By 4 p.m., Tuesday, March 29, please do the following:
1) Visit the media ethics video projects at the link below:
http://thelittlerebellion.com/index.php/category/opinion/ethics/
2) Decide which video you'd award a Socrates -- our version of the Oscar -- for "Best Video on an Ethics Case"
3) Explain why, being sure to consider (a) the organization of the presentation; (b) the appropriateness of the decision-making model applied to the case; (c) the clarity and completeness with which the model was applied to the case; and (d) the artistic merit of it
Teaching Notes
You must become the flame on the candle. - Thich Nhat Hanh
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Is Media Ethics Education DOA?
It sounds like a joke Jay Leno would tell during his opening monologue on The Tonight Show. Hear about the graduate students at the prestigious journalism school? They got caught cheating on an ethics exam. Ha ha ha. Except that’s actually what happened at Columbia University
No one admitted cheating despite pressure from the school’s administrators and pleas from classmates, who feared the scandal would damage the market value of their degrees. Meanwhile, the teacher of the course, New York Times columnist Samuel G. Freedman, refused to comment. But if the disgruntled posts on RateMyProfessors.com are any indication, his students hadn’t exactly been soaking up knowledge. “Maybe he could e-mail his ‘speeches’ to the students instead of making everyone suffer through the most wasted class in j-school. . . ,” one read.
There’s an old cowboy saying that goes, “When your horse dies, get off.” Journalism ethics education is a dead horse. Or else those aren’t vultures circling in the sky.
No one admitted cheating despite pressure from the school’s administrators and pleas from classmates, who feared the scandal would damage the market value of their degrees. Meanwhile, the teacher of the course, New York Times columnist Samuel G. Freedman, refused to comment. But if the disgruntled posts on RateMyProfessors.com are any indication, his students hadn’t exactly been soaking up knowledge. “Maybe he could e-mail his ‘speeches’ to the students instead of making everyone suffer through the most wasted class in j-school. . . ,” one read.
There’s an old cowboy saying that goes, “When your horse dies, get off.” Journalism ethics education is a dead horse. Or else those aren’t vultures circling in the sky.
A Question for Socrates
The question of how ethics is learned, or even if it can be, is as old as Western philosophy. In Plato’s dialog Meno the title character asks, “Can you tell me, Socrates, whether virtue is acquired by teaching or by practice; or if neither by teaching nor practice, then whether it comes to man by nature, or in what other way?” Of course, Socrates, being Socrates, resists giving a definite answer. But we can’t. The sad fact is, students had better get an effective ethics education now or they may never.
Last summer I conducted an ethics workshop for some reporters and editors at the Poughkeepsie Journal, a small daily in upstate
But what I remember most is the air of defeat that clung to the staff as we sat on hard plastic chairs in the break room discussing the cases. I could hear in their voices the bitterness and cynicism of employees forced to follow corporate policies they despised. Recently, for example, the paper had started running display ads on the front page and section fronts, a much more grievous ethical lapse, their mumbled asides suggested, than anything the case studies might have to offer.
I don’t want my students to ever wear the gray, defeated expression I saw that day on the faces at the Journal. But given the downward direction in which the media are moving, and fast, how in the world can I prevent it from happening?
Teaching Media Ethics by Telling Stories
A friend of mine who teaches at a big Midwestern university recounts in class the events of her first week as a reporter for the Minneapolis Tribune. She was sent to Duluth to cover Democratic presidential candidate Hubert Humphrey on the campaign trail. When they were introduced, Humphrey vigorously shook her hand. “Oh yes, Susan,” he said, “I read your stuff all the time.” He couldn’t have read her stuff, though; she hadn’t written anything yet. “Just a few words,” she explains to her students, “but words that taught this fledging reporter a great lesson about pols and the little lies they tell.”
I usually find occasion during the semester to quote I. F. Stone’s dictum, “Every government is run by liars and thieves, and nothing they say should be believed,” to make the same point. But Susan’s story makes the point better. That’s because it has existential force. Her story vividly captures in a way a secondhand quote can’t the realities of a reporter’s life.
Some might think telling “war stories” is a waste of precious class time. I’ve a colleague who didn’t want to fall into the “trap” of regaling students with stories ad nauseam (“which, let’s face it, is easier than teaching or grading,” he said). So one semester he kept track. When he toted it all up at the end, he was surprised that he’d used less than an hour - out of 45 – talking about his newspaper experiences. And yet, he admitted, it was his stories that students seemed to remember most.
