Showing posts with label media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label media. Show all posts

Friday, May 16, 2008

Playing The Election Game: Politics In The Movies

Dogs Show Their True Colours


Released in the midst of the “monicagate” era in the United States, the films Wag the Dog [1997] and Primary Colors [1998] deliver some biting political satire that takes “all the world’s a stage and all the men and women merely players” to a whole new level. In the worlds of Wag the Dog and Primary Colors life is like a play, but it is a play promoted by the media and directed by the politically savvy. There might be nothing new to movies that poke fun at people, politics, the media, and the government, but the thought provoking cynicism on the theme of power and control hits uncomfortable close to home.

Wag the Dog, like Stanley Kubrick’s Dr Strangelove, is somewhat disconcerting as the concept is so absurd, yet potentially plausible. After being caught in a scandalous situation just days before the election, the President’s chances of being re-elected are slim. The president’s political consultants move swiftly to manipulate the media (and the voting public) and direct their attention away from the allegations – focusing it instead on terrorism and a manufactured war with Albania. It is the parallels we can draw to reality here that make Wag the Dog so effective. While the president is not named in the film, references are made to the Gulf War and the assumption can be drawn that George Bush Senior is the president in question. The film also eerily pre-empted President Clinton’s actions in his second term of office, where the Lewinsky scandal broke and questionable military operations like Desert Fox were undertaken.

Based on Larry Beinhart’s book American Hero, the film satirises the relationship between politics, the media, and public opinion. The film implies that politics is about mass entertainment and that the political process is about being bigger, better, and louder than your opponent. Playing on the notion that the media also pursue these noisier stories, in the world of Wag the Dog the press can be fed anything and they will lap it up, as long as it is going to sell more news. Here the truth becomes of little consequence as “truth” is defined by whatever the public is convinced to be true. Wag the Dog alludes that reality is constructed for us by media advisors who use the media to showcase their latest political agenda – and in a hall of smoke and mirrors it is difficult to tear your eyes away from the Hollywood glamour, even if you wanted to.

The real-life resemblance in Primary Colors is more overt. The film was based on then-anonymous author Joe Klein’s 1996 roman à clé. Klein’s politically charged novel by the same name was a fictionalised account of Clinton’s run for the presidency in 1992. It drew considerably from his own notes at the time (as a reporter for Newsweek) as well as Pennebaker and Hegedus’s documentary The War Room [1994]. Primary Colors (the film) exploited the use of a visual medium and candidly parodied the Clintons and their campaign team. Primary Colors is “a neat examination of the power of the American media machine and its insatiable appetite for political intrigue” [Harvey 1998]. Here the political process is seen as dominated by the media, with politicians at their mercy. The goal of this crazy game is to stay a step ahead of your opponent, be ready to counter any censure in an instant, and be prepared to sling some mud of your own.

Primary Colors illuminates that ideals are often compromised throughout the political process in the pursuit of victory. But what for victory if at any price? In Primary Colors our heroes are portrayed as sacrificing their morals on the premise that flaws are redeemed, and underhanded tactics are justified, when it is in the pursuit of loftier goals. While this may cause a crisis of conscience for a time, once caught up in the momentum it is all too easy to lose sight of reality. The media further capitalises on this excitement, whipping the public into a frenzy, with little care as to how or why they do so as long as they’re receiving the attention and the revenue that follows. It is unfortunate that both the media’s and the public’s appetite for intrigue is essentially undoing us. Truth, if there is such a thing, is distorted either in pursuit of a scoop, or simply by anyone looking to discredit people in power. It is an environment where you are guilty until proven innocent – and even if you are innocent it will often be too late.

Wag the Dog and Primary Colors may differ in their representations, but they both ultimately deal with the concept of power and control – power over the people and public opinion, and control of information and truth. Wag the Dog insinuates that it is political operatives who wield the power, with the media as their conduit to control. Primary Colors suggests that power is shared between opinion leaders (and of course their advisors) and the media, with both having a level of control over publicising information and creating truth. Whichever notion you side with, it is obvious that the issues of power and control have not dissipated with time. A decade on, these films are still as relevant as if they had been released recently. Today we can relate to the issues in the films from our experiences with the “wars” in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the constant scandals paraded in the media, but it is the core themes that really play with our conscience. While we may be sceptical of the things we see and hear in the media, we have little reason not to believe in the information we are given. Can we trust politicians and their advisors? Do the ends always justify the means? Who is public opinion and “truth” constructed by? How would we know if it our reality is being manufactured for us? We will all have different answers to these questions, and it is up to us to find them.

