Journal 2_3

Question from last week:
In my research this week, I found a site by the "International Documentary Association."   What is this association about?  What films does it sponsor?  It is accredited all over the world?  When was it founded?
The IDA (Internattional Documentary Association) was founded in 1984 as a non-profit organization that is dedicated to promoting awareness of the documentary film genre and protecting and supporting documentary filmakers.  According to the IDA, their main goals are to "Advocacy, Filmmaker Services, Education, and Public Programs and Events." Their website is used for documentary filmakers to upload their videos for the world-wide web to see.  They own a magazine named "Documentary" that is published quarterly as a second way of promoting their message.  Filmmakers may register and become a "member" for free as to be in the documentary film community and recieve updates about events, workshops and other filmmakers.

The IDA promotes "advocacy," or protects and advances the legal rights of documentary filmmakers. Their support for the documentarienists goes as far as helping them find fiscal sponsorship to make their films, and IDA offers two classes--one to high-school students and another to colleges--to help educate young people on documentary film.  The IDA sponspors three types of awards to help promote awareness of the genre and celebrate documentary filmmakers.  The IDA Documentary Awards is an annual event held by the IDA board of trustees to celebrate significant achievements in the field.  Awards, such as Career Achievement Award, Pioneer Award, and Music Documentary Award are given out annually at this event.  The other two events IDA sponsors are "Docuweeks" and "Docuays."  Both are designed to showcase top-of-the-line documentaries in hopes of them being nominated for the Oscars.  Since the Docuweeks debut in 1997, 17 documentaries have gone on to be nominated by the Oscars, and seven have won the award. 

This Week in Class:

A)  We continued our research of "brand analysis" this week with another assignment that allowed students to pick a brand they're loyal to and research it.  We discussed techniques that advertisers use to get consumers attention, such as catchy jingles and slogans and that the advertisers' goal is make a consumer think they NEED the product to enhance thier life.  The discussion then turned to brand loyalty.  What makes a consumer loyal to a brand?  The class concluded quality, superiority to other products, and a recognizeable logo or advertisement are the keys to making consumers loyal to a brand.  The advertiser also caters to the "values" of their consumers.  For example, family and patriotic values, popularity, and the chance to be a winner are all very often seen in commercials.  We then discussed focus groups, a collection of people who come together to better a company's advertising techniques.  Technology has changed advertising as well, allowing advertisers to "narrow-cast" or costumize the advertisement to exactly what each individual consumer wants to see.  We then applied what we had learned to the documentary "Persuaders" that I talked about in last weeks blog. 

B)When speaking of Brand Analysis, as a consumer, it is important to recognize when you are being pitched a sale.  Advertisements are embedded in everything now: movies, television, schools, sports, etc.  It is likely that sometimes when consumers are viewing an advertisement, they don't even know it.  This is extermely true in some movies--such as one movie where a man works at "starbucks coffee" for a job.  Starbucks is advertising, but it is also part of the storyline so the consumer enjoys it without realizing that they are, in fact, being advertised to at the same moment.  This is done even more so with "narrow-casting."  Now through technology, advertisers are able to make commercials that seem just right for you.  My only question is:  how is it possible to spin a product so many different ways without lying about the product a little?  It is important to be informed of the products you buy, and realize when you are particularly loyal to a product.  With a little analysis, the consumer can go a long way.

C) Even documentary films today are, to a degree, "narrow-casted."  Michael Moore's documentaries appeal to extreme liberals, just like the film we watched earlier this year: "Michael Moore Hates America" that was catered to a conservative mindset.  Through "Michael Moore Hates America's"  title, it is easily set for a certain group of people--conservatives against Michael Moore.  In a way, "narrow-casting" has been going on for years in politics that has now moved into the media sector. 

 Question for next week:
Find some examples of "narrow-casting."  Was it effective?

Sources:

Documentary.org. International Documentary Association. Web. 4 Dec. 2010. http://www.documentary.org/about-us.

 

 

"International Documentary Association." The Internet Movie Database (IMDb). Web. 04 Dec. 2010. http://www.imdb.com/event/ev0000351/.

 

"International Documentary Association." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 04 Dec. 2010. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Documentary_Association>.

Journal 2_2

Question from last week:
What is the history behind a documentary?  Who first came up with the idea?  What were the first documentaries to start the genre?

Until the 1920s, film was limited to a short clip because of lack of technological innovations.  These films were short clips of one scene, and called "actuality" films.  These films evolved over time, from the 1890s to 1920 from "actuality" films to "travelogue films."  Travelogue films are considered "travel documentaries"  that were used to introduce different parts of the world in the early 20th centurty.  It wasn't unitl 1922 that the term "documentary" began to be used. 

The "Father Of Documentaries" and "pioneer of documentary film" is Robert J. Flaherty.  Born in Iron Mountain, Michigan in 1884, his life was destined for prosecting iron.  Without much schooling, Flaherty worked prospecting iron ore for ten years, where he gained his information for the his first film--and the first "documentary" film ever, Nanook of The North.  After his first success, he worked in the field of film for the rest of his life.  Working in London, England and the United States, he traveled the world filming documentaries.  Although none of his other works matched, Nanook of the North, he is widely considered the "father of documentary film."

This week in class:

A)  This week we watched a film called The Persuaders.  Another documentary, this one focused on the effects and techniques of large-scale marketing campagins in the United States.  The film focused on the starting of "Song Airlines," an airline targeted toward women, and it's unique marketing camapign.  It shows the amount of science and market research that goes into a marketing campaign, and the flaws of Song's failure.  The other topic we covered this week was that of our midterm documentary project.  We spent some of class focusing on our "storyboards" for each of our documentaries.  Never before did I realize how much planning goes into a documentary, or how much footage one has to sift through before getting a key edited part.

