mass communication, media and society

Behind the Beginning of Social Networking

Based loosely on the 2009 novel The Accidental Billionaires by Ben Mezrich, The Social Network portrays the triumphs and tribulations of the founding of social networking website “Facebook”. The film is “intercut with scenes from depositions taken in lawsuits” (Wikipedia) against Facebook co-founder and chief executive Mark Zuckerberg. One lawsuit was filed by Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss and Divya Narendra, claiming the Zuckerberg stole their idea. The second lawsuit was filed by Zuckerberg’s friend Eduardo Saverin, claiming “his shares of Facebook were diluted when the company was incorporated” (Wikipedia). The film received eight Academy Award nominations, winning three, and won several Golden Globe Awards.

While there are truthful aspects of the film, it can hardly be considered a completely accurate portrayal of the events that actually took place. Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin stated that “the movie was clearly intended to be entertainment and not a fact-based documentary” (Wikipedia). First of all, the book upon which the film was based, The Accidental Billionaires, was not completely factual. Mark Zuckerberg, one of the most (if not the most) important figures in the development of the site, declined to take part in the writing of the book. Author Ben Mezrich’s main source of information was Eduardo Saverin, but once lawsuits between Saverin and Zuckerberg were settled, Saverin discontinued his involvement with the book, thus no valid conclusion could be made in the story.

David Kirkpatrick, author of the non-fiction book The Facebook Effect: The Inside Story of the Company That Is Connecting the World, studied the real story of the company’s creation. Kirkpatrick “repeatedly interviewed Facebook founder Zuckerberg, his co-founders, and his friends, along with scores of Facebook executives” (Kirkpatrick) to obtain facts about Facebook. He points out inconsistencies with the film, The Social Network, and the real story. The involvement in Facebook of some of the characters in the film were misrepresented. The character of Dustin Moskovitz is “almost completely omits his critical role in building and growing [Facebook]”, which was Kirkpatrick describes as more important than Saverin’s (Kirkpatrick). However, the lawsuit made for a more dramatic film, so Saverin’s character received more attention. Despite some of its inaccuracies, Zuckerberg “got a laugh out of how accurately his wardrobe was represented” (Nemiroff). When watching a film that is based on real events, it is important to keep The Social Network writer Aaron Sorkin’s words in mind– “Art isn’t about what happened, and the properties of people and the properties of ‘characters’ are two completely different things” (Sorkin).

In 2010, Mark Zuckerberg noted that the only thing that the film got right in their portrayal of him was the clothing.  The film illustrated that Zuckerberg founded Facebook in an attempt to attract more girls and to get into an Ivy League school.  For instance, in the film, Zuckerberg dumps a girl, Erica Albright.  Erica Albright was simply a character in the movie and not based on a real person.  In reality, Zuckerberg had a girlfriend before he launched Facebook.  Zukerberg noted in an article by The Guardian,

“The whole framing of the movie is I’m with this girl (who doesn’t exist in real life) … who dumps me … which has happened in real life, a lot,” he said to laughter from the audience. “And basically the framing is that the whole reason for making Facebook is because I wanted to get girls, or wanted to get into clubs. They [the film’s creators] just can’t wrap their head around the idea that someone might build something because they like building things”(Child 20 October 2010).

Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss filed a lawsuit against Facebook and Zuckerberg in 2004.  They established a site called Connect U and claimed that Zuckerberg stole their ideas.  Eventually, the Winklevoss brothers dropped the suit and were satisfied, for a short time, with a $65 million settlement.   However, they decided to appeal the ruling because they claimed that the settlement was based on an inaccurate valuation of the company.  At the time, Facebook was valued at $100 billion.  An appeals court sided with Facebook and struck down the Winklevoss’ appeal.  In 2010, they noted that they would appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court (Musil 2011).

Although this movie was not based entirely on the book or the creation of Facebook, it gives the audience insight into the workings of Facebook and how it (loosely) came into existence.  Media companies like these somehow persuade the majority of people to join these networks, including people in developing countries.  Watching something like this makes you realize what your participation and engagement in social networking does for advertising companies; we are simply fueling the fire for these big corporations to keep growing and to keep making billions of dollars.  It is important to keep this in mind when we register and become members of these sites.

Important Quotes

1. Sean Parker: “We lived on farms, then we lived in cities, and now we’re going to live on the internet!” — This is a very important quote, because we have entered this world.  This generation and ones to come are and will be dependent on the internet.
2. Sean Parker: He’s wired in. Eduardo Saverin: [picks up marks computer and smashes it on the ground] What about now? Are you wired in now?” — this quote is essential to understanding our society, because once and awhile, everyone should disconnect from their technologies and participate in real, face-to-face communication so they may understand the world around them.
3. Mark-  People want to go online and check out their friends, so why not build a website that offers that? Friends, pictures, profiles, whatever you can visit, browse around, maybe it’s someone you just met at a party. Eduardo, I’m not talking about a dating site, I’m talking about taking the entire social experience of college and putting it online.
4. Marylin Delpy: What are you doing? Mark Zuckerberg: Checking in to see how it’s going in Bosnia. Marylin Delpy: Bosnia. They don’t have roads, but they have Facebook.” — again, this is an incredibly vital quote in the film, because it tells the audience how vast and globalized Facebook has become.  Even people who live in places that are still developing know of, and maybe even use, this social network.
5. Marylin Delpy: The site got twenty-two hundred hits within two hours? Mark Zuckerberg: Thousand. Marylin Delpy: I’m sorry? Mark Zuckerberg: Twenty-two *thousand*. Marylin Delpy: [to herself] Wow. — Sites like these go viral so quickly.  In the film, it was said that this would have been more hits to a network than the Super Bowl would get during the halftime show.