I would like to believe that we, as individuals, have both power and control. I would like to believe that we all have the power over our own lives, and as such have control over our thoughts and behaviours. Perhaps it’s because I just don’t like the idea that I am being subtly manipulated by other forces. But whether I like it or not the question remains; how would I know if I am, and would it make a difference? At the end of the day they might just be entertainment, but it is films like Wag the Dog and Primary Colors that advance the rational, critical, and independent thinking of audiences and encourage us to form our own opinions. It is my hope that if we know the rules of the game then we can, at least in part, play the game ourselves.


Memorable Quotes
Wag the Dog

Conrad Brean: What difference does it make if it’s true? If it’s a story and it breaks, they’re gonna run with it.

Conrad Brean: We’re not gonna have a war, we’re gonna have the appearance of a war.

Stanley Motss: I’m in show business, why come to me?
Conrad Brean: War is show business, that’s why we’re here.

Conrad Brean: What’s the thing people remember about the Gulf War? A bomb falling down a chimney. Let me tell you something: I was in the building where we filmed that with a 10-inch model made out of Lego.
Stanley Motss: Is that true?
Conrad Brean: Who the hell’s to say?

Stanley Motss: It’s all, you know, thinking ahead, thinking ahead.
Conrad Brean: It’s like being a plumber.
Stanley Motss: Yea, it’s like a plumber – do your job right and nobody should notice. But when you fuck it up, everything gets full of shit.

Conrad Brean: Why does the dog wag its tail? Because the dog is smarter than the tail. If the tail were smarter, it would Wag the Dog.

Primary Colors

Henry Burton: A man who believes what I believe and lies about it to get elected, as opposed to a man who just doesn’t give a fuck… well, I’ll choose the liar.

Richard Jemmons: The media giveth and go fuck yourself.

Governor Fred Picker: You know this is a terrific country, but sometimes we go a little crazy. Maybe that’s part of our greatness, part of our freedom. But if we don’t watch out and calm down, it might just spin out of control. You know the world is getting more and more complicated, and politicians have to explain things to you in simpler terms, so they can get their little oversimplified explanations on the evening news. And eventually instead of even trying to explain things they give up and just start slinging mud at each other. And it’s all to keep you excited. To keep you watching, like you watch a car watch or a wrestling match. As a matter of fact, that’s exactly what it’s like – professional wrestling. It’s staged and its fake and it doesn’t mean anything. And that goes for the debates. We don’t hate our opponents, hell half the time we don’t even know them. But it seems it’s the only way we know how to keep you all riled up. So what I want to do with this campaign is kind of quieten things down and start having a conversation, about what sort of country we want this to be in the next century.

Libby Holden (on pandering to the media): Lets just scrape away your last little shreds of dignity and wallow in the trash.

Governor Fred Picker: … no matter what I do, the press is still going to find out the rest of it, aren’t they?
Governor Jack Stanton: If they think it will sell one newspaper, yes.

Governor Jack Stanton: We can do incredible things. We can change this country. I’m gonna win this thing. Look me in the eye and tell me that you don’t want to be part of it.


Recommendations


If you liked Wag the Dog or Primary Colors then Chorazy Thoughts recommends the following films:

The Great Dictator [Chaplin 1940]
Dr Strangelove [Kubrick 1964]
The War Room [Pennebaker and Hegedus 1994]
Canadian Bacon [Moore 1995]
Thank You For Smoking [Reitman 2006]
Land of the Blind [Edwards 2006]
All the King’s Men [Zaillian 2006]

Monday, May 12, 2008

The future of Zeitgeist

For anyone who knows of Zeitgeist or read my earlier post on it, this is for you!
The sequel is coming! Check out the preview below or access it from YouTube...



I say bring on October.

Otherwise if anyone is studying (or has studied) political communication at QUT you may also recognise the opening scene of the preview from Lyndon Johnson's 1964 Daisy TVC. Just another one of those quirky coincidences.

Love it.