B)  The Persuaders was an eye-opening documentary into realizing how much science goes into tricking the consumer to buy something.   The most interesting part of the documentary to me was when they interveiwed a Frenchman who had moved to the United States and lived in a manison in a wealthy part of New York.  There, he held seminars for corporate advertisers to learn "the code" of a successful marketing campaigns.  It fascinates me that coporations will pay this man millions of dollars for advertising ideas, but advertising and the amount of "stuff" the consumer buys effects a company's success.  On average, a better marketed product will make more money than other competitors.  My own documentary, HYPE, is about the "hype" of Harry Potter 7.  I atteneded the premier last Thursday in order to video and interview those people who attend the midnight premiere, staying out till three in the morning, to claim they are the first to see the film.

C)  In The Persuaders, one of the main topics is that creating a product or advertising campaign that creates  a culture or lifestyle.  One example they use for this created "culture" is apple's iPod.  My own example is Harry Potter. J.K. Rowling has created a product that, ultimately, has become an icon for thousands of poeple around the globe.  In just Midlothain, Virginia, the entire "Commenwealth Stadium" movie theatre was sold out on Thursday, November 18th at midnight in order of the public to view the new product first.  People dress up like characters, join websites, and buy their tickets in July because of this craze.  The Persuaders goal is to allow this kind of craze over a store-bought product.  When people's emotions, memories and passions become involved in a media product, that is when the corporations know they have completeled their goal, and then they make a lot money. 

Question for Next Week:

In my research this week, I found a site by the "International Documentary Association."   What is this association about?  What films does it sponsor?  It is accredited all over the world?  When was it founded?

Sources:

Kuhn, Annete. "Flaherty, Robert." Screen Online, The Definitive Guide to Britian's Film and TV History. Web. 27 Nov. 2010. http://www.screenonline.org.uk/people/id/480547/.

"Documentary Film." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 27 Nov. 2010. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_film.

"Robert J. Flaherty - IMDb." The Internet Movie Database (IMDb). Web. 27 Nov. 2010. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0280904/.

International Documentary Association. Web. 27 Nov. 2010.

Journal 2_1

Question From Last Week: How many different political parties are there in the US?  How many different little factions make up the two policial parties?

Since there are new political parties forming every day, it is hard to get a concrete list of the registered  policial parties in America.  From my research I did gather several major and minor parties I had never heard of before.  The two major parties--the ones every American hears about--are the Democrat and Republican parties.  The Democrat leaning liberal, the Republican leaning conservative.  All other political parties compromise with the platforms of these two parties, as to remain a 2 party system.  If a minor party decides to nominate a candidate, most likely all that will happen is the vote will split for the party in favor. 

There are several obscure minor parties.  On the national level the three largest are the Constitution, Libertarian and Green party.  The constitution party believes that all problems would be solved if the government went back to a strict contruction of the founding documents of the United States.  They believe in small government and that "when the government grows beyond scope, liberty is compromised."  The Libertarian party also believes in small governent.  It's slogan is, "Minimum Governemnt, Maximum Freedom."  Small government mainly is concerned with economic policies, and stresses a very free marked, "laizez-faire" economoic system.  The Libertarians also like to think that they focus on the American Heritage as well.  The Green Party is the most liberal of the three major minor parties.  It's main focus is consistutional reform through ammendments, but it's platform states much about promoting democracy to the masses, gun control, peaceful foreign policy and disarmament etc. 

There are many smaller political factions in the US as well, the list include the following and more:

• America First Party (2002)
• American Party (1968)
• American Patriot Party (2003)
• America's Independent Party (2008)
• Boston Tea Party (2006)
• Communist Party of the United States of America (1919)
• Florida Whig Party (2006)
• Independence Party of America (2007)
• Moderate Party (2006)
• Modern Whig Party (2008)
• National Socialist Movement (1959)
• New American Independent Party (2004)
• Objectivist Party (2008)
• Party for Socialism and Liberation (2004)
• Peace and Freedom Party (1967)
• Pirate Party of the United States (2006)
• Progressive Labor Party (1961)
• Prohibition Party (1869)
• Reform Party of the United States of America (1995)
• Socialist Equality Party (2008)
• Socialist Party USA (1973)
• Socialist Workers Party (1938)
• United States Marijuana Party (2002)
• Unity Party of America (2004)
• Workers Party (2003)
• Working Families Party (1998)

This Week in Class:

A)  This week the class examined two seperate and opposite things.  To begin the week, we spent a class studying the effect of bias in advertising and the idea of a "brand" name item versus the generic item. The class discussed why people are loyal to certain brands and what makes brands successful.  As always, the most discussed topic was food.  What is it that makes people trust Fresh Market, Ukrops or Whole Foods more than Food Lion or Kroger?  What attracts people to overpriced stores like Freshmarket?  What items--not only food--do people tend to be willing to spend more money on and why?  These were the questions answered in our discussion.  The next day, in celebrance of Veteran's Day, the class viewed "The Way We Get By," the first non-political documentary watched in class this year.  The documentary is about the Maine Troop Greeters-- a group of volunteers that live in Bangor, Maine.  Together, these people greet incoming and going troops for Bangor International Airport, a hotspot for military transports to Afghanistan and Iraq.  We examined the effect volunteering has on a person's well-being, especially veteran's and seniors.  Many people in the class had personal ties to family members/loved ones serving in the armed forces.  It was by far the most emotional documentary we have watched all year.

