Smarts—Project2

.
Cartoons, Movies or Kids—Your Choice

For your second Smarts project, you may choose . . .
1) how editorial cartoons frame a controversial news topic of your choice; OR
2) how movies reinvent historical events; OR
3) an examination of children and media.

Project Proposal Due: Monday, Nov. 8, 2010.
Proposal must include:
a) Topic/Subject Title: For example, Muslims in editorial cartoons; The press role in “All the President’s Men”; or Consumerism and children’s Saturday morning cartoons. (Note: Do NOT select the same topic as your Truthiness project.)
b) Executive Summary: No more than 200 words explaining the rational (the “Why?” question) and focus (What?) of your project. Why is it worth examining? What media (specifically) will you examine? Why those? In the case of the movie-history project, with what sources will you compare your movie?
c) Proposed Format: You may do this project as a video (deliver a DVD or URL), a blog or Powerpoint presentation, or as a standard 5-page paper (plus bibliography). Note: The script or accompanying written documentation must accompany the multimedia options, including bibliography, which would be roughly equivalent to a 5 pp. paper when added to your visuals.)
You may post your proposed topic in the dialog on the Week 10 blog if you’re interested in feedback from others in the class.

Project Due: Monday, Dec. 6, 2010.

I. Option #1: The Editorial Cartoon Project

Goal: To apply media effects theories and media literacy concepts to an analysis of editorial cartoons depicting an issue related to race and/or gender. To identify and to analyze the “stories” being told by editorial cartoonists about racial or gender minorities—how do editorial cartoonists frame minorities (could mean racial minorities, gender or gender minorities (gays), or ethnic peoples)? (Past Smarts examples: Racism cartoons, gays in the military, women in politics...)

Possible Topics
1. Race & Ethnicity
• Immigration & Undocumented Workers
• President Obama—The First Black President (or, more broadly, black politicians in general, including, for example, New York Gov. David Paterson)
• Israelis & Palestinians—What we “know” about the “Palestine Problem”
• Others?

2. Gender
• Gays in America
• Gays in the Military—“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”
• Gender & Politics—Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Sarah Palin, Christine O’Donnell, etc.
• California’s Proposition 8; Same-sex marriage (See past Smarts cartoon project on Prop 8: Part I. Part II.)
• Gay rights issues in Utah

Resources: Editorial Cartoons
• David Wallis, SFGate.com: “Killed cartoons: Censorship is a threat not only to speech but to satirical images that sting targets or offend”
• Characteristics of effective editorial cartoons
• Mike Luckovich, 2-time Pulitzer Prize-winning cartoonist: “Drawing Attention: Cartooning with Mike Luckovich” (video)

Resources: Media, Race & Ethnicity
• What is racism? Definitions of racism, prejudice, etc.
• Ten things everyone should know about race
• Tom Huang, Poynter Institute: “Framing Stories: How we see stories and how we tell them”
• Hutchins Commission (social responsibility) & Kerner Commission (race & media)
• More Kerner Commission
• “Myth: Affirmative action is an African American entitlement program”
• Racism Defined: “What is Racism, Prejudice, Discrimination, Bias, and Xenophobia?”
• Robert Krulwich, NPR: “Your family may once have been a different color”
• Public Radio International: “Skin whitening big business in Asia”
• Even Conant, Newsweek (2009): “Rebranding hate in the age of Obama”
• San Francisco Chronicle, Media Report: Accuracy in Israel/Palestine Reporting

II. Option #2: Hollywood & History

Goal: To identify how historical events, people, issues, and/or media ethics are 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, or fabricated, often privileging stories of Whites over people of color, or men over women, etc.—privileging the dominant power structures in American society. Filmmakers choose what to include and exclude from history, thus films work to reshape and reinterpret social reality and historical memory, thus altering our received or perceived understanding of history and “truth.” Many Americans “learn” history from the movies, which is a little scary if you think about it (John Wayne in WWII movies? Oliver Stone’s version of the JFK assassination? Affleck and Damon in “Pearl Harbor”?).

Assignment:
1. If you select this project option, pick a historically based film, analyze how the movies depicted and framed historical events and people by comparing the film version to historical accounts and news stories in The New York Times & other dependable historical sources.
2. Select a film from the list below. Analyze the movie and identify the movie’s major themes/ frames, and compare them to historical facts. How do the movie “facts” privilege or distort the historical record? Do the film narratives work to privilege or challenge the dominant ideologies underlying American society? If you select a press-related movie, what issues related to media ethics can you relate to the film’s construction of reality? (You can propose other movies than those listed here, but no sports movies.)
3. How was the event and/or person framed in The New York Times? What issues related to media ethics can you relate to the Times’ construction of reality?
NOTE: Because this is a journalism class, I urge you to select a film that has to do with journalism, but that is not a requirement. The film must, however, be based on historical events so that you can examine it for truth. Remember, historians, like journalists or filmmakers, are both gatekeepers who decide what to include and exclude in their accounts, and framers of reality whose accounts of what happened becomes the public's version of the “truth.”

Essay or multimedia “report”: You may either write a 5-pp. paper on your movie, or construct a blog or multimedia presentation that others can view (see above). You must include complete bibliographic sources used to confirm the historical record. For multimedia presentations, you also need to hand in a detailed outline. Here’s an example of a past Smarts movie project on Shattered Glass. Part 1. Part 2.

Reminder: Wikipedia is NOT an acceptable nor a reliable source.

Some Tips:
1. Just because the clip is available on YouTube does not mean it’s the best option to support your arguments/theme. Trailers for movies are rarely useful. Select your movie clips carefully.
2. Using online sources is fine, providing the sources are reliable. (Like Wikipedia, blogs are not always reliable sources of factual information—check your sources!) Preferred sources: newspapers, news magazines, academic articles or books, film reviews from reliable news sources (e.g., New York Times). FYI: The New York Times Historical Database is available online through the library and includes all articles published by the Times. Also, every Time magazine article and cover since its first publication in 1927 are available.
3. Katie’s research tips.

Fair Warning: Many Hollywood films may use language, violence, depictions, etc., that some may find offensive; about 70 percent of Hollywood films are R-rated. From the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA): “A motion picture’s single use of one of the harsher sexually-derived words [e.g. the “F” word], though only as an expletive, initially requires at least a PG-13 rating. More than one such expletive requires an R rating, if even one of those words is used in a sexual context.” Click here for additional information on the MPAA rating system.

Films: Below is a list of films that fit the criteria for this assignment, which is that the movie . . .
1) . . . is based on an actual event or person;
2) . . . deals with an important social issue (e.g., racism, genocide); or
3) . . . focuses on issues related to journalism/journalism ethics. (Plot summaries below adapted from: The Internet Movie Database (IMDb), Rotten Tomatoes, and Metacritic.
4) Many of these selections are related to journalism. Because this is a journalism class, Dr. Ted urges you to consider films about journalism that you haven’t seen as a way to enhance the learning experience of this project. Dr. Ted can offer recommendations. If you find other fact-based films that appeal to you, propose them to Dr. Ted ASAP.

