The specifics are here.
Once you have done that, you need to post your answers to the five questions as a comment to this Blog Post (you will have to be logged in with your school Google account to make this work).
This part of your summer work is due by the first class meeting.
Here are the five questions, in case you forgot:
- What is your name, the title of your documentary, and the source from whence you viewed it.
- Include a brief summary of the controversy and three specific arguments on both sides of the controversy from the documentary itself (6 total).
- Record any bias you found, or explain why you thought the documentary contained no bias.
- What do you see as the most viable solution to the problem presented in the film? Why has that solution not been adopted?
- Explain your opinion on the controversy having watched the documentary.
Hungry for Change
ReplyDeleteA. What is your name, the title of your documentary, and the source from whence you viewed it?
• My name is Corinne Fanta and the documentary I chose to watch through Amazon Prime was Hungry for Change, which came out in 2012.
B. Include a brief summary of the controversy and three specific arguments on both sides of the controversy from the documentary itself (6 total).
• The food industry continues to develop and a surplus of food is available, yet people are struggling to get proper nutrition. The foods of today are full of calories but lack the true vitamins and minerals our cells need in order to be satisfied and nourished. As a result, people consume more of the high calorie foods that marketers and ads claim to be better alternatives. However, the consumers of today are being tricked by the food and the advertisements of the industry. Steps and awareness of the issue need to be recognized in order for one to properly take care of themselves.
• Food Industry
1) In order to keep up with the growing population, chemical alterations are needed in the foods in order to produce enough at a good price for the consumer.
2) Chemically manipulated food helps the food to be refreshing and good, which allows the industry to sell more and profit. Aspartame, which is found in many foods and beverages, such as diet soft drinks, offers the promise of zero calories, which draws people to drink these beverages.
3) Food industries get their manufacturer funded studies approved by the regulatory agencies (FDA), which confirms the food is appropriate for human consumption.
• Health Industry
1) MSG and free glutamate are used to enhance flavor, but lack proper nutrition and make individuals want to eat more. Ads today show images that lure individuals into the trap of their addictive foods. High sugar and chemically enhanced foods leave the body empty, while pure foods straight from nature leave the body full. While foods that are higher in sugar may cost the manufacturers less, they can lead to great health risks.
2) We live in a society where the foods are manufactured with high calories and low nutrients. In order to rid the body of the artificial sugars making up the empty, high calorie foods, one must detox the body with pure foods from nature. Many people are over fed and undernourished. Eating a healthy diet is proven to better the body from the inside out. When cleansing and detoxing the body of the harsh chemicals from the foods and beverages marketed by the industry, one’s skin becomes brighter, eyes whiter and body thinner.
3) Sugar is as addictive as cocaine, and over the years more individuals are consuming triple the amount of sugar than previous years. People gravitate towards high sugar, high calorie foods for comfort in times of stress. Overeating and chemicals reacting in the body cause weight gain and more emotional distress. Both healthy eating and living help to rid the body of disease and toxins, as well as mental disorders and stress.
C. I found the documentary quite bias, as all the people who took part in the film are health specialists, authors of health books, or doctors. The entire documentary is one-sided, as there is not one individual from the food industry to defend the claims and accusations the health individuals are discussing. While there are studies to support the countless claims, there is bias towards the healthy diet. Many health journalists use their personal lives to describe the healthy mindset and the imbalance of chemicals in today’s foods.
ReplyDeleteThere are countless examples of bias throughout the documentary. Daniel Vitalis, traditional and world food expert, is a supporter of basic and pure foods. While he understands changes in foods, he discusses the health of hunters and gatherers, who understood quality food unaltered. Dr. Christiane Northrup, best-selling Women’s Health author, highlights her personal experience in the change of her outer appearance once she switched her diet. She also explains the science behind sugars and chemicals in foods make people become addicted to “comfort foods”. Kris Carr, known her book “Crazy Sexy Diet”, shares her struggle with sugar in the documentary. Jason Vale, author and addiction specialist, highlights the significance of sugar’s addictiveness. He believes food is killing more people than drugs. Joe Cross, Director of “Fat, Sick and Nearly Dead”, Frank Ferrante, subject of the film “May I Be Frank”, Evitas Ramparte, Health Journalist, and Dr. Alejandro Junger, author of the book “Clean”, all expressed their failed attempts to lose weight, highlighting their success with pure foods.
D. The most viable solution to the problem of the food industry is to return to the mentality of ones’ childhood. This is the solution presented because if a mindset of eating food to better the body is understood, then marketing schemes of the food industry will be useless. Children are taught to embrace fruits and vegetables. Today, a universal belief is “healthy” choices are less calories and fat free items marketed by false advertising. The film notes how to guarantee natural products one could go to local farmers and markets. I believe major food companies should begin to support local food companies and farmers so each community has the resources to eat proper foods. The big companies in the food industry cannot completely change their products, as their modifications keep constant income. However, if companies begin to support healthier alternatives, people can embrace the mindset to support a natural food industry.
ReplyDeleteThe reason this solution is a complicated transition is due to the pressures of society today. Obesity is a way for people to cope with stress. The stress in life prevents some from being able to lose weight. The lack of knowledge on how to detox the body from toxins of the foods also prevents people from changing. The fear of having to change one’s diet forces people to spend money on procedures and medicines to lose weight. Truly, the only way to achieve the best body inside and out is by eating foods our bodies were designed to eat from nature. This concept can’t be adopted because large companies’ support of local businesses seems like an expense. Large companies are already profiting on their own. Society has transformed into a time of fast food and sugary meals, and change to these products cannot be obtained without complete consensus. The success of the solution comes down to people who want to change their lifestyle for the better of their health.
E. The documentary Hungry for Change opened up my eyes into the food industry and the major health concerns of today. While I am able to see the reasons the food industry changes their foods, I am now aware of the harsh risks to our health. My understanding of food has grown, as I now see alternatives like eggs or oatmeal to sugary cereals I usually eat for breakfast. I am also aware of why drinking protein shakes and using a juicer is more efficient for our bodies because it allows cells access to nutrients quicker than eating protein bars or solid vegetables. I have a better comprehension of my health and marketing schemes of the food industry from the documentary. I am more knowledgeable of healthy ingredients to fuel my body for energy rather than for entertainment. I am upset with major food companies for having brought chemicals to our foods and I believe the access to natural foods is minimal today. It is hard to continue a healthier mindset when the proper foods are not available. Companies need to begin to support farmers and small markets with pure foods, or change their products so it is possible for everyone to maintain the diet they desire. While what one chooses to eat is their decision, there needs to be more awareness and healthy choices. A team effort is needed from everyone for change to come so everyone is living a healthy life.
1. Nathalie Weiss
ReplyDeleteFed Up
Netflix
2. The controversy is about how America should address the obesity epidemic all across the globe. The argument is split between the government and big corporations against the claims of scientists and personal nutritionists. The corporations and the government claim that obesity is caused by a lack of exercise and overeating. They also argue that people can cure obesity themselves with self control. Food corporations such as McDonald’s argue that people are capable of choosing their food for themselves and the food corporations aren’t to blame for overconsumption. They also claim that it is moral to market to children because parents should be responsible for their food choices. On the other hand, scientists argued that people should only consume about 10% of their daily calories from sugar, which cuts out a large portion of the food being marketed to consumers. Scientists claim that obesity is isn’t a result of lack of discipline, but of an addiction to sugar caused by the foods presented in the marketplace. They backed this claim up by stating that sugar is 3% more addictive than cocaine. Nutritionists also revealed that the obesity solution would be for people to eat unprocessed foods as opposed to the “healthy options” like fat free Oreos. Scientists finally stated that when the major corporations removed fat from their foods, they replaced it with artificial sweeteners, which are addictive in the same ways as sugar.
3. The documentary is biased by favoring the scientists and nutritionists because the film's purpose was to expose major food corporations and the government’s coverup of the dangers of processed foods and their effects on obesity. The title is "Fed Up" because it is explaining that people should be fed up with the government for allowing foods to circulate that are making people sick and overweight. Also, that people should be fed up with food corporations for not making warnings on their products for the diseases that they can cause. The documentary didn’t show any food corporations that changed to address the negative effects of processed ingredients or government officials who are working to make real change about the epidemic. This shows that documentary is biased by favoring scientists and nutritionists over food corporations and the government.
4. The most viable solution is replacing processed ingredients in marketed food items with real ingredients. This is because processed ingredients are strongly tied to obesity. The consequences that they pose later in life aren’t clear yet since they are relatively new. Allowing people to consume real food found in nature would let their bodies function without being tied to sugar and processed sweeteners that lead to both addiction and weight gain. This solution hasn’t been adopted because it is more expensive to food industries and it would cause government to take a more active role in fixing the epidemic. Food industries would have to pay more money for healthy ingredients and a lot of their products would lose their signature tastes. This would cause them to lose money and influence overall. The government would have to address that obesity isn’t a problem of self-will, which would cause them to be forced to spend more money on treating it as a true disease while we are already in deep debt.
5. My opinion is that eating unprocessed foods would stop the obesity epidemic, but I’m not sure how realistic of a change it would be. I can’t see the day that all people would switch from eating cereal to vegetable broth. I also think that people would be against the extra expenses it would take to lead such a pure diet. I believe that it is a solution that would halt obesity, but also an unlikely one to be implemented. The government should help to make the diet change to pure foods and should stop advocating the sales of processed foods, but it is unrealistic to believe that these changes will actually take place on a widespread scale.
1. Grace Haffner, Into the Abyss (2011), Netflix
ReplyDelete2. The controversy described in the documentary, Into the Abyss, is about the use of the death penalty and capital punishment. Throughout the movie, it follows the story of Michael Perry and Jason Burkett, Perry on Death Row and Burkett with a life sentence for the act of triple homicide. It narrates the stories of the families of both the Perry's and the Burkett's and also those of the murdered, the Stotler's. On the side arguing against the need for capital punishment was first Reverend Richard Lopez. Lopez introduced the documentary with an interesting connection to when he almost hit a squirrel on a golf course. Lopez's metaphor was used to described that all lives matter, whether that of an innocent squirrel or a death row inmate. In agreement with Lopez, father of Jason Burkett and father figure to Michael Perry, Delbert Burkett (also in prison) stated that capital punishment didn't bring back the lives of the people who were murdered and it didn't lessen the burden. His argument was against the death penalty for its need to take another life. Finally, Fred Allen also argues against the need for capital punishment. Allen was employed in Huntsville, Texas prison as the one who oversaw the execution and operated the machinery. After retiring from the inability to continue his duties, Allen said, "nobody has the right to take another life". However, on the other side of things, sister of the deceased, Lisa Stotler, actually was there when Michael Perry was executed. She was glad she had done so because his death closed a page in her life after her mother, father, and son had been murdered by Perry's actions. The brother of one of the murdered, Charles Richardson, argued for capital punishment by saying if you kill someone, you deserve to die. Finally, Amanda West, acquaintance of Perry and Burkett prior to the murders, was in favor of the capital punishment for her beliefs in wanting to use it as a message to hopefully cut down on crimes and murders.
3. While the individuals interviewed in the documentary were biased, the documentary as a whole was not. Warner Herzog, writer and voice of Into the Abyss, simply narrates the story of Burkett and Perry's murders and reports such as a detailed newscaster. As the voice of the documentary, he never leans towards a side or uses cinema to depict the gurney and execution either way. The documentary is told through the interviews of contrasting ideas on capital punishment by the story of Burkett and Perry, but does not contain any bias within itself.
4. After hearing the crimes committed by Perry and Burkett, seeing the effects of their triple homicide, seeing the crime scene they left behind, and hearing stories of their typical behavior, it seemed to be the best and only option that Perry was sentenced to Death Row and Burkett to a life sentence (separate trials). The controversy is not in their sentences, but in capital punishment as whole. The reason that capital punishment cannot be adopted in the United States fully is because of the controversy over inhumane treatment. The question posed in the film was, "Is it necessary to take another life?" Capital punishment has yet to be fully answered.
5. My opinion on the controversy after watching Into the Abyss is somewhat in the middle. Before watching the documentary, I was for capital punishment and believed that if you kill someone, you deserve to be killed. However, after listening to the opinions, it makes me wonder if it is truly worth taking another life. Listening to Burkett and Perry talk was interesting because it seemed that Burkett had taken responsibility for his actions while Perry was still trying to blame everyone but himself. My opinion on capital punishment is simply whatever will seek justice. While Into the Abyss challenged my opinion, I do believe that capital punishment should be used in some situation with concrete evidence against an inmate for a crime that cannot be forgiven.
A. What is your name, the title of your documentary, and the source from whence you viewed it?
ReplyDeleteMy name is Seth Medlin; the title of my documentary is Terms and Conditions May Apply, and I viewed it using Netflix.
B. Include a brief summary of the controversy and three specific arguments on both sides of the controversy from the documentary itself (6 total).
The controversy is over Internet companies hiding clauses in their terms and conditions that take away your privacy and give the companies the right to self your information. The Pros of these companies doing this is the government can use this information to prevent terrorist attacks and prevent crimes.
Pros
1. Government using information to prevent terrorist attacks
2. Government can stop crimes before they happen
3. Companies provide their services
Cons
1. Illegally invading personal privacy
2. Unnecessary arrests and house searches
3. Using personal information with out warrant
C. Record any bias you found, or explain why you thought the documentary contained no bias.
This documentary was strongly biased against the large corporations, such as Facebook, Google and Twitter, and the government, which are taking and keeping personal data.
D. What do you see as the most viable solution to the problem presented in the film? Why has that solution not been adopted?
The most viable solution proposed in this video is to continually press the House and Senate on the issue of personal privacy while using the Internet, so laws can be made to prevent misuse and abuse of peoples personal information, especially by government agencies (FBI/CIA) and third-party corporations. The solution has been adopted a few people, but not by enough people to make the change. These people have been pushing for stricter laws on Internet privacy, but not much has been done and the laws that are in place are not continually updated to encompass newer technological advancements.
E. Explain your opinion on the controversy having watched the documentary.
I agree with the makers of the documentary. I believe that personal information, or data, should not be stored, bough, or sold between third-party companies and government agencies.
1. What is your name, the title of your documentary, and the source from whence you viewed it.
ReplyDeleteMaddy Moriarty, It's a Girl (2012), Hulu
2. Include a brief summary of the controversy and three specific arguments on both sides of the controversy from the documentary itself (6 total).