B) In the brand debate, we decided that people trust brands that are familiar, have good advertising and look professional.  The experience of a Whole Foods or Freshmarket draws people to shop at the overrpriced stores.  The rareness and quality of the food there almost makes the grocery store like a "museum of food."  In short, we concluded, we trust brand names because we know them, and we are willing to pay for items we care about and use on a day to day basis.  The documentary we watched, "The Way We Get By," had an emotional impact on me.  Putting aside everything we have learned this year, there was no bias or policial scandal--but only dear men and women setting out to do a good cause.  The movie was patriotic in the best way, and not once did it insult.  The themes of the film were inspiring, the people they interviewed were wise and likeable and the way they made the film was superb.  Learning that volunteering can actually extend your life years does not surprise me at all.  I believe the happier you are, the longer life you'll want to live.  Many people believe helping people is their first way of becoming happy, especially a man featered in "The Way We Get By",  Bill Knight, who believes the only thing left for him to do on this Earth that is beneficial is to help other.  In "The Way We Get By" everything from the music, the background on people, the storyline, the topic, the filming techniques of changing up the angles of the interview and voicing over the interview to other scenery made the film more interesting and able to hold a variety of topics.  I will take the ideas of this film and use them in my documentary.  From this documentary I learned the more interesting interviews a documentary has, the better film it is.

C)  Micheal Moores' documentaries are very different from "The Way We Get By."  Not just in content, but in style of making a documentary.  First of all, in "The Way We Get By" viewers do not see or hear from the documentarien once, the story is told soley through interviews.  Micheal Moore is featured in several of his video clips and voices his opinions loudly throughout all of his films.  There are no guerilla interview tactics in "The Way We Get By," and not one soldier is bothered to be interveiwed in front of the camera.  The documentariens follow the three people who have agreed to be on flim throughout the entire time, and through their encounters a strong story--and most likely a more true one-- is developed.

Question for Next Week:
What is the history being a documentary?  Who first came up with the idea?  What were the first documentaries to start the genre?

Sources:

Standard, By This. "Constitution Party Platform." Constitution Party National Political Headquarters. Web. 12 Nov. 2010. http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php.

 

Libertarian Party | Maximum Freedom, Minimum Government. Web. 12 Nov. 2010. http://www.lp.org/.

 

"List of Political Parties in the United States." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 12 Nov. 2010. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_States.

 

"The Green Party of the United States." Green Party of the United States | Homepage. Web. 12 Nov. 2010. <http://www.gp.org/index.php>.

Journal 1_7

Question from last week:Find out about the Tea Party and Rent Is Too Damn High Party.  What are their platforms? Who are their leaders?  Why are they formed?  Will they make an effect on the the elections?
The tea party is a highly conservative grassroots organization that, according to their mission statement, brings awareness to any violations of our nation's secutiy, soverignty or domestic tranquility.  The three most important issues in the tea party platform are fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government and free markets.

Definitions of each issue are as follows:
Fiscal Responsibility: Fiscal Responsibility by government honors and respects the freedom of the individual to spend the money that is the fruit of their own labor. A constitutionally limited government, designed to protect the blessings of liberty, must be fiscally responsible or it must subject its citizenry to high levels of taxation that unjustly restrict the liberty our Constitution was designed to protect. Such runaway deficit spending as we now see in Washington D.C. compels us to take action as the increasing national debt is a grave threat to our national sovereignty and the personal and economic liberty of future generations.

Constitutionally Limited Government: We, the members of The Tea Party Patriots, are inspired by our founding documents and regard the Constitution of the United States to be the supreme law of the land. We believe that it is possible to know the original intent of the government our founders set forth, and stand in support of that intent. Like the founders, we support states' rights for those powers not expressly stated in the Constitution. As the government is of the people, by the people and for the people, in all other matters we support the personal liberty of the individual, within the rule of law.

Free Markets: A free market is the economic consequence of personal liberty. The founders believed that personal and economic freedom were indivisible, as do we. Our current government's interference distorts the free market and inhibits the pursuit of individual and economic liberty. Therefore, we support a return to the free market principles on which this nation was founded and oppose government intervention into the operations of private business.
(http://www.teapartypatriots.org/mission.aspx)
Other core beliefs:
Illegal Aliens Are Here illegally.
Pro-Domestic Employment Is Indispensable.
Stronger Military Is Essential.
Special Interests Eliminated.
Gun Ownership Is Sacred.
Government Must Be Downsized.
National Budget Must Be Balanced.
Deficit Spending Will End.
Bail-out And Stimulus Plans Are Illegal.
Reduce Personal Income Taxes A Must.
Reduce Business Income Taxes Is Mandatory.
Political Offices Available To Average Citizens.
Intrusive Government Stopped.
English As Core Language Is Required.
Traditional Family Values Are Encouraged.
Common Sense Constitutional
Conservative Self-Governance

These three definitions reflect the direct attacks at liberal policies and bias toward conservatism in their mission statement.  The power word "liberty" is used often to reflect the "other side (liberals) is taking away freedoms and overstepping the rule of law.

The founder of the tea party is a 22 year career Navy Lieutenant, Dale Robertson, whose protest that has turned into a successful, elected, national political party was started as a protest to Obama's so called "unconstitional" stimulus bill.

