Everything’s Better with Explosions – Michael Bay, Probably

Before I actually get to the blog post, I must share this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5KQQWlIgGc

And also let me say I have nothing against Michael Bay. He was the producer of my two favorites movies, Pearl Harbor and The Island. And everything really is better with explosions, case in point? The .gif above.

ANYWAY! Talking about documentaries. I think it’s very important to consider—when it comes to making documentaries—whether or not someone actually wants to tell a story and have it plastered on the silver screen. If the chance arises where this story is wanting to be told (what a horrible sentence), then it becomes the duty of the producer of said documentary to be as accurate as possible when portraying the events, right?

Not… quite. Unfortunately.

I know a lot of the times people do their best to accurately portray whatever story is being told, and I know that many times, the documentary attempts are attempted with no harm intended. But in some cases, documentaries are a product of fascination—usually cultural in nature—and cast ethics by the wayside.

For example? Nanook of the North (a la 1922) was a documentary for which director Robert Flaherty traveled to the Alaskan wilderness to film the lives of the Inuit people. If you believe what the documentary depicts, “Nanook and his two wives, Nyla and Cunayoo build and live in an igloo, hunt seals with spears, and are hilariously confused by modern technology”.

Problem is, that was completely made up. “Nanook” is actually named “Allakariallak”, his wives aren’t his wives (apparently they were the common-law wives of Flaherty), ‘Nyla’ isn’t Nyla’s real name (her name’s Alice); it was suggested by the locals and it’s actually a dirty word. On top of that, they acted out scenes based on what everyone already thought Inuit’s lived like.

But there are also the good documentaries. I watched Blackfish and it was phenomenal and terrifying. March of the Penguins was a little boring, but it was narrated by Morgan Freeman, so that’s why I sat through it when I was eleven. Plus I couldn’t drive yet and my mom really wanted to see it.

I noticed that Val said “Simple curiosity does not warrant an intrusion into the personal story of another” in her blog post about documentaries, and I completely agree. In the case of Nanook of the North, the simple curiosity people had about Inuit lifestyle didn’t warrant Flaherty’s portrayal of it, which was very offensive to the Inuit people and definitely wouldn’t fly today. In 1922 things were a little bit different, though.

But in Blackfish, that simple curiosity is hopefully leading to better treatment for sea creatures of all kinds.

Both of these documentaries were born from a brand of curiosity, but the way the producer and director went about portraying them and the ethics involved with the goal of the documentary is what matters.

The Good, the Bad, and the Wal-Mart

BEFORE ANYONE READS THIS, KNOW THAT I’M BASING ANY MEDICAL DISCUSSION ON WHAT I PERSONALLY KNOW AND THAT I’M A POOR COLLEGE STUDENT MAJORING IN COMMUNICATIONS WITH ABSOLUTELY NO MEDICAL BACKGROUND WHATSOEVER. FEEL FREE TO CORRECT ME IF I’M WRONG ABOUT ANYTHING.

It seems like the only thing that makes headlines more often than the Kardashians is who’s angry with Wal-Mart or what Wal-Mart did this time. I had a little bit of background information regarding Wal-Mart’s little PR game, because the actual Wal-Marting started in Las Vegas, I think? I live in Phoenix, and it’s both surprising and impressive how fast word gets around that things are happening at the local Wal-Mart.

But here’s what caught my attention the most. The part in the article we read that stated “One entry told about a worker whose company insurance paid for costly surgery and a pacemaker for his son” (Wal-Mart Public Relations in the Blogosphere). Hmm, thought I, what kind of condition could this person have? I was working on a short story involving a character with a heart condition (which, as is somewhat common knowledge, is what pacemakers are generally used for). So I decided to do a little bit more digging. I found an article on BusinessWeek that went a little more in-depth. “One of them [the worker testimonies] from the shop at Amarillo, Tex.,” it began by saying, “reads: Cragg Thompson joined the Wal-Mart team six years ago…Cragg’s son, Brandon, contracted cardiomyopathy—a serious disease in which the heart muscle becomes inflamed and does not work as well as it should because of a viral infection…” (Gogoi 2006) yadda-yadda-yadda.

*cue screeching tires sound effects and my head exploding from sheer frustration*

Let me start off by clearing something up. “Cardiomyopathy” is a term that can be used to refer to pretty much anything wrong with the heart. But usually, people use it to refer to anything that leads to heart failure.

Next: To ‘contract’ something means to ‘catch’ something, to ‘become infected with’, and any journalist worth their salt knows it is a term not used to refer to things like heart failure. That’s not to say it can't be used for this, it just usually isn’t. It’s more often used to refer to things like pneumonia or tuberculosis, pick your poison, I don’t care.

But word choice is a petty grievance.