FILM LIST Some films are available in USU Merrill-Cazier Library, Media Collections.
• All the King’s Men (2006). Based on the Robert Penn Warren novel. The life of populist Southerner Willie Stark, a political creature loosely based on Governor Huey Long of Louisiana. PG-13
• All the President’s Men (1976). Washington Post reporters Woodward and Bernstein uncover the details of the Watergate scandal that leads to President Nixon’s resignation. PG
• Born on the Fourth of July (1989). The biography of Ron Kovic (Tom Cruise), who was paralyzed in the Vietnam war, and becomes an anti-war and pro-human rights political activist. For this option, examine coverage of the Vietnam war in The New York Times and compare to the narrative story in Born on the Fourth of July and the actual events of the conflict. R for war violence, language.
• Capote (2006) Based on writer Truman Capote during research for his (excellent) book In Cold Blood, an account of the murder of a Kansas family. Capote develops a close relationship with Perry Smith, one of the killers, and struggles with the conflict of balancing getting his story and journalistic ethics. R for some violent images, brief strong language. Others: Infamous (2006)
• Cry Freedom (1987). South African journalist Donald Woods (Kevin Kline) is forced to flee the country after attempting to investigate the death in custody of his friend the black activist Steve Biko (Denzel Washington). NR, British
• Flags of Our Fathers (2006) Life stories of the six men who raised the flag at the Battle of Iwo Jima during WWII, directed by Clint Eastwood. R for graphic war violence & language. Also, parallel story from the Japanese perspective, Letters from Iwo Jima (2006).
• Frost-Nixon (2008) A dramatic retelling of the post-Watergate television interviews between British talk-show host David Frost and former president Richard Nixon. G
• George Wallace (1997) Biographical drama of the political career of the Alabama governor who fought against the 1960s civil rights movement, promising “segregation now, segregation tomorrow and segregation forever” in his inaugural speech. Wallace ran for president in 1968. For this option, examine coverage of Wallace and the civil rights campaign and compare the to film version. Unrated—TV
• Ghosts of Mississippi (1996) Based on the story of the Myrlie Evers, widow of murdered civil rights leader Medger Evers, and a district attorney who struggle to bring the murderer to justice. PG-13
• Good Night, and Good Luck (2005) Edward R. Murrow and CBS decide to take a stand against Sen. Joe McCarthy’s unethical tactics during the 1950s Red Scare. PG
• The Great Debaters (2008) Drama based on the true story of Melvin B. Tolson, a professor at Wiley College Texas. In 1935, he inspired students to form the school's first debate team, which went on to participate in the first national debate between African American and Caucasian college students. PG-13
• Hotel Rwanda (2004) Story of Paul Rusesabagina, the hotel manager who protected Tutsi refugees from the Hutu militia and genocide in Rwanda. PG-13 for violence; language
• The Insider (1999) Research chemist decides to blow the whistle on Big Tobacco and appear in a “60 Minutes” segment. R for language
• 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 true story of Specialist Richard R. Davis. R for violence, language, some sexual content
• Inherit the Wind (1960) An account of a real-life 1925 case in which two great lawyers argue the case for and against a science teacher accused of the crime of teaching evolution. G
• Iron Jawed Angels (2004) Story of Alice Paul (Hilary Swank) and the fight for women’s suffrage. HBO
• The Killing Fields (1984) Based on the experiences of New York Times reporter, Sydney Schanberg, and his coverage the 1970s civil war in Cambodia. R for graphic war violence & language
• Laramie Project (2002) Based on the story of gay college student Matthew Shepard who was murdered in 1998 in Laramie, WY. Originally a play, HBO made the film version and dialogue is based on transcripts from the murderers’ trials, and interviews with individuals involved in the case and Shepard’s friends and family. HBO: language
• Malcolm X (1992) Spike Lee’s story of the controversial and influential Black Nationalist leader. PG-13 for violence, some language
• Milk (2008) “The story of California’s first openly gay elected official, Harvey Milk (Sean Penn), a San Francisco supervisor who was assassinated along with Mayor George Moscone by San Francisco Supervisor Dan White” (Josh Brolin). R for language, some sexual content, brief violence
• Mississippi Burning (1988). Based on the FBI investigation (Gene Hackman) of the 1964 disappearance and murder of civil rights workers in Mississippi. R for racial violence; language
• Munich (2005) After 11 Israeli athletes are taken hostage and murdered by a Palestinian terrorist group known as Black September during the 1972 Olympic Games in Munich, the Israeli government recruits a group of Mossad agents to track down and execute those responsible. R for graphic violence; language
• Nixon (1995) Biographical story of former U.S. President Richard Nixon, from his days as a young boy to his eventual presidency, the Watergate scandal, and his resignation. R for language
• Philadelphia (1993) A man with AIDS (Tom Hanks) is fired by a conservative law firm because of his disease and hires homophobic small time lawyer (Denzel Washington) for a wrongful dismissal suit. Inspired in part by the real-life story of Geoffrey Bowers’ AIDS discrimination lawsuit. PG-13
• The 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 charges. R for violence; language
• The Rosa Parks Story (2001) Based on Rosa Parks and her role in the civil rights movement. Made-for TV
• 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). R for racial violence
• Salt of the Earth (1954) Based on an actual strike against the Empire Zinc Mine in New Mexico, the film confronts the prejudice against Mexican-American workers, who struck to attain wage parity with Anglo workers in other mines and the pivotal role of the wives of striking workers. Not rated.
• Saving Jessica Lynch (2003) Based on the story of the Army “rescue” of Private Jessica Lynch, in Iraq. Made for TV
• Serving in Silence: The Margarethe Cammermeyer Story (1995) The story of a decorated officer’s legal challenge to her involuntary discharge when she admitted she was a lesbian (Glenn Close). Made for TV.
• Shattered Glass (2003) The true story of a young journalist who fell from grace when it was found he had fabricated over half of his articles. PG-13 for language.
• Sometimes in April (2005) Fictionalized drama based on the Rwandan genocide. HBO.
• Veronica Guerin (2003) Based on the story of the Irish journalist who is assassinated by the drug dealers she wrote about in her news stories. R for violence & language

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; class; 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 film making).
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: Click here for issues of media and ideology.
• 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, as opposed to totalitarianism, communism, fascism, tribalism...
• 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. Because of our national, social, cultural, etc., upbringing, we see the world in certain ways. Indeed, we are myopic and grievously ill-informed about the rest of the planet and its people. A good reminder of this is a brief video called Miniature Earth.
• Heteroideology: Privileges heterosexuality and discriminates against sexual minorities. Asserts that sexuality is natally ascribed, immutable and natural, and that 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).

III. Children & Media

Goal: Identify a focused issue regarding children and the mass media. Analyze the arguments surrounding the issue in the context of mass communication theories. It’s a HUGE topic, and also full of partisans (so watch out for truthiness). Remember that the American Pediatric Assn. recommends NO television for kids younger than 2, and only for 1-2 hours a day for small kids. They have statements on violence, limiting TV time, TV advertising, babies & TV , etc. In 2010, however, the mass media are EVERYWHERE, and kids are much more susceptible to all kinds of influences than us old people—they’re little sponges. Think about Marshall McLuhan’s fish analogy and then think about baby fish—those little guppies are really getting steeped in media content.

Don’t like fish? Think frogs: “Since the 1950s, children have been exposed to ever-increasing amounts of television, and because the increase has been gradual, it has avoided intense scrutiny by the scientific community for potential adverse effects,” says William Hayes, president of the New Jersey Council of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. “It is similar to the situation in which a frog, when thrown into hot water, jumps out immediately because he knows it is toxic to him,” Hayes said. “But if you take the same frog and place it on the stove and heat it slowly, he will stay in the pot until he is turned into soup.”

Hope Green, the president of Vermont Educational TV and a member of the national board of directors of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, came to USU a few years ago to talk about kids and TV. Would you let your children depend on a diet heavy on Twinkies? she asked. (See “TV & the ‘Virtual Childhood’”) PBS tries to get to kids through its educational programming, but what’s reasonable and prudent for kids?

This was news in 2006: “Sesame Street” launches programming for 6-month-olds...

But not everyone thought even Bird Bird and Oscar the Grouch was good for baby diets. “Essentially it is a betrayal of babies and families. There is no evidence that media is beneficial for babies, and they are starting to find evidence that it may be harmful. Until we know for sure, we shouldn't risk putting them in front of television.” —Harvard psychologist Susan Linn, founder of the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, 2006

(The American Academy of Pediatrics recommended no TV for kids under age 2; a 2006 Kaiser Family Foundation survey found 68% of children under 2 watched at least two hours of TV daily.)

George Gerbner, the media scholar who brought us cultivation theory, warned about the kinds of attitudes and perspectives on the world that early TV might cultivate in children. “My only advice is, if you value the culture of your children, if you value the notion of your own sovereignty, if you value any sense of independence in the future, you [must] make a serious investment in your own televised programs and motion pictures to compete with the American products and, if necessary, place limits on American products.” —George Gerbner, media scholar, on “cultural imperialism” in the information age, 2002 (Ramesh Closeput and Lai-Si Tsui, “An Interview with Professor George Gerbner, in Morgan, M., Ed., Against the Mainstream: The Selected Works of George Gerbner. NY: Peter Lang, 2002)

Many others have weighed in, in jest and seriously, on the question of what FCC Chairman Newton Minow called “a vast wasteland” in addressing TV network executives back in 1960. Thirty years later, in 1990, Minow was a professor in Michigan and he revisited his condemnation of television. TV still failed in at least four areas, he said:

“We have failed 1.) to use television for education; 2.) to use television for children; 3.) to finance public television properly; and 4.) to use television properly in political campaigns,” Minow said.

And that’s such a waste of potential, he said, because television could be “the most important educational institution in America. More people learn more each day, each year, each lifetime from television than from any other source. All of television is education; the question is, what are we teaching and what are we learning?”