“Stories teach us how to live,” Daniel Taylor said in his essay, “The Ethical Implications of Storytelling.” What he meant was that stories preserve our experience for contemplation and evaluation. Although not all stories carry a heavy message, there’s an entire category of stories, so-called “exemplary tales,” that are told to convey a moral.
Our war stories are potentially just such tales. They can provide evidence, in ethicist John Barton’s words, of “how real human beings live through various crises and trials and remain human.” My colleague who kept tabs on his storytelling has described his stories as cautionary. Most, he said, deal with “screwups I learned from.”
But sometimes the storyteller and the audience can’t agree on what exactly the moral of a story is.
When Susan was a cub reporter on the Tribune, she interviewed the Beatles, who were on their second tour of the States. She got into their hotel room by dressing up as a waitress in an ugly, mustard-colored uniform and accompanying an actual room service waiter upstairs. Ringo took one look at her little plastic name tag – it read “Donna Brown” – and snorted, “What kind of name is that?” The waiter nudged her in the side. “Tell them what you real name is,” he urged. She did, as well as her reason for being there. Rather than throw her out, the Beatles politely answered her questions. They even let her phone for a photographer. The next day her story ran on the front page, with a photo of John sitting at a table and looking up at her and laughing as she poured coffee in his cup. She still has a glossy print of that photo somewhere.
Many of Susan’s students think she’s nuts for not having the photo hanging up in her office. They also think she’s nuts for saying she’d never participate in the same kind of stunt today. To her celebrity-struck students, disguising herself as a hotel waitress to get an interview with the Beatles seems soooo cool. They lose all sight of the fact that it wasn’t a story of vital public interest that demanded undercover methods.
Susan intends one lesson when she talks about her hard day’s night, but her students, living in a paparazzi-saturated culture, draw another. “It may be a lost cause,” she remarked to me.
Or maybe not. Negotiations over what the point of a story is can be part of the point of the story. In the process of negotiating, we test different interpretations, try out different themes. This is helpful. This is educational. Lawrence Kohlberg, the Harvard psychologist famous for his research on the stages of moral development, contended that “the teaching of virtue is the asking of questions. . . not the giving of answers.” Stories don’t necessarily have to yield clear moral rules to be of value. It’s enough sometimes if they just give us something to think about.
24 comments:
I would give the Socrates to “Media Lobbying Complex – Spring ’10.”
The video was extremely organized – first introducing the topic and ethics case, then presenting the decision-making model that will be used, and finally coming to a conclusion about whether or not the case is ethical and then providing a solution.
The students who created the video started it off with facts, which provide support for their argument. The issue they explored involved conflicts of interest in the news media – whether guests who appear on news networks to discuss interest cases should reveal their corporate interests. An example involving Barry McCaffrey and the Fox News and Bernard Whitman and NBC were used. The Potter Box was used as an ethical took with four frameworks – facts, values, principles and loyalties. The students described each framework in detail and applied it to the pundits and networks. The video used the PR Code of Ethics and SPJ Code of Ethics to argue their case.
The video has artistic merit because it serves a public interest. The information was very organized and concise. The argument was presented very clearly and used a proper tone of voice. At the end of the video, the students also offered suggestions to solve the ethical dilemma.
Coincidentally, I would also give the Socrates for “Best Video on an Ethics Case” to Media Lobbying Complex.
Out of the sample of videos I watched, all of them were very organized and used proper decision-making models to decide whether or not the issues at hand were ethical. This video in particular however, was more effective in exemplifying how the Potter Box was applied to their issue and how the specific actions of the networks and pundits in question were unethical according to SPJ and PRSA codes of ethics. For starters, the group explained what lobbyists were and how they have been depicted in the media to the public, as political analysts or experts. To avoid bias, the group chose to depict two networks that are known for their outspoken political standpoints, FOX and NBC News, and how both networks have used pundits on their broadcasts. The students introduced Barry McCaffrey and Bernard Whitman, both individuals who used to work in government but have since moved onto other positions for special interest groups. The video explained how the networks misrepresented these pundits and suggested that their continued deceptive behavior violates the SPJ Code of ethics. The pundits themselves violated the PRSA Code of Ethics by being deceptive and more loyal to their clients with little consideration for the public. Finally, the students gave suggestions for being more ethical. For example, networks should reveal pundits’ backgrounds and pundits should not be called representatives instead of experts. The group included relevant video clips, photos, and sound effects in their video, which made the presentation more interesting and effective. Overall, I believe this video had the best flow.
