Assignment 12 Final Project

Buying the Graphic

The central message behind Bill Moyers’ Journal report Buying the War was that the Bush Administration essentially sold the war in Iraq, Operation Iraqi Freedom, to the American public and that the major media outlets bought it and surprisingly endorsed it and helped propagate the Administrations sales pitch. One of the ways the news media did this, the report claimed, was by allowing for the unquestioned unrelenting daily coverage of reports that aligned Saddam Hussein with Al Qaeda, implied connection between 9-11 and Iraq, alleged Iraq had biological/chemical WMDs, and that Iraq was actively seeking and creating nuclear weapons. This type of media propaganda was found in all forms, T.V., radio, newspaper, magazines, internet news, and their associated images and graphics (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP3gYH9TYxU, part 1).

The phenomenon of graphics and images reflecting this policy propaganda can be examined by looking at graphics and images found in news sources from this time period. To keep in line with the mandate of this assignment, which was, to find images that reflect our area of professional interest and compare them, the focus of this paper’s analysis is on Time magazine map graphics from before the war in Iraq started and after the War had entered into its second year. Map graphics were selected because my area of professional interest is broadly geography, and specifically mapping. These graphics were examined to find if Time magazine’s image/graphics reflected Buying the War’s characterization of the media’s bias towards the War in Iraq and to see if that representation changed at all after “mission accomplished” turned into a deep insurgency. The first image selected, a map graphic of Iraq, titled “Bound for Baghdad, Strike Force” does fit into the mold of media propaganda that was found in the pre-war time period. The second image titled “State of Siege, Coming Apart at the Seems” is in stark contrast to the first and reflects, in my opinion, the awakening of journalists to the situation they had helped propagate.
The first graphic/map analyzed is called “Bound for Baghdad, Strike Force” and was associated with the Bound for Baghdad article that ran in the March 17th issue of Time magazine in 2003 (http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101030317/strike/). This is three days before the war in Iraq began. To analyze this graphic extensively, Lester’s 6 perspectives for analyzing images, is used. The personal gut reaction, the historical context, the technical aspects, and the ethical, cultural and critical aspects all play an important role in how the graphic is interpreted and will all be examined.
This graphic/map invokes feelings of patriotism. There is an overall red, white and blue color theme going on that subconsciously invokes this feeling. The way the soldiers are portrayed in the top of the graphic also sends patriotic messages. The soldiers are not wounded, not in battle, but look healthy and ready to do their job. There is also an overwhelming feeling of American power and possibly supremacy when first looking at the graphic. The title is indicative of this, stating “STRIKE FORCE”. Iraq seems relatively small and is surrounded on all sides by symbols of planes, navy ships and soldiers. My overall personal gut response after looking at this graphic is: this war is going to be easy and is totally under control, and the U.S. will dominate. If I saw this graphic before the war started I wouldn’t be worried.
The Buying the War report claimed that during the time following 9/11, leading up to the war in Iraq, there was an overwhelming environment of patriotism which was on one hand, great and, of course, normal, but on the other hand, interfered with reporters’ duty. At this time, it claimed, any journalistic criticism of the Administrations motives during ‘time of war’ was considered unpatriotic. Newspapers, weekly periodicals, and T.V. news networks all were supposedly chastised if they were to cover, for example, civilian casualties of the already ongoing war in Afghanistan or question the validity of Saddam’s possession of WMD’s or his connection with Al Qaeda. Flip to any news network, browse any magazine, read any newspaper and surely, the program asserted, and the viewer would be inundated with war pushing propaganda. These messages were not limited to T.V. reporting and journal text, but also within magazine, newspaper, website and T.V. associated graphics and images. These images consciously and subconsciously seep into the viewers mind and play a powerful role in reinforcing whatever text or spoken report they are associated with (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lb9UNtTORAM, part 2).
Technical considerations abound in this graphic and in many ways can be interpreted like an image is interpreted. The composition of the graphic is balanced, but Iraq is not centered. This, I think, is to take away from Iraq’s legitimacy and importance. This is compounded by the small scale used, showing the entire region instead of focusing in on Iraq in particular. The lighter shade of Iraq is a common cartographic technique that brings the subject into the foreground and creates a visual hierarchy. The darker color of the surrounding countries is part of this technique, but notice the dark color is not threatening. The typography is also worth examining. The typeface is definitely san-serif and appears to be Helvetica or Arial. This choice adds to the clarity of the graphic and makes the reader feel at ease.