Other perspectives on TV:
• Editorial cartoonist Doug Marlette: “Peer pressure can lead us astray at any age, but with TV the nation’s designated baby-sitter, our children’s peers are Beavis and Butthead leering at Cindy Crawford in a Pepsi commercial. They get the lingo down before they’ve got the hormones to back it up.”
• An anonymous Illinois mother of three, complaining to TV executives: “You can’t even watch cartoons anymore! Why have you let TV go so far?”
• Bruce Springsteen, “da Boss,” “57 channels and nuthin’s on” (video)
• Author Leslie Savan, in her 1994 book The Sponsored Life: “Television-watching Americans — that is, just about all Americans — see approximately 100 TV commercials a day. . . . Advertising now infects just about every organ of society, and wherever advertising gains a foothold it tends to slowly take over, like a vampire or a virus.” • Lois Salisbury, president of Children Now, May 2001: “As America’s primary cultural storyteller, television creates a common picture of who’s important and who’s not. Prime-time programmers appear to have forgotten that America’s children—in all of their diversity—are a big part of the evening viewing audience.”
• Author and scholar Milton Chen, in The Smart Parent’s Guide to Kids’ TV: “A curious mythology has grown up around television and its effects on children. Together these myths would have us believe that TV is single-handedly turning children into couch potatoes, frying their brains, shortening their attention spans and lowering their academic abilities. Supposedly, TV is a dark and foreboding menace in our children's lives. . . . Since teachers, parents and the media themselves constantly propagate these myths, it is important to examine them.” (in Dennis & Pease, Children & the Media. Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 1994)

So. Do a little investigation and decide where you want to focus.

Some sources: There are loads more. Get Googlin’.
• Annenberg School for Communication Children’s Media Lab
• Center for Children & Media
• Children Now: Media’s Impact—Understanding Media’s Role in Childhood Development
• Children’s Media Project
• Everette E. Dennis & Edward C. Pease, Eds. Children & the Media (1991) (I can loan this you’re interested.)
• Lisa Witnek, ChicagoNow.com, “I know...my kids watch too much TV”
• Media Education Foundation: Beyond Good & Evil: Children, Media & Violent Times
• PBS: Children & Media
• Squidoo: Influence of Media on Children
• University of Michigan Children & TV





.

JCOM 2010 Quiz4 FIXT!

FIXT! Quiz4

WEEK4 • Media Smarts Quiz • 9/29/10 FIXT
Name: Dr. Ted

1. Explain the following mass communication concepts/theories and how they help explain how mass media work in society. Provide a specific example to illustrate your understanding of each. (Revisit the synopsis of these theories on the blog.)

Example: The Red Sox won/lost yesterday; my father, who is a Dodgers fan, didn’t notice and couldn’t care less. This illustrates xxxx* theory and how? (explain). (2 pts ea. = 10 pts)
(*Selective Perception)

• Selective perception
Dr. Ted sez: A three-part concept describing how individual’s differing backgrounds (culture, gender, race, socio-economic status) help form her/his way of seeing the world. These perceptions are selective to individuals, based on differing exposure to the world—including media messages and concepts; and these selective perceptions of the world tend both to “color” how we view the world and people and events, and also to affect what kinds of things we pay attention to—selective retention of certain messages, concepts, ideas, etc., that correspond to how we see and understand the world.

• Gate-keeping
Dr. Ted sez: This theory helps explain what information gets into the mass media and what doesn’t, based on decisions by media producers about what passes through the “gate” into the media. Gatekeeping operates at many levels, from the decisions reporters (or writers or photographers) make about what stories to cover, to what sources to talk to, to what questions to ask and quotes to use; to the decisions editors make about what stories to run, at what length and where in the newspaper product (page 1 or P14B).
• Agenda-setting
Dr. Ted sez: The mass media can help set the agenda for discussion of events in the public sphere—what items are part of the public consciousness and what are not. Note the important distinction that the mass media cannot tell us what or how to think, but they can be stunningly effective in telling us what to think about, what’s important.
• Framing
Dr. Ted sez: The way the message creator—whether an advertising executive or TV producer or blogger—decides to tell her/his story will frame the information in particular ways, including or playing up some information and playing down other material. Framing is not only what images or information appears in the physical story “frame” (whether text or image), but also how the information is portrayed—people, ideas, events. NOTE: These theories are interrelated, and deal variously with the sender of a message (reporter, blogger, storyteller, advertising executive) as well as with the receiver of the message—readers/viewers/consumers—and with the content of the message itself. In the context of framing, for example, gatekeeping obviously has a role to play in the selection of what goes into the frame, and so does the reporter/writer’s own perceptions of the world—what’s important and what’s not. But those theories address the sender of the message, while framing examines the message itself and, by implication, what version of the “truth” reaches the message consumer. Ex: An Iraqi insurgent may be a terrorist to U.S. eyes, but to Iraqis he may be a hero and patriot. How do we frame such people, and who is more accurate (see selective perception, above)?
• Cultivation
Dr. Ted sez: Cultivation is the most complex of these theories, which get progressively more sophisticated. It refers to the way a constant diet of consistent media messages, repeated and received over time, may tend to change the way individuals see the world, changing perceptions of people/events/ideas. How can the media “cultivate” new ideas? It takes many repetitions over time to change individual perceptions about, for example, Black people or women or Arabs. As an illustration, we talk about “mean world syndrome,” which describes how people who consume a lot of mass media (especially news) that includes stories about violence (war, accidents, crime, etc.) tend to start seeing the world as a more dangerous and scary place than people who consume less. McLuhan’s fish is an analogy.

Understanding the Interrelationships
Dr. Ted sez: Note that theories don’t DO anything, so it is incorrect to say that, “the media use agenda-setting,” or that, “the media give us selective perception.” That’s wrong. These theories may serve to describe observed phenomena, but they don’t DO anything.

Example: How come Joe thinks Jon Stewart is funny and rejects Sean Hannity, while Judy loves Glenn Beck and thinks Stephen Colbert is a buffoon? Why does Judy love the autumn, Chevrolets and cats, while Joe likes winter, Hondas and tiny dogs? How are bigots created? These aren’t things that have been actively done to people, but the result of the cumulative impact of their different life experiences, some they’re aware of and some they aren’t—including exposure to mass media messages—over years.

All of these mass comm theories link with one another in various different and subtle ways: The media gatekeeper (whether blogger or short story writer or photographer) decides to include some topics and details and excludes others, based on what s/he thinks is important (selective perception). A possible result of that message reaching the audience is that certain topics (and how they are framed) may become more or less important on the public agenda—what we as a society discuss as important (off-show oil drilling) and what we don’t (child trafficking in Canada). That’s agenda-setting. How a story is told (framing) is based on gatekeeping (what goes into it), which is affected by the individual perceptions of the storytellers (selective perception). Agenda-setting is also affected by what the audience pays attention to, which is affected by a number of factors, including what media you consume (Fox vs. PBS) and how you interpret those messages—selective perception. Over time, if you see, consume and adopt certain kinds of messages (i.e., Democrats are irresponsible socialistic spendthrifts), your original perceptions may start to change, and you’ll see the world in a different way. Cultivation is a theory that describes these possible effects and outcomes on receivers of messages. It has nothing to do with the senders/creators of messages, except insofar that gatekeeping can influence what messages get to us, and framing can influence how that information is portrayed.

These processes also can be cyclical, right? because what information we see (gatekeeping) and consume may rise to the top of the public agenda, and, depending on how it is and framed how we then individually perceive it (selective perception), may tend to cultivate changes in our perceptions of the world (cultivation). Tricky, hunh?

2. The reading from FAIR describes elements of media bias. One of these is reliance on official sources. Why is this “biased”? Don’t official sources like political leaders have the best information?
Dr. Ted sez: Official sources tend to be white men, according research by FAIR and others. Why? Because white men tend to how most of the power positions in society (remember the Media Myths quiz?). They also are representatives of organizations (like the White House), which have particular interests in framing the news in ways that promote their interests and objectives. These individuals also have their own selective perceptions, or biases, and if these kins of sources predominate in the public conversation, other perspectives are naturally excluded. It’s not only the Bush Administration, of course, but that White House was so disciplined that three or six different administration officials might appear on three or six or nine different TV shows each weekend, and use exactly the same words—sound bites and talking points—which echoed over and over in the public media psyche, becoming “truth.”
3. What mass communication theory(ies) might help explain how limiting sources to officials might result in bias?
Dr. Ted sez: These sources are gatekeeping the conversation, aren’t they? letting only certain messages through into the public domain. They also are trying to set the agenda of public debate, And they are trying to frame the debate in certain ways….but we don’t know whether they are successful until the public (and the pundits) actually adopt their perspectives.

