I personally thought this movie was somewhat hard to follow along with. At the beginning of the movie they told us that the president had been accused of being involved in making some type of sexual advances to a teenage girl just a couple days before election day. In order to distract voters attention to something other than the sex scandal, the president hired Di Nero to set up a fake war in Albania. This is where the title “Wag The Dog” comes in to place. Wag the dog is an idiom that means to purposely divert attention form something that would usually be of greater importance, to something that is less significant. The “war” going on in Albanian would have been more important and created more of an uproar with voters than a rumor about a sexual advance made by the president.

The quote form this film, “Of course there’s a war; I’m seeing it on TV!” shows how much effect media has on our society. The war was completely made up but since it is on the news and shown throughout the media then the viewers are going to think it is true. I personally would think the same thing because usually you believe what you see on the news it true but it shows how much can actually be made up. Also, it is much easier to create some type of lie or false happening if someone like the president is behind it. Its scary to think about how much in our society can actually be made up and we have no clue.

This film clearly displayed the five principles of media literacy. The war and “hero” was completely constructed and turned into a reality. They were completely staged and created to show the viewers exactly what they wanted. This clearly shows how much of an effect media has on our current society.

The term “wag the dog” comes from thinking that a dog is smarter than its tail, but if the tail were to be smarter than the dog the tail would then wag the dog. In terms of this movie, the producers of these fake scenarios had to be smarter and create a more intense and important event to manipulate the voters into forgetting about the sex scandal. In reality, it was a good idea with the little time they had before election day. It just shows how easily these things can be currently happening around us and we have no idea.

“Idiom: Wag the Dog.” Wag the Dog. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Apr. 2015.

“ESLnotes.com – Wag the Dog.” ESLnotes.com – Wag the Dog. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Apr. 2015.

comm%203404%20presentation

Watching this film really opened up my eyes to how little privacy celebrities actually have. Ron Galella was ruthless in the way he would follow Jackie Onassis around and try everything possible to get both her pictures as long as other well-known public figures. I understand that this is his job and he has worked very hard to get all of these pictures but he also has to understand he is invading people’s personal privacy. Jackie Onassis and these other celebrities are public figures but sometimes during the film it seemed like he would go to any extent to get these pictures for his own good.

After reading some of the study questions we were given, one that stuck in my head was if Jackie Onassis deserves to have more protection on people like Galella than anyone else. I think that is somewhat of a hard question to ask because yes, she should always have some type of protection but I think whoever is protecting her needs to be aware of Galella or people like him because it almost seems obsessive. When people are obsessed with celebrities you have to be more careful that it doesn’t turn into anything harmful.

Galella never wanted to harm Onassis or any of the people he was filming but he also would do whatever it took to take these pictures. During the one scene in the movie where Jackie was riding in the park with her son, I think it was a little over the top for Galella to be hiding in bushes for her. When celebrities are with their young kids or families, these photographers should know to somewhat step back. This could also go back to whether or not these photographers are ethical or not and how moral their actions are.

Another question on the study sheet asked, “What would have happened had Jackie let Galella take her picture?” I think this would have completely changed Galella’s views. It seemed that he enjoyed getting these photos because of how much work he had to put into it and that was fun for him. I think if Jackie would purposely pose for him it would make him mad and take the fun out of his chase to get her candid photos. I would probably act the same way Onassis did because I wouldn’t constantly want someone following me around and documenting my every move. Yes, that is part of being in the public eye but Galella took it to another level that almost made him seem like a stalker.

Overall, I think Galella took his job way too far and sometimes pushed his limits. Many times he crossed the line, not only with Jackie Onassis but with other celebrities as well. This is something that celebrities have to deal with on a daily basis and I can’t imagine having to live my life like that. Not only does it make you feel like you have zero privacy but it could also be very scary at times. After watching this film, I am extremely happy I can go through my day without people constantly taking pictures of me.

Scott, A. O. “Do the Notorious Paparazzo’s Photos Qualify as Art or Just Agita?” The New York Times. The New York Times, 29 July 2010. Web. 02 Apr. 2015.

McNamara, Mary. “Television Review: ‘Smash His Camera’ on HBO.” Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 07 June 2010. Web. 02 Apr. 2015.

While I was reading the small description about the movie that said, “Fact-based 2003 drama about the young journalist Stephen Glass, who got a job at The New Republic in 1995 and for three years fabricated at least half of the stories he wrote” I was very interested in how someone could possibly get away with writing so many made up stories. They portrayed Stephen Glass as a very intellectual individual so it made it more believable for the viewers to believe what Glass was saying. The movie was somewhat confusing when they would do the flashbacks and after reading through the study questions, you second guess which parts actually happened and which didn’t.