In countries such as China and India, female gendercide is forced on the poor population by government policies and patriarchal culture. In China, a strict "one child" policy exists to prevent overpopulation; however, it indirectly puts females at a high risk of fetucide and infanticide by either the Chinese government or their own parents. The Chinese population is so adverse to raising females because poor families rely on birthing a son to work and pass on their family name/lineage. Similarly, India faces millions of female deaths every year due to their dowry system that has been apart of Indian culture for centuries. Poor families who are unable to afford a dowry will murder any female babies within a minute of their birth. While laws have been passed attempting to prevent this, such as outlawing dowries, little has been done to enforce those laws set to save the lives of these innocent girls.
The side of those against female gendercide
1. It doesn’t matter if a baby is born male or female, they should be treated equally with a “right to life”
2. The dowry system is outdated and should be completely exterminated from Indian culture
3. Mothers should never be forced into abortion or sex determination, and if they are there should be serious consequences for the perpetrators
The side of those in support of female gendercide
1. Females are useless to poor families because they will grow up and go off to start their own families without carrying on their family name
2. The dowry system is necessary, and it is a justifiable reason to murder your female infant if you are not able to pay it when she comes of age to marry
3. Because females are not valued in their culture, a mother has no right to her body or to disregard the wishes of her husband or family to abort her child
3. Record any bias you found, or explain why you thought the documentary contained no bias.
ReplyDeleteI believe the documentary contained no bias for a few reasons. First, many scenes of the film included interviews with families who had willingly murdered up to 8 of their own daughters at birth. The families explained their situation and reasoning behind their decisions and why they didn’t feel any remorse. The documentary left it up to the audience to decide whether or not these families had made the correct decision. Second, while the documentary’s main goal is to raise awareness for the horrors of female gendercide in these countries, it left all of the “protesting” to the experts interviewed specifically for the film. Lastly, the portions of the film that were made directly by the filmmakers (containing no interviews) were nothing but straight facts and reports by different governments and organizations relevant to the issue being discussed.
4. What do you see as the most viable solution to the problem presented in the film? Why has that solution not been adopted?
I firmly believe the most viable solution to this pressing issue is to end the overwhelming patriarchy in these countries. The belief that females are lesser than males in India and China convinces families that the only way of survival is producing sons and killing or abandoning their daughters. This belief also plays into forced abortion and sex determination, which dehumanizes women and turns them into “birthing machines.” This solution has not been adopted due to centuries of male dominance and sexism towards females, such as the dowry system in India.
5. Explain your opinion on the controversy having watched the documentary.
This documentary was very difficult for me to watch knowing that there is nothing I can do to immediately change the situation these women face. Honestly, it is the 21st century…don’t we all know by now that males are no better than females? In my opinion, it is disgusting that this is still a controversy. There should be no opposing sides in this fight for women’s right to life. The words “it’s a girl” should be nothing but good news, not a death sentence. Period.
A. Lila Willis
ReplyDeleteTitle: Miss Representation
Source: Netflix
B. This documentary focuses on the way women are presented in mainstream media, and how it is preventing girls and women of young generations from reaching their full potentials. The documentary’s argument was that there should be a stronger attempt to provide an accurate portrayal of women. Most arguments against this idea were used as counterarguments in the documentary. The film states that many producers of media are “just giving their audience what they want” by only using women with “perfect” bodies in movies, shows, and advertisements (1). Also, it pointed out that some producers truly believe that nobody will watch a movie or TV show with a female protagonist (2). It also quoted male politicians who claimed that women in government positions would not be affective because they would “let their emotions get the better of them” (3). The documentary provided many specific details and statistics to support their main argument. It explained that current media promoted self objectification, which caused a frightening 65% of women and girls to develop eating disorders (4). It also stated that the media causes political efficacy in women, meaning that they do not believe that they have the power to create change in the government. They backed this up with the statistic that only 17% of women make up congress (5). Finally, it exposed the ridiculous lack of female representation in the film industry. Females make up only 7% of directors, 10% of writers, and 16% of protagonists (6).
C. This documentary contained a lot of bias, all of which was relevant to supporting the argument. All of the speakers were people who had plenty of experience and profession in working with the media, such as actors, actresses, anchors, politicians, writers, directors, producers, activists, and researchers. They included both men and women, but the majority were women who could tell firsthand their experiences as women in the media. These speakers included politicians such as Dianne Feinstein and Nanci Pelosi, actresses such as Rosario Dawson and Geena Davis, and news anchor Katie Couric. These are all people who the audience could easily recognize, causing them to make connections to their arguments through the media that they recognized them from. The documentary also included teenage boys and girls who explained their personal experiences on how they had been affected by being exposed to the mass media. This provided a powerful emotional effect.
D. The film presented a clear solution to the problem of the misrepresentation of women in the conclusion of the documentary. It suggested that consumers make a greater effort to do things such as see movies created by female directors, buy books written by female writers, watch shows and movies with female leads, and overall support female workers in all industries of the media. The likely reason that this solution has not yet been adopted is because most consumers don’t even realize that there is an imbalance of men to women in the media, and this ignorance prevents them from initiating a change. This is why it is important for consumers to be educated on this subject in order to actually make a difference.
E. I strongly agree with the argument portrayed in the documentary. Being a teenage girl exposed to the media, I believe that me, and many others like me have been deeply affected by the social, political, and personal issues caused by this misrepresentation of women. This documentary definitely opened my eyes to the many ways the media is problematic in portraying women, and I am eager to see a change be made.
A. I'm Nina Willis and I watched The Invisible War on Netflix.
ReplyDeleteB. This movie was about sexual assault in the U.S. Military, and whether the policies to prevent and punish sexual assault are enough. The argument mainly argued for in the film is that the methods for preventing sexual assault and bringing justice to victims is deeply flawed. Arguments for this include that of a massive amount of reported rapes in the military, a very small percentage of the perpetrators are convicted(244 convictions out of 3,198 reported assaults), showing that rapists in the military are not punished. Also the military has been known to punish victims for reporting rape by opening investigations on these victims, charging them for adultery, or forced expulsions of victims from the military. Additionally, much of the power in deciding how to deal with reported assaults goes to one commander who can do whatever they choose to with the case, and are often unqualified to deal with these reports. On the other side the military claims that they put effort into preventing sexual assault as much as they can. They have trained officials to deal with reports and to investigate them. They campaign through means such as posters and videos to teach others to not stand by in cases of sexual assault, and to encourage women to always keep someone with them. Another argument for this side despite the high number of reports of sexual assault is simply that in a male dominated field such as the military, women just have to face sexual assault as an occupational hazard.
C. I believe there was bias in the documentary. The film mainly focused on telling the stories of the victims of sexual assault, without referencing views in favor of the militaries programs for preventing sexual assault. In the two or three cases where officials are shown arguing for the military's current methods, they are portrayed as corrupt or foolish.
D. I believe the solution is to stop letting the power to deal with sexual assault reports reside with only the commander, and to instead bring in trained officials to investigate and potentially punish the perpetrators. I also think there should be no punishment against those who report rape, and harsher punishments for those how commit rape. I think the military also must provide victims with the opportunity to be safe if they choose to continue their military career, and give women more people to report sexual assault to safely.
E. I believe that the military is not doing enough to prevent sexual assaults, punish the perpetrators, and aid the victims. They need to change their methods and pay more attention to the obvious problems here. The stories of the women and men who survived sexual assault in the military were truly heartbreaking. I believe that the military needs to make all its soldiers, including women, a priority and to make them feel safe in their careers. I know that something must be done to change the current conditions that this film has shown me.
Savannah Giordullo, Into the Abyss, Netflix
ReplyDeleteThe documentary Into the Abyss addresses the controversial topic of the death penalty, specifically targeting the question of its ability to completely and morally serve justice to the nations most dangerous criminals. The documentary follows the story Michael Perry, a convict on death row, and Jason Burkett, a prisoner with a life sentence, who together committed triple homicide in the process of stealing a car. Family members of the victims, friends of the committed, and those whose careers have centered around capital punishment were interviewed, allowing for the viewer to observe all angles of this controversy. Those in favor of the death penalty included Lisa Stotler, the sister and daughter of Perry’s and Burkett’s victims who went to Perry’s execution in order to find a sense of closure and found that “a huge weight had been lifted” after watching Perry’s death. Another person who advocated for capital punishment was Amanda West, whose bartending job connected her to Perry and Burkett. At her job she had witnessed many troubling situations, however the atrocities Perry and Burkett committed scared her into the belief that these crimes deserved the ultimate punishment. Charles Richardson whose brother was one of the three murdered in the triple homicide was another person in favor of the death penalty. Richardson’s emotional interview revealed his belief that anyone who could take another life should have their life taken from them. Contrasting these opinions, Reverend Richard Lopez, who was with the convicts on death row before they died, expressed his belief that all life was sacred, from small animals to murders. Also against capital punishment was Fred Allen, a correction officer working on death row, who, after being involved with the executions of many prisoners, finally began to feel the weight of what he had done. In his interview he explained that “nobody has the right to take another life” and informed the documentary crew that he had quit his job, giving up his pension. Finally, Burketts father, who was in prison during his interview, expressed his views against the death penalty by explaining that taking another life will not bring back those already taken.
The documentary was very careful to not be biased, for it interview friends of the victims and convicts as well as those not connected to the murder. The viewer was able to see all sides of capital punishment through an unbiased interviewer who showed no difference in feeling between a convicted murder and a morning sibling. Those watching were given all sides to the argument and were able to form a well informed opinion on this controversial topic.
The controversy over the questions of morality and justice associated with capital punishment was the problem addressed in the documentary. This problem his no clear solution that was presented in the documentary due to its extremely controversial nature. The documentary asked the questions of its morality through those that it interview but never gave any answers due to the fact that capital punishment does not have alternate solutions, for it either exists or it doesn’t and to take a stance would ruin the unbiased purpose of the documentary.
After watching Into the Abyss my stance on the death penalty is undecided. Because the documentary was not skewed in one direction, it was very easy for me to see both sides of the topic, and, because I was unsure of my opinions before the documentary, its impartial nature made me even more conflicted while attempting to take a side. While the crimes of Burkett and Perry disgusted me and the emotional interviews of the victims families moved me to be in favor of capital punishment, the oppositions points of morality and lack of justice in taking another life pulled me from forming a complete opinion on the topic, leaving me just as conflicted as I was before I watched the documentary.
What is your name, the title of your documentary, and the source from whence you viewed it.
ReplyDeleteEllie Kapcar
It’s A Girl
Hulu (2012)
Include a brief summary of the controversy and three specific arguments on both sides of the controversy from the documentary itself (6 total).
In countries with rapidly growing populations, specifically India and China, if a pregnant family finds out they’re expecting a girl, they do not celebrate with dozens of pink cupcakes and balloons. Instead, many families pressure the expecting mothers to abort the baby girl. If not abortion, many baby girls are killed just after birth. Many of these families feel little to no remorse, and this is sometimes because they believe that a minute of a child suffering as they die is better than a difficult life struggling against poverty. Though illegal, sex determination tests are often performed early on in the pregnancy, and if it is a girl, most families are upset and many choose not to keep the girl. This is because these Eastern cultures are rooted so heavily in patriarchy and refuse to believe that girls are equal to boys. The dehumanization of women is not only accepted but encouraged, and this is due to multiple reasons listed below, many of which are culturally-based. In China, however, where there is a one child per family law, if the first child is not a boy, families see little reason in keeping a daughter because they will only give her up once she is married. Twenty to thirty percent of girls are killed before they’re even born in India and China, and this issue spans across all social classes. Often a problem that is not highlighted, this violation of human rights is a grave issue in our world today.
One side— reasons for having and keeping baby girls
1) Obviously it is wrong to kill, but the deliberate extermination of baby girls is beyond reason.
2) To force pregnant women to have sex determination tests and to dispose of the child if it is found to be a girl is not only illegal but outrightly dehumanizing.
3) Women are missing their opportunity to live, and that is an unalienable right all humans deserve.
Other side— reasons against having and keeping baby girls
1) Daughters in India and China are virtually cut off from their families once they are married, so they are unable to provide for their parents as they grow old and need additional assistance.
2) Dowries are exorbitantly costly, so if a family has one or more daughters they are at risk of severe financial trouble.
3) In cultures that still place a significant emphasis on patriarchy, males are more desirable than females because they will carry on the family name and legacy.
Record any bias you found, or explain why you thought the documentary contained no bias.
ReplyDeleteThis documentary was definitely biased toward female rights, but because that was the entire point of the documentary, this bias was both understandable and very appropriate. All of the families interviewed and the professionals who spoke were in strong opposition to gendercide in India and China and for good reason. This documentary did contain bias, but without it, the impact would have been negligible, which defeats the whole purpose of raising awareness of this issue.
What do you see as the most viable solution to the problem presented in the film? Why has that solution not been adopted?
The most viable solution to this problem is to accept born children despite their gender and to raise awareness so that gendercide can be more forcefully combated. Because it is a cultural difficulty thousands of years old, it is much harder to overcome, which is why gendercide is still prevalent in India and China today. In India the dowry has been outlawed since 1961, and sex determination tests are also illegal today. However, the majority of doctors are corrupt and will take money for sex determination tests and abortions, and the government does not follow up on hardly any of these infractions. The whole dowry ritual is based on Indian culture, and the rest is due to the prevalent patriarchy. There is currently no solution being adopted due to the widespread corruption, lack of government intervention, and the inability of the Indian culture to adapt to equality.
Explain your opinion on the controversy having watched the documentary.
I thought this documentary was very well made, and I was surprised by how serious of a problem it is. It is estimated that there are over 200 million missing women in the world due to gendercide, and also there are 1.1 million more boys born each year compared to girls. Many of the stories featured were shocking in detail. One mother expecting a girl was abused until she agreed to abort her baby girl, and another little girl was abandoned to die beside a river. This is such a cultural issue because India and China’s societies are so patriarchal, so it is frustrating to watch because there’s not an easy solution. Overall, I think this controversy is unfair and unfathomably sad, but I am glad to be more informed about gendercide in India and China.
What is your name, the title of your documentary, and the source from whence you viewed it.
ReplyDeleteFiona Kane, How to Survive a Plague (2012), Netflix.
Include a brief summary of the controversy and three specific arguments on both sides of the controversy from the documentary itself (6 total).