Yesterday, over 60 seats up for election were won by the republicans, several of which were actually tea-party candidates.  This organization had most definitely made an impact on the elections.
The "Rent is Too Damn High" party platform is mainly to say that government should focus on the domestic issues first before  any other policies come into place.  It is based of the New York State, and did not take too much effect on the election nor has it spread.  It's outrageous name gets the party more publicity than anything else.

This week in class:

A) The first thing we did in class this week was discover our "political compass" in terms of whether we truly do lean right or left on issues.  We took two different surveys, one short and one long, to determine our political standing.  In both, my  standing was a slight "left libertarian" but mainly a centrist.  As you can see here on the graph, I am in the left-libertarian block, but more toward the center than usual.   Left-Libertarian signifies that on my social issues I am liberal, while on government systems and some economics and I am more conservative.  I had never thought of myself at all conservative, so the results suprised me a little.  The next thing we did was watch another documentary, "The Divided State" about a controversy at in Utah. 

B) A student at Bringham-Young University made a film of the controversy of Michael Moore speaking at Utah Valley College.  Why is this a controversy?  Utah is the most historically conservative state in the US.  The film illustrates the true divide between-truly- democrats and republicans- during this time.  The community outside of the College actually filed a lawsuit against the student government, and metioned in public hearings that school administration should step down after letting this kind of abomination happen.  In a way, Micheal Moore is an intrusive figure into their safe-haven of conservative beliefs, but when you see the rally of Republics by Sean Hannity before Michael Moore comes, you see why Utah needs to hear the other side.  Hannity singles out Liberals and blames everything on them: his speech/rally was completely one sided, as was Moore's.

C) Combining the two themes from this week, I have to wonder how many of the people in Utah's "cult" of conservative republicans actually believe in the conservative platforms.  So many people are influenced by where they live, their parents and other experiences to shape which political party they are.  To prove my point I did yet another "typology test" at this the following website:  ttp://typology.people-press.org/typology/results.php.  This survey ask several questions on your beliefs, and then asks you what party you associate yourself with.  The first time I went through, my response was that I considerred myself a liberal democrat, and my result was liberal.  Keeping all the same responses on my beliefs, I re-took the quiz.  This time, I reponsded that I considered my self a conservative republican--but with the same beliefs.  I got a completley different result! I was now part of the "upbeat" party.  How does what I consider myself affect which political party platform matches most with my beliefs?  Unfortunately, society has decided it does. 

Question for next week:
How many different political parties are there in the US?  How many different little factions make up the two policial parties?

Sources:
The Rent Is Too Damn High Party. Web. 04 Nov. 2010. http://www.rentistoodamnhigh.org/.

 

State, By. Tea Party Patriots | Find Your Local Tea Party. Web. 04 Nov. 2010. http://www.teapartypatriots.org/.

 

 "Typology Test." Pew Research Center Political Typology. Web. 04 Nov. 2010. http://typology.people-press.org/typology/.

 

 Welcome to TeaParty.org. Web. 04 Nov. 2010. <http://www.teaparty.org/>.

Journal 1_6

Question from Last Week:
What is the most "honest campaign" ever in politics?  Who was involved? What were the issues? Why is it the most "honest campaign" ever?
This was a hard question to answer.  It was so broad I could not find a real answer on this, because there is never an "honest campaign" in politics.  My original thoughts were that politcs in our earliest years in a nation would be honest, before entertainment became so important to the America public.  I was very wrong.   Every campaign, starting from the first presidential election (not including George Washington) has had some kind of political slander.  John Adams used "whisper campaigns" against Alexander Hamilton to win the election of 1796, and Thomas Jeffeson was an even bigger victim of political slander in the presidential election of 1800 when Adams exposed Jefferson having three children with his slave.  There never been an honest campaign where there was a competition.  Negative campaigning does have pros, for example, we would not know about Thomas Jefferson's scandal without this negative campaigning because it would never have been documented if Adams had not used it in his campaign.  In a way someone could argue negative campainig keeps politicans honest, but slander is so biased many voters don't know what to trust.  Bias is a painful but realistic part of politics, and we as voters have had to sift through it to get the truth in every election in history.

In Class This Week:
A) This week we learned about political ad analysis.  We used local politics to examine what makes a candidate look professional, taking into account the race for our district's house representative.  The republican, Eric Cantor, is the incumbent and has been for years.  The democrat, Rick Waugh, is--to say the least- very unprofessional.  While Cantor's TV ads are professionally done, short, sweet, to the point and effective--Rick Waugh's main ad on his website is Waugh rambling on about issues for five minutes while pretending to fish.  He never looks at the camera, and talks away from the microphone, mumbling from time to time and talking in circles about the "issues" with no solutions.  The second day of class this week we had to present an analysis of a political ad we chose from a historical website.  I thought it was very interesting to see all the political ads, and realize that in when Eisenhower ran for president all the way to Obama, there was a form of negative campaigning in virtually every election, as I stated earlier.  I analyzed the most popular ad in the class, Obama's first general election ad.  It was entitiled "Country I Love."  Many people chose Obama because his advertisements and campaign was, I believe, one of the most influential in history.  If anything, Obama knows how to speak to a crowd, and is very personable on commericals.  He also literally speaks in virtue words.  From everything to patriotism to his country, to working hard and living the "American Dream" to good values and morale, you can't disagree with practically anything he says in his first commercial.  However, I did realize he had lots of background information about himself, which I found out was because of whisper campaigns (just like in the first elections of the United States!) from the McCain office, and so it was necessary for him to clarify where he grew up and who he lived with.  Lastly, this week we began a new documentary called "The Divided State" about a college in the most conservative town, in the most conservative and mormon state in America--Utah-- that invited Michael Moore to speak to their students.  I will save commentary on "The Divided State" for next week.