There are many symbols found in this graphic that contribute to the overall “take-home” message of it which is Iraq will be easy, is controllable, and why even question because the U.S. will dominate. Some aspects of the country have been purposely not shown. This leads to the cultural perspective of the graphic. The viewer would notice an empty landscape surrounded by U.S. military and would have no idea of the cultural makeup of Iraq, or even any idea that people actually live there. The uninformed might even think it is part of the U.S. because of the proximity of the American flag to the country. A symbol like the presence of the American flag is the signifier and its connotation of power and strength are signified by. Another form of symbology that I noticed was the “evil othering” of Iraq by using a sinister looking drop shadow around the country’s border. Drop shadows are not unusual, but the darkness and length of its cast shadow is more pronounced than normal and leads to an “evil other” portrayal of Iraq. This graphic seems like it appropriately fits with Bill Moyers argument that journalists helped to sell the War in Iraq by using pro-war propaganda.
The second graphic/map chosen is called “State of Siege, Coming Apart at the Seams”. This graphic is associated with the April 19th 2004 issue of Time magazine. Compared to the “Strike Force” graphic, “Coming Apart at the Seams” paints a bleak and scary picture of the War in Iraq (http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101040419/map/). It tells a much different story than the first graphic and reflects the growing concern that Iraq was spiraling out of control. Unlike the first graphic where a rosy picture was painted of how easy the conflict would be, where the cultural identity of Iraq wasn’t illustrated at all, and American supremacy was portrayed through symbology, “Coming Apart at the Seams?” focuses on the cultural “patchwork” of the country and exudes symbology of death and destruction. The time of media “buying the war” was over at this point, and journalist began questioning the legitimacy of the war as well as the Bush Administration’s lack of planning and exit strategy. Like the first graphic, Lester’s method of interpretation will be used.
When looking at this graphic/map for the first time the gut reaction invoked is one of fear and worry. The dark black color scheme indicates that there is a problem. The thematic shading of different regions of Iraq communicate that it is not a heterogeneous country and that different factions exist. Symbols depicting explosions scatter the map and give an uneasy feeling of wartime and a feeling that there is a situation that in Iraq that is not under control, both sentiments contrasting to the Bush Administration’s claim of open-arms welcoming into their country.
By 2004 in Iraq Saddam had been captured, no WMD’s had been found (the premise for going to war), and the insurgency had grown, including both Sunnis and Shia populations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War). This map/graphic was in the April 2004 Time issue which was after some of the most serious fighting of the war to date, in Fallujah.
Looking at the technical considerations of the graphic help explain the purpose of it. The scale of the graphic is different than the “Strike Force” map, with a larger scale used showing Iraq largely and barely showing the region anymore. The color choices in the map also help portray the problem faced in Iraq. In the “Strike Force” map there was visual hierarchy created by bringing Iraq to the foreground with a light color and darker background for the rest of the countries. In “Coming Apart” the same technique is used except the background color for the rest of the countries is dark black. This color was chosen purposely as a symbol. The composition is balanced but Iraq is centered this time putting more importance on the country. The san-serif typeface is still used but the point size for the title is much smaller than the “Strike Force” map. I think this was done to take away some of the confidence of the viewer.
Symbology helps portray the overall message of “Coming Apart”. The black background symbolizes death and rough times. The explosion symbology signifies the unrest, un-rule and chaos of the situation. The inclusion of the image of the Ayatollah Sistani, even though used for a positive message in the map, I think contributes to further “evil-othering” of Iraqis. He has very dark eyes and has a grim look on his face and it makes you wonder if maybe he could have done something to control Shi’ites’ insurgency. The inclusion of cultural information of Iraq helps explain the unrest there and is included to let the viewer know this is not a simple situation, like the “Strike Force” map implied.
Every map and graphic tells a story. The stories of the “Strike Force” and “Coming Apart” graphics are vastly different and represent both changes in reality and changes in perception of the War in Iraq. The “Strike Force” map shows a patriotic theme, and easy task at hand, a powerful and strong U.S., and fits with Moyers’ argument that the media helped the Administration sell the war to the American people. The “Coming Apart” map illustrates a dangerous and scary situation with multiple factions of population where death and destruction are the reality. It represents a journalist turn in how the war was portrayed, in an environment where the legitimacy of the War is in questions.