Discussion Questions

1. After seeing this film, do you think people’s opinions about Facebook and other social networking sites changed? Why is it that people Facebook?
2. Is it possible that this movie reflects all of us?  We are constantly tapped into some sort of gadget feeding us information and framing our way of thinking.  Is it possible that this will change? Or do you think our generations will only become more dependent on the internet and “wiring in?”
3. What does this movie say about the advancement of technology in our day-in-age?  Do you think we’re using the internet and these social networks for good? Do you think the falling out between friends and the sacrifices Mark, Eduardo and others made (of course loosely based on real events)  were, in the end, beneficial to society?

Sources

“The Accidental Billionaires.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 18 Apr. 2012. Web. 30 Apr.

2012. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Accidental_Billionaires>.

Child, Ben. “Mark Zuckerberg Rejects His Portrayal in the Social Network.” The Guardian. 20             October 2010.  http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2010/oct/20/mark-zuckerberg-the-social- network.

Kirkpatrick, David. “What’s True in the Facebook Movie.” The Daily Beast. Newsweek/Daily

Beast, 30 Sept. 2010. Web. 30 Apr. 2012.

<http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/09/30/the-facebook-and-zuckerberg-in-the-social-network-arent-real.html>.

“Mark Zuckerberg.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 30 Apr. 2012. Web. 30 Apr. 2012.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Zuckerberg>.

Miller, Jenni. “Aaron Sorkin Defends ‘Social Network’ Misogyny: “I Didn’t Invent the “F–k Truck”””

The Moviefone Blog. 12 Oct. 2010. Web. 30 Apr. 2012. <http://blog.moviefone.com/2010/10/12/aaron-sorkin-social-network-misogyny/>.

Musil, Steven. “Winklevoss Twins Drop Facebook Lawsuit.”  CNET News.  22 June, 2011.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-20073512-93/winklevoss-twins-drop-facebook-       lawsuit/

Nemiroff, Perri. “Mark Zuckerberg on What ‘The Social Network’ Got Right and Wrong (VIDEO).”

The Moviefone Blog. 13 Oct. 2010. Web. 30 Apr. 2012.

<http://blog.moviefone.com/2010/10/19/mark-zuckerberg-the-social-network/>.

“The Social Network.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 30 Apr. 2012. Web. 30 Apr. 2012.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Social_Network>.

Convergence of Journalism and Film

Demonstrated through an investigative documentary

Peter W. Klein is a journalist and filmmaker, and is currently a director of the journalism program at the University of British Columbia. He has won Emmy awards for his work on CBS’s show 60 Minutes and, along with some of his students, for their documentary “Ghana: Digital Dumping Ground”. This documentary promotes awareness of the growing issue of e-waste dumping in developing countries. Klein and his students traveled to several different areas of the world to accumulate evidence of their extensive research. This documentary exemplifies some of the issues that journalists often go through during filming and production, such as content censoring by television networks, and some safety issues during the filming process.

Klein teaches a course called “International Reporting” in which he and his graduate students cover very high profile stories.  During his lecture, Klein noted that it was tough to convince major networks to air his documentary.  Unlike some of the commercial networks, PBS is a not for profit.  Klein’s example illustrates the tension between corporate and public interest.  There are some parallels between Klein’s attempts to get networks to air his “under covered” stories:  the concept of spectrum scarcity and Newton Minow’s philosophy that television is a teaching tool (Class Notes).

It was very expensive for Klein and his students to travel to Ghana, India, and China.  According to Reed E. Hundt, the 1934 Communications Act requires the FCC to “grant and renew licenses to use the electromagnetic spectrum only after determining whether the public interest, convenience, and necessity will be served” (1089).  This highlights the notion of spectrum scarcity.  Unlike newspapers and magazines, the airwaves are limited.  Klein mentioned that one of his students pitched a story and it was rejected by the networks because it had been covered by another journalist a few years earlier. They didn’t want to produce and air repetitive content.  But Klein noted that a lot had changed in the story since it was first covered (Klein).  Minow indicated that television is meant to serve as a teaching tool.  But, the difficulties that Klein faced pitching his documentary to networks shows their tendency to filter or cut out content that they don’t think will get high ratings.  Klein also produced segments on 60 Minutes.  Originally a journalist from newspaper and radio, he wasn’t used to this type of reporting. During our class discussion, he talked about how the news had become a show about journalist doing journalism.  It was a new kind of reality TV (Klein). He noted in his lecture that terms such as “casting” were used and the reporters were in a sense “brands” for the network.  Programs such as “Ghana: Digital Dumping Ground” may bring in fewer viewers than stories about hot button issues like the Iraq War.  This clearly demonstrates how commercial interests and ratings rule television.

During his presentation, Klein discussed some of the safety issues surrounding the filming of “Ghana: Digital Dumping Ground.”  He mentioned several other news networks that had attempted filming similar content, but were unable to complete their projects due to sometimes violent run-ins with local authorities and citizens trying to protect this “industry.” During filming in China, Klein opted to leave his students behind on some of the excursions to avoid exposing them to potential mishaps (Klein). This more dangerous side of investigative journalism can be compared to “Live From Baghdad.” In this film, Robert Wiener, a CNN producer, along with his team, film front-row footage in the midst of violence in Iraq. The journalists put themselves at direct risk of injury, but do so to get the powerful footage to support their story. In both circumstances, the filmers put their safety as a second priority to obtaining strong footage. This demonstrates the dedication of some journalists to provide their viewers with images that prove the legitimacy of their stories.

After listening to Peter Klein speak both in our class and at the lecture, it is clear how much influence media has on our lives with respect to what we see and what we don’t see.  The stories that are pitched to the executive producers are often turned down, which makes the people in these positions incredibly powerful in determining what an audience is provided.  It was interesting to hear him speak of the differences a show has when being aired on different stations and networks around the world, and how typically the United States sees less of the story in a visual and graphical sense.  This is where we can draw in the importance of media literacy and being able to understand that what see is not always the entire truth, or maybe not the truth at all, as we saw in the movie Shattered Glass.  We have to be able to recognize that some of the stories may be fabricated in one way or another, and that even if the story is true, it might not be the full story.  As Peter demonstrated, media literacy is incredibly important even when watching documentaries, because often information is cut out and shaped to fit a particular demographic.  To recognize this is to be media literate, which is becoming increasingly important in our society.