The thing that caught my attention the most was the claim that this guy contracted cardiomyopathy from a viral infection. Now, certain infections are indeed listed as a trigger of cardiomyopathy. But do note the use of the word ‘trigger’. This is because these certain viral infections cause a condition called myocarditis, “an inflammation of the myocardium; the middle layer of the heart wall. Myocarditis is usually caused by a viral infection” (Mayo Clinic). Now, myocarditis is a common cause of dilated cardiomyopathy and it does go by the name of inflammatory cardiomyopathy.

TL; DR: ‘Brandon’ didn’t ‘contract’ cardiomyopathy. He ‘contracted’ myocarditis which led to a case of--probably dilated—cardiomyopathy. But you know, I'm sure saying he has a big scary word like ‘cardiomyopathy’--which with a word like 'cardio' in it means most everyone will recognize it as being related to the heart--probably makes Wal-Mart look a lot better.

Was this seriously a post about me being a stickler for details? Oh, hell yeah it was.

But let's bring this back to the ethics side of things, shall we? Technically, Wal-Mart didn't do anything unethical by having these posts and starting this blog, or at least I don't think so. Anyone can have a blog to make them feel better about themselves, I think. I know I'm way cooler online than I am in real life. To me, that's not illegal or unethical. But what I think was unethical of them was trying to force a positive spin on worker conditions, which--as we all may or may not know--isn't exactly something Wal-Mart gets praised for. It basically created an image that didn't have both sides of the story, just a bunch of happy workers who's lives were saved or improved by Wal-Mart. What I think was unethical was that they took away the voices of the actual workers to provide happy-end stories instead. 

Apparently Diamonds Aren’t Always the 'Best Friend'

Marifran Mattson and Patrice Buzzanell’s 1999 article, “Traditional and feminist organization communication ethical analyses of messages and issues surrounding an actual job loss case” proved to be a surprisingly interesting read. I usually consciously steer myself away from such material, for no other reason than it honestly does not interest me. But being an assigned reading, in this particular case I had no choice. In the article, Mattson and Buzzanell present an actual, real-life job loss case, which they analyze from both a traditional organization ethics viewpoint, as well as a view rooted in feminist organizational communication. According to the abstract, “by contrasting these two ethical systems, we [Mattson and Buzzanell] offer a more coherent and illuminating framework for problematic issues and further courses of action” (1999). From what I can gather, solely from skimming through the abstract, their goal for this article appears to be along the lines of using these two differing viewpoints in order to create a more well-rounded analysis for not only this case, but for future cases much like it. Their choice of title for the case study in question was whimsical, or so I felt, being called “Diamond in the Rough” after the ‘main character’, of sorts. The only other time I’ve heard ‘diamond in the rough’ used in any kind of conversation—be it casual or business—was in Aladdin. That movie brought me great joy as a child, and so I won’t lie, I was interested in the case study solely based on a title that reminded me of a fond childhood memory. 

The actual case study, however, was not nearly as charming as the fairytale adaption which used the same phrasing. It was, however, interesting to read how quickly things spiraled downwards following the death of the original president of WGEM. Diamond was basically stabbed in the back by his new superiors, and I will admit, I felt offended that a group of adults would stoop so low. At first, it seemed like the changes being made to WGEM’s power structure were perfectly reasonable, but as the article went on, it just grew more and more out of control. It really seemed as those Peridot, Topaz and Onyx were insecure about their own positions enough that they felt they needed to eliminate employees who’d served under the previous president. It was almost as if they were worried they were being compared to the previous hierarchy, and couldn’t handle that possibility. I know the real world is cruel and all, but this seems like something that could only happen in horror stories, rather than real life. In any event, the article goes on to analysis this horror story with the aforementioned methods of organizational ethics. And along with making some interesting points, the article also expands on several different unethical messages as classified by Redding in his/her 1996 article. I found these to be the most interesting part of the article, and even found myself thinking back to times where each of these unethical messages have been used against me or by me in my own life. All in all, it was interesting to read about how they concluded that between the two methods used, the feminist organization method (FOCES, or so I’ve decided to abbreviate it) is the most effective for remedying these kinds of disagreements and deficiencies. Usually, in today’s culture, you only ever hear about how feminism is a negative influence and feminism is bad, and it was refreshing and enjoyable to read an article that ended up stating the exact opposite of those views, contrary to what I was expecting to find in the conclusion of this article.