Stephen Glass’s career was based on fabricated stories in order to keep a steady pace with his up and coming career. The New Republic liked that Stephen’s stories were entertaining and funny so in order to continue this Stephen Glass felt he had to make majority of them up. Clearly he had thought a lot of it through when he created a fake website and made up the voicemail boxes with his brothers help. While he was talking to the glass he told them about how you have to make sure you write every little thing down in your notes so you have something to go off of. They even showed a scene with him sitting in the bathroom scribbling down notes so he could go back to the office and write. We are unaware if any of that even happened since most of his stories were already made up. Glass did all of this to continue to have the image of a great journalist but he knew he was doing something extremely wrong.

The editor was in a hard position because he wanted to be able to back up his writers against the other magazine but all the evidence pointed to Glass being a liar. He went out of his way to talk to the other magazine before they ran anything and made Stephen take him back to the hotel where the supposed conference was. He wanted to be on Stephens side only until he realized that his story was made up. He felt disrespected because Glass was constantly lying to his editor.

Thinking back on reading and cases we have talked about, I can’t imagine a reporter making up majority of the stories that they write. It seems completely unethical and with today’s society it would be nearly impossible to do. I would have handled the situation the same way. I would have done everything I could to get the facts myself and try to save my own reporter. If I figured out that it was made up I would have also made Glass leave the newspaper.

This has a huge impact on journalism because any journalism can make things up. Something like this shows how ethical a writer is and how much they respect and value their job and the audience they are writing to. Clearly Glass didn’t care that the public was receiving false information. In our society, it would be very hard to completely fabricate a story but it can still happen and editor’s and newspapers are constantly having to check and double check sources in order for something like this to not happen.

Works cited

Shattered Glass. Dir. Billy. Ray. 2003.

“Ethics in Journalism – Plagiarism & Fabrication Scandals.” Ethics in Journalism – Plagiarism & Fabrication Scandals. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Mar. 2015.

The film “Nothing But The Truth” has been one of my favorite movies that we have watching in class thus far. It brought attention to many of the aspects we have constantly been talking about in class. During the movie I thought about all of the ethical debates we did in class and a lot of them pertained to different parts of the movie, which was very interesting to think about. In this particular movie, a reporter is told information about a certain CIA agent who went to Venezuela to gather information about the president assassination that had just happened. Rachel Armstrong, the reporter throughout the movie, refuses to give up her source.

There are two very clear sides to this argument. One side is that Rachel is unwilling to reveal her source because if she were to reveal it the source would be committing treason since they would have revealed information about a covert operatives identity. She attends court and still does not give in so she has to do time in jail. The idea was to make this scare Rachel and eventually make her tell the source. She sticks to her word and doesn’t reveal the source. After months, the vice presidents former chief of staff explains that he at one time did tell Rachel that Erica was part of the CIA but he wasn’t the initial leak. Rachel is put through many tough decisions when she finds out her husband is cheating on her and she struggles with going on a year of not seeing her son.

The other side of this argument comes from Dubois who is the one who is constantly trying to find the original source of the leak. He doesn’t intend on keeping Rachel in jail but he is willing to go to any length to do his job and find the original source because it could potentially greatly effect the government. This is a serious problem if someone is acting as a trader and giving up very confident information. Dubois only mission was to find the original source and rightfully prosecute them for the crime they committed.

At the beginning of the film you hear the reporters discussing if they are going to publish Rachel’s story and how they wouldn’t be committing libel, which is something they had on their side. They faced many issues that we have talked about in class such as what rights Rachel was entitled to according to the constitution and how there was no shield law in place. They also mentioned how this story was similar to the Watergate scandal.

I think the situation was extremely difficult but handled the right way. No one wanted Rachel to stay in jail but in order to get to the bottom of the leak they didn’t have much choice than to try and break her. Rachel saw it as not having a choice but to not reveal her source, which shows how seriously she takes her job. I think the court did everything they could to try and convince her to reveal it before they sent her to jail.

This issue is very impactful on journalism because these are decisions journalists have to make each and everyday. Rachel put her whole personal life at stake in order to keep her source hidden. These are extremely difficult aspects of the work of a journalist and whether the issue is big as this particular one was, this is happening everyday in the journalism world.

Works Cited

Nothing But The Truth [Motion picture]. (2008). United States: Yari Film Group.

“Protection of Sources.” · What We Do · Article 19. N.p., n.d. Web. 02 Mar. 2015.