Works Cited

Bound for Baghdad: Strike Force: http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101030317/strike/
March 17, 2003 Time Magazine

Iraq War: Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War

Under Siege: Coming Apart at the Seams: http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101040419/map/
April 19th, 2004 Time Magazine

Bill Moyers Journal: Buying the War Youtube part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP3gYH9TYxU

Bill Moyers Journal: Buying the War Youtube part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lb9UNtTORAM

Assignment 11

CNN’s photo

Al Jazeera’s photo

CNN’s Headline: US terror report cites Venezuela, Iran

Al Jazeera’s Headline: U.S. ‘terror’ report targets Iran

Story:

The U.S. State Department published a new report on the current state of global terrorism threats. According to the report’s first chapter, Strategic Assessment, Al Qaeda remains the largest threat. It also reports that the two states most likely to sponsor terrorism or support terrorism are Iran and Syria. The report also notes the resurgence of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and the FARC in Columbia as other major threats. (http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2007/103704.htm).

Both CNN and Al Jazeera have covered this report on their websites. Generally speaking, these different media sources represent, in a broader context, the political sentiments of their respective parts of the globe: for Al Jazeera it’s the Middle East and for CNN its North America and Western Europe. The coverage from either is fairly biased, but, in my opinion, CNN’s story stays closer to the facts and Al Jazeera’s story is more biased and paints the U.S. as the evil other. One sidenote is that CNN’s report makes Venezuela, and in particular, Hugo Chavez, to be the evil other, while Al Jazeera makes the U.S. out to be the evil other.

Al Jazeera’s story: (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/D53BCD7B-1F03-40FC-9C71-A787ACBF4B2E.htm)

Al Jazeera’s report begins by stating, “The US has said Iran remains the ‘most active’ state sponsor of what it calls terrorism’”. By using the phrase, “what it calls terrorism”, the report undermines the validity of the U.S. and the West by questioning what is considered to be terrorism. The report goes on to state, “‘elements’ of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps were directly involved in the planning and support of ‘terrorist’ acts throughout the Middle East”.  Again by using the quote-un-quote effect on the word ‘terrorist’, the desired effect of questioning what is considered to be terrorism and making the U.S. seem unjustly accusational is achieved. Lastly, the report ends on a statement by Conn Hallinan of the Institute of Policy Studies, who is paraphrased stating that, “the report gave a misleading picture of global conflicts”. Again by including this statement it plays up the U.S. as being unfair and unjustified in its report and makes the U.S. look as the evil other.

CNN’s story: (http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americas/04/30/terror.report/index.html)

CNN’s report begins by noting that Hugo Chavez has, “deepened Venezuelan relationships with state sponsors of terrorism Iran and Cuba”. It also goes on to note that Venezuelan weapons have been found in the hands of Columbian rebel groups. The report also notes the airline flights between Iran and Venezuela. It fairly reports the Venezuelan defense of the accusation by quoting the Venezuelan ambassador to the U.S. stating, “The US decided for political reasons they are going to name a country, and then try and collect information to support their thesis. It is almost ridiculous.” It is by reporting this defense that CNN remains less biased than Al Jazeera.

