Coming from a hometown where it seems like every day, news spreads throughout my high school of someone new “coming out of the closet,” I personally don’t find anything too incredibly immoral about the short story or the film, however, I can understand why some may take offense to this type of material.
Although Brokeback Mountain was a box office smash when it first hit theaters in late 2005, there was also much controversy and criticism from both the media and the rest of society. When the film came out, I remember people at my high school just referring to it as “the gay cowboy movie.” This comment in itself is controversial. We can take this simple phrase, break it apart, and find many different reasons why some people may be offended by this movie.
First off, are the two main characters really gay, or are they bisexual? One automatically assumes that they are indeed homosexuals, but really, they both lead other lives outside of their relationship with each other. They both have spouses (whom they cheat on- again, is the media sending the right message that it’s okay to cheat on your spouse if you’re gay?) and children. Or are they not gay at all; do they just have a special bond that they could not have with any other man? Personally, I believe this is open to the viewer’s interpretation.
Secondly, the fact that these men are cowboys makes this film quite controversial. Cowboys represent the typical “manly man,” the Old West and a true American. What could be more scandalous than two muscular, hardworking, cattle-roping men being homosexuals? This was an uproar waiting to happen. Everything our society knew was being put to the test of being able to handle a film of this nature.
Saturday, October 13, 2007
Friday, October 12, 2007
Stupid Cowboys....
It wasn't the homosexuality. No, if the film had simply been about two random homosexual people and their relationship, it most likely would have been widely ignored. The film would have been watched with those that already agreed with it. The problem that most non was - the cowboys.
When Brokeback Mountain made its cowboys homosexual, many people viewed that as an attack on an American tradition. Cowboys have long been the symbol of American masculinity, followed closely by lumberjacks, soldiers, and private eyes. Homosexuality is widely viewed as a less than masculine trait, and that - not the homosexuality itself - was the main problem that most non-homosexual audiences had with the film. No doubt they were also offended at the depiction of those not in favor of homosexuality as violent bigots, as well.
Homosexuals would most likely take no offense at the depiction of the cowboys in this film, but they've got plenty to be offended at as well. The two homosexuals in this film aren't exactly good poster children - they cheat on their spouses, for one thing.
The one thing that both sides can agree on to dislike about this film, however, is that these cowboys are idiots. I'm no marksman - all right, I'm a very, very bad shot - all right, I literally cannot hit the broad side of a barn - with a shotgun - and I still might have been able to make it. Either of my twin brothers (They're twins, I am not. That question always arises.) could certainly have made it. They hunt poisonous snakes for fun, for crying out loud. A cowboy who has to live out in the wilderness for months at a time should never have missed that shot. Of course, it might have helped if he had actually taken a realistic period time to aim, or used a rifle, with, I don't know, a scope.
Their camp was ridiculous, as well. Where was their food supply? I saw one box, left on the ground. First, you don't keep food on the ground, especially near your camp. You might as well put up a large sign saying "Bears stop here!" You keep it in an aerial or buried cache, well away from camp. They left their supplies (pots, pans, cooking tripod, etc) outside all night? Raccoons can steal things that are literally bolted down. These cowboys would have been wiped out of supplies and food in days, and sleeping on the bare ground because their tent was barely staked at all.
Also, just as a point of accuracy, no cowboy hates beans. Ever. That would be like a lumber jack hating axes and saws. Beans are what you eat, if you are a cowboy. They are a staple, like flour or water. Not every ranch worker and bar drinker wears a cowboy hat, either. Some wear feed caps.
Sure, there is and always will be controversy and disagreement over this film. At least both sides of the debate can at least agree that they should have talked to some real cowboys though. At least there's one thing about which we can all get along.
When Brokeback Mountain made its cowboys homosexual, many people viewed that as an attack on an American tradition. Cowboys have long been the symbol of American masculinity, followed closely by lumberjacks, soldiers, and private eyes. Homosexuality is widely viewed as a less than masculine trait, and that - not the homosexuality itself - was the main problem that most non-homosexual audiences had with the film. No doubt they were also offended at the depiction of those not in favor of homosexuality as violent bigots, as well.