4. Explain “truthiness.”
Dr. Ted sez: “Truthiness” refers to the phenomenon of stating as fact what we want to be true, not necessarily what objective facts show to be true. (Ex: Is Barack Obama a foreign-born Muslim?) 5. All presidential administrations seek to control the public debate, steering journalists in directions they want covered. The Bush Administration was known for its discipline in spreading “talking points” that support administration positions—from Bush people on morning talk shows to Fox commentators repeating (sometimes word-for-word) the administration talking points. What mass communication theory might best explain and evaluate how that worked in society, and why?
Dr. Ted sez: As in No. 2 above, this is gatekeeping—constant exposure to the same talking points from a range of sources. Controlling the debate=setting the public agenda by excluding other distracting topics. They are framing also content in certain ways that benefit their political position.

6. On the evening news last night, there were stories about Topic A, B & R. I don’t remember A&R, but B was really important! What mass communication theory explains this phenomenon?
a. Gate-keeping
b. Cultivation
-->c. Selective perception
d. Agenda-setting
e. Framing

Why? explain: Dr. Ted sez: Because of my own perceptions of the world, I tend to pay more attention to topics of interest (relevance) to me, and ignore others.

7. Explain “mean-world syndrome.”
Dr. Ted sez: Research finds that a heavy consumption of news can make people see the world as a meaner and more dangerous place than people who spend less time with mass media. Heavy coverage of a series of brutal car-hijackings in Miami/Dade County in the 1980s resulted in European tourists (who had been some of the victims) and others cancelling trips to Florida, even though the actual crime rate was going down—heavy coverage of these crimes made Miami seem more dangerous than it was. (Note that this also relates to truthiness…)
8. Advertisers (and political campaigns) spend a lot of time and money getting messages in front of us. What mass communication theory might help explain why these are or are not effective?
Dr. Ted sez: Selective perception—are these issues/products important to me?

9. Revisit this WORD, which talks about how we know about historical “truth.” History, it is said, is written by the winners. If this is true, what mass communication theories does this illustrate? How?
Dr. Ted sez: Gatekeeping? Framing? We report events and frame them in ways that are positive to our interests…

10. General knowledge: Google Jon Stewart’s March to Restore Sanity and Stephen Colbert’s March to Keep Fear Alive.


19 points possible

JCOM 2010 Quiz3 FIXT!

.
FIXT!
WEEK3 Media Smarts Quiz • 9/22/10

Name: Dr. Ted

1. In his “Some Principles of Media Literacy,” David Considine says the old saying, “The camera never lies” isn’t necessarily so. Why?

Dr. Ted sez: As we are learning, there are a number of reasons why the camera does lie. And that’s not just an artifact of the special-effects era of PhotoShop, multimedia manipulation and the rest. During the Civil War, photography was a technology in its infancy, but even then, famed Civil War photo-documentarian Mathew Brady repositioned dead bodies for “artistic” and storytelling reasons. He may have said, “My greatest aim has been to advance the art of photography and to make it what I think I have, a great and truthful medium of history," but how “truthful” is it? We also have learned that the way information—text, images or whatever—is framed can alter its meaning, just by including and excluding different elements. In “Forest Gump,” Tom Hanks’ character is seen mooning LBJ, and in “Saving Private Ryan,” Hanks is fighting on Utah Beach in Normandy. Does the camera lie? Of course. But in any media image, how a story is framed—whether in text or photo or video…—affects its message and, potentially, its truth. (See framing in mass comm. theories, and this URL. And Principles of Media Literacy.)

2. In the media literacy readings, the authors suggest that production techniques like superimposing a reporter onto a green screen of the White House can have what effect?

a. Makes the news more exciting.
b. Misleads viewers.
c. Increases journalistic credibility.
d. Enhances viewer comprehension.
-->e. All of the above.

Dr. Ted sez: I can argue that all of these is potentially true. If you watch The Daily Show, you will often see Jon Stewart talking to his reporters in the field—but John Oliver and Jason Jones and Co. are actually just standing there in the studio in front of a green screen and footage from Iraq or the White House or wherever. The studio audience laughs, but the TV viewer could be fooled…. Still, it’s better and more effective storytelling. Or is it?

3. Why do media literacy proponents argue that citizens need both to understand and be able to analyze/evaluate media messages, but also to create media messages themselves?

Dr. Ted sez: Literacy in the 21st century means not only reading, but visual literacy (see No. 1) and capabilities to communicate with multimedia. The pencil has become a much more sophisticated instrument! Effective communication is a tool for everyday life in 2010. Understanding how that “pencil” is used and the techniques it can employ helps message receivers understand how they may be manipulated…or not.

4. Explain each of the following principles of media literacy and provide a brief example to illustrate your understanding (1 pt each):

a. Media are constructions: All media messages—words to special effects—are products that someone constructs. This is not the same as advertising—any time I write a sentence phrase I use employ certain words and reject don’t use others. That’s not necessarily evil, but it is the definition of “construction,” which then expands from word choice to idea selection and ideology.

b. Media representations create reality (how and to what effect?): Because of what the message creator selects and how s/he arranges the message’s components, the media product may represent reality to varying degrees. When you see Bigfoot in a business meeting, that may not be complete reality (!) Misrepresentations of fact can mislead readers/viewers. We call that “lying.”

c. Audiences negotiate their own meaning: Audiences (or individual audience members) are not passive recipients of media messages who just soak in the sender’s intended meaning. All of us see the world and interpret is differently. For us Red Sox fans, Derek Jeter is no hero….

d. Media constructions have commercial purposes: Sure, money—filthy lucre!—is king. But take a broad view of “commercial”—we who communicate want our target audiences to “buy” something: a philosophy, a perception of the world, an idea, a political position, a bottle of shampoo. More crassly, the more eyeballs a media message attracts, the more valuable it is to people who can sell it….

e. Media messages contain values and ideologies: The worldview of the message producer governs the message tone and focus and emphasis. Even if we try to be absolutely “straight” in our reporting of events, we can’t help but have our own ideas of what’s important, why it matters….

f. Media messages have social and political consequences: Media messages can’t tell us what to think, as we know from agenda-setting theory, but they can tell us what to think about. As the public starts to focus on some issues (and ignore others), pressure may grow to “do something.” People who see the world as a dangerous place may pressure lawmakers to create stronger laws and stiffer penalties and to build more prisons. Policy decisions grow from public sentiment.

g. Each medium has its own unique aesthetic form/impact: Communication is an art form, and like all art forms, some media lend themselves to telling certain kinds of stories better than others. A radio report on a tornado has a different impact than video footage of the damage (or did you see the recent floods in Europe?) Some years ago, CBS News anchor John Chancellor reported the unexplained crash of a jetliner coming from Europe to New York. All they had was a map of the North Atlantic with a little arrow from England ending in a big, jagged orange star south of Nova Scotia. They didn’t know what happened, who did it, and the story, er, died....

5. Explain (briefly) the relationship between the rise of mass communication and the industrial age.

Dr. Ted sez: As people moved from the countryside to cities in pursuit of work or marketplaces or whatever, it became easier to communicate to large groups of people—town criers, pamphlets and posters on walls, newspapers that communicated between a single individual editor/printer to many people at once. Gesellschaft.

6. Explain what the heck Marshall McLuhan was talking about with his fish analogy.

Dr. Ted sez: One more time: The fish in the pond is unaware of subtle changes in its environment, and may happily swim around, “breathing” in and out an increasingly toxic environment even until it became so toxic it kills him. We are generally as unaware of our daily media “diets”—stuff we absorb from mass media without even thinking about it, until our perceptions of the world may be altered. See this link.

7. On Teddy TV, Professor Pease talked about how the advent of TV might have changed Fiji. What happened and what might have been the cause? (The same thing was at work with Dr. Ted’s teenage crush on a French woman…)

Dr. Ted sez: Fijian perceptions of the “norm” of the world—what bodies should look like, how people should act—was influenced as this Polynesian culture started seeing American values on TV. Similarly, ma petite amie française had seen too many Al Capone and Bonny & Clyde movies: Chicago was a dark, dangerous place.

8. Critical thinking about media, according to the reading on Key Concepts of Critical Thinking, is NOT …

a. finding fault with media performance
b. learning what to think
c. eliminating incorrect media messages and content
d. protecting children from violent images and ideas
--> e. none of the above

Dr. Ted sez: That’s confusing: critical thinking is none of those things…. So what is it????

9. Discuss your responses to the Billy Joel video in the context of the concepts of media literacy and the central question of this class—how do we know what we think we know?

