Night, and Good Luck (2005). Edward R. Murrow and CBS decide to take a stand against Senator Joe McCarthy’s tactics during the 1950s Red Scare.
In the Valley of Elah (2007). A career military officer tries to learn the truth of his son’s death after his return from a tour of duty in Iraq. Based on a true story.
The Insider (1999). Story of a research chemist who decides to blow the whistle on Big Tobacco and appears on “60 Minutes.”
Ghosts of Mississippi (1996). (PG-13). Based on the story of the Myrlie Evers (Whoopie Goldberg), widow of murdered civil rights leader Medger Evers and a district attorney struggle (Alec Baldwin) to finally bring the murderer to justice. Medgar Evers was murdered in 1963 in his own driveway.
Glory Road (2006). Inspired by a true story of Texas Western’s Coach Don Haskins (Josh Lucas), who led the first all-black starting lineup team to the 1966 NCAA national basketball championship title
Harlan County War (2000) (Made for TV/Showtime). A Kentucky woman (Holly Hunter) whose mineworker husband is nearly killed in a cave-in, and whose father is slowly dying of black lung disease, joins the picket lines for a long, violent strike. Based on true story of 1932 labor dispute in Harlan County, Kentucky.
The Tuskegee Airmen (1995) (TV): The true story of how a group of African American pilots overcame racist opposition to become one of the finest US fighter groups in World War II.
Miss Evers’ Boys (1997) (TV). The true story of the U.S. government's 1932 Tuskeegee Syphilis Experiments, in which a group of black test subjects were allowed to die, despite a cure having been developed.
Hoax (2006). Struggling author Clifford Irving sells his fabricated biography of Howard Hughes to a premiere publishing house in the early 1970s.
Hotel Rwanda (2004). Story of Paul Rusesabagina, the hotel manager who protected Tutsi refugees from the Hutu militia in Rwanda.
The Hurricane (1999). Based on the life of Rubin “Hurricane” Carter, a boxer wrongly imprisoned for murder by a racist jury and law officers, and the people who aided in his fight to prove his innocence.
Iron Jawed Angels (2004). (NR): Story of Alice Paul and the fight for women’s suffrage.
The Killing Fields (1984). Based on the experiences of New York Times reporter Sydney Schanberg and his photographer/assistant, Dith Pran, and the civil war in Cambodia in the 1970s.
Last King of Scotland (2007). Based on Ugandan dictator Idi Amin and his brutal regime during the 1970s, through the perspective of his personal physician.
Malcolm X (1992). Spike Lee’s story of the controversial and influential Black Nationalist leader.
Matthew Shepard Story (2002). (TV). Based on the story of gay college student Matthew Shepard who was murdered 10 years ago in Laramie, WY.
A Mighty Heart (2007). Based on Mariane Pearl's account of the murder of her husband, Wall Street Journal reporter Danny Pearl, in Iraq.
Mississippi Burning (1988). Based on the FBI investigation of the 1964 disappearance of civil rights workers in Mississippi.
Munich (2005). “During the 1972 Olympic Games in Munich, eleven Israeli athletes are taken hostage and murdered by a Palestinian terrorist group known as Black September. In retaliation, the Israeli government recruits a group of Mossad agents to track down and execute those responsible for the attack.”
Pocahontas (1995). Disney’s story of the Native American woman who colonists when they invaded 16th century Virginia.
Rabbit Proof Fence (2002). Based on the story of three Aboriginal girls who escape from the Moore River Native Settlement in Australia, after the country passed a the Aborigines Act, designed to control the lives of this indigenous race. The Australian government recently issued a formal apology to the Aboriginal people.
Rendition (2007). When an Egyptian terrorism suspect “disappears” on a flight from Africa to Washington D.C., his American wife and a CIA analyst struggle to secure his release from a secret detention facility somewhere outside the US. FYI: Suits have been filed against the U.S. government by victims of this practice.
Road to Guantanamo (2006). Based on the experiences of the Tipton Three, a trio of British Muslims who were held in Guantanamo Bay for two years until they were released without charge.
Rosewood (1997). “Story of a shameful event in American history, the race riot by whites against blacks in 1922 in the small Florida town of Rosewood, which left the town in smoking ruin while dozens of its residents were shot, burned to death or lynched” (Ebert, 1997, February 21, ¶ 7).
Saving Jessica Lynch (2003). (Made for TV). Based on the story of the Army rescue of Private Jessica Lynch in Iraq.
Shattered Glass (2003). Journalist Stephen Glass (The New Republic) was disgraced when it was revealed that he had fabricated over half of his articles.
Snow Falling on Cedars (1999). Fictionalized story of a journalist searching for the truth behind a local murder, and the consequences of racism and the aftermath of the Japanese internment in his community during WWII.
Veronica Guerin (2003). Based on the story of the Irish journalist who is assassinated by the drug dealers she wrote about in her new stories.

