week 15/16: The Golden Rule

So this past week, we eased our way back into the routine by finishing up watching everyone's documentaries that we all spent so much time on, and I must say, I was very impressed with how everyone's turned out. It was obvious that every group spent a large sum of time and effort on each of their projects, and the results were outstanding. I was very surprised that most groups took an ethical approach at their films, even though it is the harder route to take. Because of this, most of the documentaries made a very strong point in what they had set out to talk about. The one or two groups that chose the unethical approach seemed to weaken their message through less-than-honest approaches, but still provided excellent documentaries nonetheless.

This week we focused mainly on the Golden Rule and how it fits into society today. The Golden Rule is something that we all grew up with, "Treat others as you would like to be treated." On paper it seems pretty simple and like a good idea that everyone should abide by, but when we delve deeper into an in-depth analysis, the rule becomes more complicated than it seems. Sure, treat others as I want to be treated, easy enough. But what if I don't want to be treated well or don't care how others treat me, then do I have the right to treat others poorly? Certainly not, but because the Golden Rule doesn't specifically state that, one could argue that it implies that very idea.

Another flaw with the rule is the lack of instruction for someone being taken advantage of. If I were to lend someone money and they requested more without paying me back the original amount, should I be expected to give it to them? Sure, if I were in that situation, that's what I would want someone to do for me, but I'd also never want it to stop. I'd keep requesting money because if they abide by the golden rule, they would continue to give it to me.

These are two of the many examples of flaws within the Golden Rule. Does that mean we shouldn't follow it? No, to an extent. Like anything else, there's certain situations where it would apply and certain areas when we just need to decide it's null and void. Anything that we take the time to over-analyze is going to show flaws, but the basic idea is still a good one, because if we try to live the way the rule intends us to live, then society is a better place.

Is there anything that could take the place of the Golden Rule? There are a few other rules on ethical codes that we discussed, including the silver rule, which is very similar to the Golden Rule. "Do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you." The main difference between this and the Golden Rule is that it does not imply to be obediant in every situation. It still acounts for an idea of non-violence toward your neighbors, but is also takes into account the idea that one should not let themselves be taken advantage of. It still however, contains flaws, some of which were also seen within the Golden Rule.

This week we also looked at what it really means for something to be considered ethical. We looked at the idea of the "Greatest Good", which means, when we are given one option (the "take it or leave it" scenerio), the decision we make that results in the greatest good is the most ethical decsion. What defines greatest good though? If I benifit from cheating on a test as opposed to no one benifitting, is that still the most ethical approach? In theory, if we take the concept 100% literally, then maybe. But, most people would tell you that in the long run, cheating is, though not directly, still detrimental to my peers because school acts like a community.

Essentially, it's important to remember that things like exploitation and cheating for means of personal gain is not the ethical way of doing things. Machiavelli might tell you that it is the most effective, which I can't argue with, but it isn't worth it to cause the downfall of others to benifit yourself and a few others.

This week I'd like to pay a little more attention to see if I'm faced with a decsion that could result in the greatest good and see if I choose that option. I'd like to also apply the Golden Rule as much as possible over the course of the next week to see what the outcome will be. Will people take advantage of me or treat me well as a repayment?

Sources:

Golden Rule. Photograph. MBD2. Web. <http://www.mbd2.com/forum/balloon_Animal_Blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/goldenrule.jpg>.

Greatest Good. Photograph. KCTS9. Web.

<http://kcts9.org/files/program_previews/greatestGood.jpg>.

Week 13/14: Preparing for break

So last week I wanted to look at what really sells a product and what advertisers do to sell their goods without the consumers even noticing. To find out more about this subliminal advertising, the class analyzed two stores selling similar products, and we looked in depth at store layout, lighting, music, and a lot of other aspects of the store that the consumer wouldn't typically notice or pay attention to. What we found was that every little detail, whether we notice it or not, helps or hurts the producer greatly. A store with more walking room and better lighting will make someone feel more inclined to shop there instead of a darker, smaller store that sells the same thing.

It is amazing to see how much effort an advertiser will put into something that generally goes unnoticed unless we watch out for it. These techniques move to persuade the consumer in a certain direction, but most of the time, we aren't even aware of the manipulation that takes place during a commercial or just walking through a store. These techniques are generally very effective, whether they use humor like Jim Gaffigan's Sierra Mist commercials, or try to captivate the audience with a sense of elegance, like most car commercials. They still get stuck in your head regardless.