I am giving this group the Socrates award because I believe that the group presented a very organized and relevant case study. They began with introducing the case in question, then the ethical implications, followed by the ethical guidelines regarding the situation and finally deciding whether the entire situation was ethical or not.
As the situation was a crisis situation, the group provided the viewers with the Guidelines for covering crisis situations. This gave each viewer the knowledge they would need for determining their own conclusion for the case in question. After the guidelines were introduced, the creators went step by step through the guidelines, indicating how and why the journalist violated the ethical boundaries set in place for the profession. The students then provided a similar case where the journalist was placed into a similar situation but carried out his duties in an ethical manner.
The video has an artistic merit because serves the public interest. The video was important because journalists are required to show what is actually going on in society, not to interject their own beliefs. If journalist were disregard this ethical guideline, it would turn into a vigilante society and the police would no longer be upholding their duties as the order keepers of society.
I chose to give the Socrates Award for “Best Video on an Ethics Case” to Ethics of Newsmercials. The organization of the presentation was fantastic. I liked how it began by putting the audience in the situation that is being examined. Right after that, they defined a “newsmercial” and explained the issue of public service announcements being used for advertisement dollars. They explain that these video clips are sent out by companies and are spliced into the news program to seem as though it is news when really it is an advertisement.
I think that the Potter Box was an appropriate method of decision-making for this case. I liked that as they listed the four key elements key elements of the Potter Box (facts, values, principles and loyalties) they applied it to the specific case right away to make the audience more willing to listen and made it their argument clearer. They question the information given by the newsmercial and also provide suggestions for what information should be given and what should be occurring.
The video provided quotations from both the Society of Professional Journalists and Public Relations Society of America Code of Ethics. They then showed how newsmercials do not always follows these codes of ethics and why they are going against it.
I think this group did a great job with the clarity and completeness with which the model was applied to the case. I understood the problem with the ethics case. I understood the background information given and was provided clear examples and suggestions.
Lastly, I think the video had artistic merit because this is an issue that happens all the time on television. It is really important for people to know that not everything they are watching is real news. People take whatever they see on television at face value and do not even consider the fact that the television channel they are watching could be doing something unethical.
Out of the 5 videos that I watched, I would award the POLITICAL TMI spring '09 video a Socrates because it taught me some of the basic elements of ethics/character and took another stab at some of the information that was already taught in class. It did not rehash many of the class videos with the SPJ Code of Ethics from beginning to end. The video also didn't distract me as much as the others with so many quotes/sources in a 7-9 minute duration. For the most part, the entire package flowed very nicely and informed me about the need to know/want to know as mentioned in class without losing touch of the subject.
I only wished that the examples of direct quotes were proofread and attributed before submission. Maybe it was narrated and I can't remember, but that slide was the only slide that stood out because of its sloppy quotes and it had this random appeal. Another reason why I chose this is somewhat personal. Too much information about any politician, especially the President is an ongoing fascination that mixes reality with truthiness. For me, I can't fathom it at all. None of it matters and the media is doing a great job of warping these politicians into celebrities like Sarah Palin. That isn't the type of media that deserves my respect. The video was clear about TMI by using recent and past examples of what is important to know, such as MLK, Jr.'s assassination versus what is still a sensational tabloid from Star or People, rendered useless and a "want to know more".
One other minor "artistic" problem is the lack of captions or explanations of pictures, such as the still of former president George W. Bush getting attacked by a flying shoe. If the viewer was not awake/alive to witness any of this media coverage going on within the past ten years, this video seems potentially harmful for educating the media ethics behind it.
It's important to learn these ethics and the ethics of others in the media, i.e., checkbook journalism, because it also reflects the roles/characters of these so-called professionals and the media's uncertain, sad future. Media ethics can be taught in many ways, but this video and the rest like it can help and reach out to an audience that is unaware or ill-informed about the many roles being played in the media, especially when the actual subject is involved.
And the Socrates award goes to..."Death by Photography: A Kevin Carter Case Study."
Aside form being effectively organized, the Kevin Carter video provided viewers with an ethical dilemma many journalists and photojournalists face. By listing the ethical issues photojournalists face, the creators of the video gave viewers the chance to step into the a photojournalist's shoes. As a journalism major, I was able to relate. Publishing the thoughts of those who judged Carter also gave viewers the opportunity to see the other side.