Important Quotes/General Statements

1. “People in Ghana thought they were welcoming donations that would help bridge the technological and electronic divide.  When the shipments arrive, the majority of the products don’t work”
2. Ghana is now listed on the top ten sources of cyber crime due to the hacking of personal information that is left on hard-drives of recycled electronics.
3. “It’s a myth to think you can solve the problem solely with technology” – on the attempt to fix e-waste in India.
4. “In a small town in China, miles and miles of electronic waste builds up.  Everyone is doing something to sort through and distribute recycled electronics.  Many women literally cook electronic data boards in order to find traces of gold, all the while poisoning themselves with lead fumes.”
5. “I try and sift through all of these electronics for evidence.  I believe in finding evidence and documentation of these problems” – Environmental journalist from Ghana

Discussion Questions

1. Both in class and during his lecture, Peter Klein talked about how stories are constructed in order to fit the target audience.  Different stations or networks around the world may show different versions of the same program.  Do you think our society is partially at fault for this self-censorship?  Is there a way to change our world view in a way that would allow us the ability to sit through more graphic and disturbing programs that would communicate the entire truth of a particular story?
2. Do you believe it is ethically moral to film segments of a documentary secretly, or without the people you’re interviewing knowing?  This was seen in Peter Klein’s documentary when the group of grad students purchased a few hard drives so they could look into the material themselves.  Is this good, ethical journalism?
3. Does this documentary cause awareness within the western world?  Do you think people are realizing that although they feel as they are doing good to the world by recycling their electronics, third world and developing countries are put in danger? Some major electronic companies, including Best Buy, Apple, HP and Dell are trying to help with this issue. What do you think the rest of society can do to help prevent making these problems abroad worse?

Works Cited

Hundt, Reed E. “The Public’s Airwaves: What Does the Public Interest Require of Television

Broadcasters?” Duke Law Journal 45.6 (1996): 1089-1129.  http://www.jstor.org/stable/1372883.

Reading Between the Li(n)es

Shattered Glass is based on the true story of a young journalist, Stephen Glass, accused and convicted of making up stories for the magazine, The New Republic.   During his years at the New Republic, Glass concocted news stories claiming that they actually took place.  Glass passed off his fiction as true journalism by constructing deep webs of lies, even to the extent of creating false organizations, websites, and newsletters. At one point, Glass’s agent was in the process of helping him sign a book deal with Random House attracting the attention of some screenwriters (Bissinger 1).   Chuck Lane, the New Republic editor, began to become suspicious of Glass.  Glass’ story about a hacking convention, “Hacker’s Heaven”, was completely made up.  The real Glass sounded very convincing until Lane asked a security guard whether or not the hotel was open on the day the supposed Hacker’s Conference took place.  Despite the fact that the security guard and building engineer confirmed that the building was closed on the day of Glass’ supposed Hacker’s Conference, Glass continued his attempts to keep his lie alive (Bissinger 3).

In reality, Stephen Glass joined the New Republic as an editorial assistant in 1995. Glass started to fabricate stories at the beginning of 1998 when he was assigned to do a piece of writing on “an arcane piece of Washington legislation” and felt that the story needed “sprucing up” (CBSNews).  His news stories were pure creative writing. For instance, in January 1998, Glass wrote a story in which he made up a fake company, HDT, which he claimed would drop off people in the woods for $25,000.  Ed Brown, a writer for Fortune Magazine picked up on Glass’s lie and thought that maybe Glass wrote the piece as simply a joke.

One possible explanation of Glass’s fabrications was the fact that he was attending law school while he wrote for The New Republic and free lanced at the other magazine companies (Bissinger 5).  

Glass was addicted to fabricating stories because it gave him an adrenaline rush.  In a 60 Minutes interview with Steve Kroft, Glass explained his motivations behind lying.  Glass noted, “I loved the electricity of people liking my stories. I loved going to story conference meetings and telling people what my story was going to be, and seeing the room excited. I wanted every story to be a home run” (Leung).  Glass was good at getting past the fact checkers because he used to be one.  Glass noted in detail how he got past the fact checkers,

“I would tell a story, and there would be fact A, which maybe was true. And then there would be fact B, which was sort of partially true and partially fabricated. And there would be fact C which was more fabricated and almost not true. And there would be fact D, which was a complete whopper. And totally not true. And so people would be with me on these stories through fact A and through fact B. And so they would believe me to C. And then at D they were still believing me through the story”(Leung).

For a while, Glass managed to get the fact checkers to see logic within his lies.  For instance, Glass attempted to cover his tracks in his “Hacker’s Heaven” article by creating a website for the fake company “Jukt Micronics”, sent a fictitious “National Assembly of Hackers” newsletter to Chuck, fabricated a law – “the Uniform Computer Security Act”, and an array of other schemes in an attempt to convince Chuck and staff at The New Republic that his hacker story was real (Leung). But, there were some holes in his story.  For instance, in the film, Glass’s “Jukt Micronics” site didn’t look like a professional website at all.  He created the website instantly using AOL Hometown, a part of AOL that allows any user to put together a website fast (Shattered Glass).

Shattered Glass is a great way to understand and show the importance of self-regulation in print media. If there is no regulation by the company itself, they may be more susceptible to loss of credibility due to information they distribute. In addition to codes of ethics that are typically put in place by journalists, many news organizations have an Ombudsman who keep organizations honest and accountable.  They mediate conflicts of both internal and external pressures and foster self criticism and to encourage the adherence of codified and uncodified ethics and standards.  Besides the Ombudsman, some newsgroups have a news council.  An example of this is the Press Complaints Commission, set up by UK newspapers and magazines, that self regulate (Wikipedia 2012).

