All Media is Constructed

With all the commotion regarding the Kony 2012 "movement", I though I would take some time as a filmmaker to explain some fundamental concepts to my readers. The average person thinks of documentaries as works of non-fiction that presents a complete non-biased picture. That could not be further from the truth, as even objective forms of all media are constructed.

Documentaries first start with a concept or an arguement and use interviews and visual imagery to tell the story they are looking to tell. As the crew embarks on shooting the documentary, the director takes that concept and writes interviews, goes to related events, and shoots compelling footage to tell that story. Often, the director will ask leading questions to get a soundbite or answer that will help propel the story along to provide evidence for their argument. In addition, the director will often tell the editor to cut around the desired answer, taking it completely out of context and proving his or her point. 

Another thing to ask yourself when watching a documentary is who is left out of the telling of this story. Is the story fair to both sides? Is another perspective even presented? Who is funding this documentary? Is there a financial incentive to present this argument, this particular way? What is the director's overarching agenda? These are just some of the questions one should look at when evaluating the integrity of a film or filmmaker. 

Another way documentaries are constructed is through their editing. An editor is often given hundreds of hours of footage that they must narrow down to a small sliver. They are able to rearrange things and take them out of context. Overlay B-Roll footage and compelling music on top of interviews to create an emotional appeal. They can cut out things that seem contrary to their argument, and cut around dialogue to make their interviewees seem more articulate. 

As emotionally appealing the Kony 2012 campaign may seem when viewed on the surface, there is much more to the story than Invisible Children make it out to be. It is a complex issue that involved many parties and tragedy on both ends. By making the story simply binary, presenting "good" and "bad" (Kony), Invisible Children has over simplified the issue, preventing the general public from knowing the entire story. 

If you are interested in investigating the story further, please read the blog posts below:

Blog Summary

More

IC Responds to Criticism

There are a few articles about it as well. 

Follow the money. Always follow the money. It will tell you a lot about the incentives behind a particular message. 

The Truth About the War on Planned Parenthood

It is astounding to me the debate going on across the nation about Planned Parenthood and women’s health on both sides of the isle. In today’s New York Times Article, Women in Texas Losing Options for Health Care in Abortion Fight, Pam Belluck argues that the fight to end tax-payer abortions is causing a serious toile on Woman’s access to health care across the state.

They begin the article with an emotional pander stating, “Leticia Parra, a mother of five scraping by on income from her husband’s sporadic construction jobs, relied on the Planned Parenthood clinic in San Carlos, an impoverished town in South Texas, for breast cancer screenings, free birth control pills and pap smears for cervical cancer. But the clinic closed in October, along with more than a dozen others in the state, after financing for women’s health was slashed by two-thirds by the Republican-controlled Legislature.”  What they fail to mention is that the state of Texas faced a several billion-dollar deficit this past session and made cuts to programs across the board.

In addition, they fail to mention where the money was redirected to and how other important state functions were helped by the funds transferred their way. One amendment in particular, #46 to the House Budget, took money away from Planned Parenthood and put it towards children with autism (which had received no funding in the House Appropriations Bill). When questioned about this Rep. Christian stated, “We don’t choose between good and bad, we choose between necessary and necessary”, meaning every interest group wants money, lawmakers much choose their battles and give the money to whom they think needs it more.

Planned Parenthood is far from the safe haven for women that the left likes to portray it as. For years they have been caught in scandals ranging from giving advice to pimps on how to receive free care for their underage prostitutes to disposing of fetus remains behind the dumpsters in their facilities. Do you really want your state tax dollars funding operations like that?

Unfortunately, Republicans have made many crucial mistakes when pursuing this issue in their dealings with the media. Instead of phrasing it as allocating scarce resources to more deserving causes, they often phrase it as a war on birth control and abortion. Just look at the gaffs made by Rick Santorum. He speaks as though he desires to outright outlaw birth control. If that is not big government, I don’t know what is.

Republicans need to rephrase the debate to something along the lines of: “If a woman desires to use contraception, she has the right to do so with her own money. However, that being said, it is not fair to subsidize a woman’s sexual practices at the expense of the tax payer.” In essence, frame the argument to portray this type of  funding as welfare for contraceptives.

Sex is a luxury, not a right. If someone cannot afford to be on birth control and does not wish to have a child (or cannot afford a child) then they should not be having sex. Period. Our country is 15 trillion dollars in debt and we are paying for these women to be on birth control (while at the same time subsidizing abortions because they take place in the same places). Insanity.

The media likes sensationalism. Phrasing this fight as a battle for scarce resources isn’t nearly controversial enough to garner readership, because of this, publications like the New York Times like to make it out to be a fight to end woman’s healthcare. That is not the case at all. Women can still have access to all the things a Planned Parenthood has to offer; only they have to pay for it instead of the taxpayer.