The images this group was able to use definitely added to the effectiveness of the message. Looking at the pictures taken by Carter really made me think and wonder about how close he was, how he felt when he took the pictures and whether or not he felt like he was making a difference. And of course, did he make an ethical decision?
I liked this video in particular because it captures the power the code of ethics can have on the journalism industry. As journalists, we are here to send the message in hope that others take action. But is that truly fulfilling? Does reporting on poverty a step in ending poverty or should journalists report and become directly involved in a movement?
Videos like TMI in American Politics and the Virginia Tech video displayed the bigger picture of ethics in journalism and asked "what should be considered newsworthy?" While I do believe, that this an extremely important question, the choice to run a story is not just up to the reporter. Running a story is up to the editors and publication. While the reporter can decide not to write the story, that does not mean somebody else won't. Unfortunately, what's considered new depends can depend on a corrupt editor or publication. My point here is that in Carter's case, he was faced with a personal ethical dilemma and felt forced to not take action in name of what's considered professional. In other words, it was completely up to him despite any demands.
The video I would give the Socrates to is “Watch a Dying Reality Star.” The video may not be the most technically sound, but I think the message it sends is incredibly relevant, and the students did a good job portraying that.
The students used the Potter model to illustrate the ethical issues with the Jade Goody case. Goody, a reality TV star in the UK, documented her battle with terminal cancer on her show, basically broadcasting her death for the world to see. This was actually a case I followed when it was happening, out of pure fascination as to why someone would want to show all that. To me, death is a private thing, and if I know I’m on my way out the way she did, I’m probably not going to put myself on TV.
The video showed the four components of the model: Facts, Values, Loyalties, and Principles. They then use examples for each category, helping to further define it. The Potter model seemed to be a good fit for the case because it doesn’t involve direct journalism. The TARES model would have been inappropriate because Jade Goody didn’t pass herself off as a journalist, nor did the people documenting her death pass it off as news (at least, I think they didn’t).
As I said, the video wasn’t the most technically sound, but it did do a solid, if not spectacular, job of adding video clips from Goody’s show. Of the videos I watched, this had the most impact on me, and inspired the strongest reaction in me, which is why it gets my vote.
Despite most of the videos being informative and well organized, the one that stood out to me the most was the Kevin Carter case study, therefore giving it the Socrates. It was very well put together, starting with a voiceover with one of Carter's quotes and giving background information to viewers about who Carter was. Using Garry Bryant's photojournalism ethical model, the group applied each of his points to the case and came up with valid reasoning for each one. In their conclusion in deciding whether the case was ethical or not, they pose a dilemma that frequently happens today, to just simply do your job or get involved. With the use of quotes and pictures of Carter's work, there was a more direct connect to the viewer to actually empathize with his situation. The duty of photojournalists is snapping photos and the group illustrated that notion in an elaborate manner.
After watching a few of these videos, I give the Socrates to: "Anonymous Commenters: An Ethical Dilemma for On-line News" for best video on an Ethics Case.
The group who had this issue chose the apply the potter box, a model for reasoning and ethical decision making. I think because of the nature of the issue of online comments, anonymity, and all of the different factors that come into play with this issue, this particular model was perfectly appropriate. The fact that the potter box has steps almost, in which you evaluate the facts, values, principals, and loyalties separately, makes it best suited to use to evaluate this very new, situational, and complex kind of issue.
This video presented the ethical issue clearly and in a very informative, and relevant way. They gave real examples, and visuals to accompany text in a very fluid way. Then the video presented the potter box, explained it's parts and applied the different parts to the issue of anonymity in online comments. Facts, values, loyalties, principals, they addressed each one individually. In addition to discussing the problem, they gave examples of some online publications that are starting to tackle the issue, like the one website setting up "trusted commenters" and tearing the comments. I liked that in addition to discussing the issue, they started to offer solutions, too.
I really liked this video technically too. The organization and presentation was perfect. The video flowed at a steady, but not droning pace. The text, audio and visual examples worked together to create a really comprehensive, and clear depiction of the problem. I liked that the examples used were multimedia too. They used everything from newspapers, cartoons, clips from websites, to plain text. I also liked that the people quoted, were introduced first, and it was made clear why their opinion on the issue was intelligible and pertinent
Like a few others mentioned, I would have to say that my Socrates would go to "Death by Photography: A Kevin Carter Case Study." I felt it was one of the most intriguing stories out of all of the case studies, really leaving the viewer emotionally attached in so many different levels. I have a lot of issues when it comes to photojournalism, and maybe a lot of that stems from ignorance on the subject, but watching that video in class and then once again at home really took me to a strange and strong emotional level that I couldn't back away from. Not only is Carter's story captivating, it really shows the importance and hardships of a photojournalist. If someone is really going to choose that realm of a career, they must also realize what comes along with it: an emotional attachment to the subjects, story, and consequence of the photograph.