The fabrications published by Stephen and the lack of regulation of this particular newspaper show us the importance of taking classes such as Media, Communication and Society.  If we have a better understanding of media literacy and are able to read between the lies and lines of articles published by different agencies, we will be able to create our own understanding of the news.  Although agenda setting of different media types is incredibly difficult to bypass and the first amendment prevents regulation of content in the print media, being able to identify these different forms of corruption will allow the audience to have agency and the ability to create their own agenda.

Discussion Questions

1. Do you think it’s possible for a news network or newspaper to regain credibility after ruining their reputation with fake stories and plagiarized information?
2. How can we relate the stories of Stephen Glass to the yellow journalism of William Hearst?  In today’s day in age, is it possible for people to get away with fabrication in print media? Do you think regulation by the government is needed in print media?
3. What motivated Stephen Glass to lie and fabricate stories? What kinds of formal and informal codes of ethics are journalists expected to follow?

Important Quotes

1. “He handed us fiction after fiction, and we printed them all as fact. Just because we found him entertaining.” Chuck Lane
2. “What are you going to do, Chuck, pick us off, one by one? Everybody that was loyal to Mike, so you have a staff that belongs to you? Is that the kind of magazine you want to run? “(Caitlin Avey) “Caitlin, When this thing blows, there isn’t going to be a magazine anymore. If you want to make this about Mike, make it about Mike. I don’t give a shit. You can resent me, you can hate me, but come Monday morning, we’re all going to have to answer for what we let happen here. We’re all going to have an apology to make! Jesus Christ! Don’t you have any idea how much shit we’re about to eat? Every competitor we ever took a shot at, they’re going to pounce. And they should. Because we blew it, Caitlin. He handed us fiction after fiction and we printed them all as fact. Just because… we found him “entertaining.” It’s indefensible. Don’t you know that? “(Chuck Lane)
3. “But there is one thing in this story that checks out” (Adam). “What’s that?” (Kambiz) “There does appear to be a state in the union named Nevada” (Adam).
4. “Chuck, will you come with me because I’m afraid I might do something. Did you hear what I said?” (Stephen). “Yah I did… Hell of a story” (Chuck).
5. “It’s in my notes.” Stephen Glass

Works Cited

Bissinger, Buzz. “Shattered Glass.” Vanity Fair. September 1998: 1-6. 16

April,  2012.Web.

<http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/archive/1998/09/Wbissinger199809>.

“Journalism Ethics and Standards.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 16 Apr. 2012. Web. 16

Apr. 2012. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_ethics_and_standards>.

“Stephen Glass: I Lied For Esteem.” CBSNews. CBS Interactive, 11 Feb. 2009. Web. 16 Apr.

2012. <http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-18560_162-552819.htmlt>.

Corporate Interest and Media Expectations

The Insider is based on the true story of tobacco expert Jeffrey Wigand, a former lead scientist at Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation in Louisville, Kentucky.  He joined the company because he wanted to create a less addictive cigarette.   Wigand learned, however, that the company wanted people to become addicted to the cigarettes because that would lead to increased profit.  As the majority of media and products go, they are not interested in personal health of the people they are targeting, rather they are interested in capital.  Eventually, Wigand decided to disclose information to prosecutors, journalists, and investigators about what he witnessed at the tobacco company because of his increased guilt that he was not releasing vital information that should be known by the American people. As a result, Brown & Williamson sued him for violating the confidentiality agreement that he signed.  He also received numerous death threats.  In August, 1995, Wigand was interviewed for 60 Minutes by Mike Wallace.  But, the interview did not air until February of 1996 because CBS executives were afraid of lawsuits (Enrich 70).

The interview conducted between Wigand and CBS was cut because of corporate conflicts and self-censorship.  CBS was in the process of making a deal with Westinghouse Electric and top CBS executives were afraid that if the interview aired, the price of their shares would decrease (Es 90). As consumers of these media, we expect true and relative information to be distributed to us by both the reporter and the source.  However, it is compelling to analyze the difference between corporate interest and media expectations. During a meeting between Wigand and CBS, one of the lawyers unveils that due to the confidentiality agreement between Wigand and Brown and Williamson and Big Tobacco’s financial riches, Wigand would be silenced because of legal fees and litigation.  Later, we hear that “the greater the truth Wigand tells, the greater the damage to CBS.” The edited version of the interview that was aired was done so in order to save CBS from a potential multi-billion dollar lawsuit.  This clearly demonstrates how companies are often more concerned with their own well-being, success and profit than they are for the safety and intelligence of the American people.

Wigand is thus known as a whistleblower because he revealed the surreptitious motives of Brown & Williamson.  Myron Glazer identifies three types of whistleblowers: “unbending resisters”, “reluctant collaborators”, and “implicated protesters.”  Individuals who protest from the inside of an organization are classified as “unbending resisters.”  “Implicated protesters” speak out within an organization, but quickly conform and follow the organization’s rules when chastised.  Reluctant collaborators are “deeply involved in acts they privately condemn.  They seek public remedy and personal expiration only when they leave the organization” (Glayzer 33).  Wigand, at least at the beginning, could have been considered a “reluctant collaborator” because he worked for the company and was hesitant to release information.   But, Wigand sacrificed a high salary and a life of luxury when he went public about the matter.  During the film, The Insider, we see how his decision to release secret information about Brown and Williamson lead to the loss of his home and sense of security with respect to both his family’s safety and finances, his relocation to a different neighborhood,  and finally the disconnect from his family and from himself .

