-
Finished your HSC? Check out our University Discussion, Non-School forums or help out next year's HSC students! -
YOU can help the next generation of students in the community! Share your trial papers and notes on our Notes & Resources page
frontline essay review (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter survivor
- Start date
TastesGoodBut
Member
yeh PM me
ill just post it
"At a time of universal deceit-telling the truth is a revolutionary act" (George Orwell). The truth is a complex concept that deals with the presentation of facts without subjectivity or bias. Thus, the issue of an underlying motive to present the facts clearly exceeds this definition, thereby introducing the idea of the manipulation of the truth for personal gain. This personal gain extends to greed, a part of the human condition whereby an aspiration to own the truth exists-so as to gain power and authority.
Rob Sitich et. al. explored the extent to which individuals and organisations will reach so as to grasp personal gain, authority and ultimately, ownerships of the truth. Through wit and parody, the team undermine the credibility of the media, exposing the manipulation and exploitation that occurs as standard media practice.
Rob Stitch et al conceived the idea of Frontline following an episode of 60 minutes entitled "Has the media gone too far?" Indeed Frontline has taken this concept to alarming heights. In the episode "The Siege", the Frontline team deliberately distorts and abstracts the truth in order to increase ratings during a hostage crisis, in which a father holds his children hostage until the police "hear his side of the story". However, the Frontline team views the event as "mundane" and prefer to sensationalise rather than report only the factual truth.
Many techniques of parody are used to reveal the methods of manipulation employed by the media. Marty's crouched pose a mere 5 km's from the siege whilst reporting is intended to dramatise the situation, "make it look like I'm really in danger". This is an obvious example of exaggeration, and also art imitating life, as it is these techniques that are also employed by the actual media, thus demonstrating the manner in which representation influences meaning. This is further reinforced by the fabrication of Marty's "Rambo situation", which lends the story a meaning which in itself, as lie, as Marty is in fact not in any real danger.
The Frontline team's choice to interview a psychology student rather than an expert and "just slap him in front of a bookcase" is a further example of the selective evidence and interviews used to satirise principles of journalism. It illustrates the way representation shapes meaning to reveal the methods drawn upon the powerful to change and manipulate the factual "truth" and in doing so impeding society's access to the truth.
Manipulation of the truth for hidden agendas abounds throughout history: WW1, Vietnam, the Bulldogs accounts. The medium of television is especially pervasive and thus a potent tool in the new digital age. The recent controversy surrounding John Howard's alligations of 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' emphasises what E.H Carr believes that "truth is linked with systems of power which produce and sustain it". The presentation provided a false notion of realism, deliberately distorting and abstracting the truth in order to increase ratings and ultimately gain power. The process used for this manipulation is the use of technology, editing and special effects. A montage of background music and graphic images of newspaper articles creates an anti-climax effect, whereby suspense is built but nothing significant eventuates. A Current Affair justifies themselves however in the name of journalist integrity and the need to inform the public. Clearly however, the media have a blurred vision of 'telling the truth', presenting it as something that lies on the boundary between the real world and the fictional.
The difference between a marginal superficial retelling of events and a thoroughly investigated retelling of events can often be attributed to the difference between image and substance. The media often confuses the two and hence manipulates the truth, creating "puff pieces" with little substance to them. In the politically incorrect Frontline episode "Add Sex and Stir", we witness the team completely altering the particulars of a story, in order to conform to a socially accepted "stereotype" or image which will earn them ratings. Image, not substance is put forth to be the driving force behind the main story of the Frontline program in this episode; as Brian excitedly tells Emma "but its not a story about women in sport, its story about lesos.". This implies that the central focus for the story will not be on the promotion of women's sport, as claimed, but o the sexuality of members of the team. Unlike Brian, who seems to have no objection to such questionable media morality, Marty makes it clear that he does not approve of such a story being manufactured for media image, but acknowledges that it will undoubtedly serve its purpose. As he derisively says to Emma,"sport rates, sex rates, put the two together and you've got dynamite!"
"Smaller Fish to Fry" is a prime example of the way in which powerful members of society encompass an ownership of the truth. In essence, this episode parodies the way in which a current affairs show carry out their investigations by targeting easily exploited members of society to uphold a moral image. However, the criticism that frontline is making is that a current affairs shows omit stories regarding the powerful members of society because they have a large economic influence of the network. This theme if typified by Mike's futile attempts to air Bob Foster's story on a bank scandal. The bank report does not go to air because the banks under scrutiny finance the dealings of the Frontline network. Thus the truth is suppressed because the network will no bite the hand that feeds it. Hence, it is clear that the powerful do own the truth, because they are indirectly involved in the manipulation of the truth through corporate influence.
Noam Chomsky's text 'Manufacturing Consent' explores the notion of those in power owning the truth. The text maintains that as a result of large corporate ownership, the truth gets entwined with conflicting roles that the media plays. Whilst it is supposed to disclose the truth without bias or subjectivity, the media also plays the role of selling goods and services at the personal interests of their executives. Thus, the truth is regularly tarnished as corporations defend the quality of their products.