Ok, so lately our groups have been working diligently on our documentaries. It was deffinately a lot more work than we originally expected. The hardest part throughout the making of the film, was finding the right level of sensitivity to use in the documentary. We struggled with finding a good balance because on the one hand, we didn't want to offend parents by portraying their children without any censorship or any kind of filter. On the other hand, we didn't want to be so over-the-top with sympathizing a group of people that we really had no reson to feel sorry for. We had to make sure we weren't dehumanizing anyone. With that came the need for permission, which was also difficult to obtain. I had to type up letters to distribute to all the parents of students within the MOID program, which also took a bit longer than expected to receive a response.

Lastly, we had to find time. With exam week approaching much faster than we would have liked it, our deadline was much sooner than we had prepared for it to be. we were also limited on filming days because we had to work around what was convenient for Mr. Early and Mrs. Spurr. We couldn't just show up to their classroom one day and ask to do some filming. The editing job was very last-minute, and I've always hated editing because it's truely only a one man job.

Other than a few obstacles, setbacks, and large levels of stress that we experienced, I do feel like this was a great experience and I really did enjoy getting to make this film. I learned a lot more than I had expected, about documentaries and the MOID program, and I think my other group members did too.

This week I'd like to look at how others conducted their documentaries and compare our ethical approach to other groups' unethical approaches. What techniques did they use? How did their message delivery and and the viewers reaction to it differ from ours?

Sources:

Beard combover. Photograph. Price Scope. Web. .

Sierra Mist- Beard Combover. Perf. Jim Gaffigan. Youtube. Web. .

Week 11/12: Documentary Filming Kick-Off

Okay, so last week I was interested in seeing what route our documentary was headed, and I have to admit, I'm pretty pleased with our trailer. I feel that the direction we're headed is anything but easy, but it's still worth it to go that extra mile to make a worth-while film that doesn't cut any corners. Our topic is kind of difficult to do any bashing without making us look bad as well. We definitely have to use sensitivity when we're talking about the Special Education Program here, but we can't be over-sensitive either. It's a challenge to find a balance between the two.

So last week we discussed the major differences between documentary directors' film styles, mainly contrasting the works of Michael Moore and Sacha Baron Cohen. Moore and Cohen both have unique styles of portraying a film the way they want a viewer to believe it. Moore utilizes this technique through careful wording and editing to trick the viewer. Cohen, on the other hand uses personas to trick the participants rather than the viewer. Cohen cleverly disguises release forms to fit the character he's portraying in order to get the participant to sign off on using their footage. Once he has permission, he creates scenarios using stereotypes and generalizations to put the participant in an uncomfortable position. In class we discussed whether or not this was really more ethical than any practices Moore uses in his films.

Another major difference between the two is the purpose behind the documentaries these two are making. This is what greatly separates Sacha from Michael. When Moore makes a film, the goals he sets out are to persuade the audience into believing the same thing as him. He finds a subject that he doesn't agree with, brutally attacks it until the viewer is left feeling like he's right. Baron Cohen really sets out for an entirely different purpose, pure entertainment. His one goal is to make people look like idiots and make other people laugh (and make a lot of money doing it). Cohen's not out to persuade anybody towards anything, he's just out there to get a laugh.

The one thing that is so similar between the two of them is their tendencies to give their audiences less than the entire story. Moore doesn't ever give you more than one side of an argument, and Cohen fails to mention to his victims that he's an actor. So with that being said, why do we tend to sympathize with one more than another? It really goes back to the motives behind the film. When someone is put in an awkward situation from Cohen's cleverness, it's funny. When someone is attacked on camera because of their political background, it's just plain mean.

This week we looked more in-depth at what companies go through to persuade viewers to buy their products. Whether it be a catchy jingle in a commercial or the layout of a store, far more goes into advertising than we typically realize. The developmental process looks at every aspect of the consumer process that they analyze in order for us to want what they're selling. We looked at Song Airways and why a potentially innovative airline came crashing down. The marketing was unique, but not nearly as effective as the marketing team had hoped. It left most consumers asking "What are you selling us?" Then we looked at Tupperware and how its marketing campaign created high demand for the product. The idea that one could get rich selling Tupperware had hundreds of ladies lined up to eagerly go door to door selling their product. What seems like a laughable strategy is what launched the company into the multi-million dollar range.

We were just assigned a project that has look closely on what sells. We are to investigate a store, look at its layout, pay attention to the music, and look for reasons why they place certain products in places. In interested in seeing what similarities stores will have with each other as well as figuring out who's doing what right/wrong. This week I'd like to find out what we as consumers aren't paying attention to that companies deliberately are throwing out in front of us as marketing ploys.

Sources:
Brownie Wise. Photograph. Bouldernet. Web.

Sacha Baron Cohen. Photograph. BangitOut! Web. .

Song Airlines. Photograph. Fsdome. Web. .