It is interesting to see, both in the film and in real life scenarios, how the correspondent interacts with the source of their information.  The Insider demonstrates how the correspondent intends to keep tabs on his source to make sure he remains truthful to his testaments. Bergman continuously calls Wigand to check up on him and make sure that he remains stable in a time of extreme stress.  Bergman also tries to keep Wigand as safe as possible before unveiling truths about Brown and Williamson, which is seen when Bergman becomes angry that Wigand has not been entirely truthful about his past marriage and child. This information could be used easily against him in a suit of law, making it impossible to take down such a huge and powerful corporation. According to Robert Niles, the reporter and the source have a symbiotic relationship. He states, “We need a story, and sources need their side heard. We work with, and for, each other” (Niles 2011).  This is clearly demonstrated between Wigand and CBS, as Wigand believes it is important for the American people to know the truth behind Brown and Williamson, and Bergman wants the story.  Although there are ways to post information to the internet, the majority of stories published online are not considered credible sources. So, if one wants their information and news to be taken seriously, it is incredibly important to have a company such as CBS distribute two go hand in hand- one cannot exist without the other.
Watching this movie allows us to see the influence money has on information distributed and how it often overrides fairness and integrity of the media.  As we have discussed throughout class and within our past blog entries, it is incredibly important for the consumers of the media to keep in mind what is going on behind the scenes and remain aware of the power media corporations have in distributing and manipulating news.  Being media literate is becoming increasingly important.  We have to think beyond the fact that media is just entertainment, and for our own gratification, because it is constantly shaping our views, especially now that the boundaries between the public and the private are becoming increasingly blurred.  The agenda produced by the media becomes our own agenda.  We believe we have the freedom to think about what we want, but the media is constantly framing us and manufacturing messages that are mass communicated. The Insider gives the audience an example of how the corporate world influences these ideologies, and we should always consider these powers when consuming media.

Important Quotes

1. Lowell Bergman: In all that time, Mike, did you ever get out a plane, walk into a room and find that a source for a story changed his mind? Lost his heart? Walked out on us? Not one fucking time. You want to know why? Mike Wallace: I see a rhetorical question on the horizon. Lowell Bergman: I’m gonna tell you why: because when I tell someone I’m gonna do something, I deliver.
2. Mike Wallace: And do you wish you hadn’t come forward? Do you wish you hadn’t blown the whistle? Jeffrey Wigand: There are times when I wish I hadn’t done it. There are times when I feel com… compelled to do it. If you asked me, would I do it again, do I think it’s worth it? Yeah I think its worth it.
3. Lowell Bergman: You pay me to go get guys like Wigand, to draw him out. To get him to trust us, to get him to go on television. I do. I deliver him. He sits. He talks. He violates his own fucking confidentiality agreement. And he’s only the key witness in the biggest public health reform issue, maybe the biggest, most-expensive corporate-malfeasance case in U.S. history. And Jeffrey Wigand, who’s out on a limb, does he go on television and tell the truth? Yes. Is it newsworthy? Yes. Are we gonna air it? Of course not. Why? Because he’s not telling the truth? No. Because he is telling the truth. That’s why we’re not going to air it. And the more truth he tells, the worse it gets!
4. Helen Caperelli: Our standards have to be higher than anyone else because we are the standard of everyone else.
5. Jeffrey Wigand: I’m just a commodity to you, aren’t I? I could be anything. Right? Anything worth putting on between commercials. Lowell Bergman: To a network, probably, we’re all commodities. To me? You are not a commodity. What you are is important.

Discussion Questions

1. Journalistic integrity is a major concept of the movie, The Insider. Lowell Bergman is concerned throughout the movie about the art of journalism and the integrity that comes with the position, but he is faced with great opposition from the corporate heads of CBS. How can we be sure that there is truly any journalistic integrity left within reporting and how can we be sure we are getting the whole story?
2. The corporations that convey the news to the general public are in fact no different than any other corporation. Their primary focus is to turn a profit by giving the public a service or good.  In the case of 60 minutes, the service is information. If the primary focus of  the corporation is to turn a profit, is it wrong to treat Wigand or any other source as a commodity, or a form of capital within the company?
3. Is it up to the news organizations to give us the whole story?  Journalists and the public would love it if the world were perfect and we were given the true story every time, but isn’t it up to the people to have the agency to find out the truth for themselves and not to blindly believe any information that is thrown at them?

Works Cited

Glayzer, Myron. “Ten Whistleblowers and How They Fared.” The Hastings Center Report 13.6 (1988): pp. 33-41. Web. 9 Apr. 2012.  http://www.jstor.org/stable/3560742.

Enrich, David. “The Insider Who Blew Smoke at Big Tobacco.” US News & World Report 12
August 2001: Web.  9 Apr. 2012.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/culture/articles/010820/archive_038242.htm.

Es, Robert Van. “Inside and Outside “The Insider”: A Film Workshop in Practical Ethics.”

Journal of Business Ethics 48.1 (2003): 89-97. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25075167.

Niles, Robert. “The Changing Relationship Between Reporters and Sources.” OJR: The Online

Journalism Review. 29 Apr. 2011. Web. 10 Apr. 2012.

<http://www.ojr.org/ojr/people/robert/201104/1969/>.

Live from Baghdad

Wartime News Impact on Society

The film “Live From Baghdad” was produced in 2002 by HBO. Directed by Mick Jackson and written by Robert Wiener, the film was based on the book written by Wiener in the same year. On August 23, 1990, Wiener, the executive producer for news network CNN, and his crew landed in Baghdad “during the period of tense international maneuvering that would culminate in open war” (Macmillan). At the time, CNN was considered “the little network that could”. Wiener and his crew were competing with more established television news networks such as NBC, CBS, and ABC  to “fill television screens with news from Baghdad throughout the day” (Political Film Society). In order to establish himself, and his network, as superior Wiener pursues to acquire footage and interviews with more diligence and courage than the others. For example, Wiener waits patiently from 9:00 am to 5:00 pm to meet with Iraqi minister Naji Al-Nadithi, while representatives from other networks stormed off in frustration. Through Wiener’s friendship with Al-Nadithi, CNN becomes the only news agency allowed to enter Kuwait at the time. At the end of the film, CNN proves themselves as a big network when their news correspondents provide live commentary of the attack of Baghdad with a front-row view of the destruction from their hotel suite. A montage of praise by various other news anchors is the culmination of their five months of coverage in Iraq.