Dr. Ted sez: Your responses to this (and any media message) are your own, of course (which illustrates the mass comm. theory of selective perception, right?), but this video goes beyond our own individual perceptions of Gandhi and The Bomb and the Beatles, etc., because the images the video producer uses are framed by other media producers—the press—in the context of the events themselves. This is actually quite cool when you think about it. You’ll remember (I hope) that sociologist and media scholar Marshall McLuhan said, “The media is the message.” Part of what that means is that how a thing is framed and presented and frilled up (like for a party: Paris Hilton) or frilled down (like a war: Afghanistan or Vietnam) helps define that thing, whatever its actual reality (Remember Erma Bombeck’s kids, who wouldn’t eat anything they hadn’t seen dance on TV?). For us and for your parents and grandparents, the images that accompany Billy Joel’s song about history and culture framed events both the same—an image can’t lie, can it?—and completely differently, based on the individual viewer’s background and training and sociology and selective perception of those events. Today, images of Marilyn Monroe and Farah Fawcett are pretty pictures, dated and amusing. For people who “consumed” Marilyn in movies and then as JFK’s girlfriend, that image takes on much more meaning and power. So historical/social/cultural context, plus our own individual (selective) perceptions of a thing—from a Campbell’s soup can to a Jeep to a pretty girl (or boy) pin-up—can completely change and enhance that image’s power and meaning. This is a powerful and tricky tool for the professional communicator and her audience. Because for me as a creator of an advertisement about red grapes, for example, it’s just about grapes. But for Erma Bombeck’s kids, it may be about Fruit of the Loom underpants. I think you’ll agree that’s very different. For someone who lived through WWII or Vietnam or the Rolling Stones (or Lady Gaga), images from those times means something very different than they do for people who “know” war from history lessons, or Mick Jagger’s songs from commercials for floor cleaners. For producers of messages, this is very tricky, and we must remember in creating an image or a message that everyone sees and remembers (or doesn’t remember) historical icons differently, and that the meanings of these icons have been changed by previous interpretations of them by historians and writers and the popular media—movies, news, advertising, books, etc. Was Ulysses S. Grant a heroic general or a drunk? Was Marilyn Monroe a sexy icon or an abused girl? Was Private Ryan a national icon or a poor kid who got slaughtered in a senseless war. And is “senseless war” an editorial comment, or just redundant?

10. Over recent weeks, the pastor of a small Florida church with a congregation of fewer than 50 became one of the most important people on the planet with a threat to burn the Qur’an. Talk about the role of the media in this.

Dr. Ted sez: Librarian and historian Daniel Boorstin came up with a term, “pseudo event,” that was really a throw-away line to express his contempt for public relations and the media culture that will accept anything as equally newsworthy and important if it’s hyped correctly. But “pseudo event” lives on in scholarship and our understanding of media because it is so true: The importance of a thing relates directly to the amount of attention it receives in the media. So even if your “event” is putting on new socks on a Wednesday morning, if you can get enough media attention and “film at 11” and Tweets and viral video on the Web, then your socks (or Lindsay Lohan’s DUI) takes on lives of their own in the popular psyche. In Florida, Terry Jones came up with something that appealed to journalistic news values, as well as to people who buy into the simplistic equation of Muslim = terrorist. Here’s a “good Christian preacher” (all three of those terms are in question in his case) who was striking a blow for “Christian values,” for American “patriotism” and for the media icon that the 9/11 events have become. It was a brilliant pseudo event, and was hyped to the nth degree, first my Jones himself and then by the best and the brightest in American media and politics. Was this a legitimate news story? Yes and no. Elements that make news include timeliness (in this case, selecting the 9/11 anniversary) and human interest (playing off the 9/11 victims, general ill-informed hatred for “Muslims,” and ignorance about what the Qur’an is). But where’s the journalistic (or human) judgment? Once this carnival got going, it was impossible to stop. Because it was impossible to stop, it was newsworthy, so the press had to cover it, even as journalists were puking off-camera, and hating themselves for promoting a “story” that helped prompt violence in the Middle East, with people dying because of the story—which became news, of course, and escalated the story. So whose responsibility is this? His? He has First Amendment rights. The press—do they have the right to decide that we don’t need to see this (or an accident or a war or Lindsay Lohan)? Us, who loved the story? The people who want to know what’s going on, or the people who tell them?

Joy Brisighella in our class wrote this: “I was amazed and frustrated by the number of news sources that glommed onto this story and gave it legs. In 2008 a similar event in Topeka Kansas was purposefully ignored by the media. Yes, a Koran was burned. End of story, move along folks, nothing to see here. That could have been the case with Rev. Jones’ planned event too, but instead it was escalated into an international issue and a widely covered conflict. The difference was apparently the connection with the ongoing protest over a “Ground Zero Mosque,” which is neither a mosque or at Ground Zero. I like the quote from Obama’s press secretary, Robert Gibbs, who in criticism of the media said that there were “more people at his (Jones’) press conferences than listen to his sermons.” Pastor Jones had a congregation fewer than 50, but due to the media attention, he had an audience of millions. I also like this quote from Chris Cuomo, an ABC News anchor, who tweeted, “I am in the media, but think media gave life to this Florida burning ... and that was reckless.”



x/16 = %

2010 Quiz2

.
FIXT!

Media Smarts Online (JCOM 2010) • Fall 2010
Your Name: Dr. Ted Answers
9/6/10 Quiz1—The Syllabus

1. There are quotes from real people throughout the Smarts syllabus, including the four that lead it. Pick one of the quotes from anywhere in the syllabus that you particularly like, and that you can relate to your idea of why being “media smart” is important. (two pithy sentences +/-).

Dr. Ted writes: I like so many of them (obviously), from “Question Authority” to the Tom Stoppard quote about “nudging the world a little” that I use on my email signature. E.B. White, however, is one of my particular heroes. His quote about television, the first time he saw it demonstrated in New York in 1938, was prescient, I think. Can you imagine worrying in such circumstances about how “messages, distant and concocted” would affect how people interacted with each other, and wondering if TV would be a “saving radiance” or a “disturbance of the general peace.” Smart man. Here’s another quote I like, but it’s not on the syllabus: “Don’t take life too serious, Son. It ain’t nohow permanent.” … from an old Pogo comic strip.

Each of these quotes has an important back-story. For example, “Question Authority” is a protest button and bumpersticker from the 1960s. Today, an engaged and alert citizen always should question authority and take everything with a large grain of salt (like when Glenn Beck or Keith Olbermann or Joe Biden starts spouting!). So if I’m feeling rebellious or ticked off, I’ll pick “Question Authority.” But Tom Stoppard does a lot with his statement about words and their power: care must be taken with words and language; as a writer and reader I appreciate this. And the thought that mere words can nudge the world—make a difference—is a powerful concept. I like so many quotes from Stoppard’s to Ginzberg controlling the culture, to the thousands of others I’ve collected over 15 years of Today’s WORD on Journalism. I also like Sir William Berkleley, because he ridiculously condemns both education and free thinking in one swoop. But E.B. White is one of my particular heroes. His quote about television, from the first time he saw it demonstrated in New York in 1938, was prescient, I think. Can you imagine worrying in such circumstances about how “messages, distant and concocted” would affect how people interacted with each other, and wondering if TV would be a “saving radiance” or a “disturbance of the general peace.” Smart man. And that’s exactly the kind of issues we examine in this class—how technological changes in media changed and affected the larger society.

2. Professor Pease claims that, “We’re being lied to, boys and girls” in the mass media. That’s (usually) not literally true. So what is Pease saying? Do you agree/disagree? Why?
Dr. Ted writes: Perhaps “misled” is a better term than “lied to,” but I think the point needs consideration. As you will read in the media literacy materials, ALL media messages are constructions that are purposive and intentional on the part of their creators: ad people want viewers to buy soap; political consultants want voters to buy candidates or issues, photographers retouch women to make them seamless and breastier and thinner. We all see the world differently, based on our own experiences and background (as we’ll discuss in the context of mass communication theories). So all media messages are created with the particular perspective of their author embedded in them, intentionally or not. Is that lying? Not really. Could it be? It’s at least potentially misleading to the unaware.
3. Explain Marshall McLuhan’s concept of the “fish,” and how those of us who now live in the mass media age are like his fish. Does that analogy make sense to you?

Dr. Ted writes: Some of you gave up on this, but I think you just didn’t think about the metaphor very carefully. Just as a fish is immersed in its environment, and is generally unaware of it (unless it gets too bad), we live in a mass-mediated age in which messages on TV and radio and billboards and magazines and the Internet, etc. etc., are EVERYWHERE. Most of us, like the fish, are generally unaware of how the media content we breathe in and out may change our perspectives on the world, create assumptions about people and things and issues. Our mass media diet is to a large degree unintentional, just the stuff that surround us in the media environment, and most of us—like McLuhan’s fish—don’t think much about how toxic that stuff that we breathe in and out might be. Becoming aware of that environment—that’s being a smart fish!