That’s Questionable 10

I am questioning whether the use of the evil other is really one of the most prevalent media effects found in the news media today, and especially in that of print news media. If the use of the evil other tactic really is as prevalent as our lecture suggested, it implies that most journalists and their affiliated media have an agenda other than reporting the facts. While I believe that certain institutions like Fox News would fit into the category of having an agenda and having ulterior motives, I don’t believe that it’s one of the most used effects in journalism today. In print media, I believe that articles are usually prone to the biases of their authors but are edited to a certain degree of scrutiny to not usually define someone or thing as an evil other. It is not that I think it doesn’t happen at all, just not as much as our lecture would have suggested. Of course in a political campaign, candidates will try to leak photos and images of their rivals to the media to try to depict their opponent as the evil other, but again, a major headline piece in a print article probably doesn’t use a tactic such as the evil other. I could be naive about this though.

Assignment 10

For assignment 10, the depiction I chose for a contemporary “evil other” is the photograph of Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Over the past few years his image has been used by media outlets to depict Americas’ new evil enemy.

Personal Reaction

I think there are many reasons why Ahmadinejad has become the U.S.’s evil other. For one, his name is about as Islamic sounding as you can get, which plays well into many peoples stereotypes. Second he has a western look, wearing western clothes making him seem almost like westerner. He wears this clothing and has this image yet makes anti-Semitic statements like Israel being “wiped off the map” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#2005_.22World_Without_Zionism.22_speech). These seemingly contradictory behaviors could make him seem as an imposter to the west and an imposter to western values. Also, this western style is comparable to the depictions of Saddam Hussein wearing western suits and shooting his gun off the balcony that were shown often during the build up to the war in Iraq which conjures up perceptions and feelings for many.

Technical The image I chose was a close up shot of the head. The composition is balanced with his head slightly left allowing a little lead room in front of his face. The photo appears to have been professionally taken because the lighting looks almost flat with hardly any falloff and only tiny attached shadows around the face’s features.

Historical Several months ago while Ahmadinejad visited the U.S., speaking at Columbia University and addressing the United Nations, there was much talk in politics about how the “war drum was beating” in regards to the U.S.’s policy towards Iran. At this time there was some hype that perhaps the Bush administration was secretly getting ready for a war with Iran.

Cultural, Ethical, Critical In regards to Iran, the media reports often heard include Iran’s nuclear desire, which to the U.S. government means nuclear weapons desire. Also reported on is the lack of human rights in Iran as well the lack of women’s rights. This obviously is a sharp contrast to American values and plays on people’s fears. Part of my understanding of the Iran situation is that Ahmadinejad is simply a puppet within the Iranian government and that the true policy decisions of Iran are made by their religious clerk Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. This is probably over simplified, but if this is the case, the U.S.’s new ‘evil other’ should at least have been made Khamenei. Ahmadinejad, whether accurate or not, has, in many Americans eyes become a symbol for Islamic fascism.

Thats Questionable 9

The basis of Sam Keen’s argument about -who the enemy is- seems to be based on what level of propaganda is put forth by one group about another group and hinges on the personal perception of the person interpreting the propaganda. Accepting this argument might mean that most people fit into a category of ‘unthinking masses’ who base their idea of who the enemy is on fear and media depictions of others. The point that I think is questionable, and I’m not totally sure if Keen asserts this or not, is that the evil-other only exists in our perceptions and is based solely on propaganda, fear, and hype. In my opinion, actions of people, certain leaders, groups and governments can be viewed as evil based on fact, not just propaganda and media hype.

