By 4 p.m., Sunday, March 3, please do the following:
1) Review the student video projects in the right hand column on this blog.
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
Monday, February 25, 2013
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.
22 comments:
I award the "Socrates" to Death by Photography: A Kevin Carter Case Study.
This project was well put together, informative as far as background information and provided a well-rounded analysis to Kevin Carter's most controversial picture of a Sudanese child. It also discussed to toll that being a photojournalist had on Carter by mentioning that he committed suicide afterwards. Although he was suicidal to begin with, not being able to help that child, by law and obligation pushed him over the edge. The inclusion of quotes from Carter made the project more humane as well. It wasn't just objective, it gave Carter life and allowed the viewers of the project to feel connected to Carter and his choices. This reminds me that a job in the media is not easy. It is about choices.
I think the group was overall very informative. By including photojournalism ethics in their critique they appear more credible because they have a framework to base their analysis on. Compassion fatigue and Gary Bryant's model were discussed also. This project raised questions and its content creates a conversation among journalists. Was Carter wrong? Should he have helped the little girl? Is that a photographer's responsibility?
After posing questions, this video provided some answers based on Bryant's model. Yes, this photo should have been public. No, this photo would not send the child into further trauma because of her age and because she didn't know she was being photographed. Obtrusive distance. He was so close that he could have helped but did not. This caused criticism by viewers of the photo. And finally, no, Carter was not acting with compassion and sensitivity because he was on a different mission. He had an assignment to raise awareness of the famine in Sudan. He was not there on vacation. By not saving that child and deciding to photograph it instead, he in turn, helped more people.
Another issue brought up by the project was the journalist became too invested in his subjects. They became more than just a job to him, and therefore internal conflict ensues. He was not able to help, but wanted too, and didn't. The end quote of the project is perfect because once again it humanizes Carter and shows the impact his job had on his life.
I really liked the smoking in movies ethical video. It was so easy to follow the path of decision making and I felt 100 percent engaged. I was never confused or distracted by an image or a misunderstanding of an idea. It started with a good preface quote from Aristotle and swept quickly into the issue, the sides taken and the outcome. I have trouble sometimes following the ideas of the potter box and I really think I utilize the Bok model more in my every day life. REGARDLESS, I think this was a fine model to use for this situation. 1. Consult your own consciousness- of course. This generation watches movies every single day. WHAT DO YOU THINK? We are directly involved with these images constantly being shown to us and we know exactly how we feel about them. 2. Consult expert advice. I LOVE THIS idea. When people have a question or a problem the first thing they want to do is ask someone who has an actual clue what they are talking about! It’s so important to seek our elders and those with wisdom (something that is being lost in this day in age). But it’s so important to find those who have knowledge and experience beyond our measure. 3. Speak with those directly involved. Do you know how many issues would be avoided today if we just flat out sat face to face and spoke about things? and how they truly made us feel? It’d completely over shadow the anonymous comment box(which video came into a close 2nd for me) ANYWAY When it comes to smoking in movies I thought this model worked very well and I think the outcome was professional and realistic. The art could maybe of been a little bit more sophisticated but at the same time it kept me engaged in the actual voices behind it.
I Thought the Qu'ran burning one was one of the best. A lot of the others had similar things, but theirs came out best sound and picture quality wise as well. They made very good use of the information the presented by providing a background on the story, used an appropriate ethical model about terrorists, and supported their claims with quotes, charts, pictures, and video clips. In my opinion, the most artistic part of the video and what really set it apart from other videos, was the way they strung together a bunch of different news stories highlighting how many times "Terry Jones" was said and then showing examples of other terrible things that happened in the world during that time that were skipped over because a pastor from "a tiny church in florida" opened his mouth. I like how they created a sense of importance and urgency in their tone without sounding overbearing or angry.