Week 10: Done with Documentaries

Last week, as we were watching Michael Moore Hates America, I noticed that I wasn't looking for every flaw in Mike Wilson's logic; I wasn't looking for every soundbite he used; and I wasn't looking for any type of fallacy that would make me think less of him. This week, I decided to pay a little more attention to the movie, and in all honesty, I still didn't find much. The only conclusions that i could draw are either he really tries to avoid any misleading notions, or I just don't pick up on it. It's a lot easier to dismiss something like that when it's done with good intentions. If I was a fan of Moore, sure I'd pick up on more of the blatant attacks and misleading information, but as it stands, Wilson just seems more innocent and appealing.

This week we finally finished up on the film Michael Moore Hates America and had a discussion on what made Mike Wilson so much more appealing than Michael Moore. What stuck out is Wilson's attempt to be as distant from Moore's film style as possible. He apologizes when he accidentally uses misleading information, he keeps as many of the facts in context as possible, and he just seems like a nice guy. What made Moore such a turn-off was his ego, he always came off as this jerk who thought he was saving America. Another was his appearance. He's this fat, rich slob that thinks that as long as he wears a baseball cap he can relate to the average American. Finally, his film making tactics are a major turn-off. He has this belief that it doesn't matter how much he tweeks something as long as it gets his point across, kind of the Machiavelli of movie-making.

Wilson, on the other hand, possesses none of these traits. He's a humble, average American man that actually wants to better the American people rather than scare them and make their lives miserable. Wilson doesn't convince himself that he has to be the voice of the people; instead, his job is simply to enlighten those who have been sucked in by Moore's misleading scare-tactics. Wilson also has another advantage: Penn Jillette. Penn can be summed up easily through a quote by Bob Dylan that he uses in the movie, "Fearing not that I may become my enemy, in the instant that I preach." He's this down-to-earth guy that can sniff out BS from a moment away. He's the reason Wilson didn't resort to using the same tactics as Moore while making this film.

Not that our documentary study is coming to a close, I'd be interested in seeing what direction my group heads in filming our documentary. Will we take the easy way out like Moore and make things look how we want them to? Perhaps we'll go a more "hands-off" approach, like A Perfect Candidate or This Divided State.

Sources:

Michael Moore "Loser" Photograph. Smh.com.au. Web. .

Michael Moore Hates America. Photograph. Arcade Action. Web. .

Week 9: Dislike Mike

So last week we looked at This Divided State and watched a large amount of opposition to Michael Moore as he he gave a speech at Utah Valley State University. I was curious to see how common this was for speakers to experience after I learned about a similar occurance that happened to Dick Cheney. The only difference between the two is that BYU is known for their conservative viewpoint, yet opposition was still heard towards Cheney. When "speech protest" is typed into Google, a large number of results appears. It seems understandable, even though every American has the right to their own opinion (even if they are a leader of a cop-killing terrorist group that wants to give a speech at the University of Massachusetts.) There are plenty of Americans that would argue that certain free speech needs to be censored, so long as it's not their's.

So this week we started Mike Wilson's masterpiece, Michael Moore Hates America. I thought Moore angered me before, but this some of what's in this movie just outraged me. Specifically, when Wilson approached Moore and Michael just attacked him for the documentary, when it is not slandering Moore any more than Michael did to the victims of his films. In fact, it's interesting to see how Wilson tries to avoid fallacies as much as possible. If he notices himself doing it, he points it out to his audience, which is much more respectable than Moore's techniques. Michael misleads the audience, and then when questioned about it, he convinces everyone (including himself) that everything happened just as he depicted it. Wilson has his producer and Penn Jillette hold him accountable for any propaganda that he might accidentally

I must admit, I'm enjoying the film a little more than I should be. Even though Wilson appears to avoid these fallacies as much as possible, they're still there. This man is using Moore's own techniques against him, but since my opinion of Moore was so negative from the start, it's hard to not side with sweet, innocent Wilson on everything. That's a very positive thing Mike Wilson has going for him. No matter what he's doing, Wilson has this innocent, common man appeal that Moore strives so hard to portray, but unlitmately fails doing. Perhaps that's why I find myself rooting for Mike Wilson.

As this week continues, I'd like to look a little further into how honest ans innocent Mike Wilson really is. I'm sure that most of my opinions on him won't change as we wrap the movie up, but there might be a few fallacies that'll slip through the cracks if I'm not looking specifically for them.

Sources:

"Dislike Mike." The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Comedy Central. 7 July 2004. Television

Michael Moore Hates America. Photograph. The Veiled Chameleon. Web. <http://www.veiled-chameleon.com/weblog/httpdocs/images/blogcontent/michael_moore_hates_america.jpg>.

Penn Jillette. Photograph. Downshore Drift. Web. <http://www.downshoredrift.com/.a/6a00d83451d87169e2011278d5491d28a4-500wi>.

