Month: April 2015

Wag The Dog Film Challenge

by

The 1997 film Wag The Dog tells the story of individuals from the White House using Hollywood filmmakers to construct a war to win the public’s favor in order to re-elect the president. The film addresses the journalistic issue of media manipulation.

One side of the argument says that constructing false news stories is wrong and that the media is responsible for presenting the world and news exactly as it. Another side of the argument says that the media constructs story because the media constructs the reality as we see it. In the key concepts for media literacy the first concept states, “All media are constructions. This is arguably the most important concept. The media do not simply reflect external reality. Rather, they present carefully crafted constructions that reflect many decisions and are the result of many determining factors. Media Literacy works towards deconstructing these constructions”. This side of the argument says that constructing stories are apart of creating the world as we see it.

There have been many cases of the media being manipulated. For example, In a 2005 article by the New York Times it discussed how the federal government was creating news segments for local TV news stations. The article stated, “In all, at least 20 federal agencies, including the Defense Department and the Census Bureau, have made and distributed hundreds of television news segments in the past four years, records and interviews show. Many were subsequently broadcast on local stations across the country without any acknowledgement of the government’s role in their production”.

If I was a “fixer” for the president of the United States and he wanted me to manipulate the media and create a war to win the public’s favor I don’t think I would be able to do it. Physically I believe I could make it happen, probably not as easy as the movie made it look but I believe it could be done. But emotionally I would be far too afraid of what the media could actually accomplish by faking a war. Media manipulation is not simply reporting history, but it is creating history- which to me is not what the media is built for.

Before this film I would not have thought media manipulation was a big issue for journalism. But after our class discussion and research into media manipulation I am very terrified of how big and how current of an issue this is for journalism. News stories provided by any source- whether it is the government or a big corporation, any story created by an outside source is inherently bias. And presenting that news as unbiased and not stating where that news comes from damages media outlets credibility and loses the public’s trust in journalism.

 

Media Literacy Key Concepts

http://www.medialit.org/reading-room/canadas-key-concepts-media-literacy

New York Times Media Manipulation

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/13/politics/13covert.html

Smash His Camera

by

In the documentary film Smash His Camera, the ethical issue of privacy in photojournalism is brought up. The film, which details the life of infamous paparazzo Ron Galella, addresses the issue of privacy when it pertains to public figures. Galella made a lucrative career out of photographing public figures- even when they did not want to be photographed- but many have criticized him for not respecting privacy. But do public figures have the same right to privacy as ordinary citizens?

One side of the argument states that Galella is perfectly within his rights to photograph public figures while they are out in public, even if they do not wished to be photographed. This argument says that because they are public figures and of interest to the public then it is perfectly acceptable to take their picture, because public is public. The other side of the argument says that why do public figures not have the same right to privacy as everyone else? It also argues that by not respecting public figures privacy, photographers are putting them in harms way.

Historical perspective on this case has often favored the public figure’s side of the argument. In California a law was passed in 2013 that makes it a crime, punishable by a year in jail and a $10,000 fine, for anyone to harass a celebrity’s child to take a picture, even in a public place (USA Today). Another anti-paparazzi law was signed in California in 2011. This law permits lawsuits against media-outlets that pay for and make first use of material they knew was improperly obtained (Huffington Post).

When it comes to paparazzi and public figures, there is really no great answer to solve the problem of invasion of privacy. While I agree with one side that because they are public figures then they do have to give up some of their privacy, I also agree with the other side that paparazzi often go too far in their quest to capture photos. I believe that the solution to this issue is at the hand of the media outlets. If the media outlets did not pay such hefty amounts for the photos of celebs then the desire to become a paparazzo would decrease- and in turn decrease the amount of harassing done to the public figures.

The ramification of this issue on journalism is severe. The laws passed in California are placing limits on the freedom of the press and the first amendment. If this issue gets larger and more and more public figures express outrage over their loss of privacy then the laws could become larger- placing more restrictions on the press as a whole. In order to save the rights of the press, the issue of privacy and public figures must be resolved in a way that benefit both sides.

 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/13/anti-paparazzi-law-signed_n_318163.html

http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/people/2014/03/22/celebs-push-back-against-the-paparazzi/6186163/