I give the Socrates award to the group who made the video titled, "Undercover Journalism: Rwanda." The group used two ethical frame works to prove this case unethical: The Potter Box and The SPJ code of ethics. The facts were that NBC along with Rwandan officials, accused Hutu official Manacus of taking part in the genocide of over 100,000 people in 1994. Although he denied this and had tangible proof to back his claim up, NBC continued with their lead and ambushed him at the university he taught at and acted "hostile" to him. The organization of this presentation was appropriate. They began with the Potter Box beginning with Facts. They then used the SPJ code of ethics guidelines to determine whether NBC media personnel abide by those professional guidelines. These methods worked well for this case because the group was able to determine the unethical decision making that went into this coverage. Through the Potter Box, the group concluded that NBC created a story for the shock value and impacts and used Manacus as an end to their own means. Using the SPJ guidelines, they discovered that NBC did not seek truth and report it, they did not work independently because they worked along side the Rwandan government and took their word and biases, as well as covered up the tracks of our own government. NBC did not minimize harm because they affected this man's life negatively and began unnecessary drama. This presentation was clear and simple to follow. The methods used easily applied the cases. On the creative side, I would give them an 8 out of 10. They used a lot of photos and even a movie clip from "Hotel Rwanda." This group's conclusion was clear, NBC acted unethical in this particular circumstance and in order to protect their backs and the backs of political officials, they took the aftermath of a horrible time in history and twisted it. Basically, they were trying to replicate their past TV show, "To Catch a Criminal." The points made in this video were well examined and thought out.
I would give the Socrates for “Best Video on an Ethics Case” to “Political TMI,” in which the group examines the ethical implications of politicians who share personal information easily and eagerly with the public. The group analyzed whether personal information of politicians and their families fell into the “right to know,” “need to know,” or “want to know” category. I thought the presentation was compelling due to its use of relevant images, such as magazine and newspaper headlines showcasing the issue, video clips, and thought-provoking narration. It kept my attention and was analyzed in a way that seemed ethically responsible and loyal to its model. The question of political TMI was one I never thought too much about, but I agree that it hurts hard news when the silly stuff, like Michelle Obama’s hair, is promoted. Moreover, politicians oversharing personal information come off as a little bit fake, rehearsed, and merely trying to solicit voters by distracting them from real issues. With the country and the world facing some very crucial issues, it is up to us, as journalists, to illuminate the realities of those; not to spread gossip or just contribute very little to the discussion we are supposed to mandate.
I award the Socrates Award to “Media Ethics: Journalism and Social Networking.” This video addressed the growing ambiguity between gossip and news and how social media impacts this gray area. Basically, are journalists who use social media helping, or hurting? The video questioned whether Obama calling Kayne West a “jackass” after West insulted Taylor Swift at the VMAs constituted as news.
Of all the videos I watched, this one was the most impressive technically. The images were high resolution and in focus, the audio was consistently clear, and the variety of screenshots did a great job of demonstrating what the narrator was explaining. Transitions between both slides and overall sections were smooth, and the video’s structure was organized well. The applied decision model (Right to know, Need to know, Want to know) is not only my favorite theory, but was the most effective at analyzing this ethical question. I agree with the outcome of the analysis: that Obama calling Kayne West a “jackass” in no way constituted as news because it can be categorized as a “Want to know” (Defined as “Information of interest with little or no relevance to the public”). I also thought the video creator’s suggestion of how to combat this societal problem was interesting- that news networks only report news releases and what constitutes as news, while gossip is published on separate networks. The problems with this, however, are that some people may just altogether ignore the news networks, and that it can be difficult to differentiate between news and gossip. Overall, this video was made well, and the examination of the ethical situation and application of an ethical model was logical.
And the Socrates for "Best Video on an Ethics Case" goes to... The Effects of the Media Lobbying Complex by George Selby!