The documentary follows the group ACT UP, which advocated for the need for HIV/AID medication at the beginning (1980s-90s) of the AIDs epidemic. This group led rallies, marches, and protests trying to get the United States government to see that medication to help AIDs victims was necessary. The other side of the controversy was government officials who were resistant or not willing at all to push further research and funding for AIDs medicine. Throughout the documentary, testimonies from members of ACT UP are given to support their arguments for the need for medicine to fight HIV and AIDs. For example, an argument used by ACT UP was the statistic that in the 1980s and 1990s, one person died every half hour from AIDs or symptoms related to it. Also, hospitals in the 80s and 90s were not always willing to treat AIDs patients because they knew in the end they would end up dying since there were no vaccines or medicines that could slow or stop AIDs vicious attack of the body. Lastly, standard drug testing time set by the FDA is 7-10 years, but in that time hundreds of thousands of people could die, only to receive a drug that wouldn’t help end AID/HIV. Conversely, the government and other major medical marketers had their arguments for why HIV and AIDs medicines should not be tested, developed, and sold. One of the biggest groups against the development of HIV drugs was the church, for example the Catholic Church in New York City openly condemned the use of condoms, saying it was unholy. At the time, condoms were the safest way of preventing the spread of HIV and AIDs. In Washington DC, homophobic congressmen and women were, and in some cases still are, less than willing to push bills that provide more funding and research for the creation of AIDs drugs. Also, other disease researches were receiving less money than HIV and AIDs, and they were actually showing positive results, so why should AIDs research receive more funding when nothing seemed to be working? Both sides had strong arguments to support their beliefs, but ultimately ACT UP’s arguments and intentions prevailed.
Record any bias you found, or explain why you thought the documentary contained no bias.
The documentary is definitely biased towards ACT UP and their mission to end AIDs and HIV. All the people interviewed for the documentary either worked directly with ACT UP, or somehow worked towards the creation of AIDs and HIV drugs. There were not interviews to counteract what the ACT UP members had said in their interviews. The documentary never showed those against HIV and AIDs drugs in a positive light, they were only painted as the villains who were killing hundreds of thousands of people every year. Although it presents information explaining the reasoning for both sides of the argument, interviews and testimonies make the documentary very one sided.
What do you see as the most viable solution to the problem presented in the film? Why has that solution not been adopted?
ReplyDeleteThe most viable solution to the problem presented is a vaccine or drug that can completely remove HIV and AIDs from the human body. This solution hasn’t been adopted yet because at this point it is not medically possible. Doctors and scientists alike have not come up with a medicine that can cure HIV/AIDs, all they can do at this point is slow its progression through the body. If a vaccine could be created that would end or prevent AIDs, millions of lives could be saved across the world.
Explain your opinion on the controversy having watched the documentary.
Overall, I agree with what ACT UP was saying about the need for vaccines and drugs to end HIV/AIDs. I myself never paid much attention to the AIDs/HIV epidemic because by the time I was born a lot of the problems had been resolved, so the documentary was incredibly eye opening. I knew how prevalent the disease was and still is in third world countries, especially countries in Africa, but I had no idea how many people in America live with AIDs and HIV. This disease rampages the lives of millions of people all across the world, and yet there is still no cure for it. Although some of ACT UP’s tactics were very radical, their intentions and goals were always good. They were always fighting for a good cause, fighting for innocent lives that had been plagued by an incurable disease. The disease has killed millions, and a cure is needed desperately.
ReplyDelete1. What is your name, the title of your documentary, and the source from whence you viewed it.
My name is Emma Phillips. The title of my documentary is The Human
Experiment (2013), and I viewed the documentary on Netflix.
2. Include a brief summary of the controversy and three specific arguments on both sides of the controversy from the documentary itself (6 total).
The documentary revolves around how there are potentially toxic chemicals in the household objects we use every day, and how these chemicals can increase the chance of breast cancer, infertility, autism, and other diseases.
The Human Experiment examines the producer and the consumer viewpoints.
Producer: The producer defends their product, refusing to believe there is a toxic chemical in the product, by using the ‘the four dog defense’. The first defense is, “my dog does not bite”, meaning the company denies its product is harmful, even if science proves the product is harmful. Second is, “my dog bites, but it did not bite you”; the company says their product may be harmful, but not to worry as the average person is not exposed to the product. The third defense is, “my dog bit you, but it did not hurt you” which means people are exposed to the product but are not harmed by it. Last, the company says, “my dog bit you, and it did hurt you, but it was not my fault”. The producer accepts their product is harmful, but insists the consumer chose to buy and use their product, and the producer is not in the wrong.
Consumer: The consumer urges to know whether the products they are buying contain a toxic chemical or not. Hannah Cary, a young woman with an autistic brother, reassures a new mom, “It’s not your failure; you’re a new mom. You have so much to worry about, and you shouldn’t have to worry about a chemical you’ve never heard of that there’s no signs that show whether it’s good or bad at the time and know to…make sure you don’t buy bottles with that. At the time, you may not have had the opportunity to buy bottles without BPA because it wasn’t on the public radar”. Also, the consumer demands bills are passed to test both new and old chemicals to see whether or not they are harmful. Senator Mark Leno, the California State Senator, issued to have a bill passed to remove certain chemical flame retardants from products. He explained the chemicals collect in the dust and fall to the floor, where anyone can be exposed to the chemicals. However, the bill was not passed due to opposing sides which claimed fire retardants save lives and should not be removed from products. Last, the consumer wants the company to take responsibility for their product. Stacy Malkan, the co-founder of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, persisted Johnson’s Baby Shampoo redesign their product because formaldehyde was tested in the shampoo (in the U.S and Canadian products). She listed countries where the shampoo was sold without formaldehyde and asked why the new shampoo was not sold in the United States and Canada. Eventually, in 2014, Johnson’s Baby Shampoo began to sell non-formaldehyde shampoo in the U.S and Canada.
3. Record any bias you found, or explain why you thought the documentary contained no bias.
I do not believe the documentary contained any bias because both the producer’s and the consumer’s beliefs were addressed. While many of the companies, such as Abercrombie & Fitch and Procter & Gamble, declined to be interviewed, The Human Experiment did show video clips, articles, etc. showing the producer’s viewpoints.
(Emma Phillips continued)
ReplyDelete4. What do you see as the most viable solution to the problem presented in the film? Why has that solution not been adopted?
The most viable solution to the problem, which is to eliminate toxic chemicals from household objects, is to educate people. If more people knew about how BPA or other deadly chemicals are in the products they use every day, more people would fight to have these chemicals eliminated from products.
A reason why the solution has not been adopted is because the producers continue to use ‘the four dog defense’, and consumers believe the producer. If a producer says flame retardants are needed to save lives, most people will agree, even when there is proof the chemical in a product is deadly.
5. Explain your opinion on the controversy having watched the documentary.
I agree with the consumer’s beliefs; if a product I use every day contains a toxic chemical, I would like to know. I should not have to worry about if my shampoo, tooth paste, pillow, etc. could increase my chance of breast cancer, infertility, or another disease because there is a harmful chemical in the product. I do not want to be a part of the human experiment.
A. What is your name, the title of your documentary, and the source from whence you viewed it.
ReplyDeleteVictoria Crabtree, Black fish (2012), Netflix
B. Include a brief summary of the controversy and three specific arguements on both sides of the controversy from the documentary itself (6 total).
Within this documentary the controversy's supporting side argues that the whales benefit for marine behavioral research, breeding, emotional relationships with the animals, profit, and entertainment while being held in captivity. The controversy's side against keeping the whales in captivity argues that the whales in captivity have the risks of a shortened life expectancy, being a danger to the trainers, poor conditions, and psychological problems due to lack of space and frustration.
C. Record the bias you found, or explain why you thought the documentary contained no bias.
The specific agenda of this documentary is to inform the dangers of captivity and interaction of and with the whales. I found that the workers and trainers involved in Sea World and other marine parks have a bias towards keeping the whales in their control and working with them. On the opposing side, I found that those who specialize in whale behavioral research and former trainers have a bias against Sea World due to first hand experience with the whales and after learning new information of the danger, harm, and fatalities these parks had caused.
D. What do you see as the most viable solution to the problem presented in the film? Why has that solution not been adopted?
The most viable solution to the problem presented in Black Fish is to keep the trainers out of the water with the whales or to leave these creatures in their natural habitat to live the wild life they were intended to. With all the evidence proving the dangers of the human interaction with the whales, the solution of keeping this from happening was finally adopted after many years. I believe the reason these whales have not been freed as a whole is because of the strong arguments supporters have, despite the morals and ethics they defy.
E. Explain your opinion on the controversy having watched the documentary.
Without prior knowledge, I had always loved the idea of zoo's and aquariums and animal entertainment as a whole. After watching Black Fish, it has been made clear to me how wrong and immoral the captivity of these animals really is and how strongly I agree with those against their confinement. The treatment, living conditions, and overall life of an animal caged in is incomparable to the natural, free life the whales were led to live in the wild.
AnnaClaire Lackney, Into the Abyss (2011), Netflix
ReplyDeleteSummary: Michael Perry and Jason Burkett were acquaintances with the three people who were murdered: Adam Stotler, Sandra Stotler, and Jeremy Richardson. Jason Burkett was sentenced to a full life in prison, while Michael Perry was put on death row and after 10 years, was executed. This documentary interviews the people effected by this triple homicide and explores the motives behind capital punishment.
Michael Perry and Jason Burkett, responsible for the deaths of three innocent individuals, were good friends who grew up together in a trailer without parents. Delbert Burkett, Jason’s father who is sentenced to a life in jail comments on Michael Perry’s death sentence. He states that although he murdered three people, killing him, does not avenge the deaths of the victims.
Reverend Richard Lopez blesses the prisoners on death row believes that no matter what a person has done they can be forgiven and that they do not deserve to be killed and loose their life inhumanely via execution.
A state executioner speaks out about his intensity of his job routine. Having executed people for 10 years, he finally comes to the epiphany that he can’t continue this job with a clear mind and conscience; believing that what he is doing is inhumane.
Lisa Stotler, the sister of Adam and the daughter of Sandra, had to watch the crime unfold by learning that her mother and brother were murdered. She believed that Michael Perry deserved to die and she even attended the execution in her loved ones honor.
Charles Richardson had to hear the news about his brother Jeremy being murdered, only briefly after his sister was killed by getting run over by a car. He speaks about his childhood and having to deal with his dad in prison almost his whole life. He believes that Michael Perry deserves to die for the death of the person he was closest to in his life.
Jason Burkett, the accomplice of Michael Perry, hates that Perry is blaming him for all his mistakes. He understands that he killed three people, and Perry still thinks he is innocent and that Burkett is to blame. Burkett thinks that a man that can’t take responsibility for a triple homicide should die sooner than later.
Most people who are interviewed in this documentary are against the death penalty. Although they believe a person should pay for their actions, being executed is not the correct way to approach it. This documentary was meant to inform the readers about the people who are affected by these crimes. Not only are the loved ones effected, but the state as a whole because crime is present everywhere around us. No specific sponsors are involved that sway the opinions to one side or the other.
This documentary just explores the meaning and motives behind death sentence in the state of Texas. Obviously the victims families are distraught but their is no clear solution to death row system.
Beginning the documentary I believed that the death row should be a possibility for severe crimes. But watching it further I started to question my opinion because there are many good points brought up by each side of the argument. But, I still believe that the death penalty should be set in place in the states that want to use it in their justice systems. Although I agree with this, I believe that everyone deserves a fair trial, and without cold hard evidence no man should be put to death. But, some people have no chance of being rehabilitated in prison, so that’s why I think it should still be a feasible option.
1. What is your name, the title of your documentary, and the source from whence you viewed it.
ReplyDeleteMy name is Emma Phillips. The title of my documentary is The Human
Experiment (2013), and I viewed the documentary on Netflix.
2. Include a brief summary of the controversy and three specific arguments on both sides of the controversy from the documentary itself (6 total).
The documentary revolves around how there are potentially toxic chemicals in the household objects we use every day, and how these chemicals can increase the chance of breast cancer, infertility, autism, and other diseases.
The Human Experiment examines the producer and the consumer viewpoints.
Producer: The producer defends their product, refusing to believe there is a toxic chemical in the product, by using the ‘the four dog defense’. The first defense is, “my dog does not bite”, meaning the company denies its product is harmful, even if science proves the product is harmful. Second is, “my dog bites, but it did not bite you”; the company says their product may be harmful, but not to worry as the average person is not exposed to the product. The third defense is, “my dog bit you, but it did not hurt you” which means people are exposed to the product but are not harmed by it. Last, the company says, “my dog bit you, and it did hurt you, but it was not my fault”. The producer accepts their product is harmful, but insists the consumer chose to buy and use their product, and the producer is not in the wrong.
Consumer: The consumer urges to know whether the products they are buying contain a toxic chemical or not. Hannah Cary, a young woman with an autistic brother, reassures a new mom, “It’s not your failure; you’re a new mom. You have so much to worry about, and you shouldn’t have to worry about a chemical you’ve never heard of that there’s no signs that show whether it’s good or bad at the time and know to…make sure you don’t buy bottles with that. At the time, you may not have had the opportunity to buy bottles without BPA because it wasn’t on the public radar”. Also, the consumer demands bills are passed to test both new and old chemicals to see whether or not they are harmful. Senator Mark Leno, the California State Senator, issued to have a bill passed to remove certain chemical flame retardants from products. He explained the chemicals collect in the dust and fall to the floor, where anyone can be exposed to the chemicals. However, the bill was not passed due to opposing sides which claimed fire retardants save lives and should not be removed from products. Last, the consumer wants the company to take responsibility for their product. Stacy Malkan, the co-founder of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, persisted Johnson’s Baby Shampoo redesign their product because formaldehyde was tested in the shampoo (in the U.S and Canadian products). She listed countries where the shampoo was sold without formaldehyde and asked why the new shampoo was not sold in the United States and Canada. Eventually, in 2014, Johnson’s Baby Shampoo began to sell non-formaldehyde shampoo in the U.S and Canada.
3. Record any bias you found, or explain why you thought the documentary contained no bias.
I do not believe the documentary contained any bias because both the producer’s and the consumer’s beliefs were addressed. While many of the companies, such as Abercrombie & Fitch and Procter & Gamble, declined to be interviewed, The Human Experiment did show video clips, articles, etc. showing the producer’s viewpoints.
(Part 1)
4. What do you see as the most viable solution to the problem presented in the film? Why has that solution not been adopted?
ReplyDeleteThe most viable solution to the problem, which is to eliminate toxic chemicals from household objects, is to educate people. If more people knew about how BPA or other deadly chemicals are in the products they use every day, more people would fight to have these chemicals eliminated from products.
A reason why the solution has not been adopted is because the producers continue to use ‘the four dog defense’, and consumers believe the producer. If a producer says flame retardants are needed to save lives, most people will agree, even when there is proof the chemical in a product is deadly.
