Month: October 2019

1. Introduction
   1. First I will introduce the topic by talking about TV anchors on movies and tv
      1. I will probably use the example of Wolf Blitzer playing himself in the movie Mission Impossible
   2. Give the pros to the situation (it gives credibility to the movie by using a real tv anchor)
   3. cons: this contributes to the blurring of tv and entertainment
2. TV anchors as celebrities
   1. in 1997, the first appearances of tv anchors playing themselves in movies caused a lot of controversies
      1. Primary source 1997 news article
         1. “said he now has second thoughts because the line between entertainment and news is blurred and because of the awkward synergy between CNN and Warner Bros.”
         2. quote from Wolf Blitzer that says in 1997 he declined to do movies on “principle”
            1. “There have literally been 20 or more movies that I’ve been asked to be in,” Blitzer said. “I read all those scripts. As a White House correspondent and earlier as a Pentagon correspondent, I just didn’t think it was the right thing to do. . . .

               “I didn’t want to confuse what I do for a living, which is stand on the North Lawn of the White House and report real news, with being in a motion picture and reporting what is not real news.”

3. The shift
   1. Infotainment
      1. CNN 1980, first 24-hour news service
      2. redefined the way we think about access to news
   2. CNN competing with other networks for viewership
      1. having celebrity TV anchors promote both Times Warner (CNN parent company) and CNN news shows.
   3. News as a business
      1. Most news media owned by 6 companies
4. Outlook
   1. Gives movies credibility to have tv anchors in movies, but it can actually decrease the credibility of the TV anchors themselves
      1. It can give the impression that journalism is for sale, it takes away from the actual stories that are being reported
   2. TV anchors are becoming celebrities that overshadow the news itself

sources

[1] https://www.sfgate.com/entertainment/article/CNN-Rethinks-Its-Film-Role-Cameos-in-Contact-2817310.php

I clicked on the humor section of the TED Talk page, and this title pulled me in. This TED Talk was probably one of the best ones I have watched. First of all, his graphics were great. There was not a traditional slide show, but just examples of political cartoons that he was talking about. He also sometimes did not reveal all of the pictures until the right moment to elicit a laugh from the audience, which was pretty genius.

I liked the way he set up his presentation too. He started with the role of a political cartoonist in the last twenty years, which Chappatte was. Then he began his shift into more serious material. In many ways, this was an excellent example of a paradigm shift.  He talks about how political cartoons have been very important for press freedom for hundreds of years and that they are often the victim of censorship and oppression when democracy is failing. Then he moves into more recent examples of cartoonists being killed, jailed, and exiled and authoritarian regimes for their work. But he then he talks about countries that supposedly have a free press and is a democracy — the United States. He explains how he worked for the new york times, but when the times published a controversial political cartoon and received a lot of backlash, they decided to fire all cartoonists to prevent any further controversy, including Chappatte. He moves into how this has broader implications on the state of democracy, being careful of self-censorship, and how social media is impacting news media. I think the way he structured his presentation was impressive, espeically since he was able to talk about a difficult topic with humor. He was also able to tie in his personal story with the broader issue, which raised his credibility.

For the Unit two assignment, I am interested in pursuing how we interact with news media. The main ideas I want to focus on are the rapid consumption of media, the telecommunications act of 1996, social media, the end of print media, and anchor celebrities. The shift of print media, newspapers and magazines, to all digitization, most certainly is because of social media and convenience, but it is much deeper than that. Physical newspapers are dying out, but we are not replacing them with just digital versions. Instead the entire structure of articles has shifted. Online articles are often shorter as if people do not want to read as much. People also have changed in the amount of news they consume daily and the pace has increased too. People have mobile devices that allow them to have access to news at any time they want. With this rapid consumption that also means the news needs to update constantly to fill the demand. Since it should be very apparent that news is a business with the aim of profiting, which is also a part of the problem. But this constant need for news contributes to the 24-hour news cycle that needs constantly new or updating media.

I am also fascinated with how tv anchors have turned into celebrities, which can be a problem because their role as a celebrity can overshadow the news itself. There is also a big problem with fake news that is spread throughout social media because the articles look and sound as if they are from legitimate news sources. The finally the telecommunications act of 1996 was passed by President Clinton that deregulated the communications sector that essentially allowed for fewer companies to control our media (which is why we only have 6 companies controlling practically all of the country’s major media companies). The consolidation of media has influenced how media is distributed and how news is reported, essentially it is about making money. It also points to a future where media may be run by one giant corporation or that news will just be no longer about the facts, but only about profit.