Cantor

vs.

Waugh

B)  When studying the local politics of Virginia, I find it obvious that this year's Republican candidate for the 11th district, Eric Cantor, is by far the favorite.  Accoring to virginiapolitics.com, the House seat is called to be a "safe republican" victory.  Why shouldn't it be when the the democratic party has such a weak candidate and Cantor is loaded with monetary funds?  Another statistic I found showed Cantor spending $4,522,918 dollars on his campaign, and still has $1,408,116 left to spend, while Rick Waugh has spent  $83,378 and only has a pathetic $2,168 to spend.  Over a million compared to two thousand...no wonder Eric Cantor comes to look so professional!  However, there are two sides to this...all of Cantor's money is financed by individual donations and the PAC, while Waugh had to put in $805 of his own money to to finace himself, but the majority of his money ($79,000) comes from individual contributions.  In short my point is:  Money makes you look better, but that money probably comes from supporters.  The more supporters you have, the more money you get, the better a candidate will look to the public. 

C)  The politics and entertainment of today correlates with the funding of a campaign.  The more funding, the more professional, the more entertaining.  It all correlates with each other to make a successful campaign.  Barack Obama would not have won without such powerful campaigning, as is the truth throughout all campagins.  Why are people attracted to the new political parties forming, such as "The Tea Party" and "The Rent is Too Damn High" party?  Because they're entertaining!  Neither party will ever make a serious effect on the political scene, but their entertainment, slogans and even the names of their parties draw people's attention. 

Question for Next Week:
Find out about the Tea Party and Rent Is Too Damn High Party.  What are their platforms? Who are their leaders?  Why are they formed?  Will they make an effect on the the elections?

Sources:

"Congressional Elections: Virginia District 07 Race: 2000 Cycle | OpenSecrets." OpenSecrets.org: Money in Politics -- See Who's Giving & Who's Getting. Web. 27 Oct. 2010. http://www.opensecrets.org/races/summary.php?id=VA07&cycle=2000.

Drake, By Bruce. "Virginia 7 House Race Tag at Politics Daily." Politics News, Elections Coverage, Political Analysis and Opinion. Web. 27 Oct. 2010. http://www.politicsdaily.com/tag/Virginia%207%20House%20Race/.

The American Pageant. Houghton Mifflin College Div, 2006. Print.

Journal 1_5

Question from last week:
"I want to know more about the Iran- Contra scandal.  I will learn when it was, where it happened, and who was involved.  What did Oliver North do?  How was he convicted on trial? "

The Iran Contra Scandal took place in November 1986 under the Reagan Administration.  In 1985 guns and other weapons were sold to the hostile Iran government in secret in order to retrieve hostages from the Lebenon Hostage Crisis.  Americans, when they found out that there was an arms-deal between Iran and American from a Lebenon magazine that later lead to search of the American government, they were outraged.  Not only had their government sold weapons to a country that to this day, is the singlemost threatening country to the United States, they did it without congress's permission.  It was an unconstitutional act.  To make matters worse, all of the profits from the arms sales went to aid the Nicaraguan guerilla "Contras" in a civil war they were fighting in their country.  Congress had issued a statement that had decided not to get involved in world affairs such as these, but some members of the United States Military decided override this issue and filter millions of dollars and guns to aid the Contras.

The main men involved in the scandal were Lt. Col. Oliver North, who later ran for the Virginia senate seat in 1994, National Security Advisor John Poindexter and Former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, as well as many other high ranking officials.  President Regan was stated to never have known nor been involved, and no evidence could prove differently.  North had been the main negotiater of these deals as an aid to the National Security Council.  In May 1989, North was convicted of misleading Congress and unlawfully destroying government documents.  At first, North stated he was under command of his superiors to do so, and then later, he stated he was doing it for the betterment of our country.  That is the greatest argument of the Iran-Contra Scandal.  All of the three majmor players in the scandal were convicted, and later were issued presidential pardons from George Bush in 1992.  They were pardoned because the were acting in patriotism, accoriding to Bush.  Later in the 1994 elections North used Iran-Contra as a campaigning line by saying "lives were saved" in the scandal.  That is true, 36 hostages had been taken by Lebenon during the Hostage Crisis, and because of Iran-Contra, 28 made it home.  But how do you justify the Nicaraguan scandal?  Going against are highest government power's decision to benefit the military?  It is possible that the men who decided to issue the guns didn't no all that was going on in our government at the time?  Why is it okay for a few men to take control of our country without the consent of the governed?  Or were they acting patriotically and hoping for the betterment of our country by being upstanding citizens?  These are the questions that are the basis of controversy concerning the Iran-Contra affair.