That’s Questionable 7

When analyzing films based on Lesters’ method, Lester believes that ethical considerations be taken into account. It seems fine to consider stereotypical portrayals, violence, sexual content, and the promotion of smoking (Lester 299). However, the fifth ethical consideration he notes is copyright infringement. This doesn’t seem to fit along with the other four ethical considerations and for that I question its validity. Here is why: the other ethical considerations are aspects that the movie maker is responsible for. For stereotype portrayals Lester talks about is early (1910-1930) movies casting black actors only to play certain roles. For violence Lester notes filmmakers including violence only for big box office numbers. For sex and smoking he again notes the inclusion of these aspects by moviemaker for effect . But for copyright infringement, he only writes about the ethics of watching stolen (downloaded) movies. Obviously this is an ethical consideration, but it is not something the moviemaker plays a part in so it does not belong with those other four ethical considerations.

Assignment 8

The scene I choose to analyze is from the film, Raiders of the Lost Ark, the first of the Indiana Jones movies. This movie was directed by Steven Spielberg and produced by Frank Marshall. The story was by George Lucas and Phillip Kaufman. The scene I choose was the one near the beginning of the movie where Harrison Ford’s character, Indiana Jones, describes what the Ark is to visiting army intelligence officials. The officials were inquiring about the Ark because of a Nazi radio message they intercepted that mentioned the Ark. The scene takes place at the university Jones works at.

Personal perspective: This is one of my favorite movies and has been since I was a kid. Its one of those movies that captures your imagination and kind of takes you to another place, without thinking about it. This scene, in my opinion, is why this is able to happen, because it really sets up the rest of the movie making importance out of the central characters and plot. The scene has a good bit of religious and supernatural symbology that is transfered to the watcher by the creator of the movie. The overall religious element reflects the carefully staged mise-en-scene. For example the location of this scene is in a chapel that looks like it is being used as a classroom. Also there are stained glass windows in the background, an alter-type podium as well as a very large leather bound bible on the table. In a lot of ways this scene is like the one in The Shining where Danny talks to the older guy who works at the hotel about the Shining. Like that conversation shed light on what the shining is and that there was something bad in the hotel, this scene explains what the Ark is and that there is some powers associated with it.

Historical perspective: This mise-en-scene adds and shapes the diegesis of the film. The film doesn’t explicitly state the time period, the political and social environment of the time period, or what the characters believe or don’t believe in, these aspects are all interpreted by the audience through the mise-en-scene, and the dialog of the scene. From this we are able to gather that it is probably some time during the mid to late 30’s, Hitler is ruling Germany and is interested in the Ark, and the U.S. is interested in Hitlers actions, although it seems to be pre-WWII.

Technical perspective: A film analyst could probably say a lot about the types of shots and other technical aspects used in this scene and the craft that went into making this scene what it is. I will attempt to try to interpret these technical perspectives myself. Most of the shots are tight in on the characters giving close-ups and extreme close-ups. There are also some shots where there is rack focus going on because the focus changes from the character in the foreground to the character in the background, without the camera moving. The lighting appears to be low key light because there is fast fall off on many of the characters faces. This affect adds to the mysteriousness of the scene. There is no music in this scene until Fords’ character opens up the bible to the illustration of the Ark. The music then starts and has a creepy supernatural sound to it, which totally adds to the effect. During this time there is an extreme close up of the illustrated Ark, with beams of light coming out of it. This doesn’t seem like it would be an expensive scene to make, but makes a huge difference in the direction the movie takes.

Cultural, ethical, Critical perspective: the overall symbology of this scene goes back to my initial personal response and the description of the mise-en-scene and the diegesis. The scenes overall point is to place importance in the Ark, explain what it is, explain that it has supernatural powers, and to explain that political powers of the day are interested in it. The Ark is a symbol and through the crafting of the scene, the viewer interprets this to be the power of God, whether they are Christains, Jewish or otherwise.

Assignment 7

This photo attempts to represent a subculture of Reno. There has been an active skate scene in Reno for a long time. When I first moved out near this area in the late 90’s the skate park at Idlewild was always crowded and I’m sure it still is. The fact that Reno has several free skate parks has no-doubt enhanced, encouraged and helped develop this strong subculture. Its hard to tell in this photo but these skaters were wearing overly tight pants. This is a new style I have noticed in Reno especially with skateboarders, something I find difficult to understand, because skating in tight pants seems like it would be really hard.