Also, the video itself was just very well done, using photos and facts in a very professional way that teaches the viewer in a short amount of time. The images are thought-provoking and are placed in an appropriate matter. Also, the narration is done very well and smoothly.
The Socrates goes to "Death by Photography: A Kevin Carter Case Study." Not because it's the one we watched in class or because everyone else picked this one, but because when I was looking at a few of the other videos none of them impacted me as much as this video. Not only was the content important and jarring but the way the video was composed was neat and to the point. The problem I had with many of the other videos was that the title was the only hook to the video. I saw the title clocked the link pressed play and was presented with something that did not grab my attention or really make me want to pay attention to what they were saying. I'm not saying all of the videos fit this description or that all of them were bad. I feel like the Kevin Carter video was information filled and composed well.
I would also award the Socrates to the video "Media Lobbying Complex". The organization of the presentation was very well done, and they did a very good job explaining the Potter Box and giving evidence for why it is relevant to the issues of Media Lobbying. I like that they explained thoroughly the case and all of its aspects. Including definitions of terms and the lack of bias in their presentation both contributed to the legitimacy of the project. I feel like this project was very well done and very complete in addition to its high artistic merit.
To be honest, I still think the one we saw in class, Death by Photography, was probably the best, but if that one isn't included because it was the example, i think the one I'd give the Socrates to would be 'Engineering of Public Opinion - Fall '08'.
I think this video was probably the best put together out of the ones that I saw because not only was it engaging, but it also had a lot of good information, was very organized, and they also discussed the decision making process that they went through.
This video dealt with the way the United States government, specifically former President Bush's Press Secretary Scott McClellen swayed the public opinion to make Americans believe in the Invasion on Iraq. They discuss how the actions of these people specifically violated the PR Ethical Code, and in my opinion made a very entertaining and engaging presentation.
They chose to run this case through the Bok Model, and in my opinion, this was an appropriate test to choose. By showing how McClellen's actions violated this model, specifically by using his analyzation after the fact, it's clear to see that these decisions were unethical.
The presentation was very well put together and it definitely demanded the attention of the viewer. I believe that "the Engineering of Public Opinion" (Fall 08) should win the Socrates for Best Video on an Ethics Case.
Drumroll....The Socrates Award for Best Video on an Ethics Case, goes to .....Death by Photography: A Kevin Carter Case Study
I found this video the most interesting and I think it truly connected the viewers to the topic. The Kevin Carter Case Study conveyed to the audience the controversial side of moral ethics in journalism and photojournalism. In both fields, there comes many times where journalists are faced with the difficult decision of whether or not it is ethical to expose a certain subject. This video told the story of Kevin Carter in way that the viewer could experience both his side of the situation, as well as engaging your own opinion on the situation. I think the use of facts, quotes, and arguments against Carter's journalism added a lot to the video, in the sense that it allowed the viewers to debate whether he was in the right or the wrong.
Another great artistic aspect about this video was the use of Carter's images as well as other profoundly powerful images of other photojournalists. I have seen some of Carter's work before, but never in a great extent. I was familiar with his photograph of the Sudanese girl with the vulture stalking behind her, but never thought about the ethical side of the picture. Overall, I always thought it was an extremely powerful photograph, but I never asked myself, did he help her? After viewing the video, I began to think of what I would do in his situation. As a journalist I would do my job and expose the story, however, as Professor Good said, a life is a life. I think it was ethically wrong to take a photograph of the child being so close to her, and leaving her there to die. We are all human beings, and that should always be in our minds as journalists.
This adds to my next point for the video. I think this video really portrayed the ethical code of photojournalism well. As I said before, as journalists it is our job to expose certain conditions, subjects, situations, etc. But at the end of the day, we are all in this world together. Kevin Carter chose to do his job as a photojournalist in hopes to expose the dire need of help in the Sudan. He chose not to be directly involved with helping the young girl to a food shelter. So does this mean as a journalist you should not be involved with the situation and fail at being ethically moral? Can you be involved and still be ethically moral in respect to the code of journalism ethics? I believe that in any situation you're reporting, a life is much more valuable than telling a story. In Carter's case, I believe he could of taken the photo and then brought the child to get food. So all in all, I think using the photojournalism ethics model was a great way to show both Carter's pros as well as cons.