Rough Draft

1. Introduction
   1. On the heels of the release of a summary of the Senate Committee Report on Torture, President Barack Obama held a press briefing where he admits the CIA used torture after the events of 9/11. It was significant that Obama used the word torture because that word has legal connotations. He pairs informal language with this severe topic — including the infamous phrase “we tortured some folks” — that leaves an unsettling impression on the audience. Obama avoids blaming any specific people, and instead uses the word ‘we’ to imply that the audience is the one that is responsible and needs to be accountable. Part of what makes his answer so unsettling is the type of speech he gave.
   2. Typically when discussing the legality of something, the speaker would use a forensic speech. However, Obama used rhetorical tactics that are more consistent with deliberative and apologia type of speeches. A Deliberative speech persuades their audience to a particular course of action for the future; it also assumes that the audience has a stake in the decision. An apologia is used when a scandal has occurred, and the speech aims to justify an action, so it viewed more favorably. It can also be used when the speaker is attempting to diminish the situation (Keith and Lundberg). By combining these two types of speeches, Obama leaves his audience feeling perplexed from this unexpected use of rhetorical devices.
2. “We” –
   1. Deliberative
      1. Throughout his speech obama uses the word we. And he uses this word to employ pathos. He wants to establish a connection to the audience and the torture program, as if the auidence had some stake in what happened, and that it is up to them to deicde what will happen, which he is statting is their civic responisbilty
   2. Apologia
      1. He uses the common place that we as a democracy are responsible for the actions of the government to also invoke that it is the audience’s job to take accountability for what happened. This is in line with the apoliga type of speech. He is diminish the problem by not naming specific people who are responsible and shifting the responsibility from the CIA to the people
3. “Folks”
   1. Apologia
      1. This juxtaposition of  informal language to a serious situation is Obama’s attempt to relate to the audience. Politicians often use the word folks to relate to the more common person. It’s typically a gender neutral term with a positive connotation. Its also very non specific so Obama enters their weird terrotiy of admitting to Torture, but again gives no spescifc information as to who they tortured. Folks also usually has a positive connotation so we get then again this opposite of tortutre, a very negative thing, to folks, a usually happy thing joined together.
      2. This is the same thing as before. He is recognizing the scandal has happened, but downplaying the severity to the audience so it is more along the lines of, “oh we made mistakes, let’s move on”. Which is a commonplace that we hear every day.
4. Second artifact – scandal apology
   1. This is often the same strategy used in an apologia speech. I mean how many times have we seen youtubers make an apology video where they admit to something, but say it was just a mistake and want to move along?
   2. Example of Tana mongeau apology over a series of racist tweets. On twitter it is a very basic broad apology. She says it was a mistake, but that she is working to be better in the future, and to move on from this experience. Which sounds much like what Obama is saying about torture.
5. Conclusion
   1. tone /type of speech matters

revised Speech outline

1. 1. Introduction to the video, give the relevant context
   2. Play the video
   3. Explain your thesis
      1. Expected to have a forensic type of speech, but instead uses rhetorical tactics that are more consistent with a deliberative and an apologia type of speech.
      2. A Deliberative speech persuades their audience to a particular course of action for the future; it also assumes that the audience has a stake in the decision. An apologia is used when a scandal has occurred, and the speech aims to justify an action, so it viewed more favorably. It can also be used when the speaker is attempting to diminish the situation (Keith and Lundberg). By combining these two types of speeches, Obama leaves his audience feeling perplexed from this unexpected use of rhetorical devices
   4. Deliberative – assumes the audience has a role in the decision or course of action at hand
      1. “We”, – pathos and common places
         1. Two options – saying entire government is at fault or its the audience fault as well
            1. But either one is still saying audience has a role because audience elects government officials
         2. Is trying to relate the audience to the situation, so then he can put the responsibility on them to decide what happened in the future
      2. Civic Engagement – pathos
         1. Wants the country to take responsibility and accept what has happened
         2. Common place that everyone participates in a democracy and is therefore responsible  
   5. Apologia – playing down
      1. The juxtaposition of informal language and a serious topic
         1. Folks – getting people to relate – pathos — but it is unsettling and is not very successful for the situation.
         2. In turns down plays the situation
      2. We all made mistakes
      3. Lack of naming names,
      4. Trying to make the situation not sound as bad ‘we all make mistakes “”we need to live up to our values”
         1. Common place that everyone hears daily