In class this week:
 A)
We began this week studying the principles of propaganda in order to highlight then in Chuck Rob's and Oliver North's campaigns.  The principles were easily saw and very common in campaigns around the nation.  For starters, the simple issue of "name-calling" where one person links someone to something with a negative connotation.  Rob's speech right before voting day in the Perfect Candidate is a perfect example of this.  Then, glittering generalities come into play.  Politicans use this technique more than any, with "virtue words" that people can take many different, but positive, meanings to.  Obama's campaign this year was full of "Hope" and "Change" both seriuosly glittering generalites.  We also studied false connections, which is kind of like "slippery slope" and name calling fallacies, and special appeals.  When a politican dresses in flannel and jeans to go huntin' with his voters, he is making a speical appeal to the people.  Politicans do this to say "hey im just a normal guy like you" because it makes them more likeable.  We also discussed bandwagon, which has become a major way of campagining because of the show the media puts on at rallies, showing thousands of people screaming one candidates name.   After discussing propaganda methods, we finished "The Perfect Candidate." 
 B)
I thought the film's main theme was to show the people that campaigning is entertaining instead of honest.  Why has a political race become all about the glamour and action instead of what each candidate is actually going to do for our country.  This film was filmed in 1994, what do you think a political race is like now?  Showing Oliver North's campaign headquarters brought a unique insight to a campaign the voter never gets to witness.  The bloodthirsty competition and negative campaigning are especially brought to life.  According to sources, there are conflicting effects on negative campaigning and voters.  Some studies say that negative campaigning enhances a candidates chances of winning and increases voter turnout, while other studies have found that negative campaigning makes candidates equally likely to lose and decreases voter turnout.  From these studies, my guess is it depends on who are the voters, what you are voting for, and the nature of each election.  Voters only consider a few things to be "personal attacks" at voters, for example: lack of military service, past alchohol or drug abuse, past finacial issues and family problems with the candidates are all considered "low blows."  Everything else, from the voters' mind, is fair game.  Another interesting statisic I found was that voters mostly do not trust Washington.  Here are the statistics conducted by a survey of voters corcerning the trusting fo candidates and negative campaigning by "thenation.com":

• 59% believe that all or most candidates deliberately twist the truth.
• 39% believe that all or most candidates deliberately lie to voters.
• 43% believe that most or all candidates deliberately make unfair attacks on their opponents. Another 45% believe that some candidates do.
• 67% say they can trust the government in Washington only some of the time or never.
• 87% are concerned about the level of personal attacks in today's political campaigns.

 C)  These statistics and propaganda can be connected to many different elections and governmental scandals in our nations history.  Not only do some candidates do it at the election time, but also when in office.  Two presidents: Bill Clinton and George Bush have suspectively (though never proven*) lied to congress about the manufacturing or holding of weapons of mass destruction in the last twenty years.  Both incidences resulted in Military action.  This would include Bill Clinton's bombing of the Al-Shifa factury in Khartoum, Sudan as well as George Bush's highly controversial invasion of Iraq.  One things for sure, the movement to keep politics truthful needs to continue on stronger and more influential than before.

Question for next week:
What is the most "honest campaign" ever in politics?  Who was involved? What were the issues? Why is it the most "honest campaign" ever?

Sources:

"ThisNation.com--Do Negative Campaign Ads Work?" ThisNation.com-American Government & Politics Online. 16 Oct. 2010. Web. 16 Oct. 2010. http://www.thisnation.com/question/031.html.

 

"Iran Contra Scandal." Web. 16 Oct. 2010. http://home.snu.edu/~dwilliam/s98/usarab/icscandal.htm.

 

"The American Experience | Reagan | People & Events | The Iran-Contra Affair." PBS. Web. 16 Oct. 2010. <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/reagan/peopleevents/pande08.html>.

Journal 1_4 October 10, 2010

Question from last week:
As I looked for Moore's response to comments against him, I really couldn't find too much.  He never made a documentary recanting any of the previous documentaries...even though one of the themes of "Michael Moore Hates America" was to get Moore to respond.  Instead, Moore decides to take the high road on many of these issues and not even acknowledge his critcis.  In other ways, he deliberately denies claims on the news and when he speaks in public.  I found this in several movie clips, but never did I find any kind of statement from Moore coming back at the other side.

This week in class:
This week in class we started the film "The Perfect Candidate" with completing background information on it.  The documentary is about two candidates from the 1994 election, and both of them are terrible candidates for office.  Oliver North was the republican candidate, and also a Luitenant that was involved in the Iran- Contra scandal.  North has been accused and convicted of lying to congress about his actions.  Chuck Rob, the democratic candidate, is equally disspaointing because he was concerned with a family issues where he cheated on his wife.  The film should have the theme: do politicians even have morales anymore?  We began watching the film, and right away there were stereotypes between the Republican and democratic cnadidates, but also there was a similar notion of whether you can trust politicans or not. 

^^Oliver North pledging at Congress on his trial after the Iran-Contra Scandal

Question for next week:
I want to know more about the Iran- Contra scandal.  I will learn when it was, where it happened, and who was involved.  What did Oliver North do?  How was he convicted on trial? 

Sources:

"Oliver North." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 10 Oct. 2010. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_North.

Question from last week:  No one is quite like Michael Moore. That is, I believe, why he has the recognition and celebrity spotlight he does.  No one is quite as obnoxious, as point-forward, or as controversial.  I did, however, find several other liberal ---and conservative—documentarians in my research this week.  None are quite as influential as Michael Moore because none have made such controversy or are as pointed as Moore’s works. Robert Greenwald, a libertarian filmmaker and documentarian is the closest thing I could find to Moore.  Greenwald has made several films and short clips on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the media and the 2000 presidential election.  His main films, “Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch’s War on Journalism,” and “Uncovered: The War on Iraq” both made considerable splashes, but nothing like Moore.  Maybe this is because Greenwald isn’t as talented? Maybe he doesn’t draw as much emotion out of his viewers?  Or maybe he doesn’t create as much controversy?  Maybe he is less likely to twist the truth for entertainment?

Summary of this week in class: 
This week in class we started a new movie, "Michael Moore Hates America" by Michael Wilson.