4. Columnist Erma Bombeck is quoted as saying that, “My children refuse to eat anything that hasn’t danced on television.” What is she saying, and how does it relate to what we’re studying in this course? Dr. Ted writes: Among the most vulnerable of the “fish” in this mass media pond where we all live in the 21st Century are children, who have their preferences and perspectives formed for them by TV more than any other single source. So Bombeck’s kids preferred the stuff that had been sold to them in entertaining ways on TV. They believed what they saw on TV more than they believed stuff they actually experienced. Any of you who have small siblings or cousins know about how important the right (fill in the blank)…clothes, toys, video games, pickup trucks (older kids…) are. Where do they get that? A study released yesterday (1/20) found that kids spend as much as 12 hours a day with some form of gadget—cell phones, TV, computers, games. Talk about a generation of couch potatoes!
5. What’s your impression of John McManus’s website? (And have you bought “Detecting Bull” yet? If you have, what do you think of it so far?)
You’d better have it by now!
6. McManus, on his website, says, “[M]ainstream news is becoming shallower and more commercially biased—more written for advertisers and by publicity agents. Online, new providers are arising. But most don't follow professional principles.” Why might that be a problem? Dr. Ted writes: As per some of the previous items, even as our society becomes more cyber-connected, the actual content of what’s in the pipeline (or electronic IV tube) that fills out days and lives is increasingly trivial. The mass media should be an amazing tool for public education and knowledge. Instead…American Idol, beer ads, Anna Nicole Smith…. The head of the Federal Communications Commission called TV a “vast wasteland” nearly 40 years ago. Has that assessment changed? Further, in an online world, anyone can be a “journalist,” an authority, regardless of his or her credentials, knowledge, facts, biases. Bad information is resulting in an even greater lessening of journalists’ credibility, and without credibility journalism is nothing but noise. So where and how can we get information—factual and balanced—that we need to make decisions?
7. How confident are you that you know the real story behind the kinds of historical events discussed briefly in the syllabus? Can you identify a specific piece of history you may have “learned” about through a movie or TV show, and that, you now realize, may not be completely accurate? Pease writes: Be smart fish. Consume media critically, with a large grain of salt. It’s a little scary that so many people—including, maybe, some you the people in this class—“see” and “know” the world and history based on entertainment media.
8. Speaking of “smart fish,” from his bio, what fish do you think may be one of Professor Pease’s favorites? Dr. Ted writes: If you checked my website(s), you’d see a lot of salmon (yes, that silver thing is a Chinook, or King, salmon) and halibut. 9. Where did Professor Pease earn his PhD? Dr. Ted writes: Ohio University, 1991 (Doctor of Philosophy...or, Piled Higher & Deeper)

10. You should have watched (and maybe shared with your friends and other lumps of clay) the Stephen Colbert video on the Week1 list. So who is funnier—Professor Pease or Stephen Colbert? Why? Dr. Ted writes: You’re right—a trick question. Clearly, me, because I hold your academic fate in my cyberhands. … and if you believe that we need to talk.


Return to Smarts blog.

Larry King Speaks

.
The Father of ‘Talk Show Democracy’
On the Line with Larry King

By Edward C. Pease

Note: Edward C. Pease was editor of Media Studies Journal when he swapped roles with Larry King, then the undisputed king of the on-air interview, to get King’s thoughts on what in 1994 was the “new” mass media’s role in politics and governance. Despite some dated references, King’s predictions about live TV debates between political candidates, two-way real-time video (Skype) and the impact of media in self-governance stand up as fresh and prescient. TP

In the aftermath of what surely was the most extraordinary presidential campaign ever for the American news media [1992], the Larry King story—like the man himself—has taken on almost mythic proportions: Horatio Alger Makes Good. Real good.

Today, the mantle of media greatness rests easy on the self-described “Jewish kid from Brooklyn” in the wake of events that defined the “top banana of talk show hosts” as the undisputed kingmaker of the 1990s. Consider: During the presidential race, Ross Perot announced his candidacy (twice) on “Larry King Live”; after belittling the idea, an uncomfortable (and, finally, desperate) George Bush came on the show late in a losing campaign; and Bill Clinton, mindful of King’s role in his victory, promised to be back every six months if he won.

Though self-effacing (“I’m just the interlocutor”), Larry King doesn’t reject the label of Father of America’s new “electronic democracy,” a revolution that came of age, he acknowledges, with Perot’s coy, on-air concession on Feb. 20, 1992, that he’d run for president if drafted. With that show, Larry King became an instant oracle, ranking second (after venerable sense-maker David Brinkley), Media Studies Center research found, among most frequently cited political pundits, while catching both grief from the traditional news media and loyalty of audiences and candidates.

“I don’t get carried away with it,” King told Journal Editor Edward Pease in an interview in King’s CNN office in March. “I mean, it’s wonderful to be a part of it—I’d be kidding you if I said I don’t love the attention and the pay and the wonderful things it brings you. And it’s wonderful to be in the middle of the hunt. . . . But you got to watch that it doesn’t go to your head.”

In 1994, with the role of interactive shows like King’s well established, Larry King reflects that what now is revered as “talk show democracy” is just an idea whose time took a while to come—34 years, to be precise, which was how long ago King developed the format he still uses. His 1960 radio show, broadcast live from Pumpernik’s Restaurant in Miami Beach, consisted of conversation with both stars and “regular people.” That basic format became the “Larry King Live” show that 400 million people listen to or watch daily in 1994.

“I’m not doing anything different than I did 30-something years ago,” King says. “Nothing. Before the Gore-Perot debate—someone said, ‘Boy, you must be edgy.’ Why? I did two guys running for Miami Beach mayor. I have had two guys punch each other. It’s nothing new—there are just different characters. I’ve always been inquiring. I’m doing the same thing I’ve always done except that now the avenues are so much wider, direct communication is so much more powerful than it was when I was in Miami Beach.”

In a 1989 interview with Media Studies Journal, King said of talk radio: “Probably we’re a better barometer [of public opinion] in that The New York Times will print only the letters that it chooses to print.” Shows like his, King said, were “a national, electronic town meeting, a chance for the public to get together and speak out.”

Talk shows in general and Larry King’s in particular have not been without their critics in the 1990s; it isn’t difficult to make connections between public resentment of the traditional news media and the growing popularity of “alternatives.” In his 1993 book On the Line, responding to the sometimes whining criticism from the press that shows like his make it easy for public figures to circumvent the press and avoid the tough questions, King concedes that, “‘Talk show democracy’ is certainly not without risks or flaws. Our callers ask better, more serious questions than some in the press have given them credit for. But some candidates and their handlers still think of talk shows as a way to avoid tough press grillings. Talk shows should supplement the campaign press, not replace it. There’s room enough for everyone.”

It is King’s view that direct-access exchange between citizens and public figures—even presidents—is good for society and press alike. That vision of the American people speaking to one another over the air has become the electronic and political reality of the 1990s. And political leaders are joining in, as the Father of the Talk Show Democracy discussed in this interview evaluating the presidency in the new media age and his own part in it.

Media Studies Journal: You have had a major influence in developing the promise of the “electronic town meeting.” Would you talk about how you see this new form having affected the ways that Bill Clinton governs?

Larry King: Bill Clinton’s great strength is his ability to communicate via television, one on one. Reagan had that strength, but his was perceived completely differently: Reagan was your really nice uncle who was a good guy and made you feel good. Clinton is your really bright cousin who listens to you, cares about the family, relates very well, calls, keeps in touch, is accessible. He’s a nice guy. Got faults . . . we all have faults—for example, even the Whitewater thing. But he’s extraordinarily likable. Even what we see as a little bit of a cad in him is kind of fun.

So, he will use to his advantage programs like “Larry King Live” and others. The more he communicates in an informal setting, the better.

I have no doubt that if this were the 1930s, Roosevelt would have been on our show a lot—fireside chats with Larry King. He would have taken it further and talked to the public. Clinton’s willing to talk to the public. He is the most accessible president ever.

MSJ: Do you think the president gets away with more on shows like yours because he’s so good on the air and can appear and sell his position pretty much without being challenged?

Larry King: You have to be good at that. But that same plus that allows him to go on and focus on himself also allows Whitewater to be the focus of the show this week. You got to pay the price of it.

MSJ: How is this immediate access of the public with news and newsmakers changing how the traditional news media deal with the president?