The 24-hour news coverage of the prelude stages of the Iraq War is an example of the CNN effect, which is a theory that “seeks to explain the effect that 24-hour news networks, such as CNN, have on the general political and economic climate” (Investopedia). Because of constant coverage, audiences are narrowly focused on one news event for a prolonged period of time, which can in turn cause “individuals and organizations to react more aggressively towards the subject matter being examined” (Investopedia). Piers Robinson explores the concept of the CNN Effect in a book published in 2002. Robinson notes, “The phrase ‘CNN Effect’ encapsulated the idea that real-time communications technology could provoke major responses from domestic audiences and political elites to global events” (1999, 301).

The CNN Effect can also explain  pressure felt by politicians by the media.  Robinson states, in support of this argument, “James Hope, for example, observed that ‘today’s pervasive media increases the pressures on politicians to respond promptly to news accounts that by their very immediacy are incomplete, without context and sometimes wrong” (1999, 302). Many individuals believed that “policy uncertainty” caused the CNN Effect.  Robinson observes, “Many scholars agree that as policy certainty decreases, news media influence increases and that, conversely, as policy becomes more certain, the influence of news media coverage is reduced” (2005, 345).  For instance, during the 1990s, “shocking images” from conflicts caused policy makers to panic (2005, 345).

CNN is significant because it was the first network to have twenty-four hour news coverage.  During the 1990s, there were no other 24 hour news networks.  Philip Seib notes that the 1991 Gulf War “illustrated, live coverage has complex ramifications for policy makers and journalists. It removes the cushion of time and with it considerable flexibility” (Seib). CNN wanted to be taken seriously as a network. Seib further notes, “Even when direct communication between Iraqi and American officials broke down, CNN was available as a de facto diplomatic channel” (Seib).  Before the air bombings started in 1991 CNN reporter Bernard Shaw stated in a broadcast that an Iraqi official would be “willing to discuss all issues.”  This report caused the stock market to go up.  It illustrated the “ripple effect” that one story could have (Seib).

And Starring Pancho Villa as Himself and Live from Baghdad illustrate the high newsworthiness of war.  In Live from Pancho Villa, Villa signs a contract with the movie studio agreeing to perform battle scenes well for the camera.   In actuality, the real Pancho Villa didn’t sign a contract to perform in the best lighting (Bruce-Nouva). Audiences were excited by the stimulating and action-packed war scenes from The Life of General Villa.  Similarly in Live from Baghdad, when the rockets are pouring into Baghdad, the CNN producers insist that they keep filming the reporter, despite putting their lives at risk to encourage viewers to watch their struggling news network.

Media literacy is important when watching the news. Keeping the CNN Effect in mind can help deter overreactions to news events that are excessively represented on television. We also need to keep in mind the influence that the media can have on politicians and policy making, an idea that is also acknowledged by the CNN Effect. Live From Baghdad and And Starring Pancho Villa as Himself both portray the newsworthiness of wars. Because of their popularity, news networks may show coverage of wars in order to attract more viewers, which is yet another argument in favor of becoming more media literate.

Discussion Questions

1. In the movie we see many attempts by the Iraqi government to try and filter what information the CNN crew could release to the world. In one instance Robert Weiner feared that an American who was interviewed has gone missing because of information he gave to CNN. Do you think these attempts to silence the reporters and the new ability for American people to see the reality of the situation strengthened American support for the war? If so, how?
2. Did the pressure the direct CNN reporting to the American public scare Saddam into giving CNN an interview? If so, do you think the reporting of CNN pressured him in a similar way that Edward Murrow was able to pressure McCarthy into giving a public response due to his reporting?
3. CNN’s coverage of the initial bombs was obviously groundbreaking in the news industry giving people a first hand experience of the war. in the years since we have seen even more advances in wartime media coverage going as far as documentaries like “restrepo” that show soldiers in some of the most intense combat situations actually caught on film, But, how much farther can we go? Do you feel we can take it any farther then filming the actual war itself?

Important Quotes:

1. Ingrid Formanek- “Come on, Wienerish, we’re just the eyes. You put this shit up there, and people pull it down on their sonys. I think i’m quoting you”
2. Stu- “You’re nothing but a bunch of overpaid, bone-picking vultures” Robert Wiener “You’re confusing us with CBS, pal, We’re the underpaid vultures”
3. Ed Turner “No story is worth your life…But, this is the story of a lifetime”
4. Richard Roth “ This was the biggest forest in the history of the world. . . dinosaurs. Then it all died, rotted, turned into oil, and now… we’re here. its basically fighting to see who gets to desecrate the cemetery. who gets the oil. no wonder there always has been so much bad blood, it’s always been lousy karma to be a grave robber”

Works Cited

Bruce-Novoa, Juan. “Pancho Villa: Post-Colonial Colonialism, or the Return of the Americano.”

Kritikos: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal of Postmodern Cultural Sound, 2 2005): http://intertheory.org/pancho.htm.

“CNN Effect.” Investopedia. Web. 03 Apr. 2012.

<http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/cnneffect.asp>.

“Live From Baghdad.” Macmillan. Web. 03 Apr. 2012.

<http://us.macmillan.com/livefrombaghdad/RobertWiener>.

“Political Film Society – Live from Baghdad.” Political Film Society. Web. 03 Apr. 2012.

<http://www.polfilms.com/livefrombaghdad.html>.