5. Explain your opinion on the controversy having watched the documentary.
I agree with the consumer’s beliefs; if a product I use every day contains a toxic chemical, I would like to know. I should not have to worry about if my shampoo, tooth paste, pillow, etc. could increase my chance of breast cancer, infertility, or another disease because there is a harmful chemical in the product. I do not want to be a part of the human experiment.
(Part 2)
1. My name is Jonathan Uchtman and the title of my documentary is Going Clear (2015) where I found it online.
ReplyDelete2. The controversy is about the invention of a “religion”, created by one man named L. Ron Hubbard, called Scientology. Scientology has been going on for several years now and people who were formerly part of it are now speaking out against this un-scientific practice. Scientology has a famous reputation of blackmailing/stalking people who leave their “group” and everyone who joins this cult are ripped off and experience distorted faith.
Against:
- Former members, after leaving the group, have been stalked, blackmailed, and false rumors were spread all throughout the web. A man named Tom DeVocht spoke lively about how the cult went to his moms doorstep and tried to get his family involved in blackmail.
- Scientology is a rip off because you pay $15 per course and then have 16 hours of false "treatment". In Hubbards hierarchy there are several course and grades to become "clear". If each course is taken separately, it costs approximately $750 just to go from O-IV grade, $500 for the next one, $1,200 for Grade V, and so on. where you reach several thousand.
- Scientology has gone to the extremes of killing. Lisa McPherson was a Scientologist who died of a pulmonary embolism while under the care of the Flag Service Organization, a branch of the Church of Scientology. Following her death the Church of Scientology was indicted on two felony charges abuse.
For:
- Scientology have famous people representing them (Tom Cruise and John Travolta). If people saw that their favorite celebrities shown on their TV screens were in favor for a Church, they would hard-core defend and join that religion.
- Scientology gives people a true understanding of the universe and brings their souls to true happiness. They believed that a galactic overlord named Xenu froze people and threw them into volcanoes and blew them up with hydrogen bombs, which was made more sense to them than creationism.
-Scientology provides a good education. The teachings of L. Ron Hubbard are vast, with information on our true being disseminated through multiple courses and auditing sessions. Scientologists can work their way up the Bridge to Total Freedom with reasonable costs of $2,000-$8,000 per level and around $290,000 for completion.
3. This documentary represents a full bias towards Scientology. The whole time they are saying to not give in to the trickery and how much they rip off people. The documentary provides former members telling us how miserable their experience was to make them abandon the Church.
4. I believe the most viable solution to this problem would be for more people to leave the Church so that there wouldn't be enough people to promote the "religion" or blackmail the people. Also, if more people escape this cult, especially the celebrities, then they could publicly shame this Church to show how foolish it is without getting blackmailed or stalked. Sadly, it hasn't been adopted because the people who want to leave are still scared that they will get blackmailed and publicly shamed and they think there isn't enough of them to step up.
5. My opinion towards Scientology is totally against it. This is the first time I have watched/gone into full depth on this controversy and my feelings toward the cult are just summed up as laughable. I believe this is a stupid and ridiculous "religion" based on false facts that one science fiction writer came up with. I hope that somehow the whole organization/Church will fall apart because of all their blackmailing and giving false hope to their followers.
A. What is your name, the title of your documentary, and the source from whence you viewed it.- Jack Mathis, Forks Over Knives (2011), Netflix
ReplyDeleteB. Include a brief summary of the controversy and three specific arguments on both sides of the controversy from the documentary itself (6 total).- The debate between scientist and dietitians on which type of diet, a plant based one or one with animal products, does the best to help people avoid and recover from obesity and some diseases. Some people believe cutting out animal products altogether is the best way to fight obesity, and they also believe it helps to repress and heal some diseases. The traditional western diet of course has many animal products, so other believe not to stray away from that completely. They believe you can still have animal products and a healthy diet coupled together.
Plant based diet: 1. People on all plant based diets that had showed signs of cancer either had the disease progression stop, or in some cases the disease began to recede once they started this new diet.
2. When consuming natural plants, the receptors in your stomach register the food as more filling than oily or processed foods like some animal products. This means that if you eat the same amount of plant based food as processed animal food you will feel like you are more filled and more satisfied with the plant food causing you to not overeat.
3. The amount of grain used to feed the world's livestock is easily enough to feed every person in the world to satisfaction. This means that even if we cut out just a portion of the livestock, we could start to feed malnourished people around the world with a good plant based grain diet. Some people even went as far as to cut out most of the livestock so that all people could live off the grain and live healthy lives in their opinion.
Animal product diet: 1. Traditionally it has been thought that the best source of protein is from animal meats like cows and chickens. Proteins come from these meats and from eggs as well, all of which are animal products.
2. Calcium can easily be obtained from the animal product of milk, and calcium is critical in growing stronger and more durable bones. It then must be necessary to drink milk constantly in your diet.
3. There are animal based products that can be used in diets that have shown great success in years past with people getting their weight under control. Drinking a lot of milk, eating fish, eggs, and lean meats have all been seen to be effective in people losing and maintaining low, healthy weights.
C. Record any bias you found, or explain why you thought the documentary contained no bias.- This documentary clearly had a biased towards the adoption of the plant based diet for everyone. Even though they showed benefits of a diet based on animal products, they would quickly present facts and research about a plant based diet that would be even more effective than the other diet in their opinion. The documentary also followed cases of real life people that followed the advice of these two dietary doctors that both strongly supported the idea of plant based diet. It continued to follow these patients and glorified how successful the diet was in letting them lose weight and reversing some of the diseases and symptoms they were feeling. At the end, the main narrator also spoke of how he was on the diet and how he feels so much better now with the plant based diet. The documentary overall leans toward the plant based diet over the animal product diet, which they called the western world diet.
D. What do you see as the most viable solution to the problem presented in the film? Why has that solution not been adopted?- I do not think it is realistic to have a complete change of the western world diet to a plant based diet fully. I think that dietitians should hear out the studies on the benefits of these plant based diets so that they can implement some of the aspects of it for the patients. A slow revolution towards a more plant based diet will help people now, and if we start now, it will become the norm for the future generations to be more healthy. The people of the western world are very found of a quick pace meal that is cheap because everyones busy world with full schedules everyday. This quick paced world and the better economy of fast food is the key component to why a plant based diet hasn’t really taken any form in places like the US.
ReplyDeleteE. Explain your opinion on the controversy having watched the documentary.- The documentary certainly showed some very convincing evidence on why the plant based diet is the best way to go to live a healthy more full life. I support the idea of adopting some of the aspects of it and cutting out some of the more processed products, but I do not believe in cutting out all animal products like milk and meat. I still feel the varying of your diet with some animal products is still the way to have the best diet for yourself, while providing some variety and taste.
1. My name is Amanda Lewis, and I watched the documentary Blackfish, which came out in 2013, on Netflix.
ReplyDelete2. The controversy being discussed in this documentary is animal captivity, specifically the orca whales at SeaWorld theme parks in the US (especially in Florida). The controversy centers on the death of experienced trainer Dawn Brancheau because of an attack by Tilikum, SeaWorld’s largest and most famous orca whale, who had actually killed humans twice in the past. The film exposes unknown records of incidents by aggressive whales in captivity at SeaWorld. It examines the effects captivity has on animals and whether it is safe and morally right for both the animals and humans to continue this practice. The side in favor of animal captivity argues that trainers get the experience of a lifetime. Many trainers mentioned seeing the trainers at SeaWorld as children and aspiring to be one themselves. These trainers wanted to live the dream, and they recognize the fun and the thrill of training a killer whale. This side also says that they thought that moving an already captive whale (Tilikum) to a place that had more money and space like SeaWorld would better his life. The previous owners of Tilikum, a whale who killed a trainer and caused the attraction to be shut down, wanted to sell Tilikum instead of release him into the wild, convinced that life at SeaWorld would be a vast improvement from his life at their small attraction and would make them money by selling Tilikum. Finally, the side for animal captivity claimed that orcas were perfectly safe and would not cause harm in captivity. They explained that orcas in the wild never hurt anyone, were very friendly, and wanted to be a human’s companion, so they didn't have any reason to suspect that putting the animals in captivity would harm either the animal or any humans. They claimed that any incident would be a result of trainer error. On the other hand, the view against animal captivity insists that orcas in the wild always stay with their mothers into adulthood so taking away the smaller, younger ones (necessary for shipping costs) would aggravate the animals and upset the lifestyle they have grown to know. Not to mention that taking these animals from the wild was completely illegal and killed many whales, which they cut open and filled with rocks so they would sink. Also, one mother in captivity, named Kasatka, had a baby whale, which disrupted the shows at times and made training slightly more difficult. So, they transferred that baby away from the mother, who cried and screamed for days for her baby. Next, the side against animal captivity argues that the methods of training are inhumane. When Tilikum was new and untrained, they'd make him do the same thing as a trained whale, and when he failed, they'd punish both the whales, causing the trained whale to hurt Tilikum repeatedly. Additionally, if the whales were difficult about going into their tiny pen at night, the trainers would deprive them of food. Another point against containment of animals is that orca whale behavior is wildly unpredictable. They are very intelligent and have “highly elaborated emotional lives.” Still another point states that animals lives are not better in captivity than they would be in the wild. For example, SeaWorld stated that orcas in the wild lived to be only 25-35 years in the wild and lived longer than that in captivity, when female orcas can reach 100 years and males can reach 50-60 years. SeaWorld also claimed that the collapsed dorsal fin, which all of SeaWorld whales have, is a characteristic of 25% of wild orca whales, while the truth is that less than 1% have a collapsed dorsal fin.
3. The documentary is definitely biased against SeaWorld and the captivity of animals. They interviewed primarily former trainers and people who worked with SeaWorld, most of which had very negative feelings towards SeaWorld and animal captivity looking back. This documentary’s purpose is to expose SeaWorld as a heartless, barbaric, concrete sell for animals. SeaWorld refused to be interviewed in this documentary, but the film presents the SeaWorld’s attorney and head trainer in a bad light, mentioning only the things said that were not very articulate or sympathetic. The film talks about lies SeaWorld has promoted and secret practices, such as destroying a film that shows an orca lunging at a trainer and hiding from trainers any previous records of death or injury inflicted by the whales they were working with. The film does not present many reasons in favor of animal captivity and insists that SeaWorld is completely in the wrong.
ReplyDelete4. The most viable solution for this problem is to take the animals out of captivity and find a way to release them safely in the ocean. The adopted solution is to have a physical barrier that separates the animals from the trainers at the park, instead of letting animals and trainers swim together. This has been adopted because it will let the park continue to make money and preserve what’s left of its positive reputation. Releasing the animals has not been adopted because that would mean that a multi-million dollar corporation would have to close. SeaWorld would no longer make money, which is its primary intention. Additionally, it can be hard to acclimate whales into the wild after living in captivity for so long. They would have to train animals to live in the wild and monitor animals after they were released, which costs money, which they would no longer be making.
5. After watching Blackfish, I am against animal captivity. The fact that 70+ animal attacks were recorded that resulted in injury or death is astonishing. It alarms me that not even the trainers there were aware of the deaths and injuries caused by the animals that they were working with and that SeaWorld tried to pin Dawn Brancheau’s death on her, claiming it was the trainer’s error, rather than aggression by the whale. Furthermore, the whales at SeaWorld live very unhealthy lives compared to the lives of wild whales. SeaWorld lied about the average life span of killer whales, claiming they lived longer in captivity than in the wild. Also, they lied about the collapsed dorsal fin trait, which all of SeaWorld’s whales have and is a defect very few whales acquired, being common in orcas. The lives for the animals at SeaWorld is so limiting. Orcas in the wild swim up to 100 miles per day, which means they would have to swim 1,208 laps around the perimeter of the tank to swim the same amount in captivity. The orcas are deprived of food if they misbehave. Tilikum was brutally abused by the females when he first arrived at SeaWorld, so he was sequestered. Tilikum killed a trainer and again was isolated, resulting in no movement or responses from him. Overall, this list of disturbing facts forms a base for why I am so taken aback by the dishonesty of SeaWorld and now see the reality of the lives for animals in captivity. This barbaric concept not only jeopardizes the animals, but many others just like deceased trainer Dawn Brancheau.
Michael Reber: Forks Over Knives(Netflix)
ReplyDeleteIn Forks over Knives, the vegan diet is shown to help prevent and alleviate many kinds of diseases and chronic illnesses. Most Americans, consume a diet that contains a majority of processed sugar, grains, and meats. The director of Forks Over Knives, however, believes this diet is detrimental to everyone’s health. He believes that Americans need to eat a diet that consists of only whole, organic grains and vegetables. One argument that supports this is that through multiple studies, people have found processed to lack nutritional value which leaves the consumer still hungry. This cycle places “empty calories” in your digestive system can ultimately lead to obesity if constantly consumed. People also have proven a link between the consumption of red meat and an increase in cancer which has been one of the most prominent factors for mortality in the America. Another study also showed that the consumption of dairy products like milk can lead to conditions like osteoporosis because of the proteins they contain. In contrast, there were many arguments against this strict vegan diet. Many dietitians believe that people need to consume red meat for the protein and fiber that goes into our diets. Other dietitians have argued that milk has all of the nutrients that a person could need since it is used to nurture calves. Last, there is an argument against the vegan lifestyle because it isn’t practical to the typical American compared to the easy and cheap fast food and processed snacks.
In this documentary, there is a considerable amount of bias. The main focus of the film is to promote a vegan diet through testimonies and studies; however, these studies and testimonies generally favored the vegan diet. Also, the two lead scientists that were followed throughout the film either supported the vegan diet or practiced it. Another example is the limited number of studies shown. The only studies shown in the documentary promoted the vegan diet or displayed its benefits. Therefore, the film was biased in favor of the vegan diet overall.
In my opinion, the best solution the dietary problem in the United States is a balance of both sides. It is true that Americans, including myself, eat way too many processed sugars and grains and lack a sufficient amount of fruits and vegetables. On there other hand, however, I believe the vegan diet is a bit extreme and only need in extreme cases. The costs of organic foods are notably higher than those of processed foods, but the cost of long term medical bills can far outweigh the immediate cost. Therefore, I believe that the American population needs to eat a sufficient amount of whole foods like vegetables, fruits, red meats, and dairy along with the occasional sweet here and there. However, despite this solution’s benefits, people will continue to buy their fast foods because of their low prices and connivence.
