Discussing “All the President’s Men”

In almost every journalism-related class I’ve been in the professor has always shown All the President’s Men. But I think there’s a reason behind it, and that reason is it is a movie that really shows the hardships and accomplishments one can encounter as a reporter and the effectiveness of good journalism. I felt fortunately the movie didn’t necessarily fall under Hollywood Hype, which is truthfully probably why I had never seen it before coming to college.

Because it was based in the Nixon-era, Woodstein’s (as Ben Bradlee affectionately called them) information gathering processes varied excessively from the newsgathering process today. They didn’t have the internet, files were not stored electronically, and point-and-shoot digital cameras were decades from being invented. During one scene, Bernstein and Woodward had to sift for hours through check-out slips in the library. They had to make phone calls using a—gasp–rotary phone. It is so easy to gather and store information today, which makes their feat of uncovering the Watergate scandal for what it was, even greater of a feat.

But investigative reporting can be dangerous, if you get something wrong your paper can get fined or better yet, a reporter could lose their job and their credibility. And if you’re a journalist, losing your credibility is a nightmare. So when Deep Throat said the lives of Woodstein might be in danger, it is easy to believe he was right and even so, Bob Woodward at the time was fearful for his life (although now he chalks it up to paranoia). Of course “they” in this movie referred to the Government, as they would be the ones behind the “danger” in the reporter’s lives. So what I think is very important about Mark Felt coming out as being the man behind the nickname “Deep Throat” is that Bernstein and Woodward, although heavily pushed about the identity of their informants, never once released the name of a source unless they agreed to being cited. If that doesn’t abide by the ethics of journalism, I don’t know what does.

Although Woodstein fought to uncover a story they thought was worthwhile, I think some stories relating to presidents are unneeded and a victim of sensationalism. I don’t care if the Bushes went to Camp David; I don’t care what kind of pizza the Obamas had delivered to the White House; and if Clinton wants to stick cigars in the miscellaneous orifices of women, keep it out of my newspapers.

Well, there’s a lot more in-depth reporting, but that tradition converges with the Internet and 24-hour television so there’s this sense of impatience in journalism. Get it out right now. And investigative reporting is the opposite of impatience. You have to just wait and slug it out and talk to people. And when you have a news environment of “Let’s be first, let’s get it on the Web site,” Carl and I could work on stories for weeks and Bradlee was impatient, but patient enough to let us chase the needed sources and establish the basics as fact. – Bob Woodward

Sensationalism: Always the Bad, Never the Good

1999 Columbine Shootings

Sensationalism in the news is always a touchy subject. Do we over sensationalize things? Personally I find that question just a little rhetorical. Turn on the news and it’s easy to find the blood and gore our society has been desensitized to.

But what I certainly find curious (but not unusual) is that the stories that are victim to sensationalism are those that usually have more photos and videos to add to the credibility and satisfy our society’s never-ending curiosity. Stories like the Casey Anthony trial, the OJ Simpson trial, or the Columbine Shootings were all controversial topics and became over-sensationalized because of it. But then stories about Christina Chubbuck become nothing but a legendary rumor as time goes by because no video or photo of her news-worthy event (her live broadcasted suicide) exists to cement her into history.

It is obvious why the mass media sensationalizes stories. The more viewership is up, the more money they make and hopefully the more of those viewers they retain for future broadcasts. But after stories like the Columbine shootings had gained so much press and discussion, school shootings seems to be less focused on due to the numerous copycat events it spawned across the globe due to some teens looking to die in an infamous angst. Which is why it is probably good that Chubbuck committed suicide before the era of VCR’s and DVR’s; for it could have also spawned other copycats like the Columbine coverage did. The copycat syndrome is a negative effect of sensationalism, and one that isn’t going to shy away soon. There are people out there who strive for the world to share their same problems, just look at Al Qaeda who sends videos to media outlets to play to the world.

Personally I’m living in a high-stress environment right now. There is nothing I would appreciate more than a measly-hyped fluff segment about kittens, the world needs more of those.

Product Placement Spans Past our TV Screens

For whatever reason I’ve always been keen to product placement, and presently it seems it is invading our favorite TV shows and movies now more than ever. There’s the obviously product placements we see in movies, such as in Wayne’s World where they try and make a mockery of the idea while partaking in it at the same time and making it a little easier for viewers to swallow.