Jesse McCartney’s ‘Beautiful Soul’ Plays Awkwardly in the Distance

Excessive Photoshopping is pretty easy to spot nowadays, what with people becoming more and more tech savvy and able to recognize that this:

Is not a realistic bust-waist-hip ratio. The model pictured above literally looks like a bobblehead doll, and while there are plenty of people out and about who know this is not even remotely possible, there are still impressionable young girls and boys out there who might think otherwise. I mean seriously, when a study done at the University of Central Florida finds that “nearly half of girls’ ages three to six worry about being fat and about one-third would change a physical attribute, such as their weight or hair color” (firstthings.org), something has gone terribly, terribly wrong. Now, I’m well aware that I’m not the most beautiful person in the world, but I’m okay with that. Well, I should say I’m a lot more okay with it than I was when I was seven. Photoshopping has led us to believe that true beauty includes a size -2 waist, long legs, perfect face and whatever else might come to the minds of the people behind the click of that mouse. I’ll admit, I used to wear so much makeup that it wouldn’t be out of line to say a chisel was needed to take it off every day. Why? Because I had and still have acne. And acne, so says the media and everyone else is ugly, and if you have it then you’re ugly too. Now I roll out of bed and if I’m feeling particularly motivated that morning, I’ll slap some mineral veil on my cheeks before slumping out the door. (Although I will admit, this is mostly because I’m horrifically lazy, not because I one day had an epiphany about something monumental). That epiphany came when one of the therapists I was visiting (appointments made a la trying to figure out why I couldn’t focus on anything) told me at our first meeting how beautiful I was. I’ll never forget her words, she told me I had beautiful hair, my nails were perfect and my eyes were beautiful too. This came at an important time for me, because this was during the years of my life where I thought I wasn’t beautiful at all. But hearing a complete stranger say that the features I hated were beautiful really turned my world upside down.

Sorry if this ends up sounding like a cliché YA novel, but the truth is the beauty was always there; I just needed a little help from others to see it for myself. The same can be said for everyone girl, boy, man, woman or whatever. Photoshop can tell me what one person thinks is beautiful and the media can try to tell me what society thinks is beautiful, but I’m confident that no matter what I look like, I’m beautiful to someone, but most importantly, I’m beautiful to myself.

Anything for that Big Scoop

While reading Murphy, Ward and Donovan’s article, "Ethical Ideals in Journalism: Civic Uplift or Telling the Truth", the spiders began a-spinning their webs (of connection). Now, I’m already full aware that what we hear and see on the news is not a guaranteed truth, and throughout the household, the exclamation of ‘what a liar’ is a pretty common occurrence, usually made in the direction of a news anchor or journalist. I personally prefer trying to hear every side of everything, and at one point in my life, was plagued by a delusion of grandeur in which I would single-handedly revamp the journalism industry so no one would say the word ‘liar’ in regards to those people again. But as I grew older, that faded into the dust, because I figured out very soon that you can’t be on both sides of an issue and still expect to be published. This is because people hear what they want to hear, and most people in most situations aren’t going to look at evidence with an objective point of view. There really is no such thing as impartiality or unbiased views in anything, due to a phenomenon known as ‘confirmation bias’. We’re all guilty of it, even if we say we’re not and that we like to look at all sides of the issue (ha, ha jab at self). People like to hear things that reaffirm what they already believe to be true, and anything that goes against what we believe is subconsciously twisted so that it takes on a meaning that agrees with our beliefs. That’s what’s behind what Gans (2003) is talking about when he’s quoted on page 324, saying “Merely supplying them [citizens] with information does not make them into informed citizens. The people have to participate, for example, by wanting and using the information, perhaps by incorporating it into what they already know”. If you want to be published and if you want people to read your work, you don’t have much of a choice outside of taking a side. People who agree with your views will flock to and praise your posts and people who disagree will rant about it on their own blogs and leave nasty comments on your posts.

Personally, I think it’s weird to know that the people who are supposed to provide you with information are actively twisting it to fit their own biases, and then you, the viewer or listener, will then twist it even further to compliment your own. I don’t believe in truth in media at all, because it’s all designed to cater to someone’s point of view. There is no truth-telling when the truth being told has been turned into a lie of its own. Maybe this is just me being cynical beyond what my age should allow, but I don’t think even fact-checking can help with this. All facts were opinions once and in his article, “How Facts Backfire”, Joe Keohane states that, 

“Researchers at the University of Michigan found that when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds. In fact, they became even more strongly set in their beliefs. Facts, they found, were not curing misinformation. Like an underpowered antibiotic, facts could actually make misinformation even stronger" (2010)

This rejection of factual information is a phenomenon appropriately named ‘backfiring’, and it’s supposedly a natural defense against cognitive dissonance. In other words, we only accept facts that will make us more confident that we’re right, and like a bunch of self-righteous teenagers, we don’t want to listen to mom and dad and accept that we just might be wrong.

And This is Why We Can't Have Nice Things...

This post goes along well with the position paper we just wrote, and I'm reaching back in time to bring Craig R. Smith into the mix as well. 

I hate politics as much as the next person might. But my dislike of politics should not be misinterpreted for me not caring about them. Oh, I care. I care about the state our country is in and I definitely care about all the messes my generation will have to clean up later. What I hate is the whining and schoolyard fights politicians get into, which gets nothing accomplished. 