The paradox that Chomsky presents in regards to the correlation that can be drawn between the media and large multinationals is highlighted by him use of colloquial language juxtaposing the critical content illustrated in 'Manufacturing Consent'. In addition to this, at times Chomsky includes jargon that complements the serious tone of various sections in the text. These literacy techniques consequently leave responders with an understanding that those that are powerful, particularly those bestowing economic power, have an influential bearing in informing audiences of the truth.
The manipulation of truth is often justified by those in power as protection of society, but more often than not it is to protect themselves. Thus, the ultimate objective is money, ratings and power in a competitive world as events, personalities and situations are manipulated.
"At a time of universal deceit-telling the truth is a revolutionary act" (George Orwell). The truth is a complex concept that deals with the presentation of facts without subjectivity or bias. Thus, the issue of an underlying motive to present the facts clearly exceeds this definition, thereby introducing the idea of the manipulation of the truth for personal gain. This personal gain extends to greed, a part of the human condition whereby an aspiration to own the truth exists-so as to gain power and authority.
Rob Sitich et. al. explored the extent to which individuals and organisations will reach so as to grasp personal gain, authority and ultimately, ownerships of the truth. Through wit and parody, the team undermine the credibility of the media, exposing the manipulation and exploitation that occurs as standard media practice.
Rob Stitch et al conceived the idea of Frontline following an episode of 60 minutes entitled "Has the media gone too far?" Indeed Frontline has taken this concept to alarming heights. In the episode "The Siege", the Frontline team deliberately distorts and abstracts the truth in order to increase ratings during a hostage crisis, in which a father holds his children hostage until the police "hear his side of the story". However, the Frontline team views the event as "mundane" and prefer to sensationalise rather than report only the factual truth.
Many techniques of parody are used to reveal the methods of manipulation employed by the media. Marty's crouched pose a mere 5 km's from the siege whilst reporting is intended to dramatise the situation, "make it look like I'm really in danger". This is an obvious example of exaggeration, and also art imitating life, as it is these techniques that are also employed by the actual media, thus demonstrating the manner in which representation influences meaning. This is further reinforced by the fabrication of Marty's "Rambo situation", which lends the story a meaning which in itself, as lie, as Marty is in fact not in any real danger.
The Frontline team's choice to interview a psychology student rather than an expert and "just slap him in front of a bookcase" is a further example of the selective evidence and interviews used to satirise principles of journalism. It illustrates the way representation shapes meaning to reveal the methods drawn upon the powerful to change and manipulate the factual "truth" and in doing so impeding society's access to the truth.
Manipulation of the truth for hidden agendas abounds throughout history: WW1, Vietnam, the Bulldogs accounts. The medium of television is especially pervasive and thus a potent tool in the new digital age. The recent controversy surrounding John Howard's alligations of 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' emphasises what E.H Carr believes that "truth is linked with systems of power which produce and sustain it". The presentation provided a false notion of realism, deliberately distorting and abstracting the truth in order to increase ratings and ultimately gain power. The process used for this manipulation is the use of technology, editing and special effects. A montage of background music and graphic images of newspaper articles creates an anti-climax effect, whereby suspense is built but nothing significant eventuates. A Current Affair justifies themselves however in the name of journalist integrity and the need to inform the public. Clearly however, the media have a blurred vision of 'telling the truth', presenting it as something that lies on the boundary between the real world and the fictional.
The difference between a marginal superficial retelling of events and a thoroughly investigated retelling of events can often be attributed to the difference between image and substance. The media often confuses the two and hence manipulates the truth, creating "puff pieces" with little substance to them. In the politically incorrect Frontline episode "Add Sex and Stir", we witness the team completely altering the particulars of a story, in order to conform to a socially accepted "stereotype" or image which will earn them ratings. Image, not substance is put forth to be the driving force behind the main story of the Frontline program in this episode; as Brian excitedly tells Emma "but its not a story about women in sport, its story about lesos.". This implies that the central focus for the story will not be on the promotion of women's sport, as claimed, but o the sexuality of members of the team. Unlike Brian, who seems to have no objection to such questionable media morality, Marty makes it clear that he does not approve of such a story being manufactured for media image, but acknowledges that it will undoubtedly serve its purpose. As he derisively says to Emma,"sport rates, sex rates, put the two together and you've got dynamite!"
"Smaller Fish to Fry" is a prime example of the way in which powerful members of society encompass an ownership of the truth. In essence, this episode parodies the way in which a current affairs show carry out their investigations by targeting easily exploited members of society to uphold a moral image. However, the criticism that frontline is making is that a current affairs shows omit stories regarding the powerful members of society because they have a large economic influence of the network. This theme if typified by Mike's futile attempts to air Bob Foster's story on a bank scandal. The bank report does not go to air because the banks under scrutiny finance the dealings of the Frontline network. Thus the truth is suppressed because the network will no bite the hand that feeds it. Hence, it is clear that the powerful do own the truth, because they are indirectly involved in the manipulation of the truth through corporate influence.