It was a direct attack at Moore’s film, “Bowling for Columbine”, and even though there were several film techniques Wilson emulates from Moore’s work, I actually agreed with a few of Wilson’s points.  I finally realized that Moore’s films DO make a negative impact on organizations and people, for example, the NRA and Charles Heston.  It was also obvious how Moore fabricated some of the situations and events that happened in his film.  When he supposedly received a gun from a bank in Michigan, just by setting up an account, there was a whole different story behind the event.  In “Bowling for Columbine” Moore makes it seem like the bank keeps 500 guns in the vault at their bank, when in fact, it was made clear in Wilson’s film that they are shipped in, one by one, from a vault in a separate location.  In Wilson’s work he interviews one of the bank clerks featured in “Bowling for Columbine.”  She explains how Moore lied about his intentions when filming, called ahead asking the gun to be transported from the vault in advance to the bank so he could pick it up the day of, and left out several other points that were made by the bank before handed the gun.  Some argue that the point is Moore still received the gun in the bank that day, and there is a small amount of validity to that point, but where is the truth in Moore’s work?  Why would it take such a scheme to come up with a three minute part of his documentary?  Why is there a need to twist the truth? Wilson, most likely, does some truth-twisting in his film, too.  That’s when I realized how great it is that we have two documentaries to watch, two people with two different views, that check themselves on the truth of their beliefs and work.  You have to appreciate the two perspectives you are handed when watching these films, take the best out of both and form your own opinion.

Question for next week:

I want to know more about the counter-films after Moore.  What were the reviews for “Farenhype 911” and “Michael Moore Hates America"?  Did Moore ever respond to these films?  If so, how?

Sources:
Robert Greenwald. Web. 04 Oct. 2010. <http://www.robertgreenwald.org/>.

Journal 1-2

Question from Last Week:
Over the last week I have researched Micheal Moore in detail.  Looking at review sites on the internet, such as "rottentomatoes.com"  for general public critiques of Moore's work I have come to a conclusion that most Americans believe Moore's work is offensive yet effective in changing politics today.  There was not any more difference in opinions between generations than there was between political parties, and even then, politicians approval is sparse.  One source said that Howard Dean, in the 2000 US presidential election, lost popularity when Michael Moore endorsed him because of the extremist views that went along with affiliation.  Then again, that was back in 2000.  Ten years later, Moore has become more respected as his films have become less one-sided with time.  Fox News, a predominately Republican station, stated in May 2007 that Michael Moore's new film, "Sicko" showed his maturity as a filmaker.  "Unlike many of his previous films ("Roger and Me," "Bowling for Columbine," "Fahrenheit 9-11"), "Sicko" works because in this one there are no confrontations. Moore smartly lets very articulate average Americans tell their personal horror stories at the hands of insurance companies. The film never talks down or baits the audience," were the first lines of the review that fairly stated the film critized both the republicans and democrats, and was a "call to action" for the Amercian people.  Moore's latest film, "Capatilism: A Love Story" is reviewed by NPR as a "culmination of the last twenty years of his works.  NPR, a fairly nuetral source, commends Moore for his passion and coverage of material--but still mentions his signature over-the top demonstrations in his films.



^Michael Moore having a demonstration during his newest movie "Capitalism: A Love Story."

Summary of Class This Week:
This week we watched "Bowling for Columbine" by Michael Moore.  This documentary raises many points about Gun Control in the United States, however, our class did not focus as much on the material of the documentary as much as the fallacies Moore uses in his films.  Moore definiely uses several fallacies and loaded language in his film, which makes some points of his work invalid and it many offensive, but I still agree with the general message of the film: America has too many guns, and should increase gun control.  There are two montages I will focus on to show Moore's allacies and offensiveness, but also the validity to his work.  The "Wonderful World Montage" shows Moore at his most obnoxious, while the Gun control and murder number segment shows more support of Moore's point based on fact. 
The "Wonderful World Montage" shows many different fallacies dealing with current events in America's Foreign policy from 1953 to September 21st, 2001.  The main idea is to twist the facts of several world events leading up to 9-11 to make it seem logical that the United States was somewhat responsible for the attacks that day.  It uses several fallacies, including hasty generalization (Osama Bin Laden organized the attacks with CIA training),  Appeal to Ignorance (several twisted facts in world events throughout the montage), and appeal to the people with the emotional ending of footage of a plane flying into the twin towers.  Also, the entire monage is going down a "slippery slope" fallacy, starting with facts and ending up with twisted viewpoints.  The "Wonderful World Montage" is an example of why many people don't like Micheal Moore.  It shows many questionable facts with an obsurd conclusion.

However, there are SOME good qualities of Moore's work.  The gun control numbers prove accurate according to several different sources listed below: the United States is the world leader in murder concering guns.  Among those countries that the US is alike, so not counting countries at war or countries with the smallest of populations, the US is the leader in number of guns owned, and number of deaths concerning guns.  There is no way to say that is a biased statement.  Furthermore, though I could not find the data that stated this, a classmate said that this information was falty becuase 65% of these deaths were suicide, and went to say that many more were accidental deaths, the homicide rate with guns was low.  Even if that were the case, that number still supports the point that Guns should be limited.  Someone who is suicidal is not mentally stable, and therefore should not be able to own a gun.  People may argue that they could be using someone elses gun, but that's in support of more gun control as well.  The more guns there are in the US, the more accidental deaths there will be in homes each year.  When parents keep guns in their homes, their children are more likely to be victims of accidental deaths.  This could also go for hunting accidents, misfires, etc.  Guns kill, that is what they are intended to do...so why have them in our everyday society?  Many of my classmates argured that in some countires, where there is heavy gun control, people murder each other in different ways.  This is not true considering that Canada's statistics of murders with firearms is about 144 people, and their suicide rate (including other methods than with a firearm) is around 30 for their toal population, and England's is still lower with a total firearm murder rate of 14 and suicide rate of 16.  Canada's total murder count is 523 and England's is 1,701.  The United States boasts 9,369 firearms deaths and 16,204 total murders with a suicide rate of 18 people per 100,000.  All these statistics were from 2002.

