Wag the Dog

The film Wag the Dog, directed by Barry Levinson, was produced in the late 90’s in order to demonstrate how easily the media and public can be manipulated. During re-election season the president was involved in a sex scandal with an underage, “firefly girl” in the Oval Office. The presidential advisor hires someone to come up with a distraction for the media. Conrad Brean, the one in charge, uses the motto “Change the story, change the lead.” What he means by this statement is to distract the media from the recent scandal by presenting something else for them to report on.

He creates a fake scenario with Albania. It actually seems to be done quite easily. Brean hires a producer, Stanley Motss, who is committed to carrying out the scenario. They create a number of fake scenarios such as, a video of an Albanian girl running away from terrorists, a fake song, and even a fake war hero to be rescued. His last name being Schumann, later takes on a trend across the nation.

Many people follow the trend because they see others following it and it gives everyone a sense of patriotism. They think an American is brought home safe and he is a war hero in their eyes. In reality, he doesn’t exist. I think the shoe becomes the symbol representing the entire conflict as a whole and people are more likely to remember things they associate with certain events.

The significance of the producer’s house being larger than the White 
House represents the amount of power the producer has in controlling the messages. The significance of the media in America is rather large; They have the ability to shape the public’s view. One of the lines in the movie was, “Of course there’s war; I’m seeing it on TV.” This reinstates how real the scenario can be portrayed in the eye of the public. Society, especially our generation, is quick to believe whatever is being shown. This brings an interesting, actually rather scary, thought. The amount of editing we can do to different multimedia videos and imaging is endless. How do we know what is real and what is fake? Considering how much power the government has, something like this could happen and go unnoticed. The title “Wag the Dog” is referenced in a caption during the movie. “Why does the dog wag its tail? Because the dog is smarter than the tail. If the tail were smarter it would wag the dog.”

Rolling Stone and UVA

Allison Bugenstein, jimena Esoarza, Alissa Schultz and Lauren Mears

The Rolling Stone story “A Rape on Campus: a Brutal Assault and struggle for Justice at UVA” has brought up a lot of ethical issues in the news since it was uncovered that the story was in fact false. Is is shocking that such a trusted publication could miss such big mistakes and serves as a reminder to all journalist the importance of fact checking and how too much trust in a source can backfire.

We plan on presenting the issue to the class through an interactive power point with videos and clips from the story to help everyone understand what went wrong and how it can be prevented. We will use a game and discussion questions to help engage the class and share ideas.

Smash His Camera

The 2010 film Smash His Camera documented the career of a well-known photographer, Ron Galella. His career was prominent in the 1960’s and 1970’s. Galella created a new form of photography; It has been criticized by many and often looked at as quite controversial. Whether he was in the right or in the wrong is continually up for debate. Finding a balance between the rights covered by the First Amendment and the privacy rights we should, or should not, be entitled to gets complicated.

Being in the public eye certainly has its pros and cons. One of the main sacrifices you have to make is privacy. I’m sure it can be quite exhausting, especially when you have people in your bushes outside trying to snap photos. Galella had no boundaries and went to the extreme to get his shots. His practices even ending up taking him to court. Of course restraining orders and a punch in the face didn’t hold him back. He was very determined to keep pursuing his career.

Although he faces a lot of criticism, his work is pretty impressive. Regardless of the amount of enemies he has, his work is displayed all over the world and he has made a very successful career along the way. I thought it was interesting to listen to what he had to say about the events. He had everything planned out very well regarding how to sneak in and crash events. It certainly required a lot of effort.

Some people think he didn’t care about people, but I’m not so sure. Maybe I believe the best in people, but I feel as if he was just trying to get natural photos of the unfamiliar. Many Americans are curious of the way celebrities live their lives when people aren’t watching, whether they admit it or not. Otherwise there wouldn’t be all these different magazines and what not that follow celebrities around and expose every move they make. He was interested it capturing moments that were not expected. At times he may have been a little too persistent. If he wasn’t taking the photos, I’m sure someone else would.

Shattered Glass

The SPJ Code of Ethics has been created in order to ensure the information printed is accurate, fair and thorough; the public relies on it. The first of four principles is, “Seek truth and report it.” Fabrication of any sort leads to a loss of trust and credibility.The highest possible form of inaccuracy is something that doesn’t even exist. Stephen Glass was writing about events that never happened. Glass was not just hurting the people he worked with but also the public was let down.

Journalism, as a career, is supposed to have a sense of integrity. It doesn’t work without it. Although nobody was placed under false light or libeled in Glass’s stores, it was still a major mistake. He knowingly printed lies. His stories really hurt the magazine, but it didn’t stop there. His friends were hurt especially since they had placed trust in him. Society, as a whole, has expectations for journalists. Especially now, more than ever, with all of the different medias to access stories and information frequently. You can’t print made up information and claim it to be factual.

When false facts are reported we begin to question the information which we are presented with. This leaves a major impact on the entire field of journalism as well. As mentioned in the film, 27 of the 41 stories were either partially or entirely fabricated. This makes you skeptic of the entire magazine and staff. It was a terrible thing to do to his coworkers. Throughout the movie he made it seem as if the editor was attacking him when he had been dishonest with him the entire time working there.

I believe the Forbes’ editor had a right to post the story. Even as young as he is I would not protect someone who has been dishonest for that long. It’s one thing to make a minor mistake, but it’s an entire different story in Glass’ situation. His career was shattered as a journalist and I don’t believe he would have been able to recover from that regardless.