Homosexuals would most likely take no offense at the depiction of the cowboys in this film, but they've got plenty to be offended at as well. The two homosexuals in this film aren't exactly good poster children - they cheat on their spouses, for one thing.
The one thing that both sides can agree on to dislike about this film, however, is that these cowboys are idiots. I'm no marksman - all right, I'm a very, very bad shot - all right, I literally cannot hit the broad side of a barn - with a shotgun - and I still might have been able to make it. Either of my twin brothers (They're twins, I am not. That question always arises.) could certainly have made it. They hunt poisonous snakes for fun, for crying out loud. A cowboy who has to live out in the wilderness for months at a time should never have missed that shot. Of course, it might have helped if he had actually taken a realistic period time to aim, or used a rifle, with, I don't know, a scope.
Their camp was ridiculous, as well. Where was their food supply? I saw one box, left on the ground. First, you don't keep food on the ground, especially near your camp. You might as well put up a large sign saying "Bears stop here!" You keep it in an aerial or buried cache, well away from camp. They left their supplies (pots, pans, cooking tripod, etc) outside all night? Raccoons can steal things that are literally bolted down. These cowboys would have been wiped out of supplies and food in days, and sleeping on the bare ground because their tent was barely staked at all.
Also, just as a point of accuracy, no cowboy hates beans. Ever. That would be like a lumber jack hating axes and saws. Beans are what you eat, if you are a cowboy. They are a staple, like flour or water. Not every ranch worker and bar drinker wears a cowboy hat, either. Some wear feed caps.
Sure, there is and always will be controversy and disagreement over this film. At least both sides of the debate can at least agree that they should have talked to some real cowboys though. At least there's one thing about which we can all get along.
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
ABC and CNN Jena 6 Defendant released
I looked at two articles concerning the release of one of the Jena 6 on bond from abcnews.go.com and cnn.com. I really do not have any background information on which of these sources may be more liberal or conservative, and I found little difference between the stories.
As far as bias is concerned, there is little to be found in both articles. This article is mainly concerning the story around Mychal Bell, one of the Jena 6. Both sources presented the facts with little analysis or bias concerning the parties involved. There was a notable difference in the approach in the stories. The cnn.com article was saturated with quotes from various attorneys, activists, and community members. The article attempted to tell the story through the eyes of the people most closely involved in the story.
abc.com, however, stuck to a more traditional factual report, and focused more on the legal issues concerning the case. I believe that abc.com's approach was more useful, as it focused more on the actual story about the release of this individual, rather than the story of the Jena 6. The CNN article seemed to forget about the actual story, and began to focus more on the Jena 6 debacle in general.
While neither side showed much bias, the ABC article showed much more reporting competancy.
As far as bias is concerned, there is little to be found in both articles. This article is mainly concerning the story around Mychal Bell, one of the Jena 6. Both sources presented the facts with little analysis or bias concerning the parties involved. There was a notable difference in the approach in the stories. The cnn.com article was saturated with quotes from various attorneys, activists, and community members. The article attempted to tell the story through the eyes of the people most closely involved in the story.
abc.com, however, stuck to a more traditional factual report, and focused more on the legal issues concerning the case. I believe that abc.com's approach was more useful, as it focused more on the actual story about the release of this individual, rather than the story of the Jena 6. The CNN article seemed to forget about the actual story, and began to focus more on the Jena 6 debacle in general.
While neither side showed much bias, the ABC article showed much more reporting competancy.