I think the video was narrated well. The only thing I would change would be the females to speak slower and more clear. As for all the points in the video, I feel each was thorough and well done. The quotes were definitely one of the best aspects of the video, as it showed different opinions and standpoints on the case study.
I would give the Socrates to "Death by Photography: A Kevin Carter Case Study." On an organizational level, the professionalism was excellent, it was very well made, using pictures as transitions. The facts were presented well, seamlessly, as one would hope to in an article.
It was the most intriguing storyline of all the pieces, truly drawing the viewer in with interest in the outcome on multiple levels. Photojournalism has had its fair share of problems ethically, and whether it stems from a lack of knowledge on their subject (with photog's spending less time with sources than the reporter) or even a lack of ethics education due to an artistic background, and I really took a liking to it, thinking about it a couple times throughout the day.
Ignoring the fascinating details of the story, one gets to see the ups and downs of an everyday photojournalist. Much like a journalist must be fully aware of the power of his words, the social impact one error can make, a photojournalist must in the split second he takes a picture, determine the relevance and consequence of what is in front of him.
And the Socrate's Award goes to "Twitter this (Fall 09).
This was a strong project overall. It was organized, informative, and relatable to the viewer.
Just this year, the MTV VMA's used Kanye West's outburst from last year as a marketing tool for this year, hyping viewers with what he will come up with next. The project starts with Kanye's comment from last year, and how much of an effect it had on all social media networks. Comments spread like wildfire all over twitter, youtube, facebook, etc. This is most relatable to my generation, forcing us to question the ethics in social networking, and whether Obama's opinions on Kanye West should really be news. The video was creative in raising awareness on American relation to pop culture. We are more connected to entertainment than real issues. Its a topic that is still fresh in the media, but is quickly taking over. The project was the outcome of the question over journalism and entertainment, should they be as intertwined as they reall are?
I would definitely give the Socrates award to "Media Lobbying Complex". It was extremely effective, informative, and well-organized. They explained the Potter's Box sufficiently, and tied it in throughout the presentation. They were also unbiased, which definitely adds to the merit of the video. They didn't just bash Whitman from Fox News, or McCaffrey from NBC. They didn't put a liberal or conservative slant on their argument.
I also think they did a really good job of integrating the codes of ethics, both for journalism and public relations. They adequately applied the codes to the examples they used, and also made good use of facts rather than biased opinions and assumptions. Everything they presented at the beginning was proven by the end.
The video also had a great deal of artistic merit. It seemed almost professional in its use of graphics, news clips, and transitions. And, most importantly, by the end I feel like I learned something new.
For me the Socrates goes to "The Ethics of Retouching Photographs - Spring 10."
I think the video was very well organized, it introduced the topic with a very provocative PSA (I'm not 100% on whether it was a PSA exactly, but I'm not sure what to call it other than that) and continued to build on why the topic was important using comparison photos of non-altered and altered images reinforcing their points about the fact that these images are harmful to a vulnerable audience.
The TARES model was applied to the case and I think it was very appropriate because the subject matter was mostly based on advertising images, which is what the TARES model applies to. I found that the model was applied in a very clear manner, taking the viewer step by step through it and presenting facts and images to go along with it.
I really found the juxtaposition of the voice over with the images to be extremely effective and I thought it was well executed, none of the images were on screen for too long or short a period of time and there wasn't an overload of text information. I really enjoyed this case study.
After watching a bunch of the videos, I would give my vote to Political TMI for the Socrates, for the extremely relevant subject matter, good organised arguments and examples and the variety of imagery and video content.
People don't take politics seriously, and this video really illustrates a big reason why. The rise of soft news for serious issues, and the rise of 'truthiness' for subjects that should be treated with only extreme truth makes people less trustworthy of their news sources, and punishes the people who actually want to read hard news and take part in their democracy.
The video itself, though the voicing sounded a little sing-song, was compelling. The creators used great examples, like the media fascination with Michelle Obama's arms, and the fact that she couldn't even be surprised when her husband got her flowers because it had been published in the newspaper. These are interesting to watch if anything because they are things we see every day but most of us never realise the implications of what we are actually consuming.
The creators of the video addressed that point very clearly. When do we need to know certain information? Do we have the right to know everything? The need to know? The want to know? Whose fault is it? Journalists or politicians or the public?
I also really liked the ending credits...A LOT
Post a Comment