My opinion on the controversy is that it is a required topic to be considered in all households across the world. As our world becomes more urbanized and advanced, foods will continue to become faster, cheaper, and more detrimental to our health. Now, this does not mean that we need to abandon all of our comfort foods and stacks, but we all need to be educated about what we are putting in our bodies. Before I watched this documentary, I thought I was eating okay foods, but after watching it, I saw some major flaws in my diet as well as many other people. In the United States today, people are dying of a multitude of diseases that are related to diet, so this controversy is a great way to educate people and possibly change their habits to promote a healthy living now and in future generations to come.
Anthony DiMichele, Murdoch scandal, Frontline
ReplyDeleteIn the documentary Murdoch scandal it bring up the many controversial topics about the press, which include bribery of police and offer public officials for information, intrusion of privacy, and the presses influence on politics. The story takes place in the UK with the newspapers, The Sun and News of the world. Murdoch begin with the New and then bought the Sun years later. As stated in the documentary Murdoch loved gossip and sometimes went to great lengths to get it. This led to the downfall and brings up the first controversial topic in intrusion of privacy. The intrusion of privacy was first discovered when it was believed that his company had tapped the phone of Prince Henry and released an article about it. Intrusion of privacy has been a topic of conversation in the US too with the discovery that the NSA is listening and has records of US citizens. Though in the case of the newspaper all of those that participated in the document agreed that it was wrong, some people such as the NSA believe that it can be used for good and protection. After the police investigation found that the company had tapped phones of people only 1 reporter that was claimed to be “Rouge” was arrested. Those in support say that all of the information is truth and they have done now wrong but cannot be held up in court. A news journalist by the name of Nick Davies of the Guardian ran into one the head of police during a social event and asked if only 8 people had had their phones hacked when in response the chief of police stated it was over 1000. Leading into my second point that does the press have too much power in modern politics. The first example of this issue comes from the labor party member Chris Bryant was railed in the news for his sexuality and his phones were tapped because he got Rebekah Brooks the chief of all newspaper under the Corporation to admit that they had paid the police. The interesting thing that came next was right after that the chairman of the Parliamentary meeting ended it and dropped the story immediately. Murdoch controlling most of the news had an extreme influence on politics. Whatever prime minister had the support of Murdoch would win the election and one of these was Margret Thatcher agreeable one of the most famous prime ministers.
Bias-
In analyzing the bias of the documentary we see that the story is told from a point of view of the victims of Murdoch scandal, therefore only telling one side of the story. With the only one side of the story we only know the story of those who were directly affected by Murdoch so they are against Murdoch and have a grudge or strong feels of dislike towards. Since all 30 executives declined to interview including Murdoch we have no point of view from them so this shows that the bias come from those directly affected negatively by Murdoch.
Fix-
The only thing you can do to stop intrusion on privacy is to put tighter security on phones making it harder to get access to them, but that’s on the phone companies and each of them with over millions of users it get harder and harder to protect them. In the world there is always someone that wants hack into something and find some dirt and as the technology becomes increasingly difficult to protect. The reason that a viable solution is not put in is because you don’t know whether or not your being hacked, and with technology changing its harder to protect your information. IN my opion there really isn’t a viable option to stop it.
Opinion
IN my opinion spying on people and intrusion of privacy are completely wrong and should be stopped. People should have the right to do what they want without the world knowing.
PART ONE
ReplyDeleteWhat is your name, the title of your documentary, and the source from whence you viewed it.
My name is Nina Payiatis. The title of my documentary is The True Cost, and I viewed it using Netflix.
Include a brief summary of the controversy and three specific arguments on both sides of the controversy from the documentary itself (6 total).
The True Cost is a documentary that concerns the rising desire of “fast fashion”, which is a need for fashionable garments at a fast rate and cheap price, and the impact it has on the laborers who produce these clothes, the consumer of the clothes, and the world itself. In the past two decades, the U.S. has gone from producing the majority of their clothing, to having 97% of clothing being produced overseas; there has also been a 500% increase in the consumption of clothing in the United States alone (according to the documentary’s website, truecostmovie.com.) There are two main sides to the controversy. On one hand, for large fashion corporations such as H&M, Forever 21, Zara, and Topshop, cheap labor is the easiest way to create profit for their corporations, by using factory workers in countries such as China and Bangladesh, where the rights, wages, and conditions for workers are often compromised in the name of money. But on the other hand, there has become an increase in fashion companies who are increasingly conscious of the impact of the clothing they are producing, whether it is on the environment or on the people who produce the clothes, and as a result have become more eco-friendly, as well as fair in labor and wages.
Three specific arguments made by those in support of “fast fashion” are:
-Providing jobs in countries who’s only other means of careers are often dangerous and exploitative (coal mining, sex trafficking, etc.)
-Creating cheap fashion that remains in-style at a fast pace
-Creating fashion that costs very little to produce, as a result making it cheaper to sell and more affordable to consumers in first world countries
Three specific arguments made by those who are against “fast fashion” are:
-Harsh working conditions, such as extreme temperatures, large amounts of chemical intoxication, and incredibly long hours
-Negligence and compromising of safety of the workers, resulting in factory accidents and deaths
~The 2013 Savar building collapse in Bangladesh, due to the ignorance of the advisors (though many workers were complaining about cracks in the building and unsafe conditions), resulted in 1,129 deaths and 2,515 injuries.
-many corporations ask the factory for the cheapest price for clothing, resulting in meager pay for workers, and if another factory offers a product at a cheaper price, the corporation will leave the factory they once used
~Many workers make less than three dollars a day, some have a salary of $10 a month
~Keep in mind the minimum wage in Ohio is $8.10 an hour
~Up to 85% of garment factory workers are women, who often have families to support
-Harmful effects on the environment, such as GMO’s and other harmful chemicals that affect the water and air of people throughout the world, which can lead to mental and physical handicaps in birth, cancers, and other diseases.
Record any bias you found, or explain why you thought the documentary contained no bias.
The documentary contained little bias, because it interviewed people who were both in favor of sweat shops and factory workers and those who were against it. The documentary tended to focus on those against fast fashion, but interviewed a variety of people, such as economists, factory managers, factory workers, families in third world countries, people who managed or owned large fashion/garment corporations, people who managed or owned fair trade fashion/garment corporations, etc.
PART TWO
ReplyDeleteWhat do you see as the most viable solution to the problem presented in the film? Why has that solution not been adopted?
The most viable solution to fast fashion and the ever increasing consumption of clothing is the realization that consumption does not fix problems, consumption is a temporary distraction from problems. Many large corporations present the idea that your life will improve, you will be happier, you will be more appreciated, if you buy a certain product or buy into a certain lifestyle. This creates an ever-increasing need for more, more, more, and as a result, large corporations are feeding into this for profit, using countries that have unfair wages and conditions, in order to create fast and cheap products. Due to the large disconnect first world countries have to the third world countries that create these products, it is easy to ignore the harmful effects it is having on our world. But if we become more conscious of how our clothes are produced, how it affects the environment and how it affects all people, not only will we be improving the environment, creating a healthier planet, but we will also be creating a safer, healthier world for all people, eventually helping the global economy and environment. This solution has not been adopted because it is easier to ignore these harmful effects, ignoring the fact that these are real people who are creating these product in such awful conditions, in order to create a large profit at a quick pace, especially in such a fast moving world.
Explain your opinion on the controversy having watched the documentary.
In my opinion, I believe we all are a little cognizant of where are clothing comes from, I do believe that we are not fully aware of how harmful first world countries’ need for consumption is. Many people who produce the garments we are wearing right now are working in harmful environments, with toxins and chemicals infecting their bodies, extreme temperatures, cramped facilities, and meager pay. They spend their whole lives doing this, often working up to the day they die. I believe even if we become even a little more conscious of what we buy, how often we buy it, and how often we dispose of garments, we may be able to create an increasing awareness of the harmful effects this controversy has. Though it can be exciting and fun to buy cheap clothing and products often, a consumer can also recognize a few facts: consumption does not solve problems, it creates only a temporary distraction from them, and by supporting these large corporations, they are contributing to these factories that have no regard for the lives and conditions of the human beings who work for them. By supporting fair trade organizations, we can create an awareness for these issues, all the while still being able to consume the products we want, but not at such a detrimental cost.
What is your name, the title of your documentary, and the source from whence you viewed it.
ReplyDeleteMadison Telgkamp, Girl Rising, Amazon Prime
Include a brief summary of the controversy and three specific arguments on both sides of the controversy from the documentary itself (6 total).
Girl Rising addresses the controversy of whether or not girls around the world should be given an education and other rights that many of them are denied around the world. human trafficking and sexual abuse is another issue that girls around the world are beginning to rise up against
For women and girls education:
“If girls got the proper education they needed around the world, incredible things would happen” - So many girls around the world have so much potential, yet they don’t have the opportunity to get an education due to many things, such as poverty, health, and even the society they live in. If these girls were given a way to go to school, to learn how to read and write, they could show the world that they deserve an education.
Giving a girl the proper education would keep her safer and healthier and give her the opportunity to escape poverty. - If you educate a girl, you could teach her about how to prevent diseases such as HIV and AIDS. Putting every child in school could prevent 700,000 HIV cases. Many of the parents in these countries keep their girls at home to work or marry them young so they can protect them from sexual assault. Other girls are stuck in a society that does not believe the girls should be educated, they should stay a home and raise children and work all day.
In some countries there are laws against bonded labor, children's rights, labor rights, and laws against domestic violence and trafficking. - Even though many countries have these laws, like Nepal where Suma lived, the traditions of bonding girls and selling them to masters still happens illegally. In the documentary, social workers who ran a night school began standing up to the masters and telling them about the laws they were breaking. They went door to door to free these girls.
Against women and girls education:
In developmental world's, girls are expected to work - In many countries, girls are expected to work. It has always been that way in their country and they have no reason to want to change their ways now. They think that girls belong in the house, while the boys get the education.
Girls would be killed for wanting to go to school in some countries. - Amina from Afghanistan showed us that today in some countries, women don’t even have a voice. She could be killed for showing her face, or voicing her wishes to go to school.
Girls that go to school lost respect for their parents - Mariama from Sierra Leone showed us how parents in some of these countries feel that their children lose respect for them after getting an education, so they don’t want their children to be educated. the different societies have different outlooks on why they shouldn’t send their girls to school.
Record any bias you found, or explain why you thought the documentary contained no bias.
ReplyDeleteThis documentary showed bias towards giving girls education. It was a documentary made to give these girls voices. The producers also gave many facts throughout the documentary that showed us how many girls were out of school, how many girls are affected by sexual harassment or trafficking and many other things that girls in these countries have to deal with. The stories that were told by these girls also showed bias because they were the ones that were given a voice to speak out against those that tell them they shouldn’t be given one.
What do you see as the most viable solution to the problem presented in the film? Why has that solution not been adopted?
I think the problem presented in Girl Rising is very complex and won’t be solved with just a simple solution. However, I think that Girl Rising has presented a solution in itself, giving a girl a voice. If girls around the world can be given a voice, then we can work together to give them what they ask for, such as education.
Explain your opinion on the controversy having watched the documentary.
I think I agree that girls should be given education. I recognize that I am very lucky to be given the opportunity to go to such an amazing school and live in a country where girls are treated fairly, though not always equally. To hear the facts and the stories from girls in places like Afghanistan, Nepal, Peru, Haiti, and many other countries, it makes me realize how lucky I am to be where I am and to have the opportunities that I have been granted. It also makes me wish I could change the lives of these girls. To see these girls who have struggled for most of their life, yet they still have the strength to smile and put on foot in front of the other, it makes me wonder how much different the world would be if people like them were given the opportunity to shine.
1. My name is Connor Day, and I watched the documentary The Human Experiment on Netflix.
ReplyDelete2. In today’s modern and ever-changing world we are relying on chemicals and compounds more and more without thinking of the risks and side effects. The documentary The Human Experiment sheds light on this concern. There are many advocates in the documentary that are in favor of restricting chemical use. (1) First of all, they say that many modern chemicals of carcinogens which can/will cause various types of cancer. They state that breast cancer rates have increased 30% in both women and men which is a statistic that just does not make much sense. With hormone treatment and other medical practices the increase makes some sense in women, but should not hold the same for men. (2) Secondly, these advocates say that chemicals can cause disabilities or other complications. Autism rates have skyrocketed as in 1999 only 1 in 500 children had autism, but today, 1 in 88 children have autism. (3) Finally, advocates point that in the past, the FDA and court cases have failed to ban dangerous substances, or be unaware of the danger. A key example of this is Asbestos which caused lung cancer in many people who worked with or near it. However, counterpoints were mentioned in the documentary. (1) First of all, the chemical industry provides a large number of jobs in the struggling American economy in which many could be lost with the banning of some substances. (2) People also claim that chemicals are greatly beneficial to our lives in terms of flame retardants, medicine, etc. (although some may do more harm than good). (3) Finally, companies claim that their product, such as tobacco may have caused people harm, but it is there own fault for ignoring the science and smoking, and is not the companies fault for the supply.
3. The documentary was largely biased towards those in favor of bans and limitations on certain chemicals. Many of the experts, advocates, etc. interviewed and who shared their stories were in favor of more bans and regulations on toxic chemicals such as PVP and BPA. For example,
4. The most viable solution to the issue presented in this documentary is to impose harsher bans and regulations on chemicals that we know are dangerous. Many states have already enacted bans on BPA, most notably the more liberal, coastal states, and have began restrictions on PVP. Similar to a defendant in a manslaughter charge, these chemicals are innocent until proven guilty. So America should adopt a system of rigorous testing and delays to insure that all chemicals going onto the market are indeed safe and will not cause disabilities, diseases, or illness. Do we really want another Asbestos?
5. After watching The Human Experiment, my eyes really opened on the potential side effects and harm that chemicals can do and the true lack of laws preventing the use of these chemicals. However, I find it would be easy to be caught up in the thought that “all chemicals are bad” which is not the case and is not portrayed in this documentary. I believe that many chemicals and modern day products are very beneficial and helpful; however, this documentary truly did get me thinking about harmful and potentially harmful chemicals we could be encountering without thinking twice about.
A. My name is William Meyer, and the documentary I watched is called The Vaccine War on PBS Frontline.
ReplyDeleteB. In The Vaccine War, it is stated that vaccines are the greatest medical triumph because they have effectively increased the average lifespan of humans, but it is also stated that rates of autism have mysteriously gone up with the increase in vaccinations. Sides have been taken on whether or not vaccines should continue to be used. One side believes in pro vaccination. They believe that the benefits of vaccination outweigh the risks, and cite the increased lifespan and elimination of smallpox as examples of benefits. They wish to prevent outbreaks such as the recent Disneyland measles incident. The other side of the argument is anti vaccination. This side believes that autism and vaccination are linked. They believe that as parents, vaccination is a "private affair, not a public responsibility". Others that fall on this side do not believe in vaccination, for their religious beliefs do not allow them to vaccinate.