Just-- just no. No. 

I myself, am a moderate; I don't swing left or right, I obey gravity and fall right down the middle. Some things get me more fired up than others, but by the end of the day, I'm not in a screaming match with someone with opposing views and 9 nights out of 10, I go to bed peacefully. That tenth one that's not peaceful is probably because of a test or eight-page paper. 

----

I also just need to take a moment to add this in here, and I'm not going to count this little rant as part of the post word-count. But I need to add this to combat any claim that saying I'm a moderate is a political cop-out: 

It's not. As a moderate, I'm not tuned-out from what's going on in the world; I see both sides of the issues at hand. I think the main parties in the U.S.A are overly ideological and need to learn to get along with one another. 

----- 

Now, to combat my ever-growing frustration and annoyance with politics, I usually relieve stress by analyzing political ads I see on TV or YouTube and flyers I get in the mail. I pick out everything they're doing wrong, and all the little quirks they include to sway the masses their way. But that, my friends, is not what this blog post is about. Well... actually, it sort of is. But it's mainly about Craig Smith's "Campaign Reform as Censorship", so we'll talk about that first.

To be honest, reading it actually made me angry. But that's mostly because my default reaction to political readings is a stereotypical teenager groan and eye-roll. I'm not one to donate money to political parties, and I don't think I ever really will be. I don't have any memories of my parents actively donating money to political causes, except perhaps once when my brother worked on the campaign of David Schweikert (Arizona's House Representative). Other than that, I haven't been paying attention. 

But in that reading, there was one thing that spun me into a dimension of disbelief and disgruntlement I don't believe I've ever been in before in my life. It was this:

"The distribution of federal funds favored the two-party systems, thereby quashing the voices of third party candidates. Full matching funds were provided ONLY to those parties that scored 25% of the vote or more in the previous presidential election. Worse yet, the law funded the two parties' primary candidates, conventions, and election campaigns, while marginalizing third parties and their candidates."

[If you listen really closely you can hear me screaming]

This is just one of the things we've covered in the political pool that has driven me up the wall. There was also Stephen Colbert's "Super PAC" video (which I've watched about thirty times, purely for the humor), which drove me back down said wall. Both of these things just left me in appalled awe at how candidates acquire so much money, but instead of using it towards something like, I don't know, fixing the potholes in town, the first thought they have is:

"......I'm gonna buy a cruise ship."

Now, I'm sure there are plenty of politicians out there who are willing to use their funds to help the community, but it's painfully rare. And it's because of these attempts at reformation--which don't really fix anything--and whatnot that it's so uncommon. And I think this shows in the flyers and ads I see and receive. I very rarely receive flyers from third-party candidates, and 90% of what comes to my house is from one of the two main parties. Even in the position paper we just wrote, there were zero ads from candidates outside of the two main parties to choose from, though that could be because they just weren't included in favor of better-known names. 

Subliminal Advertising! Suddenly I want a Coca-Cola...

Nowadays, it's pretty much impossible to get away from subliminal advertising. It's everywhere in our day-to-day lives, and it's especially common in politics. In our reading, Franklin S. Haiman says that it's through such techniques--which he calls 'hidden persuaders'--that politicians establish a democracy in a country. These 'hidden persuaders' are individuals who work beyond the conscience and strive for a more automatic response from said person. More often than not, these persuaders are politicians, and Haiman says that they are completely aware of how effective these little manipulative strategies are.

And he has quite a few problems with that. And I don't blame him. I, for one, can't say I'm a fan of having one of Khan's Ceti eels in my brain for any reason. Even if it's not a diabolical plan to exact revenge on James T. Kirk.  

Anyway! It seems like his main problem with hidden persuaders is their massive use of subliminal cues, hypnosis and loaded language. These types of manipulative techniques are actually pretty common in modern political advertisements. No matter what ends they achieve, however, these techniques are immoral. 

I think that's a little bit of a stretch, because I can't with a good conscience call Sarah McLachlan's ASPCA commercial immoral, even though it uses it's fair share of psychological manipulation to convince me to save the animals. It's for a good cause, but according to Haiman, it's still immoral, because I'm not really provided with a choice in the matter. 

...Well, I am. It's just that choice is 'save a cute animal' or 'be a heartless monster'. Even if I manage to convince myself I'm not said heartless monster, you can be assured that commercial will show up again as soon as I've made that decision and then it's rinse, lather and repeat.

It's things like that which make it hard to say that all hidden persuaders are unethical. That's a fallacy if I ever saw one, and I think whether something is a hidden persuader or not isn't something that can be contained to one definition. It really depends on the opinions and values of whatever culture the persuasion is taking place in.

However, I think we can all agree that the Ceti eel was a lame move on Khan's part.

R.I.P Captain Terrell.