Believe me, I’m one of the first to say that it is hard to not have any sort of brand recognition in the media. My boyfriend drinks Coke all the time, I’m sure if he did a reality TV show you’d always seem him with one in hand. I love wearing my Vans sneakers and any of my New York Mets gear. So it is easy to ignore brands such as Apple or most car brands in a TV show or movie when we are so used to seeing these iconic logos on a daily basis. Does that make product placement OK? In some cases it does, in others no.

On the matters of product placement, it makes me wonder how ethical shows like Mad Men are. Since it is a show related to advertising in the 60’s does the absence of many of the brands they focus on make it any better? Or what about the strong emphasis on Lucky Strike brand cigarettes—a brand sold today—is that unethical?

Screencap from Britney Spears' song "Hold It Against Me"

But what is especially startling to me now is that product placement is weaseling its way into music videos. Music videos have seen a new resurgence with the popularity of YouTube and in order to take to the popularity of the online forum with targeted “youngsters,” you can now see some of your favorite brands in videos for your favorite songs. Pop stars like Lady Gaga and Britney Spears have both touted spots in their videos for the dating site Plenty of Fish. Lady Gaga also has had product placement from Wonderbread whereas Britney gave a nod to Make Up For Ever.

There isn’t a huge issue for me with brand placement. I go to class with hundreds of students acting as billboard advertisements for Adidas, Nike, and Under Armor every day. I walk outside and I see every brand of car imaginable. I see Apple and Windows PC’s all over campus. No matter how hard you try you cannot escape name brands, and even the companies that pride themselves in not plastered their logo or name everywhere (like American Apparel) in such become an iconic brand themselves, it is just how our materialistic society operates.

Kenny Powers: Ultimate Winner or Failure?

Advertising today is pushy, edgy, sexual, and everything else you can air in a 30-second spot. So it is safe to say that a lot of what is being published will automatically fail the TARES test of Ethical Persuasion.

So with a lot of companies going for the controversial ads in order to gain publicity, or making the craziest campaigns just to hold Generation Y’s attention I decided to put this new K-Swiss ad starring Kenny Powers to the test (warning: It is very explicit).

Obviously Mr. Kenny Powers, MFCEO, failed. So let’s break it down.

This ad isn’t truthful at all. Obviously he is not the CEO of K-Swiss, obviously all those headlines of newspaper and magazine articles are fake. Obviously these “sports superstars” are not the creative directors behind their ad campaigns, and Ray Mysterio is not the head of security.

The ad is authentic in that is authentically ridiculous. But it is clear what is being sold (the Tubes) and who is sponsoring the ad (K-Swiss) and who is being paid as the spokesperson (Kenny Powers). Whether the authenticity is legitimate is another story…

Does this ad show respect to the viewer? Kenny Power’s personality is an in-your-face deal. This ad is shoving a bunch of “I’m better than you” garbage at the viewer with a lot of profanity to boot.

The equity of the ad is pretty low. The consumer definitely needs a particular sense of humor to get the ad and appreciate the ridiculousness of the ad. To get the ad you need a vague idea of who Kenny Powers is.

As for the advertisement being socially responsible it certainly isn’t. The word can do without K-Swiss Tubes, Kenny Powers as a spokesperson still rocks a douchebag persona, and if these shoes are beneficial to anyone it certainly wouldn’t be the average person but rather the average (possibly superior) athlete.

Comparing the Falling Man to Fire on Marlborough Street

For me a photo is something that sticks with me much longer than words ever can. When I think back on fond memories, I see them visually rather than just focusing on words. So a decade later as the anniversary of 9/11 looms only days away, the photo of “the falling man” is still visually striking and mildly disturbing. There is something about seeing someone falling to their death—especially due to their own choice, like in this photo—that forces people to confront their own fears and question the soundness of their own psyche. Many humans are filled with empathy, that swells when they see photos such as this and it can sometimes lead them into a dark place when asking where a person was mentally located to end their lives. There is something chilling about the delicacy of a human life and how easily we can become the masters of our destiny, such as the reason movies like The Bridge are so controversial.

The question with the photo of the falling man is the same question that was asked of the Fire on Marlborough Street; “Is this unethical to publish due to the sensitivity of the situation at hand?” The main difference between to the two photos is that one is of a man committing suicide, and the other is of two girls accidently falling to their death from a fire escape. The man in the photo cannot be easily identified (his identity is still not confirmed) whereas the girls can, but both subjects of the photos were forced out of buildings to their death due to fire and smoke.