“Absence of Malice” gives you a clear look into the life of a journalist and how they deal with everyday issues. There could have been many different sides to the story depending on whose point of view you are trying to look at. The journalist, the prosecutor, and the “suspect” would all have different arguments. The journalist, Megan Carter, was manipulated into finding a file that led her to believe Michael Gallagher was a key suspect in the Joey Diaz case. Carter, without putting too much thought or investigation into the information she had seen about Gallagher immediately wrote a headline explaining her findings. This was a clear example of what we talked about in class and how she could have been accused of libel. Although it wasn’t malicious and the information was not false she should have thought more about what she was writing before it was printed. Carter displayed many different actions that showed she wasn’t a very strong reporter. In the instance of Theresa, Megan didn’t think about how she would be affected when she wrote about her abortion. Megan was trying to do her job and continued to try to be ethical but seemed to always be in the wrong.

The Prosecutor was also in no way in the right during this case. He planted and leaked information that had to do with the Joey Diaz investigation without having enough information to point fingers at anyone. He wanted Megan to see the file and knew she would write about it. He was thinking that if Gallagher was accused as a suspect then he would point fingers at someone who actually was. Although this might have been smart, the prosecutor was also in the wrong when he wiretapped the DA in order to find out more information on Gallagher. The DA was also in the wrong by being paid to close the investigation. Gallagher did everything in his power to clear his name. Even though as we talked about in class, once something like that is said about you, even if it is cleared people will still think whatever they want about you.

When the DA, Megan, Gallagher and the prosecutor all met together before there was a possible hearing, we finally could see all sides of the story. I think I would have handled it the same way. There was no way to charge Gallagher with anything because there was not enough information on whether or not he directly was giving the money to the DA in order for him to close the investigation. Megan was informed that she could easily lose her job by not telling where she got her information from and wanting it to stay anonymous. The prosecutor knew he was not aloud to be wiretapping with out a warrant and the DA knew he shouldn’t have closed the case for money. Overall, majority of the people in this movie were in the wrong. They went against different laws and code of ethics in order to try to get the correct lead in the investigation. As I mentioned before, I would have handled the situation in the same way and would have ended it with the final printing of the paper explaining to the public what had happened.

Source list:

Matasha, C. (2011). Prosecution by the media: “Absence of Malice” Forum on Law, Culture and Society. Retrieved from http://www.forumonlawcultureandsociety.org/2011/10/19/prosecution-by-the-media-absence-of-malice/

 Absence of Malice [Motion picture]. (1981). United States: Columbia Pictures.

Movie Challenge 1: “All The Presidents Men”

The movie “All The Presidents Men” displayed numerous amounts of legal and ethical actions being made by both journalists and the government. Not only did the investigation prove how important media was and still is, it showed us how much control the government has over society.

When reading the prompt for this post, I figured there were two completely different types of arguments that could have been made both that deal with legality and ethics. You could argue that the work of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein was unethical because they had to continue to dig for evidence even though many of their resources were telling them to “go away.” As journalists, they both wanted to complete their story and show Bradlee that their story was worthy of the front page.

Another argument would be whether or not what Nixon did was legal or ethical. He resigned for obvious reasons but he still had the power in the first place to partake in the actions that he did. Legally, he had the power to tell certain people to break into the democratic national committee and to steal the tapes. This opened the eyes of the public by showing how easily the government can hide anything they want from the rest of society. The actions of Nixon were in no way ethical but since he was in the most powerful position he legally was able to appoint certain people to do these unethical actions.

As far as historical perspectives, the way the Watergate scandal was dealt with at the time would probably not have changed at all if it happened right now. The courts tried Nixon and made him hand over the tapes. Because of the Fifth Amendment Nixon had to give in and give the evidence that was on the recordings. This scandal had a huge impact on the government and is still talked about today.

I personally think the situation at hand was handled quite professionally. Instead of the media telling us what to think, they told us more of what to think about. The reporters did their job and continued to search for their answers even when the people with the most say didn’t want to be any part of the process. The newspaper had complete control over deciding what to tell the public and what was the most important and necessary for them to hear. Waiting for the Watergate scandal to be the cover of the front page until they received and uncovered all the necessary information was the right idea in my eyes.

This impact had a large impact on journalism, especially during the time it was going on. This entire case impacted journalism based on how severe the outcome was. The ethical decisions made by both of the main journalists set a precedent for how future scandals involving the government should be handled. When Woodward and Bernstein knew they were dealing with uncovering information about the government they probably knew they were stepping into a difficult and dangerous territory but they continued to complete their job based on their ethics. They didn’t break any laws, but like Deep Throat told them, they were in danger by covering this particular story. Overall, this movie was a great way to portray how impactful both the government and media was back then and still is today.

Welcome to u.osu.edu. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!