Should I put it on a button? MySpace maybe?

Here's a thought...

I was speaking with one of my bosses earlier this week, telling him about this wee project. Over the course of the conversation he made two points that stuck with me:

1. I really should read Manufacturing Consent (Chomsky and Herman), which I have now started doing.

2. This sort of project would be of great interest to those in media, but there are very few people beyond that who would be interested in "media literacy."

He is right on both counts. I should read Manufacturing Consent, not only because it's a good read and relevent to what I'm doing, but it shows that the opportunity to become highly media literate already exists. This book has been debated and responded-to with other works of (presumably) equal academic vigour. The discussion is taking place... among those who benefit from it the least.

I knew that one of the challenges of my project would be to make it palatable to "the people," those who consume media (i.e. everyone). I knew this, but never really realized how important this aspect would be.

I know I want the documentary project to be episodic. The success of The Corporation shows that breaking things down into segments makes them easier to digest and more flexible when it comes to spreading the word across various media platforms.

What else should I be thinking? How else can one make media literacy seem important and worth your time? Comments welcome (both real and amusing).

The Goal

Okay, so what, exactly, am I trying to do here? What is this as-of-now-theoretical Project?

Basically, I want to use as many communicative tools as I have access to in order to show people how news is reported. I want to break news media down into its component parts and examine each in as much detail as possible. How, for example, does a typical newspaper story in North America get written? How is it edited and published? What about TV news stories? How is news gathered generally?

There are also specific issues I'd like to see explored. Remember when the National Post (a Canadian national daily newspaper) reported that Iran was about to make non-Muslims wear armbands? It wasn't true, but how did it end up on the front page?

Ideally, this will all culminate in a documentary endeavour that will episodically examine all these things. Right now, I'm thinking of video instalments uploaded to YouTube with a companion website that would post more in-depth articles written about our subjects. I've brainstormed a list of potential episodes.

1. The News Process
2. How Journalism Is Taught
   
3. Print vs. Broadcast
4. "Corporate" Journalism
5. "Independent" Journalism
6. Celebrity Journalism
7. News vs. Opinion
8. War Reporting
9. Covering Politics
10. Left vs. Right
11. Foreign Media Markets (India, Al Jazeera)
12. Big Blunders
13. Government-controlled Media
    
14. Media vs. Media (e.g. Olbermann vs. O'Reilly)
    

In addition to providing a non-video element to the reportage, the website could be used to document our documentary process.

And there's the key to the whole thing. Not only do we methodically and carefully examine each issue, we make transparent absolutely every element of our work. We give a behind-the-scenes look at our research and recording. We offer biographies of our reporters. We show unedited versions of interviews, articles and research notes. We use blogs to discuss why and how we chose sources, what worked and what didn't, et cetera.

This way, not only will people get a reinforced sense of how news is reported, but if we should make any mistakes, those mistakes are laid bare. The website would provide a forum for people to discuss not only the issues but our reporting of them. So while our egos may take a bruising, participants will have an ongoing exercises in media literacy.

In my head I refer to this process as open source journalism, though I understand that that's not truly what it is. Open source would seem to invite others to reorganize and re-edit our work for their own ends, which may not be desirable. I suppose it's really just transparent journalism, but I think any journo professor would argue that all journalism should be transparent.

In the end, the project may even provide something worthy enough to be used as a resource to students. But so long as people become aware of how their news is created and learn to be both skeptical and open towards it, I'll consider it a success.

The Why - Because "media lies"

This blog is primarily a brainstorming/discussion place for (and
hopefully the precursor to) a much bigger media project. The idea for
"the project" came from a discussion I had with my girlfriend about an
experience she had at a concert. She blogged the experience, and I'll
offer excerpts of it here:

Something has been
bothering me about the EmilyHaines concert the other night. About midway though the show, Haines was introducing the song "The Maid Needs a Maid" and she said (to paraphrase):

"You don't believe the media reports that say that this is a feminist retelling of 'The Man Needs a Maid,' do you?"

To which one enlightened soul in the audience yelled:

"The media lies."

...

But
I am also tired of hearing that bland, ill-informed, sweeping
misstatement "the media lies." I'm both a member of the "media" (in as
much as there is membership) and the holder of very progressive
political values, and I make apology for neither. And there is nothing
I hate more than hearing progressives make arguments that lack nuance
and intelligence. There are fundamental, systemic imbalances in media
coverage, but surely there is a more refined position on media literacy
than "the media lies."

Part of the issue, I think, is that many
of the people who've cornered me at parties and demanded that media
bias is a solid fact, do not seem to understand the difference between
opinion (columnists and editorials) and news writing.

Also, one
thing I don't quite get about this argument is who exactly is doing the
lying. I've worked for a bunch of different magazines and have friends
throughout the media, and let me break the stunning news here: they're
not that organized. There really is no secret meeting place where
freelance writers or high-ranking editors drink scotch and muse over
the policies they will set for administrations, instead, they usually
work in sweatpants and fret over theminutiae of industry gossip.

I've felt the same way on many occasions. It burns me to hear the ubercynical rants people unleash on that umbrella-concept, all-knowing, ever-slanted entity known as The Media.

But
when I stop to think about it, I'm not surprised such rants exist. News
media, being a product of human beings, is flawed -- sometimesinadvertently
, and sometimes not. Stories are sometimes shortened, cut or buried
when they conflict with media owners' politics. Sometimes deadlines
take precedence over research, and shoddy information gets reported as
truth.

Plus, many of the formats we use to make news palatable
are limiting. Broadcast news is limited by time (half-hour or one-hour
slots minus commercial ads). Print formats need to be readable,
somewhat visual, and accessible to be of any value. Online news sources
are still stigmatized (perhaps accurately) with unreliability and
insecurity.

Being a young journalist, I want to believe that my
field has integrity. I don't want what I report to be dismissed because
my job title sits lower than that of lawyers on the Unspoken List of
Disreputable Professions.

But also, being a young journalist,
I have to know the truth about what I'm doing. Is this attitude based
in fact or slander? Where does The Media fall short in its perceived
goals? Does it lie? Ever?

I've thought about this a lot since
that initial conversation with my girlfriend, and it's culminated here
on this blog. This entry is a but a glance at some of my reasons for
stating The Project, and I hope to record more of them as I go. But for
now, I'll start outlining my plans and methodology. That may illuminate
the matter further.