The historical references point to the digital era. The styles and colors also reflect what time period the photo was taken, being the present. The lack of leaves on the tree in the photo can also tell us what time of year this photo was taken.

The technical aspects of this photo lead to the conclusion that it was not taken by a professional photographer. This image is blurry and the lighting is not good. It is using daylight, but the figures are in the shadow of the building, which is not the best. The composition of the photo is well balanced, and the figures colorful sweatshirts make good contrast to the background. There are several graphical vectors in the photo, like the edge marking the landscaped bushes on the side of the building from the grass, and the crack in the sidewalk going across the photo, as well as the architectual features of the building which lead the eye upward.

The ethical, cultural and critical aspect of this photo lead back to the gut reactions I first noted. This photo’s main point is to attempt to represent a subculture of Reno style, the skate scene. For a long time skateboards themselves have been a symbol. The public connotation of skateboarding is usually negative, where images of derelict kids making noise and creating havoc are imagined. So the skateboard is the signifier and the negative connotation associated with skateboarders is the signified.

Thats Questionable

Lester writes about Rick Williams theory of omniphasism a theory that “attempts to combine the rational and intuitive aspects of the mind into a balanced whole” (113). He further describes how to interpret an image using the omniphasism approach by using a technique he calls the “personal impact assessment”. My problem isn’t with the idea of including intuitive and qualitative aspects into interpreting an image. My problem is the need to create a “personal impact assessment” and give it a technical name and include it as part of analysis because it happens naturally anyway. Williams points out that “if you dont consider your own personal response to an image, you sacrifice much of the qualitative and aesthetic meaning” (Lester 113). This is true, but, I believe it would be impossible to not consider personal response naturally, so there is no need for a technical term for this part of analysis.

Assignment 6

This image is of Nirvana playing a live show and is also in the inside cover of the album Bleach. For me, this image represents the time when I was in high school, or the Zeitgeist of that era.

My gut reaction to the image is that I like it. My personal perception of the image is a positive one, but I think this is only because it means something to me. In my years of high school, the more flannels you could wear the better. Listening to music like Nirvana definitely helped channel my energy and gave me and many others of this time period something to identify with. Going along with Lester’s way to examine personal reactions to an image, the associations I make are freedom, disregard for the mainstream, energy, and perhaps neglect. I think that long hair and flannel are a symbol and Kurdt jumping into the drum set is also a symbol. Both of these symbols are of freedom and of disregard for the mainstream. By some the condition of clothing and jumping into the drum set could be considered neglect.

As far as historical reference points go, there are some give aways. The black and white image is not a historical reference, it just so happens the photo was taken black and white. But the style of clothes and hair points to the early 90’s. It was pretty much all about unbuttoned flannel shirts at this time.

The photo has technical aspects to it that lead me to believe it was taken by a professional. It is a very well balanced composition. Cobain in the drums takes the center but there are enough other things going on around him that the medium shot is well balanced even though the photo wasn’t staged but was action. The lighting source looks to be a flash from the photographer and could be called high key lighting. Any indexical or graphical vectors I believe to have been caught by accident, but do help the photo. I think the outstretched leg and the guitar are both graphical vectors.

The realm of the ethical, cultural and critical aspects of the image go back to some of my gut reactions and symbology I noticed. The overall message of this image is that we don’t care what you think and we will pretty much do whatever including jumping into the drum set. I think this message is something that began to resignate during the early and mid nineties as young people started to question the importance of money that the 80’s had embellished and the cookie cutter mainstream path that people were expected to take in life. Also, musically, it speaks to the direction mainstream music was taking in the early nineties which was really bad glam rock and nineties club and R&B music. The image was chosen to set the band apart from that scene as much as possible.