I don’t think it was wrong to publish the photo of the jumping man. That image alone expresses the desperation, and the emotions running through those in the towers. No words could ever explain what that photo can, and it easily represents the effects of terrorism on the country. Unlike with the Fire on Marlborough Street, publishing this photo did not change laws or any type of regulations, but did spark an emotional pull (even if a disturbed pull) and helped people across the world understand the pain and suffering felt on 9/11 if only the feelings of that one man.

Defining the Magnetic Pull of Your Personal Moral Compass

A moral compass isn’t too different from a real compass. Instead of it directing you North or South, it directs your decisions from what is right and wrong. But as to what the pull is for deciding what is right and wrong is where the confusion lies and differs from person to person.

Presently most peoples’ moral compass is directed by societal standards. As society begins to frown upon something it becomes morally wrong. Back in “the olden days” you could stone someone to death for stealing. That was right then, but as society realized how crappy (and primitive) that punishment was, it fell under the “wrong” category. If you look in history to present times you can obviously see many topics that have switched on the meter from “right and wrong.” Examples would be sexual promiscuity, tattoos, women’s’ rights, etc.

Personally, I find my moral compass to be—like many others—guided by fear. Can you get away with murder? The chances in this day and age is no, you cannot. The hammer of justice will come down and punt your ass straight to the nearest penitentiary. I’d be in a fight every night if I didn’t think logically about the repercussions that would cause (hello lawsuits and jail time). Am I scared of rotting in a jail cell? You bet I am! So I don’t do many of the things I would otherwise like to do. Also many people upon hurting another person feel guilt, remorse, and regret. Most of us don’t like to feel that way, or be the cause of someone else feeling that way (which is why breakups usually suck regardless of what side you’re on). In other words, empathy at times also is a guide for my moral compass.

I know for a lot of people, the fear of going to purgatory or hell is a deciding factor in what is right vs. what is wrong. Their judgment calls for the most part relate to what they read in the Bible. For me this raises personal questions and beliefs when committing actions based on a higher power, but I’ll save that for a later discussion.

But it seems many people lose their compass when it comes to success. I know I am blood thirsty for a taste of it, but will I sacrifice my morals and beliefs to get it? To say people won’t make questionable decisions for a paycheck is a lie. Desperate times call for desperate measures (ex: most strippers) and I hope I never get to a point where my morals are asked to be compromised for success. And is it really defined as success if you had to lose a piece of yourself along the way to achieve it? That’s a question to mull over.

“Fire on Marlborough Street:” Defying Ethical Standards?

So chugging along into my senior year at Lindenwood University I landed myself in another class that requires some blogging (Seminar in Professional Practice and Ethics). So as usual, school-related coursework can be found on this blog and you can find me actually doing non-required blogging on my website – http://chelsycupcake.com 

"Stanley J. Forman – Fire on Marlborough Street"

The other day in class we were discussing whether the photo Fire on Marlborough Street should have been published in accordance of “what is right, and what is wrong.” The photo shows two girls essentially falling to their death (the two year old lived) and the photographer happened to catch them seconds before they hit the pavement. The question most of the students contested was whether it was right to publish due to the fact one of the women did die.

If you read a little background into the photo you’d know originally the photographer was shooting what-he-thought to be a rescue of the two girls by a fireman. He was unaware of the free-falling photo until after he developed his photos (because in 1975, digital point-and-shoot cameras were non-existent).

Although some photographers of iconic photos, such as “Vulture Stalking a Child” felt extreme grief over the photographs they took, tarnishing the joys of winning prizes for the work, the man behind the lens of the Fire on Marlborough Street finds no shame in his work. Because at the end of the day, his photograph was the catalyst for stricter fire-escape regulations.

“A picture says 1,000 words.” Ask yourself: Why has news online went from text-only to video streaming? Why does a 1,000 page book result in a 2 hour meeting? Why? Because pictures can speak more volume to people. Because most people are visual people and because pictures transcend language-barriers.

I guarantee there are many ionic photos (like these 12) that have struck a chord in your mind and because of that, you are now aware of something you weren’t before. You cannot skim a photo like you can a blotch of text.