MORE!
All the President’s Men
All Quiet on the Western Front
Amadeus
Amistad
Band of Brothers
Braveheart
Bridge Over the River Kwai
Capote
Citizen Kane
Cold Mountain
Control Room
Erin Brockovich
Exodus
Ghandi
Gladiator
Gone with the Wind
Good Night and Good Luck
Grapes of Wrath
Inherit the Wind
JFK
Killing Fields, The
Letters from Iwo Jima
Lion in Winter
Mississippi Burning
Mrs. Miniver
Newsies
Norma Rae
Out of Africa
Reds
Salvador
Saving Private Ryan
Schindler’s List
Seabiscuit
Shattered Glass
Titanic
Triumph of the Will
Tru

See also these online lists of historical movies:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/modsbookmovies.html
http://www.vernonjohns.org/snuffy1186/movies.html
http://longagocaptures.org/

Gatekeeping—An Eager Media Smarty

.
Editor’s Note: April Larsen is a student in both beginning news writing and Media Smarts this (F08) semester. A former missionary in LA, she was interested during the recent election by the Proposition 8 struggle, and even more by the protests that followed the gay-marriage ban in California. She is also a media-smart fish whose observations about how the LA Times coverage of the post-election protests changed are worth reading. TP

Monday, November 10, 2008

Behold! The power of gatekeepers!

By April Larsen

Last Thursday, a couple hours after the rally started at the L.A. Mormon Temple, I found myself glued to the L.A. Times online article of the event.

I lived on the L.A. temple grounds for eight months, so I wanted to soak up the details of the breaking news. Over four or five hours I refreshed the article, observing its evolution. I was surprised by the way the changing content changed the general sway of the article, and I wondered what was contributing to the choices the writers were making in altering the content.

The first version of the article read:

Soon after the rally got under way at 2 p.m., men and woman hoisting signs shouted down about a half-dozen men in suits from the church, yelling "Shame on you!" and pointing at them. The men in suits and a groundskeeper stood looking at them impassively.

I liked this lead. I think the word “impassively” really hit the spot. Those who are frustrated with the church could resent the idea of temple patrons looking impassively, and members of the church, like me, could be amused by the lack of impact the protesters were having.

A couple hours after I read that lead and chuckled to myself, the writers of the Times article changed it. (At least the typo was removed.) It now reads:

Outside the Los Angeles temple Thursday, dozens of protestors screamed "Bigots" and "Shame on You" at half a dozen men in button-down shirts and ties who looked out at the demonstration from behind the temple's closed gates. The men did not respond.

Now all I hear is "Bigots looked out from behind closed gates." The extra framing really drew a more thorough profile.

There’s also the “no comment” or “did not repond” effect we talked about in class today. It's got to be the quickest way to make someone sound like a bozo. The line that was receptive to perception had become lop-sided.