Larry King: There’s no “traditional” anymore. In fact, in a couple of years, we’re going to be called traditional, and something new will have come along.

Communications is so informal today and so one-to-one: When I was a kid, the last thing I’d have dreamed of would have been talking to a president. I mean, forget it. But that’s a distinct possibility today, that a Joe Citizen in Des Moines can talk to Bill Clinton. In fact, if his kid wanted to really work at it, he could make it happen, because Bill Clinton will be on phone-in shows and will continue to communicate that way.

We’ll continue to have these kinds of forums. Now, Whitewater aside, it wouldn’t shock me to see Hillary debate Robert Dole on the eve of the health care vote on “ Larry King Live.” Gore and Perot proved that the new rules are that there are no rules anymore.

MSJ: Where does that leave the Washington Post, the New York Times, ABC, NBC?

Larry King: Someone said—and I don’t know if this is true—that today we have more input of information in a week than someone in 1930 had in a lifetime. The more the merrier. We’ve never been better informed. The more channels open to us—the more C-SPANs, the more CNNs—the better. There will still be a Washington Post. There will be op-ed pages. There will be critics. But today, the newspaper has a different role.

MSJ: What’s that?

Larry King: The difference today is that Clinton could make three key TV appearances. Let’s say he appears on “ Larry King Live,” “Nightline” and the morning shows. Then there’s William Safire, two days later, on the op-ed page of The New York Times, telling you that he looked erratic. It’s meaningless to you, if he didn’t look erratic to you.

When I was a kid, all I had to go on was print: Time magazine told me what to think of Harry Truman—print was like the Bible to me. But now, all this competition forces the printed press to be better and smarter—the Los Angeles Times is 100 percent better than it was; the New York Times, infinitely more readable, a better paper, affected by television—the New York Times is doing graphics! The Washington Post is a better paper. So is the Chicago Tribune.

MSJ: So the “new media” are pushing newspapers to do a better and different job?

Larry King: Sure. I’m a crazy sports fan, but I don’t read game stories anymore. I saw the game. I saw the highlights on ESPN. So, the Washington Post tomorrow, in their story of the Bullets game, has got to give me something different. I saw the Clinton speech. How many times will you read the New York Times front-page piece on it?

MSJ: One feature of the “new media” is that these things will be available in full text, on the Internet, for instance.

Larry King: That’s what I’m saying—it keeps growing and growing and growing. We’re going to vote by phone. They say the newspaper will be delivered from the television in your house and, I’m told, you’ll get only the parts you want, what you want to see.

MSJ: So we’ll be able to pick and choose which “Larry King” interviews to see, or which question Larry King asks.

Larry King: Or it will be in a box and you can hit a button and say, “The last time Clinton was on, what did he say?” And you’ll punch that up. You’ll direct your own sports because you’ll have at home what the control room has.

MSJ: Are there other ways that you already see the “new media” changing the way public figures—especially the president—are perceived?

Larry King: There’s something about this medium that can change you. Perot has not been the same since that night [Feb. 20, 1992, when he said he would run for president on King’s show].

And Gore—I had a guy say to me today, “Wouldn’t it be a great break for the Democratic Party if Clinton could resign? Because Gore’s unbeatable.”

Who would beat Gore? What Republican? Nobody. I don’t think there’s a Republican who can touch him. He’s a loyal guy, he’s bright, he’s smart, he’s easily the best vice president we’ve ever had. And a lot had to do with that night.

MSJ: You mean when he debated Perot about NAFTA on your show?

Larry King: He took on a giant. The odds were against him. They were 30 votes behind [in the Senate on NAFTA]. And he won. Things can change overnight.

You know, I’m 60. I wish I were 30 because, God, I’m right at the cutting edge of this. It’s still strange to me, just to be a part of it, to have access to it and to be able to bring it forward. Especially since I’m not doing anything different than I did 30 years ago. I’m doing the same things I did in Miami Beach, except now the avenues are so much more open.

MSJ: To get back to the White House and to this President—he communicates well, he won the election with his electronic town meeting approach.

Larry King: He’s skilled at people-to-people.

MSJ: Now that he’s in office, now that he’s governing the nation, how is that different from how he used the media during the campaign?

Larry King: Well, he views it as always running. He loves it too: He likes campaigning. For Clinton, bad days are good days—that’s what makes him a tough opponent. Anything can bring a president down, but he’s not tormented by Whitewater, for example. He’s not sitting up going, “Oh, Jesus.” He’s going to get up tomorrow morning and take them on. And his instincts are uncanny.

Gore told me he had the idea to debate Perot [on NAFTA] and called Clinton and said, “I’ve got an idea. You know, we’re 30 votes down, Perot is obviously running with the ball. What if I challenge him? What if I went on ‘Larry King’ with him?” And Clinton said, “Go!”

They didn’t send it to staff. They get bogged when they get into staff. He’d run a better show if he ran it himself. He’s got very good instincts. He’s extraordinarily likable. He’s the opposite side of the [Rush] Limbaughs, the attackers every day, the [Sen. Al] D’Amatos. They’re appealing to a minority that just can’t stand the fact that they’re up against a guy who takes all the pounding.

Whitewater could change all that, but what’s never going to change is the way Gore will be if Gore were president, if Dole were president. I don’t think you could run for office today and not go on the “Larry King Lives” and the “Nightlines.” You couldn’t avoid that anymore.

MSJ: Perot talked about voting from your home.

Larry King: Probably soon you will vote from your home. There will be national referendums, there will be polling techniques, they will have computers where you’re able to get public opinion immediately.

And you cannot diminish the overnight factor. Suppose there’s a governor—who’s the governor of North Dakota? I don’t even know if he’s a Republican, but let’s assume that he’s a Republican. Nobody knows him. I can give you a scenario in which he’s going to be the presidential candidate of the Republican Party in ’96.

Here’s what happens: There’s a prison riot in Fargo and the prisoners take over the prison. They want to meet with the governor. CNN’s cameras go there, followed by CBS and NBC.

The governor lands in a helicopter and goes in alone. He’s a handsome, good-looking guy, in his 40s—Gov. Dumont—and he walks into their prison. Four hours later he comes out. Interrupt all programming—he comes out with the prisoners. They surrender, and no one’s hurt. The governor steps forward. He says, “They will be punished, but they’ve had some logical demands. And I’ve looked at crime inside there now, and I’ve got some things to say . . . .” And he’s very forceful.

That’s a Thursday. On Friday, he’s on “Larry King Live” and “Nightline.” Sunday, he’s on “ Meet the Press.” The following Friday, he’s leading in the polls. He’s on the front cover of Time, the unknown favorite. Why? Because of television. Thirty years ago, if the New York Times had told me, “You know about this governor who landed in North Dakota . . . .” Now I’m going to see him land. And I’m going to see him go into the prison. And there might even be a camera in the prison—we’ll watch him talk to the prisoners. Let’s put it on. He’s president.

MSJ: It couldn’t have happened with print?

Larry King: It couldn’t have happened with print. It couldn’t have happened with radio. It needs the dynamism of this—TV—in every home.

There’s no illiteracy with television—everybody’s hooked in. It still throws the people involved: We sit down with Clinton, and I get a call and say, “Auckland, New Zealand. Go ahead.” And Clinton goes, “Wow!”

I run into more people who watch it—in Frankfurt, they watch it in the airport. Here’s a true story I tell. It’s funny, but it’s true: I’m in Israel at the Wailing Wall, never been to Israel before. My mother never got to go. I’m Jewish, it was very emotional—me there with my brother. And there’s the Wailing Wall, and they’re praying and there’s a rabbi davening, down on his knees, davening. I’m standing there and he looks up at me and says, “What’s with Perot?”

Just one little moment showed me the whole world’s watching. “What’s with Perot?”

MSJ: In a lot of ways, you invented this. You did it 30 years ago in Miami . . . .

Larry King: Others invented the use of telephones on television. But we made it a part of the program. Donahue took calls for 20 years, but some days he wouldn’t take calls. For us, calls are always a part of this mix.

MSJ: And, almost by accident, you proved how powerful it was with the Perot interview. Imitation may be the most sincere form of flattery, and you’ve got imitators all over the place, but do you ever look at them and say to yourself, “What hath I wrought?” How does that make you feel?

Larry King: That’s fine. I like the business. I like to see more people in it. I see youngsters coming along, doing it. I’ll be leaving radio in October, I think, pretty sure. And I’d love to see some really young energetic guy come along and be “the next Larry King.” That’s always nice to hear.