Though not necessarily even the key factor for me, the organization of the presentation of this video was the best out of all the video I watched. It began with a brief explanation of media lobbying, then explained the potter box and how the video was setting out to show us examples of practical application of it using 2 specifics cases, and then went section by section of the potter box for each case relating it and making the viewer understand. It would also chime in with these ironic and comedic noise effects whenever it had exposed deceitfulness in the lobbyist's behavior in each video, which kept it entertaining and easy to follow along with- though the only critique being that narrator's voice being a little bland, but it certainly was not the worst in that respect out of all of them. Some made it difficult to watch. While this one did not, it didn't exactly contribute either. As they were explaining the potter box and applying it to the specific cases, I actually found myself leaving this video with a better understanding of the potter box then previously. That should in and of itself go on to speak for the merit of it's clarity and completeness. This was also a great artistic success because not only is the topic of media-lobbying among the most important topics addressed throughout these videos, but it also as a video almost directly fought the negative aspects of media-lobbying by exposing it and hopefully implementing an understanding in viewers of a more productive approach of viewing lobbyists and other "specialists" on TV who are brought to persuade people in a direction of thinking. Even it is has a logical appeal for the "better" one must know all the facts on the speakers and any potential loyalties or values that they may personally have to be mindful of.
After watching several of these class projects, I believe the video "Media Ethics- The Ethics of Retouching Photographs" by Chanel Arias, Chelsea LaDue, Joshua Rodriguez, and Samantha Urbanski should win a Socrates. Although this is an incredibly interesting debate in its own right, these students really did a phenomenal job presenting this issue. I really love how they incorporated professional footage regarding airbrushing photos including commercials and PSAs. I also thought it was awesome how they illustrated the extent of the problem by continuously showing celebrity examples of retouching and explaining the process. The students did a good job chronicling how the French government has combatted the issue and makes us reconsider our own ethical standards. The group used the "TARES" model by Sherry Baker and David L. Martinson to break down the issue and apply it to an ethical model. Although we haven't spoke of this method in class, it was really easy to understand after reviewing the students' work. The students dedicate a portion of their work to each letter of the acronym complete with vivid examples and thorough conversation. I'm looking forward to discussing my own ethics project in this way.
After I watched numerous class videos, the "Best Video on Ethics Case" goes to the Lobbying Complex. I think it does a great job at informing the viewer. The introduction right off the bat grabs the viewers attention by making sure the viewer knows what the video is exactly about. Also using video clips that use other voices allow the viewer to hear the information from a direct source of news, rather than just from the group. I think it plays off the credibility of the news, and pre-established relationships the public creates with these news casters. I think it helps break up the blandness of the the speakers voice as well.
I would give the Socrates award to a class project of 2012 on sex trafficking. I believe that this is an issue around the world that people should take seriously. We don’t take the issue of this at hand serious enough that an impact is being done about it. I am glad someone took the time and their own action to get this information out there to people, especially in our society. The whole act itself of sex trafficking is a very unethical action that should try to be more controlled. Innocent children are being raised and used as sex dolls basically and that is a terrible idea to even think about this occurring and them enduring this. We need to make more ethical changes in this world among this. The presentation was accurate with providing information needed to get the story heard, and even a firsthand experience interview with a saved victim. This is why it stood out as well bringing the journalism characteristics to it.
I think that the "Socrates" should go to the Smoking in Movies video. The video explains how children are influenced to smoke due to the fact that movies make smoking 'look cool.' The video touches on the argument that movies that feature smoking scenes should be rated R so children to not influenced to smoke. The students use the Bok model and Aristotle's golden mean rule to suggest that the movies should not be R rated but something should still be done. They suggest that anti-smoking PSA's should be played before movies with smoking scenes. I think that using Aristotle's rule is a good idea because it finds the mean between the 2 extremes and their idea is a good one.
I would award a Socrates for best video on an ethics case to the video ‘Twitter this’. This video talked about the issue of journalism and social networking and how there is no clear line between the two which causes many ethical dilemmas. This video caught my interest, because there is always controversy and actions that are ethically questionable that pertain to social networking.
The video addressed the problem, explained why it was a problem and a possible solution and what needs to happen in order for ethical issues in social networking to not be as extreme as they currently are. Journalism and social networking manly becomes an issue, because of the balance of trying to define what news is. Journalists need to figure out what is public information and private to individual people which is the ethics issue that the video talks about. they do this by being able to put news into three categories, need to know, want to know, right to know.