C. After watching the documentary in its entirety, it's very hard to tell if there was any bias. This is most likely due to the fact that vaccinations are so controversial. For a company as renowned as PBS, I believe they have to keep neutrality to prevent a loss in viewership that would most likely lead to a loss of money.
D. In The Vaccine War, the most viable solution stated in the film was to decrease the amount of vaccination exemptions, which would reduce the chance of any further preventable epidemics. However, this solution has not been put in motion because it is stated that this solution would be an issue of freedom.
E. Before I watched the documentary, I believed that vaccinations were viable and should be mandatory. I thought it was unfair that vaccinated families always had a risk of an un-vainated person infecting them with an otherwise preventable disease such as measles. After listening to sources on both sides of the argument, I still believe in the use of vaccinations, but I feel that their use should not be mandatory. It is definitely eye opening that with the increase in vaccines, cases of brain damage have gone up. I believe this should be taken with a grain of salt, as it is also stated that the ages at which children get these vaccines are typically the ages when symptoms of autism appear. Finally, I believe that it is unfair to force someone to get vaccinated against their personal beliefs. The decision to vaccinate should ultimately be up to the parents of the children.
1. I am Dawson Battison and I watched the documentary, Dogs on the Inside, on Netflix.
ReplyDelete2. The controversy discussed in this documentary had to do with the wellness of stranded animals and "better" prisoners and how their interactions with each other could set them both up for success in the outside world. From what the documentary showed us, everyone benefited from the experience. One prisoner, Candido, managed to find out what he is meant to do and was released from prison several months early. The dogs were adopted by other families after a few months which also shows how compassion can change someone from being abused to caring once more. This experience also allowed previous enemies to come together in friendship with a common bond, the dogs they were caring for. However, one thing about this experience that may not be the best is only a small picked few were able to participate, so any angered or abusive inmates will continue the same. However, the ones who were picked changed their entire perspective on life. This idea also brings forth a sense of loss because both the dog and the inmate gained a huge bond with each other, only to lose it a few months later when a new family adopted the dog. This experience also brought some hatred due to the fact of how much work the company helped these dogs instead of humans which should not be the case at all, but some people hadn't been able to see the true importance of the program until much later. Overall, this program is continuing to work tremendously and is bring forth the good in the world.
3. This documentary was definitely biased in favor of the program allowing inmates to take care of the dogs because it is more informational than not. The documentary wanted to show what people will do to help an abused animal and how not everyone that was sent to prison is necessarily a bad person. This documentary told the story of abandoned dogs and everything eventually turned out for the better in the end. There were no parts in the documentary where any of this was ever reconsidered.
4. The most viable solution to these situations is to allow these companies to do everything they can to help these dogs and inmates and to do everything in your power to not be the reason for the mistreatment of dogs. Some people stated that they felt bad from the animals but did nothing to help when they could have tried to save them like others did. However, this is not always the case because people are afraid of the dogs if they are not known to them or they just don't know how they can help.
5. In my opinion, I think that allowing inmates to take care of the rescued dogs is a great thing because it allows both, the dog and the human, to connect on an emotional level and became better overall.I wish that people would never allow 2.7 million dogs to be needed for rescue in the first place, but since it is, this is a great way to help with that problem. The documentary stated that you never know the true nature of a person until you confront them with a dog. This documentary was inspirational and I hope more people will live on successfully because of what was shown throughout this story.
1. My name is Bobby Dennerll. I watched “Dirty Wars” on Netflix, which was released in 2013.
ReplyDelete2. “Dirty Wars” follows an investigative reporter, Jeremy Scahill, who has written war articles throughout his whole career. However, in this documentary he discovers a secret United States military division named "JSOC". They go into other countries secretly and hunt down terrorists. Scahill decides to go into the heart of America's covert wars including Afghanistan, Yemen, and Somalia to investigate. Scahill discovers that while Jsoc had many successful missions, they also killed many women, children, and even went as far as killing a United States citizen charged for no crimes. Scahill obviously decided to go public with this information, which brought up the argument on whether the United States should be able to go into other countries without their consent and go through with these assassination missions.
On the positive end of the spectrum:
-Jsoc killed many dangerous criminals like Osama Bin Laden.
-They also go into countries that are really not capable of fending for themselves.
-Finally, they do small secret missions to make sure that starting a war is not necessary.
However, there is a whole other argument.
-Many innocent people are killed including women and children.
-Also, countries started to bite back at the United States for their actions and it infuriated the terrorists still out there.
-Finally, Scahill made it clear that the U.S. would never be able to solve the problem and were spending money, resources, and lives on an unsolvable problem.
3. I did find bias in the documentary. Sad music was played throughout most of the plot and showed many innocent victims of the Jsoc team. There were also far more interviews with people that disapproved of it then approved of it. Scahill made it very clear that he did not approve of the U.S. going into other countries without permission and carrying out assassinations.
4. In my opinion, the only real solution is to go to war with these countries. But that is not a viable option at all and is not that far off from what is going on right now as Jsoc has had over 3000 night raids in the past 4 years. It is a very difficult situation as the Taliban and Isis will keep killing innocent lives but so will we if we intervene.
5. In my opinion we should stay out of it and mind our own business. We are what these "terrorists" despise and us coming into their homeland will only make them madder and will never make them stop what they are doing.
1. My name is Connor Day, and I watched the documentary The Human Experiment on Netflix.
ReplyDelete2. In today’s modern and ever-changing world we are relying on chemicals and compounds more and more without thinking of the risks and side effects. The documentary The Human Experiment sheds light on this concern. There are many advocates in the documentary that are in favor of restricting chemical use. (1) First of all, they say that many modern chemicals of carcinogens which can/will cause various types of cancer. They state that breast cancer rates have increased 30% in both women and men which is a statistic that just does not make much sense. With hormone treatment and other medical practices the increase makes some sense in women, but should not hold the same for men. (2) Secondly, these advocates say that chemicals can cause disabilities or other complications. Autism rates have skyrocketed as in 1999 only 1 in 500 children had autism, but today, 1 in 88 children have autism. (3) Finally, advocates point that in the past, the FDA and court cases have failed to ban dangerous substances, or be unaware of the danger. A key example of this is Asbestos which caused lung cancer in many people who worked with or near it. However, counterpoints were mentioned in the documentary. (1) First of all, the chemical industry provides a large number of jobs in the struggling American economy in which many could be lost with the banning of some substances. (2) People also claim that chemicals are greatly beneficial to our lives in terms of flame retardants, medicine, etc. (although some may do more harm than good). (3) Finally, companies claim that their product, such as tobacco may have caused people harm, but it is there own fault for ignoring the science and smoking, and is not the companies fault for the supply.
3. The documentary was largely biased towards those in favor of bans and limitations on certain chemicals. Many of the experts, advocates, etc. interviewed and who shared their stories were in favor of more bans and regulations on toxic chemicals such as PVP and BPA. For example,
4. The most viable solution to the issue presented in this documentary is to impose harsher bans and regulations on chemicals that we know are dangerous. Many states have already enacted bans on BPA, most notably the more liberal, coastal states, and have began restrictions on PVP. Similar to a defendant in a manslaughter charge, these chemicals are innocent until proven guilty. So America should adopt a system of rigorous testing and delays to insure that all chemicals going onto the market are indeed safe and will not cause disabilities, diseases, or illness. Do we really want another Asbestos?
5. After watching The Human Experiment, my eyes really opened on the potential side effects and harm that chemicals can do and the true lack of laws preventing the use of these chemicals. However, I find it would be easy to be caught up in the thought that “all chemicals are bad” which is not the case and is not portrayed in this documentary. I believe that many chemicals and modern day products are very beneficial and helpful; however, this documentary truly did get me thinking about harmful and potentially harmful chemicals we could be encountering without thinking twice about.
1) My name is Madison Smith and I watched the documentary "Stuck" on Netflix.
ReplyDelete2) This documentary focused on the brokenness of the international adoption process by following four families through their experiences. One women was totally equipped to adopt, however she was almost convinced out adopting a young girl in Ethiopia just because she would be a single mother. For another family, they were matched with an infant named Nate in Vietnam, but weren't able to permanently bring them into their home until about three years later. Throughout the documentary, there were interviews with some of the most prestigious psychologists and political authorities and they ultimately came to the same conclusion: the adoption system needs to change.
Reasons people agree process shouldn't take so long:
-A child needs a family. Therefore, an orphanage should be a temporary fix to a much greater solution.
-One of the reasons the process takes so long is because the orphanages want to make sure the biological family wants to give their child up for adoption, however, not every child's record is able to be traced. Yet, the system still tries desperately to give reasons why children should stay in their home country.
-The longer a child is in an orphanage, the longer it takes for them to properly develop Psychologists in this documentary conducted a research study in an orphanage in Romania where the conditions were traumatic. Children need love and affection to properly develop, but there were eight year olds who had the proper development of a four year old that were living in this orphanage.
Reasons why people believe the long process is neccesary:
-For protection of the child to ensure the adoption isn't for malicious reasons.
-Biological families are very important and adoption should be an absolute last resort. That is why there is an in-depth investigation of the birth mother to see if and why she wants to put her child up for adoption.
-There could be liability issues for the institutions if the process isn't extensive and thorough.
3) I believe this documentary contained bias. The audience is exposed to horrific conditions and there were many interviews with the birth mothers of children being adopted, which explained there reasoning as well. However, for the majority of the film, the focus was on the families trying to adopt and the hardships they were experiencing during the process. For this documentary to have had no bias, there would need to be an equal point of view from the people who take part in running the orphanages and handling the adoption process.
4) I believe the most viable solution to the problem is to omit all unneccesary steps to the process of adoption. For example, parents need to get finger prints to adopt and if the process takes longer than 18 months, they have to renew their finger prints. Although this is a diminutive step, it is conclusively expendable. This solution has not been adopted because facilities don't want to risk an occurrence of an adoption with hurtful intentions. Also, the government in American as well as international countries, don't want to recognize that the adoption system is a massive issue.
5) I believe there should be more attention brought to the adoption system. People believe you can just patch an orphanage with nice clothes and more food, but what children ultimately need is a family and a home with loving people that will provide them with the direct attention and care their development demands. Yes, conditions in most orphanages in other countires are appalling and we should do something to change that. However, getting children into safe, loving homes as fast as possible should be a bigger priority. An orphanage should be a quick stop, not someone's entire childhood.
1. What is your name, the title of your documentary, and the source from whence you viewed it.
ReplyDeleteAnna Stehling, Stuck (2013), Netflix.
2. Include a brief summary of the controversy and three specific arguments on both sides of the controversy from the documentary itself (6 total).
This documentary focused on the problems the faulted adoption systems have caused. The system is shown to have many unnecessary steps and take more time than needed to get abandoned children into safe, loving homes. Although many countries and the US were trying new laws and systems to make the adoption process smoother, it was shown, through different families, that the systems were still flawed. The struggle the children and families go through during this long grueling process is depicted throughout the film. This documentary argues that the international adoption laws are deeply flawed and there should be more done about this.
Arguments that the system is flawed:
• Many steps of this process are very unnecessary, such as, getting fingerprints done every couple months. Human finger prints do not change and this step is very unnecessary to the main goal of giving a child a healthy, loving home.
• Unnecessary steps in this process lead to a child being institutionalized and stuck in an orphanage longer than needed. Some parents can be matched with their adopted child when the child is 3 months old and not get to take the child out of the orphanage until 3 years-6 years. In some rare cases families have to wait even later into the child’s life.
• The length of this process can cause serious health issues in the adopted children. A study was show that the longer a child stays in an institution and orphanage the more risk they are at for many mental illnesses. Most institutions and orphanages are low on clothing, food, and hygiene products so children end up malnourished and unhealthy the longer they stay in the orphanage rather in a safe home.
Arguments that the system is not flawed:
• The systems length and steps are put in place to protect children from child trafficking and unsafe families. Therefore even though this process is lengthy and can take much longer than expected, it is this way to protect the children who are being adopted.
• All steps of this process are necessary and benefit the safety of the child and the parents who are adopting. They make sure everything is in order to have a safe and organized adoption
• The government is doing everything they can to work out problems in the system and they say that anytime a system is put into place it will have flaws and there are certain things the government cannot do. They are limited in aiding the adoption systems of certain countries due to customs and government types, so there isn’t much the US government can do in certain situations.
3. Record any bias you found, or explain why you thought the documentary contained no bias.
ReplyDeleteIn this film many families who have been affected by the flaws in the adoption system were shown. This showed that the creator of this film depicted a bias supporting these families and their struggles. Most of the facts throughout the film that were shown were in support that the adoption system is flawed and this showed bias.
4. What do you see as the most viable solution to the problem presented in the film? Why has that solution not been adopted?
The System itself has been changed many times to find different solutions. In the film they talk about a new system known as The Hague Convention that dealt with international adoption laws to prevent child trafficking and many problems in the system. This caused year delays in thousands of adoptions and ended up still not solving the flaws of the adoption system. I see a good balance between being precautious about which person a child is adopted by, but also deleting the unnecessary parts of this process. This solution has not been adapted because the balance between these two is hard to find.
5. Explain your opinion on the controversy having watched the documentary.
I have a large interest in this topic and a huge care for these children. It was very hard to watch children be stuck in orphanages because of paperwork missing or a simple signature not filled out, when they have a loving safe family they could be with. These kids have developmental problems because the adoption system is very flawed. They are stuck in unhealthy and not loving buildings for unnecessary years because of a long process that is not needed. It breaks my heart to think that a child could be having a happy childhood but is stuck in another country under a roof that will never be their home. I hope that the government officials can find the balance between making sure the family wanting to adopt is safe and being too extensive in the process.
What is your name, the title of your documentary, and the source from whence you viewed it. My name is Carson Fields and the title of my documentary is The True Cost and it was found on Netflix.