Democrats withdraw from primary
Dealing with the topic of five democrats withdrawing from the Michigan primary, I compared the articles between FOX News and CNN. I expected to find FOX News criticizing the democrats, since FOX News is know for their right wing perspectives. The reason why the democrats withdrew from the primary is based on the fact that the date of the Michigan primary is before the date of February 5. Only Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina are aloud to have primaries before February 5. Having a primary in Michigan on January 15 would be against the Democratic National Committee’s Rules. The democrats of Michigan moved the date in order to influence the state’s influence on the nominee selection. Although it will aid most of the democrats, many of them despise the idea of having a primary before the official date. The rhetoric between both seemed pretty general. There were no really sides taken on the matter that Democrats dropped out of the primary. The only difference was that FOX realized that since the democrats dropped out, it will lessen the chances of Michigan being democratic state. CNN does give interviews that quote democrats saying that they respect the primary calendar given by the Democratic National Committee, which could be interpreted that the republicans do not care for the rules, and will do anything necessary to get a presidential candidate. The democrats that the withdrew felt that the candidates that were staying in the primary were just trying elevate their specific states status in the election process.
CBS vs Fox
The two articles that I chose came from CBS News and Fox news. Both deal with the recent exposure of the latest al Qaeda video which was found by a private intelligence source named SITE. It is generally agreed upon that CBS is a more liberal source and Fox is more conservative. This is why I was not surprised at the results which I found.
From the beginning of the CBS article, I sensed a negative approach to Bush’s efforts. The article began by labeling the release of the video as a “Bush administration leak which ruined years of clandestine work.” Most of the article was spent creating the idea that the leak was more significant than it really was. It contained a quote saying that, “techniques that took years to develop are now ineffective and worthless.” The article also attempted to appear to address both sides of the issue by containing quotes from officials saying that the leak was not important, but then quickly followed them up by saying, “But off the record, some intelligence officials admitted that SITE had been of great help in obtaining secrets.” CBS goes on to say that a terrorism expert said that SITE had been of great help in obtaining secrets, but in actuality, when the quote was actually shown, the expert only said that he hopes the government uses the sources to supplement their own intelligence.
It was plain to see that the Fox article did not want blame for the exposed video to go to President Bush or his White House administration, because it considered other possible ways that the video could have been leaked, developing each one. For instance, it quoted White House spokeswoman Dana Perino’s reassuring words, saying, “We are concerned about it, and what we wanted for the American people to know, (is) that if they have information, they should feel comfortable to give it to us and to make sure that their sources are protected. ... I think this is a very isolated incident, and I'm sure the intelligence community takes it very seriously as well.” The article then further downplayed the incident by concluding with a quote from former FBI counter terror chief, Steven Pomerantz, “in terms of the overall gathering of intelligence, 99.9 percent of that is gathered by the government. It would be a mistake to be alarmed by something like this, to imply that the government's ability to collect intelligence has somehow been severely impacted by an event like this. That may be an exaggeration."
Clearly, CBS chose to focus on increasing the negative spin that the video’s exposure had already created, while Fox did it’s best to calm its readers, downplaying the incident’s importance. This is an excellent example of how the source of an opinion or story can influence it’s reader.
From the beginning of the CBS article, I sensed a negative approach to Bush’s efforts. The article began by labeling the release of the video as a “Bush administration leak which ruined years of clandestine work.” Most of the article was spent creating the idea that the leak was more significant than it really was. It contained a quote saying that, “techniques that took years to develop are now ineffective and worthless.” The article also attempted to appear to address both sides of the issue by containing quotes from officials saying that the leak was not important, but then quickly followed them up by saying, “But off the record, some intelligence officials admitted that SITE had been of great help in obtaining secrets.” CBS goes on to say that a terrorism expert said that SITE had been of great help in obtaining secrets, but in actuality, when the quote was actually shown, the expert only said that he hopes the government uses the sources to supplement their own intelligence.
It was plain to see that the Fox article did not want blame for the exposed video to go to President Bush or his White House administration, because it considered other possible ways that the video could have been leaked, developing each one. For instance, it quoted White House spokeswoman Dana Perino’s reassuring words, saying, “We are concerned about it, and what we wanted for the American people to know, (is) that if they have information, they should feel comfortable to give it to us and to make sure that their sources are protected. ... I think this is a very isolated incident, and I'm sure the intelligence community takes it very seriously as well.” The article then further downplayed the incident by concluding with a quote from former FBI counter terror chief, Steven Pomerantz, “in terms of the overall gathering of intelligence, 99.9 percent of that is gathered by the government. It would be a mistake to be alarmed by something like this, to imply that the government's ability to collect intelligence has somehow been severely impacted by an event like this. That may be an exaggeration."
