.
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)
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
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/
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
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