They also framed the Church statement by what it doesn't say, by writing this:

Church officials made few public statements during the campaign. On Thursday, they issued a statement asking for "a spirit of mutual respect and civility.” "The Church acknowledges that such an emotionally charged issue concerning the most personal and cherished aspects of life -- family and marriage -- stirs fervent and deep feelings," church spokeswoman Kim Farah wrote in an e-mail. "No one on either side of the question should be vilified, harassed or subject to erroneous information." She did not elaborate.

Finally, they chose to add an outline of what takes place in a very pointed, (offensive and unreasonable) anti-LDS anti-prop 8 ad, and they featured the story of a former member-RM who is practicing gay now. They currently end the article with a quote from an active member from Corona (an hour southeast of L.A.! How's that for proximity?), which doesn't give much information or interest. It ends with his quote on persecution toward the Church being nothing new, but the way it's dumped at the end makes it sound like church members play the victim card.

They also added a tag to the bottom of the article, "Times staff writer Tami Abdollah contributed to this article." I wondered how much of the changes had to do with her. What did she contribute?

I find it interesting the way all of these more revealing tidbits that give the sense that the church is unreasonable were added to the article later. It might be too much involvement to add more about what other churches donated and how they were involved in the campaign, how the church was singled out, how other increased minority votes contributed a large amount... but they could have added more detail from a stronger, active, pro-LDS source—perhaps a reaction to the protests.

I actually emailed the writers, as a proactive journalism student, suggesting they balance the content. I got responses from the writer who was on location while she was at the protest. She said she had nothing to do with what was being published online other than calling in information. (Maybe I should say, "She did not explain the lack of LDS representation in the article..." bozo.) She also told me the Times does not preserve former versions of articles, which I found odd because they might need it in the case of proving accountability for something.

Anyway… gatekeeping! It’s interesting how much you can say from the heart without saying anything personal at all.

More on Fox News

.
The election’s over, and not that we need any further evidence of Fox bias, but....

From FAIR (Freedom & Acccuracy In Reporting)

Fox News Nailbiter!
Conservative channel pushed notion of a tightening election
11/6/08

One of the most glaring peculiarities about the Fox News Channel’s campaign coverage in the run-up to the November 4 election was the channel’s frequent insistence, in the waning days of the campaign, that the election was remarkably close, with Republican John McCain surging.

In reality, few polls suggested this was happening (see PollingReport.com; Pollster.com), but Fox chose to give a handful of outlying, unrepresentative surveys considerable attention. It was as if the channel were less interested in accurately reporting the state of the campaign than in presenting an alternate reality that would be pleasing to partisan viewers.

....more
Click here to see the rest of the story, including examples in the campaign’s final days.

Smarts—Movie Project Teams

.
TEAM ROSTERS

TEAM REDD
Movie: “The Killing Fields” Presentation date: 12/4
Hertig, Edward
*Linder, Darin S.
Radle, Devan S.

TEAM Twizzle-Wizzle
Movie: “13 Days” Presentation date: 12/2
Adams, Rachel J.
Jeppson, Tamara
*Nance, Lorene W.
Rasmussen, Taylor J.

JAMES’S ANGELS
Movie: “Catch Me If You Can” Presentation date: 12/2
Bullock, Anna M.
Jones, Autumn D.
Nield, Jessica C.
*Rohwer, James K.
Smith, Mauri A.

ANFSCD
Movie: “Rescue Dawn” Presentation date: 11/20
Cambron, Kacee
Jones, Brittany A.
Olson, Tyler R.
*Schieving, Sarah E.

PPs
Movie: “Cinderella Man” Presentation date: 11/20
Ferry, Emily E.
Kushlan, Michael W
Osmun, Dallin J.
Scoggins, Courtney A.
*Sorensen, Taylor J.

TEAM MUCKRAKER
Movie: “Pearl Harbor” Presentation date: 12/4
Gregory, Rylee A.
Landeen, Spencer T.
Pack, Ryan S.
*Sharp, Holli L.