In my opinion, sometimes Michael Moore uses too many fallacies and persuasion methods in his films, but he has a balance of fact as well.  As critiques have reported, as Moore moves into a stage of maturity with less fiction and more fact to support his theories, America will realize that Moore is a talented mind with many progressive--or at least different--ideas and perspectives that America could use.  He challenges our nation, and for that, I think his work his well worth my time.

Question for next week:
I'm kind of sick of Moore, so I want to learn more about other filmakers that focus on political documentaries.  I will find a few of them, read reviews on their works, hopefully watch some clips and compare them with Moore's style.

Sources:

"Fahrenheit 9/11 Movie Reviews, Pictures - Rotten Tomatoes." ROTTEN TOMATOES: Movies - New Movie Reviews and Previews! Web. 28 Sept. 2010. <http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/fahrenheit_911/?critic=creamcrop#contentReviews>.

Friedman, By Roger. "'Sicko' Shows Michael Moore's Maturity as a Filmmaker - Celebrity Gossip | Entertainment News | Arts And Entertainment - FOXNews.com." FOXNews.com - Breaking News | Latest News | Current News. Web. 27 Sept. 2010. <http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,273875,00.html>.

Taylor, By Ella. "Movie Review - Capitalism: A Love Story - Michael Moore's Latest Target Is The System Itself : NPR." NPR : National Public Radio : News & Analysis, World, US, Music & Arts : NPR. Web. 28 Sept. 2010. <http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112569384>.

"Transcript: More Guns, Less Crime? 7/01/98." Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews - TIME.com. 01 July 1998. Web. 28 Sept. 2010. <http://www.time.com/time/community/transcripts/chattr070198.html>.

"Transcript: More Guns, Less Crime? 7/01/98." Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews - TIME.com. 01 July 1998. Web. 28 Sept. 2010. <http://www.time.com/time/community/transcripts/chattr070198.html>.

"Transcript: More Guns, Less Crime? 7/01/98." Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews - TIME.com. 01 July 1998. Web. 28 Sept. 2010. <http://www.time.com/time/community/transcripts/chattr070198.html>.

Troy, By Gil. "Why Even Bush Critics Should Be Ashamed to Endorse Michael Moore's Movie." History News Network. Web. 28 Sept. 2010. <http://hnn.us/articles/5875.html>.

Journal 1_1: September 20, 2010

This blog is dedicated to my Ethics class this year.  I will be discovering and disscussing the new topics we learn in class each week, as well asking my own questions which I will then research.

Summary of class this week:
The second week of school is always less chaotic than the first.  You settle into the rhythm you will stick with for the rest of the year.  However, my routine was shaken a little with one of our first assignments.  "Write a 20-30 second radio commerical using three fallacies and as much loaded language as possible."  We had been learning about loaded language for a few days now: power words, euphemisms and lastly, fallacies.  The class had identified the uses of power words and euphemisms in commercials (which is harder than it looks!) and now, was supposed to create their own.  My friend and I took a very odd approach to the assignment, creating a product to sell that was catered for cavemen.  It turned out well though.  The assignments have been challenging for me.  Never before have I taken the time to look at the use of language in everyday life, to see the bias and second meaning behind each carefully chosen word. 

Identifying bias continued into the last class of the week, with a lesson on Michael Moore.  Watching his first show "The Awful Truth" in class was eye-opening.  Coming from a very liberal family,  seeing people pick apart Michael Moore was a very different perspective.  And on some issues, not all, I had to agree with my mostly conservative classmates.  Micheal Moore does make his documentaries and other works into very persuasive, and evasive, video.  For example, there was one clip in his episode of "The Awful Truth" where he interviews George W. Bush while Bush is running for president by ambush.  When asking a question in the middle of a campaign signing, Bush loudly says "Get a real job."  Immediately, I thought, "Wow. THAT guy was a leader of our country, how ridiculous!  When he was running for office he didn't even have the respect for a man who had influence in the public media.  How was he supposed to have respect for so many other U.S. citizens, or just people all over the world in general?" But my class turned it into, "Micheal Moore is twisting the video to only highlight the bad parts of Bush, plus, it was good Bush had a snappy comeback at a guy who was ambushing him!"  This presented a very different thought process before me.  It took me a minute, and then I decided that neither man was right in the situation.  Moore should interview candidates on a more formal basis, in order to support his points with more solid (and less arguable) information, while Bush should never have a disrespected a man like that, especially when running for a presidential election. 

Question for Next Week:

Although I have heard much about Michael Moore in the past, I have never had the time to sit down and watch some of his documentaries.  My leaning liberal family appreciates his eye-opening documentaries, but with my new found perspective and watch for loaded langauge, fallacies and bias, I want to find out more about Michael Moore.  What are his reviews from the general public? Do they sway from generation to generation?  Do any politics, even liberal maniacs, support his works?  And what is my opinion on him?

Till next time,

Mad
Period 2