ReplyDeleteInclude a brief summary of the controversy and three specific arguments on both sides of the controversy from the documentary itself (6 total). The controversy in this documentary is related to the inhumane ways of the fashion industry and more specifically the price garment factory workers of 3rd world countries are paying in order to provide cheap clothing for Americans. On one hand, factory workers are being forced to work in extremely hot and unsafe “sweatshops”. They are put to work in a place covered in chemicals and pesticides that put not only their own lives at risk, but also the lives of their children; if they get to bring their children there at all, otherwise these workers are also being forced to abandon their families. Owners and managers of these garment factories pay little to no attention to the health and wellbeing of their workers. In Bangladesh, certain factory buildings were considered unsafe when cracks in the walls were reported. However, the workers were not sent home. Instead, they had to stay in the unsafe factories which ended up collapsing and resulted in 1,000 deaths. Factories collapse and catch on fire all the time in Bangladesh (ex: Ali Enterprises- 289 dead, Tazreen Fashion- 112 dead, Rana Plaza- 1,129 dead), yet no changes are being made. On top of all of that workers are only being paid about 10$ a month. On the flip side of this, big clothing companies and managers believe that things could be far worse. Kate Ball-Young, for example, claims that “there’s nothing intrinsically dangerous with sewing clothes...we’re starting out with a relatively safe industry. It’s not like coal mining or natural gas mining”. Another reason people don’t think sweatshops are all that bad is that the wages and conditions seem horrific to us, Americans, because that’s no where near what we are used to, but for these workers their alternatives are much worse.
Record any bias you found, or explain why you thought the documentary contained no bias. The documentary does a good job of highlighting just how cruel clothing companies are and how poorly sweatshop workers are treated. The majority of the documentary was about the wrong companies were doing and those defending the fashion industry's ways only had a few interviews.
What do you see as the most viable solution to the problem presented in the film? Why has that solution not been adopted? There are people working to correct what the fashion industry has become. Safia Minney, for example, with her fair trade company, People Tree. Or another example would be Livia Firth who started the Green Carpet Challenge, asking celebrities and designers to take part in more mindful types of fashion. But the main solution would be for Americans to stop putting such an emphasis on materialistic things and the economy, and to instead focus on the wellbeing of people all around the world. This solution hasn’t been adopted yet because people are rather obsessed with feeling rich and buying things because they believe that is what will make them happy. They also believe that if we become less materialistic, our economy will fail. So overall, we may feel rich but we are actually leaving our world desperately poor.
Explain your opinion on the controversy having watched the documentary. After watching this documentary I was shocked to find that the clothes I had on that very instant were most likely made with the blood, sweat, and tears of those working in the garment factories. I never understood just how bad they had it, because, living where I do, I could never really imagine it. But, having heard the stories and interviews in the documentary, I now want to take a step back and really question where I’m getting my clothes and ask myself what I can do to help put a stop to the inhumane ways of the fashion industry.
1.What is your name, the title of your documentary, and the source from whence you viewed it.
ReplyDeleteErin Cash, Going Clear: Scientology and the Prison of Belief, HBO
2.Include a brief summary of the controversy and three specific arguments on both sides of the controversy from the documentary itself (6 total).
The controversy within the documentary is split into three parts. First is the section in which former members describe how they came to join Scientology. Most of these people were simply facing difficult times in their lives and were looking to improve their situation. Second is the history of both the body of belief and its founder, L. Ron Hubbard. He began as a science fiction writer, creating fantasy worlds for a literary magazine. But, as his mental health declined, he adopted scenarios from these fantasies as core beliefs of Scientology. The final third of the documentary discusses abuse of church members, corrupt leadership, and various other scandals.
FOR Scientology:
1. It will create a world without war, criminality, and insanity (according to the founder of Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard).
2. Joy is the operative concept of the religion which therefore means it cannot have any hostile/corrupt intentions other than to better the lives of its members.
3. A core value of Scientology is "auditing" in which members of the church relive and observe past traumatic events in their lives repeatedly, therefore causing their negative lasting influence on the victim to disappear.
AGAINST Scientology:
1. The church baits its prospective members in corrupt and unethical ways. One such way is using attractive qualities of the religion such as the elimination of mental distress and the bettering of one's life. Huge amounts of money are practically stolen from the members so that they can participate in classes. However, after these initial qualities are used to draw members in, the ridiculous creation myth of Scientology is revealed, which is a turning point for many of the members. Essentially, false advertising is being used.
2. The creation of Scientology was perhaps a form of self-therapy for L. Ron Hubbard, who, after many years, recognized his potential insanity and asked for psychiatric aid. So, this entire body belief could have possibly been constructed by a mentally unstable man attempting to satisfy his delusions-- yet it gained massive following.
3. Members of the church who revealed potentially harmful information about Scientology during their auditing sessions were put in rehabilitation facilities in disgusting conditions. If they had children, they were taken away and initiated into a cadet force in which church superiors made the children's parents look like criminals.
3.Record any bias you found, or explain why you thought the documentary contained no bias.
ReplyDeleteThe documentary begins in a fashion that seems to lack any bias whatsoever; former members simply detail what appealed to them about Scientology. But, as the film goes on and L. Ron Hubbard is described, bias definitely infiltrates the documentary. Despite the fact that there is concrete evidence to support the hypothesis that Hubbard was actually mentally unstable, there is still bias that portrays him in a negative light as a powerful man who abused his power to make money and deceive the members of the church. Bias is even further obvious in the last part of the film as the various wrongdoings of the church are revealed. These range from keeping certain members in prison-like conditions and having the second leader of the church physically abuse them, all among other horrific situations. The title of the documentary itself is full of bias, describing Scientology as a "prison of belief".
4.What do you see as the most viable solution to the problem presented in the film? Why has that solution not been adopted?
In short, the only "solution" to the problems presented in the film is the complete eradication of Scientology. It has gained such mass following, especially from celebrities, that it is almost impossible to reverse the influence (both positive and negative) it has on society. One example of an failed reduction of the church's power is the IRS's attempt to declare Scientology a non-religious organization, therefore allowing them to be taxed. But, the church angrily created thousands of lawsuits against the IRS as a whole as well as specific employees. Fearing this "church's" power, the IRS allowed it to be tax-exempt. The one time any effort was made to decrease the influence of the church failed-- they simple have too much power and are too clever, manipulating the emotions of its members to their own advantage.
5.Explain your opinion on the controversy having watched the documentary.
I personally respect the right of man to believe what he or she desires to believe. But, when that belief is corrupt and harmful to others, I take offense. The basic principles of Scientology are indeed very appealing, as described in the first third of the film. It seemed like an attractive philosophy. But, as the film went on, the behind-the-scenes affairs of the church horrified me-- how could an institution dare to call themselves a "church" when it is all an abusive moneymaking scandal? I went into this not knowing much about Scientology, but I left it with quite a bad taste in my mouth.
Part 1 Emily Ferguson
ReplyDeleteWhat is your name, the title of your documentary, and the source from whence you viewed it.
My name is Emily Ferguson and I watched Miss Representation on Netflix.
Include a brief summary of the controversy and three specific arguments on both sides of the controversy from the documentary itself (6 total).
The controversy that Miss Representation addresses is that mainstream media shapes our society in ways we do not realize; specifically, media does not focus on the intellectual capabilities of women, but instead it focuses on women's physical appearance.
1. One significant example given by one mother who tells why she fears her daughter growing up in our society where girls go through a gauntlet of emotional damage when striving for perfection. As a young girl, she describes her youth as striving for perfection went beyond being athletic and intelligent. She says that she felt she had to justify her accomplishments by striving for physical beauty as well, thus she developed an eating disorder. The mother also explains that media "disseminates such limiting portrayals of women" which further prays on the insecurities of teenage girls.
2. Several shocking statistics are used to support the argument stating "53% of 13 year old girls are unhappy with their bodies" and leads "to 78% by age 17". These unsettling numbers are followed by the fact that "65% of women and girls have an eating disorder".
3. M Gigi Durham, PhD and Professor of Journalism, discusses the importance of advertising for companies and how media is a political economy. Additionally, it is identified that both the media and advertisements have to support each other in their pursuit of ideal image so that they can support one another. Thus, by providing products to help consumers strive for an impossible perfection, they will continue to generate revenue because the ideals are unachievable. In 2009, it is reported the $253.6 billion was spent on advertising. Additionally, Durham states that women spend more on the pursuit of beauty than their own educations. The average American woman spends $12,000 to $15,000 a year on beauty products and services.
The documentary points out the contradicting opinions that lead to the values and ideals of women.
4. Additionally, it is shown that only 34 women have ever been governors, whereas there have been 2,319 male governors. In contrast to this documentary’s arguments, male politicians were quoted discussing the ineffectiveness of a woman in political office. A high school girl, Devanshi Patel, running for youth governor spoke about her experiences with sexism where some of her male counterparts would say "she speaks well, for a woman".
5. Another counterargument, which is surprising, can come from women. The former mayor of San Francisco, now the lieutenant Governor, discussed his implementation of two women as the fire chief and police chief. He said that the most opposition from women who felt that it was too much, too soon, too fast.
6. Lastly the mother who was first introduced at the beginning, discussed her career in Hollywood. The first thing she was instructed to do was to remove her Stanford MBA from her resume and lie about her age. Additionally, many male producers and directors are described as thinking that a plot with a woman lead will not be liked or popular, nor do the men understand women. Also there are not many different roles for women to audition for. Many of the roles are variations on a theme or, in this case, a stereotype. Only 16% of protagonists are women. Many of the women in films have the aspiration of finding love. Moreover, women are just portrayed as object in most mediums.
Part 2 Emily Ferguson
ReplyDeleteRecord any bias you found, or explain why you thought the documentary contained no bias.
MissRepresentation utilizes the bias of women who have first-hand experience of the sexism that the documentary wishes to combat. Additionally, several well-known women share their stories such as Katie Couric, one of the first woman news anchors. Couric identified the traditional view of news anchors, white male, and then the addition of women news anchors. Couric points out the over sexualization of women in politics and as news anchors. Margaret Choo and Jane Fonda, two actresses, explain how they have been pressured to look how the producers believe will be most pleasing to the audiences. Moreover, the viewpoints that the documentary utilizes to present their argument.
What do you see as the most viable solution to the problem presented in the film? Why has that solution not been adopted?
One of the first solutions that is presented is to teach young boys that they have to connect their head to their heart. Thus, they need to teach young boys that men should not strive to be superior to women; rather, they should treat women with respect. By teaching boys to express themselves, they will not feel the need to feel inferior to successful women and treat women as equals. Additionally, women need to be treated as more than objects. The media needs to focus on the intellectual successes of women rather than their physical appearances. Also, it is crucial that women support women and mentor each other so that there are growing numbers of them in positions that have a minority of women. These solutions are now starting to become adopted, but it has been a slow start due to the minority of women in positions of power and the sexism that women who strive for success are faced with.
Explain your opinion on the controversy having watched the documentary.
After watching this amazing documentary, I support the goal of the documentary. MissReresentation reassured me that I was not wrong for believing that the portrayals I am shown of women in the media as objects is absurd. Also, I feel that this documentary has opened my eyes to pieces of the equation I did not understand before. For example, I have an affinity for romantic-comedies, but I never realized how stereotypical some of them are. Women are shown as weak and always needing a man in many movies and shows. However, in movies, such as The Devil Wears Prada, where a woman has a powerful position, she is shown as bossy not dedicated, as a man would be portrayed. I believe that there will be a change in the coming future for women, however, it will not come unless women are supported and treated like human-beings and not objects.
1. What is your name, the title of your documentary, and the source from whence you viewed it.
ReplyDelete• Rebecca Michels
• Chasing Ice
• Youtube
•
2. Include a brief summary of the controversy and three specific arguments on both sides of the controversy from the documentary itself (6 total).
James Bulog goes on an adventure to prove to the world that global warming really is taking place and that something needs to be changed. Some people do not see any changes in their daily lives which makes them not believe in global warming. James who wants to convince and argue that something needs to be done, throws himself into a controversy and started a global-warming proving survey. He installed twenty-five cameras in Greenland, Alaska, and Iceland who were to take pictures of a specific spot every month showing how global warming would affect those areas. After three years of taking pictures every month, he made a time-lapse which visibly showed how the ice was melting over the years and how huge ice mountains would slowly cave in and disappear.
For:
1. Glaciers are melting away at some places, which James Bulog was able to capture on his cameras.
2. The atmospheric CO2 wasn’t above 300 parts per million, but now it is above that line and keeps increasing. It already reached over 400 parts per million. The temperature and the CO2 usually have the same line graph, but they do not anymore because of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.
3. Many oil and gas companies have caused places like the Arctic to diminish because of climate change. There companies are now searching for more regions as places to drill for more fossil fuels. This will cause more greenhouse gases to be emitted into our atmosphere.
Against:
1. Some scientists have pictures and proves that glaciers are not all melting away, but at some places even expanding and getting bigger.
2. Arctic ice is up 50% since 2012. A few decades ago, there was less ice then there is today.
3. Climate models showing global warming have been wrong over and over. Almost all these models showing huge temperature gains have turned out to be wrong.
3. Record any bias you found, or explain why you thought the documentary contained no bias.
There was a lot of bias in the documentary since James Bulog had a strong opinion about global warming and climate change that he would mainly focus on his opinion. He would prove his opinions right on how ice melting is a global warming cause and issue while he wouldn’t focus long on the other side of the controversy. Since his will was to make people help prevent global warming he showed time-lapses and videos to visually change people’s opinions.
4. What do you see as the most viable solution to the problem presented in the film? Why has that solution not been adopted?
The most viable solution to the problem presented is to raise awareness about global warming and climate change and most importantly how people are taking part of these changes. It has been adopted by some scientists and photographs like James Bulog did, but videos and facts cannot change everyone’s mind. Raising awareness can help people change minds or at least educate them to see the importance of the issue. It could not fully be adopted because both sides of the controversy are showing detailed arguments which make people debate and decide what their opinion is.
5. Explain your opinion on the controversy having watched the documentary.
After I watched “Chasing Ice” I see how the controversy is everywhere and how important it is to prevent it. I believe that global warming and climate change are true. We can see facts of them in our lives in many places and there are facts all over internet and the news. Before I watched the videos I didn’t really know what I believe because I didn’t look out for any signs of global warming or climate change. It was always present but not something I thought I needed to make an opinion of.
1. What is your name, the title of your documentary, and the source from whence you viewed it.
ReplyDelete• Rebecca Michels
• Chasing Ice
• Youtube
•
2. Include a brief summary of the controversy and three specific arguments on both sides of the controversy from the documentary itself (6 total).
James Bulog goes on an adventure to prove to the world that global warming really is taking place and that something needs to be changed. Some people do not see any changes in their daily lives which makes them not believe in global warming. James who wants to convince and argue that something needs to be done, throws himself into a controversy and started a global-warming proving survey. He installed twenty-five cameras in Greenland, Alaska, and Iceland who were to take pictures of a specific spot every month showing how global warming would affect those areas. After three years of taking pictures every month, he made a time-lapse which visibly showed how the ice was melting over the years and how huge ice mountains would slowly cave in and disappear.
