I have been researching how animals are protected in the media for one of my classes and not surprisingly I haven’t found much. I did however, find an interesting article from the independent Hollywood Reporter on how the American Humane Association, which is supposed to protect animals working in the film industry, has recently given in to the large media corporations that they set out to protect the animals from, and now frequently turns a blind eye to blatant animal violations.
The story the public is generally told is that the process of protecting animal actors begins with the SAG. The guild collaborates with filmmakers to plan the safest ways to shoot animal scenes that may put animals in harms way. After the scripts are approved, the AHA is asked to join the set of production to oversee the treatment of the animals and make sure that the film is legal and safe. If the AHA is satisfied with the care and consideration provided for the animals, a “NO ANIMALS WERE HARMED” disclaimer is granted to the production.
However, in recent years the AHA has lost credibility thanks to reports from PETA and The Hollywood Reporter. The AHA’s jurisdiction in the use of animals is broad but far from complete. American productions working outside of the SGA are not covered by the AHA, and are charged $80 per hour for the AHA’s disclaimer. This leads 50 percent of all animal movies unregulated by the AHA according to Film & TV Unit senior adviser Karen Rosa. The AHA is also not large enough to keep up with the high demand for animal actors and has become haphazard in their regulations. “Sometimes the AHA doesn’t have enough safety representatives to handle requested coverage, resulting in brief visits by monitors, or even none at all.” The AHA’s conflicting values also make them ineffective in protecting animal actors. The big-budget film producers are often accused of paying off the AHA so that they act more as a public relations company than an animal-rights activist group.
Most recently the AHA has been called into question in their participation on the film The Hobbit. Under their watch, 27 animals reportedly perished, including sheep and goats that died from dehydration and exhaustion or from drowning in water-filled gullies (PETA). Whistle-blowers in the AHA informed PETA of the inhumane conditions placed upon these animals until the public generated enough frustration to urge further investigation. The AHA members involved in the film were accused of covering up the deaths of these animals because of the extra funds provided by the film’s producers. The film still received a “NO ANIMALS WERE HARMED” credit at the end of their movie.
I just thought it was interesting that not only can media news outlets fall under the spell of money, but also a national service devoted to protecting animals. Funny how that works.
“While Captain America is out battling the Winter Soldier and trying to reach his childhood pal beneath the mindless assassin, the Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) is serving as the film’s Edward Snowden, saving the world by leaking classified data and exposing HYDRA’s plans as well as her own dark past. Even a character vaunted for being morally flexible — Nick Fury is shown giving her missions he doesn’t think Steve Rogers would be comfortable with — ends up believing the truth will set them all free, despite the personal price she’ll have to pay.”
I just really liked this article and wanted to share. This encapsulates what we have learned throughout the semester about what motivates the stories presented by the mainstream media and how it affects our perception of the world. Independent media outlets that call out the mainstream on their deceptive nature are helping the public to see what kind of news actually relates to them and not what corporations want them to believe.
Journalists have a duty to always be questioning and evaluating the government. However, sometimes mainstream journalists, like regular citizens, find themselves turning a blind eye to their favorite candidate’s missteps and over-glorifying their victories. It takes a strong person to stand up to this type of bias because going against the crowd is never easy. When Mayhill Fowler broke presidential nominee Barack Obama’s quote about midwesterners she was meet by many of her liberal peers with accusations and even treats.
Fowler, a supporter of Obama, found herself in an ordinary situation that many mainstream journalists face everyday, but she did something extraordinary. Instead of blindly following and dismissing her candidate’s speech, she called him out to the public. Because she was able to expose him on an independent platform people who were not at the speech were able to see it and eventually the mainstream media had to take notice.
This type of journalism would have been impossible in the mainstream because the producers of those publications have specific interests and agendas that they only allow their reporters to cover. Anything that goes against their beliefs and values is hidden from the public and dismissed quickly. Fowler and other bloggers have the freedom to cover what they want and bring valuable information to the light. It took bravery and conviction for her to expose this glitch in her favorite candidate, but because she believed in truth over protecting Obama’s reputation American’s were able to see a side of him that until then was conveniently swept under the radar.
This infographic from http://blog.qmee.com/qmee-online-in-60-seconds/ confirms my suspicions about how difficult it is to become a credible blogger. With 571 websites created and 347 blogs written every minute, how can one stand out from the pack of opinions and resources to become trustworthy and build a fan base? Not only that, but how do serious bloggers get access to public figures and information while other writers with the exact same title simply make up facts and cost the credibility of bloggers in general?
This is why I find issue with allowing all internet writers the protection of journalists. Bloggers do not have editors and fact checkers to validate their information, and therefore should not always be taken seriously. Yes, some bloggers put in the time and effort to write in-depth stories about events and public officials, but even if they do get all their information right there is a slim chance that the topics of their stories will grant them the time for an interview, which I personally think is a necessity to any story. I understand that bloggers are credited with discovering many stories that the media has left unmentioned, but they also they have more room for error and uncertainty.
I think the solution to this would be if every blogger who wished to have an accredited page to go through an online SPJ course. After they complete the journalism course, they would be allowed to post on their page that they are SPJ approved. This will promote ethical blogs, and will separate the pranksters from the actual citizen journalists. This would also help public figures decipher which bloggers are trustworthy and which ones might be in it for other reasons. In
There is way too much information on the web to control content, and without an overarching set of standards I do not believe that blogging can progress past where it is today. Sure, some people look at blogs for their news, but when a breaking story happens, we turn to the corporate media like CNN and MSNBC to bring us the updates. A code of ethics that serious bloggers would adhere to would create a better environment for trust on all sides of writing a story. The sources would be more comfortable, the author would be protected, and the readers would know that they are getting accurate information.
I’m no longer shocked by the extent that the government and large corporations can (and do) manipulate what Americans are allowed to see. This is just another perfect example of how ignorance can lead to massive consequences. Many people, including myself before this class, are not aware of the extent that we are being controlled and babysat by people that have no authority or permission to do so. The media doesn’t cover it, because they are all a part of the master plan and therefore they actually benefit from the lack of knowledge. Is there anything we can do to stop it or will we eventually be controlled as much as other nations that we deem oppressed dictatorships?