"Rare Protests at Brigham Young Over a Planned Cheney Appearance." NY Times. Web. <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/11/us/11byu.html>.

My Political Party (Week 8)

So last week we looked at the local campaigns, and I couldn't help but wonder how informed the average American is on the actual issues. Based on the research I found, an overwhelmingly large amount of Americans simply vote on which party they think represents them, instead of looking at the actual issues. I polled my friends, family and people from my church and discovered that 9 out 10 of those who voted in the recent election knew next to nothing on the issues.

After some discussion in class this week about political issues, we all took tests to determine our political parties. Expecting to be more of a libertarian conservative, I was blown away that I was the exact opposite. Most of the class had similar reactions. It just goes to show that we as Americans aren't educated on our political viewpoints as well as we need to be. Washington feared that a party-system would be detrimental to society and would split the country. His ideas were a little extreme, but try to think about a government where the candidates aren't affiliated with a party. Would there be so much bitterness between voters? We might even start paying attention to the real issues if we take out the ability to blindly choose sides. Are political parties even that important? Not really.

Okay, so this week we started to watch This Divided State, which focused on events that occured at Utah Valley State College in 2004. The controversy occurred when the student board asked Michael Moore to speak at their university. The citizens of Utah, being a primarily conservative group, didn't handle this gesture lightly.

This relates directly back to what I stated previously. I'm not saying that our government needs to get rid of our two-party political system. However, this event and all its absurdity wouldn't have occurred had it not been for this idea of blindly following one party. It all seems kind of ridiculous when you think about it. Mind you, Moore is not an innocent man, and I can kind of understand where these people are coming from, but a lot of the people in the film blow things way out proportion without even having all the facts first.

It is my understanding that a similar occurrence took place at BYU with Dick Cheney not too long ago. For next week, I hope to look a little more into what went on in that situation and if this is a pretty common situation speakers deal with.

Sources:

Political Compass Graph. Photograph. The Politcal Compass Test. Web. .

This Divided State Cover. Photograph. Flickr. Web. .

Your Quiz Score: Conservative. Photograph. World's Smallest Political Quiz. Web. .

Week 7: The Virginia Gubernatorial Race

Last week, I wanted to know what kinds of propaganda were used by the candidates for governor in this year's election. Watching the commercials alone, I found a laundry list of fallacies and propaganda that both candidates (and the candidates for other offices) used. The most common form, which seems to be the most common in any political campaign, is this idea of name calling and attacking the other candidate without even talking about the real issues. In fact, had we not watched the gubernatorial debate in class, I probably couldn't have told you either candidate's views on any of the issues. It seems like a common pattern that after one candidate is done slamming another, the music changes and suddenly switches mood from bashful to modest. Thus the plain folks appeal kicks in. Whether it's Deeds bringing up his speech impediment or McDonnell is talking about his daughters serving in the Iraq War, it makes it's way into almost every campaign ad. My favorite ad has to be this one, which consists of Deeds making McDonnell look bad for no longer being a citizen of Fairfax County. Ridiculous? Yes.

As you may have guessed, the focus this week was on the Virginia Gubernatorial race, as well as the local elections that are also taking place today. the main idea was to actually research the candidates before making a decision on which one we'd like to vote for. In class we watched a debate featuring Creigh Deeds and Bob McDonnell as they were questioned on their viewpoints and planks. Although I did get to learn a little about each of the candidates, I got lost during some of the questions because of the amount of loaded language that was used by the moderator. Not only did the 3-part question format confuse the viewer, but it appeared to confuse the candidates at times as well. In that scenario, they would completely avoid the question by changing the topic and throwing in an attack or two on the other candidate. This occured throughout the entire debate and was upsetting because it made it difficult to learn about the issues.

Outside of class, we were doing our own research on the candidates and looking at the facts instead of the fallacies that they keep throwing out at us. The research helped greatly with deciding a candidate because it was the first time I actually understood the issues within the community and what each candidate was doing about it. I also learned what the other offices running in this election actually did. A week ago, I couldn't tell you the role of the Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, or State Delegate. I'm sure a lot of Americans are still on that level, which is kind of sad when you think about it. Why should we vote for a position when we have no idea what their job in our community is?

This week, I'd like to take a look at how well America is informed on what we're really voting for. I'd like to find some statistics to see how many Americans are informed on the candidates' views on the issues in any race, and I'd like to see how often we actually know what we're voting for. I'm sure what I find out will be disappointing but not very shocking.

Sources:

Advertisement. Youtube. Web.

<.">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbGSTRN8Q3c>.

Bob McDonnell. Photograph. Hapton Roads.com. Web.

<http://hamptonroads.com/files/images/66341.jpg>.

Creigh Deeds. Photograph. The Weekly Filibuster. Web.

<http://dailyfilibuster.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/deeds.jpg>.