The example used is President Obama being overheard talking about Kanye West after his incident with Taylor Swift at the VMA’s. I thought this was a perfect example, because it gave a clear picture of how to define news and unethical acts of reporting news that the public only wants to know.
The video addressed the issue clearly that news is reported through social media sites and when used as gossip, ruins the credibility of journalism. The solution is to establish a thick line between what really is news and what isn’t by publishing them on different networks.
I would award a Socrates for best video on an ethics case to the video ‘Twitter this’. This video talked about the issue of journalism and social networking and how there is no clear line between the two which causes many ethical dilemmas. This video caught my interest, because there is always controversy and actions that are ethically questionable that pertain to social networking.
The video addressed the problem, explained why it was a problem and a possible solution and what needs to happen in order for ethical issues in social networking to not be as extreme as they currently are. Journalism and social networking manly becomes an issue, because of the balance of trying to define what news is. Journalists need to figure out what is public information and private to individual people which is the ethics issue that the video talks about. they do this by being able to put news into three categories, need to know, want to know, right to know.
The example used is President Obama being overheard talking about Kanye West after his incident with Taylor Swift at the VMA’s. I thought this was a perfect example, because it gave a clear picture of how to define news and unethical acts of reporting news that the public only wants to know.
The video addressed the issue clearly that news is reported through social media sites and when used as gossip, ruins the credibility of journalism. The solution is to establish a thick line between what really is news and what isn’t by publishing them on different networks.
My vote is to give the "Socrates" to the Ethics of Newsmercials. I found this project to be extremely succinct, giving me everything I needed to know in a clear, logical manner. What I thought set this project apart from others was the way it introduced the topic. It started with a compelling, "Imagine yourself..."situation, where the group demonstrates how a Newsmercial would appear to an average viewer. In this way, the group grabs your attention and informs you on the definition and nature of Newsmercials, before diving into the case study. Following this introduction, the group briefly details the case study before getting into a closer examination of the case using the Potter Box. Every square of the Potter Box was thoroughly explained, citing several pertinent quotes from both the Journalist and Public Relations professional code of ethics. Additionally, the importance they put on a News Organization loyalty to the public showed an understanding of who this presentation/practice really affects.
With their usage of the Potter Box being very comprehensive and an excellent and engaging introduction, this project feel more like a professional presentation than a school assignment. This is why I awarded them the "Socrates".
It was difficult to choose which video was the best because they were all very similar and well made. The video that stuck out to me was the one about Anonymous Commenters. It was well organized with a clear thesis and structured support of their argument. The potter box was a good choice to apply to anonymous commenters. The model was applied thoroughly and effectively to the situation and the graphics used were visually gripping and entertaining and the audio was clear and easy to understand.
After watching a number of projects, I, without a doubt, give the “Socrates” to The Ethics of Retouching Photographs. As soon as I went to the site, I noticed the 44,000 views it had and double-checked that it was a class project. After I watched it, I can understand why so many people visited the video. It addresses the issue of photo retouching and the negative effects it has on females. The organization is clear and flowed from beginning to end. There is a variety of sources utilized to make the point the group was trying to make that photo retouching is unethical and important figures in society speak on the subject.
The decision-making model applied is the TARES model which was developed by two professors with the intention that professionals would use the model to determine whether an advertisement is ethical or not. It was easy to understand and follow, even without having been introduced to the model prior to watching. The model was explained letter by letter with examples of each point to demonstrate.
I find the creativity of the video breathtaking. The video begins with a close-up of a young girl with a song playing in the background. Suddenly, ad after ad of women and their bodies are panned through, stopping and focusing on major specific instances in the media that idolize women as perfection – looking younger, smaller, lighter, fuller, tighter, thinner and softer. The visual examples could not have been described better in words. The inclusion of celebrities and commercials were nice real-life instances.
