Here is a piece by New Left Media, two citizen journalists Chase Whiteside and Erick Stoll who have entered the health care debate with their coverage of tea party protesters.
The media producer is New Left Media, a duo of independent journalists. The media communicator who interjects himself directly into the health care debate is citizen journalist Chase Whiteside. By directly interacting with tea party attendees Whiteside gives us a less filtered view of what is going on at these tea parties. It is apparant that Whiteside has an agenda to expose the media illiteracy of many of the attendees while at the same time educating them.
Source:
9.12 DC TEA PARTY - MARCH FOOTAGE WITH INTERVIEWS. [Online Video Clip]
Available http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUPMjC9mq5Y, September 14, 2009.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
A large segment of society disregards established media with journalistic standards as being liberally biased. With the massive flow of unverified information as the alternative, a person who wishes to believe a certain thing will easily find what they want on the internet. Many of these internet “news” sites are assigned the same credibility as the work done by those who apply journalistic standards to their stories. There is definitely a purposeful culture of ignorance promoted in certain media.
ReplyDeleteI engage in a political forum on a very frequent basis and the "news stories" (which are really undocumented opinion pieces) put up as fact is staggering. You could spend HOURS correcting the record but the damage is already done. You could show people hard facts but they choose to not accept them. This is what I mean by ignorant.
It is a testament to free speech. With so much misinformation being propagated how does one combat the issue without infringing on free speech?
Is it worthwhile for certain media producers to spend their precious resources trying to correct the record? Or, has that time already passed and certain organizations already understand this? Are resources better used discrediting targeted opposition.
With the advances in new media communications has an all out war of ideas commenced?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThere seem to be several functions. The first is persuasion. Whiteside's goal is to promote a particular idea or frame of mind. This is evident through his performance as the interviewer. His decision to ask certain types of questions, "Why aren't there any black people here?" were deliberate. He also corrects individuals when they state false information as facts. For example, an individual stated that Obama was the first to elect a czar in the U.S. This is a term we discussed. Whiteside corrects the individual and says that the first drug czar was appointed under Reagan and Czars were expanded under George Bush.
ReplyDeleteWhiteside is attempting to provide a description as well. He takes the terms that are being used in the media: socialism, czar, Medicare and many others, and attempts to define these terms in the correct context of the health care debate.
The editing, which was completed by Whiteside, emphasizes and uniformed group of citizens. The individuals have a deep rooted fear of socialism, appointed czars by Obama, and there seems to be fear stemming from racial differences.
Silverblatt argues that oral media through exploration has changed the level of discourse in the media. He says that the camera permits no pauses. (p. 33) In other words, oral media can take the most educated or informed individual and make them seem to have the insight of a 6 year-old. Though this will most likely be the argument of those who oppose health care reform, I don't think the information in this documentary was staged or manipulated.
In the Tea Party demonstration, I believe the individuals interviewed truly lacked political literacy and knowledge and Whiteside demonstrated this in several ways. When individuals were asked why they believed a certain way, they could not answer the questions. There were also several instances in which protestors had information wrong.
Whiteside was trying to highlight the power of propaganda and emotional fear tactics that have been used throughout this debate. It was a call to action telling citizens on both sides to get informed.
Overall, Whiteside's approach was possible because he was the communicator and the producer. He didn't have to answer to his boss or sponsors or worry about ratings.
Tinisha
ReplyDeleteSO you do not mind the reporter used false informtaion to achive his goals ?
He was incorect about the Czars himself .FDR started them .
SO one could say it is propaganda on his part based on the information you gave.
Using Bush as an excuses for the bail outs ? Bush did not passs the bail outs congress and the senate did ( with BHO voting for them).Contiuning to use Bush as an excuses to all things dealing with BHO is getting old.