* = team captain

Smarts—Readings on Film & Society

.
Readings: Film & Society

Your film project examines both how your selected movie frames your topic—with awareness of what is included and what is excluded—and how the film may try to “rewrite” history by comparing the cinema version with the historical record.

These readings address many of these and related issues.

Can a Film Change The World? Time

Can Movies Change Our Minds?

Debating Iwo Jima Time

Do Movies Shape Your Opinions? USA Today

In Election Movies, Playing by the Rule of Three National Public Radio

James Matt: ‘Sicko’ Illustrates Power of ‘Advomentaries’

An Oscar Crop with an Instinct for Change National Public Radio

Top Gun versus Sergeant Bilko? No contest, says the Pentagon
Scripts can often be the first casualty in Hollywood’s theatre of war

Interviewing Skills

.

NOTE: This National Public Radio story (2006) focuses on journalistic interviewing skills, as taught by ESPN’s John Sawatsky. This is an instructive story (go to the website for audio links and examples), as Sawatsky assesses his NPR interviewer, David Folkenflik, as well as interviewing icons like Larry King and Mike Wallace.

Interviews

The Art of the Interview, ESPN-Style
by David Folkenflik

Listen Now

If he were a comic-book villain, Sawatsky would be the Riddler; his office door illustrates his main professional focus.

All Things Considered, August 14, 2006 ·

The old saying goes, “There’s no such thing as a stupid question.” But in the opinion of at least one major television network, there is such a thing, and some of the least effective questions are coming from top broadcast journalists.

ESPN’s John Sawatsky is tearing down icons such as Larry King and Mike Wallace as he preaches his guiding principles about how to properly conduct an interview.

ESPN has become a multi-channel sports juggernaut, beaming games, talk shows and news programs into tens of millions of homes. Its nightly newscast, SportsCenter, features spectacular plays, slips and punchlines—but its interviews needed work, according to one executive.

“I felt that we were missing key questions,” says John Walsh, ESPN’s senior vice president and executive editor. “We weren’t getting key moments ... so I thought we needed help.”

Walsh read a journalism review article about a college professor’s technique on the art of the interview. Two years ago, that professor, John Sawatsky, joined ESPN full time.

Now, every single editorial employee at ESPN is expected to attend a three-day seminar, where they encounter a lanky, slightly awkward 58-year-old man with little flash. In his efforts to illustrate what he considers the “seven deadly sins of interviewing,” John Sawatsky methodically eviscerates the nation’s most prominent television journalists.

“I want to change the culture of the journalistic interview,” Sawatsky says. “We interview no better now than we did 30 years ago. In some ways, we interview worse.”

....more at NPR website....

How Did Folkenflik Do?

Sawatsky had this to say about David Folkenflik’s interviewing technique on the first day they sat down: “Your questions are good, on the micro-level. There doesn’t seem to be a huge strategy here, in terms of using questions to build off questions to get more, to get me to go further than my normal cautious self would normally go. That part isn’t there—but of course, we haven’t covered that yet in the workshop.” After their second interview (and after the seminar), Sawatsky has revised his opinion. Listen at the end to hear his assessment.

• Listen: A Conversation with John Sawatsky
  add
  

What Makes a Good Interview?

John Sawatsky says this CBC interview is one of the best he's ever encountered.

• Listen: CBC Interview with Trucker About Beaver Attack
  add
• Listen: ESPN Anchor Scott Van Pelt on Sawatsky's Technique
  add
  

Veteran journalist Mike Wallace dismisses Sawatsky's criticism. Getty Images

Sawatsky’s Targets Fire Back

• Listen: Larry King on Pursuing the Perfect Interview
  add
• Listen: Larry King on Interviewing Technique
  add
• Listen: Larry King on Talking with Frank Sinatra
  add
• Listen: Mike Wallace on Indiscreet Questions
  add
• Listen: Mike Wallace on Being Accused of Theatrics
  add

What Reporters Are Up Against

• The Athlete’s Cliché Handbook: ‘Bull Durham’ Edition