The Shadow of Citizen Journalism

I wanted to post the following youtube video from The Nation's Jeremy Scahill, an investigative journalist. Scahill wrote the book Blackwater, which is about the rise of private security contracting in Iraq and the wider implications of this, and is widely considered to be an expert on private military companies.



One of the things I found intriguing about this post is the extensive amount of both praise and criticism it has received on youtube (at the time of posting it had received 9782 comments after being live for over a year - true not huge by youtube standards, but still worth noting).

One recent comment states:
"Oh look more biased youtube videos. YAY FOR FAKE JOURNALISM! Just because he wrote a book means he must know something right? We'll see, but don't always believe what you read."
While another replies:

"Fake Journalism? Do you even know who this guy is? His book, "Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army" is VERY well cited. VERY WELL! Read it, and then comment on this author's work... The sources are excellent. He is very respected as an investigative journalist. And it isn't easy to find 100 sources, FYI. You don't just go looking on the internet, it would take a VERY long time to do."

For me this sort of thing encapsulates what citizen journalism is all about, and demonstrates exactly how online communities evaluate content and information (such as in this instance through commenting). I love that technologies like the internet have enabled us with the power to put our opinion out into the world, releasing it for others to pick up and toy with and do with what they will. The rise in citizen journalism gives me hope that the future of media will be a collective forum where everybody has the opportunity to openly evaluate and contribute, rather than a platform from which we are fed the majority views that often remain unchallenged.

I'm not arguing that we are passive recievers of media. I also understand that citizen journalism does have negative potential, such as a loss in quality (but then what is quality?!), particularly with the growing breadth of available information and content available to us. I know quantity does not always equal quality, but I am of the opinion that I would rather have access to a greater and more diverse range of information sources that I can evaluate myself, rather than have access to only a limited number of sources that have already been pre-evaluated for me. The second option might make life easier but it also makes it easier for your life to be controlled.

On the actual content of the clip, I'd heard of private contracting in the US for the war in Iraq but didn't realise that it is potentially this extensive. Ofcourse what I have heard has come from sources like Scahill, never the mass media. I loathe to think what sort of world we would live in should citizen journalists not exist! Hallelujah for alternatives! Hallelujah for choice! Hallelujah that not everybody takes things on face value or just because somebody says they are so!

INVITATION TO COMMENT PLEASE!

Wednesday, April 30, 2008

A revelation of the "real" value in YouTube

After being impressed by the profound videos we are often shown in tutorials (to which Charlie the Unicorn is absolutely no acception) I turned to YouTube in search of something that would encapsulate the importance of online communities and highlight the value of these communities as part of the "real" world. After a rather lengthy amount of searching and many frustrated combinations of keywords later, my quest for a flashy video, smoothly cut, with catchy music and stunning graphics came to a rather abrupt end. I suddenly realised that on YouTube, these videos are far and few between. In this came my revelation.


Avid and popular YouTube user Paul Robinett (also known as Renetto) suggests that “people are innately born with a desire to communicate and to have a fellowship and community with each other”. Robinett’s Who Are You video (see below) expresses that the value of YouTube, and essentially the internet, resides in the community of users. Since the posting in August 2006 it has received 181,107 hits (correct at time of blogging) and a wealth of comments praising Robinett for identifying the value of community and challenging the stereotype of YouTube users as timewasters who have nothing better to do than film goofy videos for the sake of their own amusement. True not all the comments entailed praise, but at least some users were appreciative in their own right.

A refreshing and honest response to Robinett’s post came from YouTube user 1938Superman. The following video, re: who are you? (our online community), is 1938Superman’s personal reflection on online communities.

The opinion presented in 1938Superman’s video, while subjective, can be applied beyond YouTube users, to all users of the internet. It is a raw and insightful comment on the value of online communication, and the virtual communities that grow from this.

YouTube isn't about the technically elite sharing their latest works, but it is about interaction, communication, and a democratic inclusiveness. The same goes for the internet, and the many online communities exisiting within its endless boundaries. The real value here is that online environments are essentially nuetral and non-discriminatory, allowing for true self expression to immerge. Sure you might get torn to pieces once you put yourself out there, but another virtual identity is only a click away.

Finding who you are online is a much less evasive and frightening journey. Maybe once we have this more defined sense of self those of us previously socially incapacitated may find the courage to become active in the "real" world. And if they/you don't what is actually wrong with living life online? It's your life, your choice, and your community.