I like the impact we made in talk radio—we began the first national talk radio show, and now everybody’s got a talk radio show. I’m very proud of it.

MSJ: Interviewing a politician is different from an interview with an entertainer. When you’re dealing with a political figure . . . .

Larry King: Although there’s a sameness to it. For example, Michael Keaton comes on my show to talk about his movie. It’s the same as Bill Clinton talking about his health plan: “Vote for me, this health plan is good for you.” Or, “This movie you will like.”

You vote for Keaton by putting down seven bucks. You vote for Clinton by calling your congressman. They’re both selling. I’m asking questions. There’s not that much of a difference.

MSJ: Do you have any reservations about being the bully pulpit, being the soapbox for any of the people—entertainers or politicians—who come on your show?

Larry King: No. We ask good questions, we’re not there to kill them, we’re not there to softball them. I ask the best questions I can. I always saw myself as the style section.

MSJ: You’ve said, “I don’t consider myself a journalist, but journalism results from what I do.”

Larry King: Right. I never was the front page. I’m not a journalist per se. I don’t go cover the fire, but I like to ask questions of the firemen. To report on the fire does not whet my appetite. But to get that fireman to talk about how he feels . . . .

MSJ: What about the critics, though, who . . .

Larry King: Talk about softballing . . .

MSJ: Right.

Larry King: You know, I’ve never understood that. What is a softball question? I just am me and I’m doing the same thing I’ve done all these years, which is being intensely curious. . . . For example, the postmaster general is on tonight—I don’t care who he slept with last night. If there’s a scandal about him in the paper today, I’ll ask about it. But I’m going to learn a lot more by getting his perception of it than by talking about my perception of it. What whets my appetite is not, what paper did Bill Clinton sign 10 years ago to put a down payment on Whitewater. What really fascinates me is, how does he feel tonight? That fascinates me more.

We need the guys who ask, “What did you sign 10 years ago?” But from my point of view, that’s one way not to get an answer. The best question is, “What’s going on?” If Clinton sat down with me tonight, I’d ask, “What’s going on?” Then I get his perspective, not mine. His.

MSJ: How do you view the traditional media’s response to that approach, and to the “new media” generally, which includes Larry King?

Larry King: Well, I don’t know why, but some seem to be jealous—some aren’t at all. One of the problems with the old media is, for example, the press conference. If you’re used to good one-on-ones, a press conference is boring. They’re too all over the place. They [reporters] don’t follow up each other; each one has his own agenda. But here, you’re just dealing with my question, you know, there’s no group agenda. They may feel that we ran an end run around them, but we didn’t do anything they wouldn’t do.

MSJ: Eleanor Clift of Newsweek has written a piece for this Journal in which she talks about Bill Clinton going to alternative media, and the White House press corps retaliating with what she called “unrelievedly negative coverage” of the president. What about that?

Larry King: Well, Eleanor probably believes that they feel left out, so they’re going to get even by attacking. But the whole White House press corps could hate Clinton, and if he goes on somewhere tonight and he’s effective, he’s bypassed them.

I don’t have that sense of my own personal importance. “Larry King Live” is an important show, but I want to be here tomorrow night. I’m not important tonight—[my guest] is important tonight. What he says is important.

MSJ: So, if Clinton can go around the White House press corps and get his message out effectively . . .

Larry King: I don’t know if it’s going around. I mean, what made them—or anyone—the be-all and end-all? What if I started getting angry and saying, “Hey, Clinton, you called a press conference today, why didn’t you come to me?”

MSJ: Are they irrelevant?

Larry King: No, no one’s irrelevant. We’re all part of the mix. But there’s no Walter Winchell anymore, there’s no make-or-break guy. David Broder can’t make, he can’t break. Larry King can’t make, he can’t break. Sure, there are more Larry Kings now than there were, so the David Broders have to take a little bit of a step back—the pie is more cut up. There are so many more viewers, more channels. You know, when Jackie Gleason went off the air, he had a 29 [share]. Bill Cosby never reached 29. The world changed.

So nobody is irrelevant. On the other hand, nobody’s the ultimate authority, either, anymore.

MSJ: Former GOP Chairman Rich Bond once told you that people are paying attention to the media differently now. He said, “They are so alienated from the national establishments of conventional media and conventional politics that they would believe more what was said on a ‘Larry King’ show than they would believe what George Will said on ‘David Brinkley.’” And you wrote in your book that many in the press feel that way, that the press feels you are “treading on their turf.” Can you talk more about that?

Larry King: CNN has a great image with the audience. While Brinkley’s wonderful, he also has [George] Will and [Sam] Donaldson, both of whom have images—their negatives are as high as their positives. They’re both outstanding personalities, but they have negatives, baggage with the public.

I don’t think we skew much negative. We have a good show—it’s lively, it moves right along, people call in. It also is a very good visual show. . . . Something’s happening and I love doing it, and that comes though. I love David, but there are some Sundays he looks like he couldn’t care less.

MSJ: There’s a cartoon by Don Wright in your book of two Colonial-era guys in frock coats standing on a cloud and looking down. One of them says, “That’s just the way it happened, Mr. Jefferson. From the Federalist Papers to ‘Larry King Live.’” Do you see yourself as inheriting the mantle of the Founding Fathers?

Larry King: What we don’t know is, what fascinates me is how Lincoln would have done? If Lincoln were on the show tonight, how would he have handled the call from the Southern state that seceded—“Let’s go to calls. Nashville? . . .”

MSJ: And what would he have said?

Larry King: He could have been too witty for his own good. He had a high sing-song voice. . . . Imagine the media at Gettysburg: “OK, we’re all there, we’re going live. There’s a crowd—dolly in.” He speaks for a minute and eight seconds—and that’s it.

Imagine what happens: “Call Schneider! We need analysis!”

Then we have some analysis. The first guy would say, “What is this ‘Four score . . .’? What does that mean? ‘Four score’? Why didn’t he say 87? He should just talk to the regular guy, because that’s the trouble with Abe—he talks above the heads of people. . . .”

And definitely there would have been a critic who would have said, “Boy, was he right when he said, ‘People will little note nor long remember what was said here. . . .’ Abe, you hit it on the head.”

They would have had a field day.

MSJ: And what about the Founding Fathers?

Larry King: Jefferson, who was shy, kind of introverted: “Who is this woman, Tom? Black woman,” they’d want to know. “Who is this woman?”

Imagine Ben Franklin, with “Hard Copy” following him to Paris? All over. Film of Ben Franklin in Paris? “Exclusive, tonight at 5:00, Mrs. Franklin speaks out on ‘Inside Edition’. . . .” I mean, they were just as raucous—it’s just that they didn’t have television.

Today, if we had a July 4th Declaration of Independence, it still would have been signed, let’s say, in Philadelphia. But all the signers would have been on all of the shows the next three nights, putting a spin on it: “Hancock, how come your name’s so big? Are you plugging the insurance company? What do you mean by ‘When, in the course of human events,’ . . .”?

And try to picture the wacko right-wing talk show host on the Declaration of Independence—he’d have gone berserk: “Who are these people? Revolutionaries, mercenaries, violating the king? ‘When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary . . .’—it’s a promotion of violence. They’re saying the same thing that Farrakhan is saying. Dress up as Indians and throw tea—they’re Harbor cowards! . . .”

MSJ: One last question: Look ahead for us. If the 1992 campaign represents the first coming of age of the electronic democracy and the ascendancy of the “new media,” then where do you see it going next? Is this really going to be an electronic democracy? Will it be a push-button democracy?

Larry King: My bet is that we’re going more toward that. With satellites, you don’t have to be in this room—you can talk to any guest anywhere. The truest thing Perot said was early on, when he asked, “What do we have ambassadors for?” We’ve got fax machines, phones. What does an ambassador do? Relays a message. I can get the message much faster now, and there will be more speed, quicker information.

Now, I can’t predict what will follow the fax—something even faster . . . .

MSJ: Interactive communications, Max Headroom—two-way video?

Larry King: That’s right around the corner. I hope I’m around to see it. I think it’s going to be exciting, but part of it is not forecastable. I couldn’t have forecast what we’re doing now 10 years ago.

MSJ: Will the American public be as well served?

Larry King: Absolutely. There may be a lot of speed, there may be too much information too quickly. But we’re always better served—the more you know, the better. Always. I think we’ll be very well served.

MSJ: Thank you.

Larry King: Hey, great working with you.

___
Edward C. Pease. “The Father of ‘Talk Show Democracy’—On the Line with Larry King.” In “The Presidency in the New Media Age.” Media Studies Journal. Vol. 8, No. 2. (Spring 1994). pp. 123-37.