Noam Chomsky's text 'Manufacturing Consent' explores the notion of those in power owning the truth. The text maintains that as a result of large corporate ownership, the truth gets entwined with conflicting roles that the media plays. Whilst it is supposed to disclose the truth without bias or subjectivity, the media also plays the role of selling goods and services at the personal interests of their executives. Thus, the truth is regularly tarnished as corporations defend the quality of their products.
The paradox that Chomsky presents in regards to the correlation that can be drawn between the media and large multinationals is highlighted by him use of colloquial language juxtaposing the critical content illustrated in 'Manufacturing Consent'. In addition to this, at times Chomsky includes jargon that complements the serious tone of various sections in the text. These literacy techniques consequently leave responders with an understanding that those that are powerful, particularly those bestowing economic power, have an influential bearing in informing audiences of the truth.
The manipulation of truth is often justified by those in power as protection of society, but more often than not it is to protect themselves. Thus, the ultimate objective is money, ratings and power in a competitive world as events, personalities and situations are manipulated.
TastesGoodBut
Member
ill read it and post what i think by tonight somtime... coz i have to do stupid 4U maths..
where'd you get your first paragraph, because i have it printed out along witha bunch of other stuff?!!
yeah, generally pretty good, although haven't written one myself yet so this isn't expert advice
personally don't see the relevance of mentioning why the frontline team decided to start the series, and a couple of sentences could run together better, but for two weeks before it's good
yeah, generally pretty good, although haven't written one myself yet so this isn't expert advice
personally don't see the relevance of mentioning why the frontline team decided to start the series, and a couple of sentences could run together better, but for two weeks before it's good
TastesGoodBut
Member
i think where they got the idea is good in an article or sumthing
but its a fairly sound essay in my opinion - kudos
but its a fairly sound essay in my opinion - kudos
freaking_out
Saddam's new life
hey what question was this essay answering?
timmii
sporadic attendee
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2002
- Messages
- 928
I agree. I think Chomsky is great for related material, but at the moment you're story telling and explaining what frontline *is* more than what it shows and how it does so. Admittedly, its hard to show anythign substantial when you've taken the polemic nature of the essay out of the question, but you still need to take a stance - what has frontline shown you?
I think you may also need to practice at being more succinct, don't describe scenes, explain what they portray. for instance rather than saying "As he derisively says to Emma,"sport rates, sex rates, put the two together and you've got dynamite!"", say something along the lines of:
Frontline highlights the subservience of the truth to getting the ratings, particulary through the use of sex, evidenced by Brian's insight "sex sells, sport sells, put them together you've got dynamite".
Other than that - pretty good! [i don't mean to come off so bitchy...it is good! ]
I think you may also need to practice at being more succinct, don't describe scenes, explain what they portray. for instance rather than saying "As he derisively says to Emma,"sport rates, sex rates, put the two together and you've got dynamite!"", say something along the lines of:
Frontline highlights the subservience of the truth to getting the ratings, particulary through the use of sex, evidenced by Brian's insight "sex sells, sport sells, put them together you've got dynamite".
Other than that - pretty good!
[i don't mean to come off so bitchy...it is good! ]
freaking_out
Saddam's new life
hey, can i post up my essay as well...for marking.
allyteaded
Member
Dude... you gotta wait more than one hour before getting peed off for no one replying.
Write present tense. It is more powerful. Instead of "explored" use "explores."
You can also take away expressive words like "indeed" or "an obvious example" - the markers will probably say, "well, duh, I know it's obvious" - to tighten up your essay. You don't want to sound like you're throwing in extra unnecessary words to make your essay look longer.
Avoid general statements - instead of saying "Many techniques of parody are used to reveal the methods of manipulation employed by the media." Name the technique immediately and its purpose/impact in one sentence. Say something like:
Parody is used in "The Seige" when ...(insert example here)... reveals how truth is a construction of an interpretation of an event in the media.
I'm using words directly from the rubric - which i really really recommend.
Ok, that's my little contribution. I won't hog spotlight. Also - I might be wrong so mweh...
Write present tense. It is more powerful. Instead of "explored" use "explores."
You can also take away expressive words like "indeed" or "an obvious example" - the markers will probably say, "well, duh, I know it's obvious" - to tighten up your essay. You don't want to sound like you're throwing in extra unnecessary words to make your essay look longer.
Avoid general statements - instead of saying "Many techniques of parody are used to reveal the methods of manipulation employed by the media." Name the technique immediately and its purpose/impact in one sentence. Say something like:
Parody is used in "The Seige" when ...(insert example here)... reveals how truth is a construction of an interpretation of an event in the media.
I'm using words directly from the rubric - which i really really recommend.
Ok, that's my little contribution. I won't hog spotlight. Also - I might be wrong so mweh...
Last edited:
allyteaded
Member
Why not? I want to ... but I honestly haven't written anything!! ... well, nothing that's really pieced together well. I've got parts of an essay but I haven't put them together yet. Like I have bits of paint and other art media... but I haven't done the painting yet.
Anyway... I'll stop rambling. Post! I wanna test my knowledge too by correcting it - and see if anyone disagrees with what I say.
Last edited:
freaking_out
Saddam's new life
yeah, thanx...i've posted my essay up at:
http://www.boredofstudies.org/community/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14329
http://www.boredofstudies.org/community/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14329