Clearly, CBS chose to focus on increasing the negative spin that the video’s exposure had already created, while Fox did it’s best to calm its readers, downplaying the incident’s importance. This is an excellent example of how the source of an opinion or story can influence it’s reader.
News v. News.
The fact that news has any sort of bias at all just boggles my mind. It just stems from so many of us not wanting to form our own opinions, so we'd rather just have it forced upon us. There's so many drones in the world, and not enough actual leaders. That being said, I think that the bias in most of our news sources is generally pretty tame, and it's only the fact that exists that sends me into a spiraling rage, not the sheer amount of it.
So I decided to write my blog on something non-controversial, to see if bias could be injected into even the mundane. I chose the story about the man who created the technology for hard drives getting the Nobel prize. One from the New York Times, the other from PC world. Unsurprisingly, the New York Times decided to focus on the humanistic aspects of the story. PC World, also unsurprisingly, decided to focus on the technological aspects. It was all very subdued, very informative, and even though they were focusing on two different parts of the same story, there was no real bias one way or the other. Chalk another one up to objective journalism.
So I decided to write my blog on something non-controversial, to see if bias could be injected into even the mundane. I chose the story about the man who created the technology for hard drives getting the Nobel prize. One from the New York Times, the other from PC world. Unsurprisingly, the New York Times decided to focus on the humanistic aspects of the story. PC World, also unsurprisingly, decided to focus on the technological aspects. It was all very subdued, very informative, and even though they were focusing on two different parts of the same story, there was no real bias one way or the other. Chalk another one up to objective journalism.
MSNBC VS. CNN
There are many different ways to present the current events to the public. So far we have been analyzing the unconventional ways that the news is presented. However, after analyzing CNN and MSNBC, I have noticed that they present their news in a straightforward and sometimes biased manner.
I read an article in CNN about the presidential primaries in Dearborn, Michigan. The news site tended to side towards the democrats in the article. In fact, many of their articles were about the Democratic nominees for president. Alhough the Republicans were mentioned what was written was not necceasrily flattering. The article I read on MSNBC was also about the presidential primaries. The site tended to be geared towards the Republicans. Most of the articles were about the Republican candidates and although the Democrats were mentioned they were not focused on. Although the sites were biased when it came to which party they supported, they did not flat out bash the other parties. In fact, you had to read the articles very closely to realize that they did support one party over the other. This is one of the things that separate these kind of news sites from the other ones we have studied so far in class. They support one particular party, but they do not bash the other parties in a disrespectful way. For example if Maddox did not like something he made it known in a vulgar way. However, these kind of news site focus one one party, but they do it tastefully.
These types of news sites are unlike most of the sites we have analyzed in class so far. The news is presented in a very straightforward and serious manner. There is usually no humor and the stories are written very formally. The audiences of conventional news sites are usually geared towards an older, more educated audience.
I read an article in CNN about the presidential primaries in Dearborn, Michigan. The news site tended to side towards the democrats in the article. In fact, many of their articles were about the Democratic nominees for president. Alhough the Republicans were mentioned what was written was not necceasrily flattering. The article I read on MSNBC was also about the presidential primaries. The site tended to be geared towards the Republicans. Most of the articles were about the Republican candidates and although the Democrats were mentioned they were not focused on. Although the sites were biased when it came to which party they supported, they did not flat out bash the other parties. In fact, you had to read the articles very closely to realize that they did support one party over the other. This is one of the things that separate these kind of news sites from the other ones we have studied so far in class. They support one particular party, but they do not bash the other parties in a disrespectful way. For example if Maddox did not like something he made it known in a vulgar way. However, these kind of news site focus one one party, but they do it tastefully.
These types of news sites are unlike most of the sites we have analyzed in class so far. The news is presented in a very straightforward and serious manner. There is usually no humor and the stories are written very formally. The audiences of conventional news sites are usually geared towards an older, more educated audience.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)