Robinson, Piers. “The CNN Effect: Can the News Media Drive Foreign Policy?” Review of      International Studies, 25.2 (1999): pp. 301-309. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20097596.

Robinson, Piers. “The CNN Effect Revisited.” Critical Studies in Media Communication, 22.4 (2005): pp. 344-349. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/07393180500288519.

Seib, Philip. “Effects of Real Time News Coverage on Foreign Policy.” Journal of Conflict        Studies, 20.2 (2000): n.pag. Web. 2 Apr. 2012.

http://journals.hil.unb.ca/index.php/jcs/article/view/4309/4920.

Controversy on the Radio

Important Quotes

1. “Sticks and stones can break your bones but words cause permanent damage!” – Barry
2. “We’ll be right back after a word from our sponsor. HOOOO-WEEE! Jericho’s Pizza, off Route 1-11 at the Jericho Turnpike, they got that pizza you’ll never forget, one bite and you don’t have to eat for a week. I saw a guy in there the other day combing his hair with the stuff off the plate. Jericho’s Pizza.” Barry Champlain
3. “You’re not going to make me apologize for getting you a slot on national radio.” – Dan
4. “I should hang; I’m a hypocrite. I ask for sincerity and I lie. I denounce the system as I embrace it. I want money and power and prestige: I want ratings and success. And I don’t give a damn about you, or the world. That’s the truth: for that I could say I’m sorry, but I won’t. Why should I? I mean who the hell are you anyways you… audience! You’re on me every night like a pack of wolves because you can’t stand facing what you are and what you’ve made! Yes the world is a terrible place, yes cancer and garbage disposals will get you. Yes the war is coming, yes the world is shot to hell and you’re all goners! Everything is screwed up and you like it that way don’t you!” – Barry Champlain
5. “Talk Radio. Free speech isn’t really free at all.” – Barry Champlain
6. “What do you think you’re doing in here, Barry? This is a talk show. You are a talk show host.” – Dan
7. “The worst news of the night is that three out of four people in this country say they rather watch TV than have sex with their spouse. The second worst news is that some kids needed money for crack last night so you know what they did? They stuck a knife in the throat of an eighty year old grandmother down on Eulid Avenue. Right here in Dallas. One night, in one American city. Multiply that by hundreds of cities and what’ve you got: a country where culture means pornography and slasher films, where ethics mans payoffs, graft insider trading, where integrity means lying, whoring, intoxication. This country is in deep trouble, people! This country is rotten to the core and somebody better do something about it. I want you to take your hand out of the bowl of Fritos, throw away your National Inquirer, and pick up that phone – go ahead PICK IT UP! Hold it up to your face and dial 555-T-A-L-K. Open your mouth and tell ’em what we’re gonna do about the mess this country’s in. TALK RADIO, it’s the last neighborhood in town. People just don’t talk to each other anymore.” – Barry Champlain
8. “Like Barry always said, if you didn’t like him, turn him off! They didn’t have to kill him” – listener

Discussion Questions

1. What are some of the consequences of the deregulation of radio? Should talk radio be in the best interests of the public?
2. Is the Fairness Doctrine inconsistent with the first amendment, the right to free speech? Why would the Fairness Doctrine be considered unconstitutional?
3. What similarities and differences can be seen between the regulation of radio versus television?

1. What kind of lessons does Talk Radio teach us about media literacy?

Works Cited

“Alan Berg.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 21 Mar. 2012. Web. 27 Mar. 2012.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Berg>

“Don Imus.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 25 Mar. 2012. Web. 27 Mar. 2012.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Imus>.

Hazlett,Thomas W. and Sosa, David W. “Was The Fairness Doctrine A “Chilling Effect”?
Evidence from the Postderegulation Radio Market,” The Journal of Legal Studies, Vol.    26, No. 1 (January 1997) (pp. 279-301). http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/467996.

“Howard Stern.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 26 Mar. 2012. Web. 27 Mar. 2012.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Stern>.

“Rush Limbaugh.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 27 Mar. 2012. Web. 27 Mar. 2012.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_Limbaugh>

Newspaper Influence: Pentagon Papers Revealed

The Most Dangerous Man in America is a documentary based on Daniel Ellsberg and the unveiling of the Pentagon Papers.  This was an extremely crucial moment in the world of journalism and the newspaper industry, as it was the key player in distributing information about the truths of the Vietnam War to the American people.  Ellsberg’s past enabled him to release this information, as he had previously served in the Pentagon and was also in Vietnam as a civilian.  Later, he resumed his work at the RAND Corporation, where he aided in the study of classified documents regarding the conduct of the Vietnam War that had been commissioned by Defense Secretary McNamara (Daniel Ellsberg).  These paper would later be coined as the Pentagon Papers.  In 1969, Ellsberg secretly made photocopies of the classified documents of which he had access with the help of his children and former colleague Anthony Russo.  Once these papers were leaked, he and his family remained in a hotel room while the news was distributed through different circulations, including .  Once enough of them had been read, the family came out of hiding and Ellsberg was revealed as the man who released the Top Secret documents.  Ellsberg has continued to participate in activist movements and demonstrations of topics he feels passionate.