I would award the Socrates award to the video “Media Ethics-The Ethics of Retouching Photographs” by Chanel Arias, Chelsea LaDue, Joshua Rodriguez, and Samantha Urbanski. The group did a very good job by pointing out key ethical issues with retouching photographs in today’s society. I feel that this issue is extremely important nowadays more than ever, because of not only the amount of magazines and advertisements there are, but also because of how accessible it is for younger children to view these images via the internet and social media sites. A good example of how accessible this really is, is the website Tumblr, which has hundreds of thousands of pictures at a bloggers fingertips. The group did an especially good job breaking down each facet of the “TARES” model by Sherry Baker and David L. Martinson. The way they asked each question and then answered it with an example made the TARES model very easy to understand and apply to this issue.
I award the Socrates to The Quran Burning Conundrum by Kaleigh Griffin. I think this video not only informed the viewers of the topic at hand, but how different media outlets covered the case of Pastor Terry Jones attempting to convert September 11 into an anti-Muslim day. The video featured several reports on the issue, as well as a breakdown of the ethical principles news outlets followed--or didn't follow--while covering this case. It also provided coverage of media outlets criticizing the coverage of this event. I think whenever a ridiculous stunt is forced into the public's eye, it is no doubt the job of the media to report on it, but it is also the job of the media to not glamorize and celebrate the perpetrator in an effort to discourage the copycat effect. This video clip discussed the mistakes that the media made in covering the event of Pastor Terry Jones' ridiculous threat to burn the Islamic holy book, arguing that the overwhelming coverage given to such a bigot, including talks on major networks and a mention from President Obama himself, will just entice and encourage other stunts to be shoved into the limelight for the sake of attention. The video really captured the idea that the media is supposed to "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comforted," and the notion that most of the coverage on this case did the opposite. I think it was a very well thought-out project, supported with quotes and clips and pictures from real protests and interviews, and I thought it provided much insight into the ethical issues we evaluate in class.
I’m awarding the Socrates to “ethics of retouching photots.” I thought the introduction was very powerful in presenting the issue and the professionally retouched photos showed next to the untouched ones showed the severity of the issue and its negative effects on society. The group used the TARES model and spent time breaking it down during the video. Each letter in the acronym was broken down and had examples given to give the model more substance and proved why it was appropriate.
I’m awarding the Socrates to “ethics of retouching photots.” I thought the introduction was very powerful in presenting the issue and the professionally retouched photos showed next to the untouched ones showed the severity of the issue and its negative effects on society. The group used the TARES model and spent time breaking it down during the video. Each letter in the acronym was broken down and had examples given to give the model more substance and proved why it was appropriate.
I award the Socrates prize to the video about Photo Retouching. It unveiled a kind of unspoken-taboo to the viewers. Everyone knows photos get retouched, but not everyone realizes that every single professional image we see in the world has been retouched at least four times, according to the video. The video also touches on a very important issue in our society today.. self-esteem. Girls see images everyday that have been retouched to look lighter, darker, skinnier, curvier, and it hurts their self-esteem. This is not ethical. The organization of the video is perfectly executed and very easy to follow in a short 5 minute clip. The use of the TARES model solified the claims made in the video and even if you had not known about that model before, they went thru it step-by-step. In such a short clip, the video really got the message across to the audience thru visuals and use of the TARES model. It made me want to look into this issue more.
The Socrates goes too…….. “the ethics of retouching photographs.” I believe this video covers an extremely serious subject in a tasteful manner. I believe the most effective ways of persuading someone through a video mixes cameos of news clips, verbal statements from those involved, and still images. Too much of only one can be an uninteresting and actually defer someone from watching the clip and retaining the message. The first scene was extremely enticing, the image of a young innocent girl untainted by the unfortunate realities of the world.
The video is a teaching video as it introduces a concept and then shows a clip, which portrays the term. Considering most of us are visual learners, this assists in the ability to relate to what’s going on. The fact that the video interviews professionals in the field and show us some “behind the scenes” editing, gives us a real inside look at the corruption of the profession. Self-image and self esteem are such large issues in girls mind’s and anything this video can bring to light in order to make people recognize the problem is a job well done.
Post a Comment