In conclusion, the film did a nice job telling the story. I thought it was interesting that the director, Billy Ray, chose to tell the story from Glass’s viewpoint. It adds a different perspective to the story.

 

Nothing but the Truth

According to the SPJ Code of Ethics, Journalists report the best possible version of the truth. That is exactly what Rachel Armstrong, played by Kate Beckinsale, was doing in Nothing but the Truth. However there was a major, constitutional concern at hand. Because of our first amendment she had freedom of the press. However, once the federal government began the investigation, she had no protection, legally, to keep her source confidential. The question at hand, still today, is whether a federal shield law should exist?

After watching this particular film, I have decided to revisit my views towards the matter. Although a shield law could have helped Rachel Armstrong, I do not believe a federal level law of such should be created. As a strong supporter of our constitution, I believe the first amendment should stay as is. The first five words are, “Congress shall make no law.” These words are essential and were put in place for a reason. Providing further specification on freedom of the press has the ability to negatively impact journalism.

The Code of Ethics obliges journalists to “Do No Harm.” Was Rachel Armstrong doing any harm? I believe she was simply reporting what she knew was the best possible version of the truth. In the film, it was clear she did not intend to cause harm, but was simply doing her job. The federal government took her to jail over refusing to reveal a source that was crucial to National Security. She preserved her integrity throughout the entire investigation. Eventually, she ended up losing everything over it: her husband, time to see son grow up and her freedom. At one point she began questioning herself and whether it was all worth it.

I think what she did was very brave and inspiring for other journalists-especially after seeing the end. If there weren’t people out there fighting for what they believe in everyday, we wouldn’t be here today.

Absence of Malice

After comparing the type of journalism exposed in All the President’s Men with that of Absence of Malice, once could note the differences as fairly obvious. All three of the journalists involved prove to be very passionate about journalism and put their best effort forward. However, Bernstein and Woodward seemed to do the best job. In Absence of Malice, Carter fails to get the other side of the story. Her effortless attempts to reach out to Gallagher fell short and the information was never confirmed. She moves forward and posts the article regardless, leaving Gallagher’s reputation at stake. As a journalist your job is to assemble and verify facts. She gets very caught up in the importance of getting the story and fails to check her accuracy.

More specifically, contrasting the work of Bob Woodward with Megan Carter: Bob Woodward held a slightly differing set of beliefs than those of Megan Carter. He strongly believed in writing the “best obtainable version of the truth.”  As Gallagher quoted to Megan, in the film, “You don’t write the truth, you write what people say!” I believe the two concepts at hand are not one in the same. The best obtainable version of the truth entails verification by many in order to ensure accuracy. This is an obligation to obtain the best version available. Writing what people say could mean someone has said something and it was posted. It does not ensure the same amount of effort and dedication put forth.

The two movies are very similar in the way sources are being kept anonymous. I have a hard time deciding whether the sources should be kept confidential. I believe that the credibility of an anonymous sources is less valuable. On the other hand, when lives are in danger it is hard to say. From a general perspective, if sources were always kept confidential, would anyone be willing to share any information at all? Depending on the size of the scandal and amount of people involved, it could be a very high risk.

 

All The President’s Men

While considering different contexts of Watergate, first one must look at the scandal from a historical perspective. A few of the events leading up to the scandal were Vietnam, the leaking of the Pentagon Papers, the psychiatric office burglary, and, lastly, the break-in at the DNC headquarters. Another aspect to consider would be the relationship between the media and Nixon’s  administration. The relationship had already suffered due to the large disapproval of our involvement in Vietnam. Immediately following the scandal Americans were fully aware of the government’s hidden agenda.

Secondly, we must look at the impact the scandal brought upon Americans. As more and more Americans started realizing the importance of the press, there was a significant increase in interest within the field. Ultimately, this led to a rise of great journalists. Watergate also drastically altered the way the country viewed the presidency. With the amount of corruption taking place, many became less likely to trust the government at all.

Referring back to the movie, All The President’s Men, one must consider the legal and ethical issues concerning the two renowned Washington Post reporters, Woodward and Bernstein. In my opinion a few things could have been done differently. Knocking on doors and speaking to people in person was a very effective method at the time. However, in a few cases they crossed the line. For example, when Bernstein abruptly marched in for a cigarette at the bookkeeper’s residence. That could have been considered trespassing. Regardless of the legal aspect, it was not ethical.

I believe the tactics the journalists were using to get information may have been at question as well. They tried to trick people into thinking they had already obtained the information from another source. This made it seem as if they were not using them as a source but just confirming a previous one. Ultimately, it does not prove to be ethical under the Code of Ethics.

Woodward and Bernstein also knew people were at risk and there was an apparent threat of safety. This does not align with the “SPJ Code,” more specifically, under the “Do No Harm” category. Furthermore, the bookkeeper proceeds to show how uncomfortable she feels with revealing further information, but Bernstein doesn’t stop there. He keeps insisting on getting more information no matter what the consequences could be. Others may feel as if this was completely ethical, but I may not be so easily convinced.

Overall, the journalists failed to foresee the significance and size of the scandal in the beginning, but it was handled well under the circumstances they were faced with. I must say that it was very brave going against the federal government and pursuing the interest of the public despite the risks. This showed how dedicated Woodward and Bernstein were to finishing the story. After nearly throwing in the towel, Deep Throat guided Woodward in the right direction. Advising Woodward to follow the money led to the unraveling of the scandal. If it wasn’t for a significant source like Deep Throat, Americans may have been left in the dark.