The involvement of the press in the Pentagon papers scandal can be paralleled with that of the Watergate scandal. When Daniel Ellsberg decided to come forth with copies of 43 volumes of the Pentagon papers, New York Times reporter Neil Sheehan published the story, which made it to the front page. This newspaper article completely publicized the event. Street protests, lawsuits and political controversy ensued. At this point, much of the American public became skeptical of President Nixon, which eventually led to the Watergate scandal. Bob Woodward of The Washington Post caught wind of the Watergate scandal, he began to publish information from an anonymous source, “Deep Throat”. As the two reporters of the story, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, pursued their investigation, they eventually “connected cash found on the burglars to a slush fund used by the Committee for the Re-Election of the President, a fundraising group for the Nixon campaign” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal). This scandal, coupled with the exposure of the Pentagon papers, led to the eventual resignation of President Nixon. The press dug for information and was able to reveal corruption in the White House, which shows the power of newspapers and the media in the exposure of political scandals.
The New York Times v. United States (1971) was significant because it was the first time that the U.S. government tried to enforce the notion of “prior restraint” (New York Times).  The decision in the court case made the Constitution stronger in regard to protecting the press from printing classified materials.  Even the idea of “prior restraint” couldn’t override First Amendment protections such as freedom of the press and freedom of speech (New York Times).
The leak of the Pentagon Papers was also important because it set a judicial precedent for First Amendment cases.  The press was no longer tied to the government (The Most Dangerous Man in America).  In “Terrorism, Law Enforcement, and the Mass Media: Perspectives, Problems, Proposals,” M. Cherif Bassiouni notes, “In the Pentagon Papers Case, several Justices indicated that the inappropriateness of prior restraint in that case would not immunize the press from subsequent prosecution” (41).  Bassiouni further observes that the threat of criminal charges can cause the media to self-censor,

“to sustain a constitutional attack, a criminal sanction punishing publication of ‘lawfully obtained, truthful information’ after the event requires ‘the highest form of state interest,’ and demonstration that it’s punitive action was necessary to further the state interests asserted” (41).

In “Newsgathering, Press Access, and the First Amendment”, Timothy Dyk notes that after World War II, the formation of a stronger government led to “a corresponding need for a more effective press with greater access to information:” (929).  Dyk further notes that in this situation, “press access must be protected so that the press can bare the secrets of government and inform the people” (929).  But, expressing the view of the Supreme Court in its role as the highest legal authority, Justice Potter Stewart weighed in when he noted that the press clause in the First Amendment “should be construed to afford the institutional press special protection in certain circumstances, allowing the press to perform its proper role as both an adversary to, and check upon, an ever expanding government” (Dyk 931).

New York Times v. United States (1971) was a famous Supreme Court case, also known as the Pentagon Papers case.  President Nixon tried to prevent The Washington Post and New York Times from printing classified documents which detailed the history of U.S. military activities in Vietnam.  The fundamental question that the Supreme Court had to answer was, did Nixon’s efforts to censor publication of the Pentagon Papers violate the First Amendment? Nixon argued the idea of “prior restraint” was necessary in order to protect the government.  The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the New York Times, claiming that security should not be used to compromise the first amendment.  The Court also argued that the publication of the documents would not put the U.S. in immediate danger and thus, the idea of prior restraint wasn’t justified (IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law).
This documentary is a clear and vital piece that explains the importance of the newspapers during this time.  The New York Times took a huge risk in publishing this information, which triggered the further distributions among other circulations, including The Washington Post.  It is clear the leaks allowed for further investigation of the government, including the Watergate Scandal, mentioned earlier.  Becoming media literate allows us to examine the importance of all forms of media and how they have affected our society throughout history.  These types of things are still happening today.  WikiLeaks can be paralleled with the leaks of the Pentagon Papers, as their goal was and is to bring important news to the public eye.  Information continues to be leaked through these sources, including files related to the Guantanamo prison and 92,000 documents related to the war in Afghanistan between 2004 and the end of 2009 (WikiLeaks).  It is extremely important to stay informed and up to date with the information that is being distributed by journalists, through the news or the internet.

Discussion Questions

1. Is it in any way the responsibility of a news organization, such as the New York Times, to be aware of the publishing of sensitive and classified documents in order to protect national security in a time of war?
2. Does the general public have a right to know everything that our government does? Or is there a level in which secrecy is a necessary part of the governing process in order to protect the citizens interests and ensure safety? Is the news obligated to make sure it doesn’t release information that undermines the safety of American citizens?
3. Is the publication of the pentagon papers covered by the first amendment (Freedom of the press) and if so how does the first amendment cover this act?

Important Quotes

1. “There was a pattern of presidential lying.” Daniel Ellsberg
2. “People have not asked enough of their public servants in terms of accountability, we need the courage to face the truth about what we are doing in the world and act responsibly to change it.” Daniel Ellsberg
3. “What in God’s name have we been fighting for in this country for two- or three-hundred years to have the right to speak and the right to publish and the right to think against a threat by the gunman, if all we’re gonna do is give it all up when someone sends you a telegram.”
4. “It was a crime from the start, with no end in sight. The hundreds of thousands we were killing was unjustified; it was no better than homicide.” Ellsberg
5. “Henry, you’re about to get a lot of clearances higher than top secret that you did not know existed that is going to have a sequence of effects on you. First, you’ll feel exhilaration, and then you’ll feel like a fool. Then you will come to think everyone else is foolish, and in the end you just stop listening to them.” Ellsberg

Works Cited

Bassiouni, M. Cherif. “Terrorism, Law Enforcement, and the Mass Media: Perspectives,

Problems, Proposals.” The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-)  Vol. 72, No. 1 (Spring, 1981), pp. 1-51. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1142904.

“Daniel Ellsberg.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 18 Mar. 2012. Web. 20 Mar. 2012.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ellsberg>.

Dyk, Timothy B. “Newsgathering, Press Access, and the First Amendment.”

Stanford Law Review Vol. 44, No. 5 (May, 1992), pp. 927-960. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1228932.

“Most Dangerous Man.” Most Dangerous Man. Web. 20 Mar. 2012.

<http://www.mostdangerousman.org/>.

NEW YORK TIMES v. UNITED STATES. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of

Law. 12 March 2012. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1970/1970_1873>.

“Times Topics: The Pentagon Papers.”  New York Times Online.

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/p/pentagon_papers/index.html

The Most Dangerous Man in America. Dir. Judith Ehrlich and Rick Goldsmith. Kovno

Communications, 2009. Netflix.

“WikiLeaks.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 20 Mar. 2012. Web. 20 Mar. 2012.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks>.