For:
1. Glaciers are melting away at some places, which James Bulog was able to capture on his cameras.
2. The atmospheric CO2 wasn’t above 300 parts per million, but now it is above that line and keeps increasing. It already reached over 400 parts per million. The temperature and the CO2 usually have the same line graph, but they do not anymore because of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.
3. Many oil and gas companies have caused places like the Arctic to diminish because of climate change. There companies are now searching for more regions as places to drill for more fossil fuels. This will cause more greenhouse gases to be emitted into our atmosphere.
Against:
1. Some scientists have pictures and proves that glaciers are not all melting away, but at some places even expanding and getting bigger.
2. Arctic ice is up 50% since 2012. A few decades ago, there was less ice then there is today.
3. Climate models showing global warming have been wrong over and over. Almost all these models showing huge temperature gains have turned out to be wrong.
3. Record any bias you found, or explain why you thought the documentary contained no bias.
There was a lot of bias in the documentary since James Bulog had a strong opinion about global warming and climate change that he would mainly focus on his opinion. He would prove his opinions right on how ice melting is a global warming cause and issue while he wouldn’t focus long on the other side of the controversy. Since his will was to make people help prevent global warming he showed time-lapses and videos to visually change people’s opinions.
4. What do you see as the most viable solution to the problem presented in the film? Why has that solution not been adopted?
The most viable solution to the problem presented is to raise awareness about global warming and climate change and most importantly how people are taking part of these changes. It has been adopted by some scientists and photographs like James Bulog did, but videos and facts cannot change everyone’s mind. Raising awareness can help people change minds or at least educate them to see the importance of the issue. It could not fully be adopted because both sides of the controversy are showing detailed arguments which make people debate and decide what their opinion is.
5. Explain your opinion on the controversy having watched the documentary.
After I watched “Chasing Ice” I see how the controversy is everywhere and how important it is to prevent it. I believe that global warming and climate change are true. We can see facts of them in our lives in many places and there are facts all over internet and the news. Before I watched the videos I didn’t really know what I believe because I didn’t look out for any signs of global warming or climate change. It was always present but not something I thought I needed to make an opinion of.
ReplyDelete1. My name is Audrey Theye, I watched Chasing Ice on Youtube.
2. James Balog, founder of the Extreme Ice Survey project, established video evidence that gas emissions and climate change are destroying Earth’s biosphere and are the cause for glacier disappearance. His mission was to prove to the world that climate change and global warming are harming the earth. Balog and his team placed time-lapse cameras in several places around the globe. These cameras caught the sudden disappearance and calving of ice glaciers over several years. For example, in May 2008, his team had a video camera rolling on a glacier in western Greenland. The video footage showed the shedding of large chunks of ice and the disappearance of the glacier. Balog wanted to prove to people what was happening to the earth by capturing its effects on glaciers. Balog and other scientists are trying to raise awareness of the Earth’s changing climate. As the debate divides America, Balog provides evidence and attempts to protect his love for the planet.
Points for climate change
· James Balog captured video evidence of glaciers melting away due to climate change. He caught video evidence of glaciers receding 1 mile in only 75 minutes.
· For several years, the atmospheric Co2 was not above 300 parts per million, but now the line as reached above 300 parts per million and continues to increase. The temperature and the Co2 usually have similar lines on the graph, but they do not anymore because of the increase of Co2 in the atmosphere.
· Many oil and gas companies have caused places like the Arctic to diminish because of climate change. These companies are now searching for more regions as places to drill for more fossil fuels. This will cause more greenhouse gases to be emitted into our atmosphere.
Points against climate change
· Some scientists have pictures that prove glaciers are not all melting away, but in fact are expanding and getting bigger.
· Arctic ice is up 50% since 2012. A few decades ago, there was less ice than there is today.
· Climate models showing global warming have been wrong over and over. Almost all these models showing huge temperature gains have turned out to be wrong.
3. The documentary contained a bias towards the idea that climate change and global warming are occurring. James Balog had a strong opinion about global warming. His main focus was on his opinion and his work. He would prove his opinions on global warming and ice melting, yet he wouldn’t focus on the other side of the controversy. Since his will was to make people help prevent global warming, he showed time-lapses and videos to visually change people’s opinions.
4. The most viable solution to the problem presented in the film is to raise more awareness that humans are participating in the cause of global warming and glacier disappearance. It is impossible to change everyone’s opinion, and there will always be people against your idea, but raising awareness can help people become more educated on the topic and possibly change their opinions. This solution hasn’t been adopted because people on both sides of the controversy have evidence and strong opinions. Not everyone is going to agree because both sides have strong support.
5. Before I watched the video, I was not sure whether I believed in climate change or did not. Once I saw James Balog and his team travel the world and prove that glaciers were disappearing, I began to change my opinion. Though I do not fully believe in global warming, the video made me more aware to the cause. It is difficult to pick one side because of the evidence supporting both opinions. Though I am in the middle, I am leaning more towards the side for global warming.
1. Grace Brittingham
ReplyDeleteSecret State of North Korea
Netflix
2. The controversy of this documentary is whether or not to take action and interfere in North Korea. Some think that the United States should get involved, while others say to stay out. Those who want to interfere feel this way because the government is in total control and abuses its power, hundreds of homeless orphans are starving to death, and the people are in constant danger of being captured and tortured by their government. However, those who don't want to get involved feel this way because it could start a war between the two countries, it could end up killing millions of innocent North Koreans, and many believe that it is not our place to tell another government how to rule their country.
3. The documentary was definitely biased. The speakers in it clearly wanted to take action in North Korea. People who fled the country spoke about their experiences and told horror stories about their lives in North Korea. It also spoke about a man who was put in a North Korean prison for three years, where he was beaten, tortured, and starved. The documentary also exposes the reality of the lives of the North Korean orphans who live on the streets, starving and freezing constantly. The documentary truly exposed the terrors of the foreign country and wanted the United States, along with other countries, to get involved and take down the North Korean government.
4. In my opinion, the most viable solution would be for other countries to take over the North Korean government. I think this is the best option because it would not only save millions of North Koreans from their corrupt leader, but also change the way of life for future generations. This solution has not been adopted, however, because most countries don't want to get involved in a war with North Korea and their close ally, China. The North Koreans have already threatened the United States with nuclear weapons in the past, and people fear for what might happen if we attempt to interfere.
5. After watching this documentary, I believe that the North Korean government must be taken down. People are being starved, beaten, and tortured in prisons for offenses as silly as watching foreign films. Also, hundreds of children are being abandoned by their parents and left to starve in the streets, leading them to turn to pick pocketing and fighting each other for tiny scraps of food. The people of North Korea are trapped and abused by their corrupt government, and their ways of life won't change unless other nations stand together and help them.
A. Drew Fiorenza, "Pony Excess" Netflix, ESPN 30 for 30
ReplyDeleteB.The documentary I watched on a warm summer day is called “Pony Excess.” The film is an ESPN 30 for 30 that tells the story of the rise of Southern Methodist University’s football team in the early 80’s through the bribing of recruits, to the inevitable fallout and eventual ‘Death Penalty’ issued to the program by the NCAA later that decade. The film gives viewers an in depth view of what college football programs, specifically in Texas, would do to secure the best recruits signatures to their schools. And in the end, represents a secretive and dark history of the great sport of College Football. The film brings to light the argument of whether college football players should be payed or not. Here are both sides of the argument:
Pro:
1. College football players make a lot of money for their school, and should be rewarded monetarily for their efforts.
2. Student athletes do not have time for a job and are therefore at a disadvantage financially compared to students who can work.
3. Some college football players come from impoverished families and need to support their family.
Cons:
1. Student athletes are students before athletes and a free education is enough.
2. College football players already have pretty high stipends they can spend
3. The student athletes are members of the institution and it's a privilege to play football and receive an education.
C. I did not find any bias. The film stayed objective by interviewing many different writers, players , and coaches to had different views on the topic.
D. I believe student athletes should not receive pay, but should be allowed to sign endorsement deals and promote their own image. This has not been a solution yet because the schools feel that the athletes represent the program and not them individually.
E. This argument will continue to make headlines due to the popularity of college sports in our country.
A. Drew Fiorenza, "Pony Excess" Netflix, ESPN 30 for 30
ReplyDeleteB.The documentary I watched on a warm summer day is called “Pony Excess.” The film is an ESPN 30 for 30 that tells the story of the rise of Southern Methodist University’s football team in the early 80’s through the bribing of recruits, to the inevitable fallout and eventual ‘Death Penalty’ issued to the program by the NCAA later that decade. The film gives viewers an in depth view of what college football programs, specifically in Texas, would do to secure the best recruits signatures to their schools. And in the end, represents a secretive and dark history of the great sport of College Football. The film brings to light the argument of whether college football players should be payed or not. Here are both sides of the argument:
Pro:
1. College football players make a lot of money for their school, and should be rewarded monetarily for their efforts.
2. Student athletes do not have time for a job and are therefore at a disadvantage financially compared to students who can work.
3. Some college football players come from impoverished families and need to support their family.
Cons:
1. Student athletes are students before athletes and a free education is enough.
2. College football players already have pretty high stipends they can spend
3. The student athletes are members of the institution and it's a privilege to play football and receive an education.
C. I did not find any bias. The film stayed objective by interviewing many different writers, players , and coaches to had different views on the topic.
D. I believe student athletes should not receive pay, but should be allowed to sign endorsement deals and promote their own image. This has not been a solution yet because the schools feel that the athletes represent the program and not them individually.
E. This argument will continue to make headlines due to the popularity of college sports in our country.
What is your name, the title of your documentary, and the source from whence you viewed it.
ReplyDeleteDrew Battison, Dogs on the Inside, Netflix
Include a brief summary of the controversy and three specific arguments on both sides of the controversy from the documentary itself (6 total).
The controversy of Dogs on the Inside consisted of the priority of helping compared to humans and dogs. There are many dogs inside of shelters and more more malnourished and homeless. Many people believe that because we are humans and many humans around the world are homeless and need help, people should focus there help on other humans and not animals. (1) Every person must choose their own choice in who they wish to help, whether it be animals are people. (2) Dogs who were once homeless were collected by an organization, known as Don't Throw us Away, and sent to a prison to be trained to eventually be donated by other people. (3) The dogs were sent to prisoners who were only arrested for reasons other than violence and the dogs helped them have time to pass by and even shorten their sentence. Helping the animals allowed for both humans, convicted of crimes, and dogs to prosper from a single organization. (4) On the contrary, most people see all prisoners as people who don't deserve to live in the world with them so people wouldn't want a dog who was trained by a prisoner. (5) Helping these humans is also no exactly what most people mean to help when hoping to raise money or help others. People who need help are mostly considered to be Third world countries and similar. (6) Lastly, to operate this campaign, more money must be donated or used to help mostly dogs, while many people could use the money or resources for their own needs and reasons.
Record any bias you found, or explain why you thought the documentary contained no bias.
This documentary was bias on the side of helping the dogs become adopted through training in prisons. The documentary was created by and many scenes shown were of members of the campaign to help dogs. Very few occurrences of people denying the foundation ever were stated or shown making it very bias on the side of helping animals get adopted into a nice home.
What do you see as the most viable solution to the problem presented in the film? Why has that solution not been adopted?
I believe that more and more shelters and prisons should take part in the foundation. The dogs were trained and made healthy making it more likely for the dogs to be adopted in the future lessening the homelessness and sheltered dogs. Also the dogs show that certain prisoners have changed in their hearts and their true selves show when with the dogs helping them to change to better people and allow them to understand the situation and help Don't Let us Starve in the future.
Explain your opinion on the controversy having watched the documentary.
After having watched the documentary, I believe that dogs should be helped just as much as people think people need help. People are a major part of society and through helping the dogs many people can benefit and be helped as well.
What is your name, the title of your documentary, and the source from whence you viewed it.
ReplyDelete-Ben Phelan, The Human Experiment, Netflix
Include a brief summary of the controversy and three specific arguments on both sides of the controversy from the documentary itself (6 total).
-Basically the documentary pictures the fight between the activists working towards a safer consumer market and the profit minded chemical companies. The activists are fighting for legislation to restrict the use of harmful chemicals and for better consumer awareness. For their argument in the film they use three main points, one being these chemicals can cause breast and other cancers. Also they can cause infertility in women. Finally they point out that they can cause autism and other mental disorders in children. The chemical companies are fighting to keep their profits and prove that they are necessary to our economy. It is a very profitable business with the chemical companies many billions on these harmful chemicals. Also some of these chemicals makes the product 'better' at least in look and construction. Finally these chemicals help to lower the price of the goods and a new safer chemical can cost significantly more and raise the price of the good and lower profits.
Record any bias you found, or explain why you thought the documentary contained no bias.
-the documentary is very biased in favor of restricting the use of chemicals in daily use items. This is obvious when you watch the film because you can see the victims portrayed as a helpless david against the corporate goliath that is the chemical corporations. Also it explains what needs to be done to stop these "selfish corporations".
What do you see as the most viable solution to the problem presented in the film? Why has that solution not been adopted?
-Solutions for the problem include better consumer awareness, and legislature to restrict the corporation's from using these harmful chemicals and exposing them to the public. Drawbacks as to why these laws haven't been implemented include: the quality of the merchandise could go down without the use of certain chemicals, the price of the goods could go up because of the need to find better replacement chemicals, it’s a multibillion dollar industry and new chemical laws could hurt our economy and help other countries without these laws, and these corporations have all the money so they lobby the politicians most effectively.
Explain your opinion on the controversy having watched the documentary.
-I place myself on the side of the anti-harmful chemicals people because even though short term the harmful chemicals seem like the better choice, one’s health and well being are far more important than paying an extra dollar or two more for an item at the store. Also the way people’s lives were affected in the movie by exposure to these harmful chemicals show that no amount of profit for these chemical corporations is worth ruining these innocent people’s lives.
A. Drew Fiorenza, Pony Excess, Netflix
ReplyDeleteB.The documentary I watched on a warm summer day (when I should’ve been in a pool ) is called “Pony Excess.” The film is an ESPN 30 for 30 that tells the story of the rise of Southern Methodist University’s football team in the early 80’s through the bribing of recruits, to the inevitable fallout and eventual ‘Death Penalty’ issued to the program by the NCAA later that decade. The film gives viewers an in depth view of what college football programs, specifically in Texas, would do to secure the best recruits signatures to their schools. And in the end, represents a secretive and dark history of the great sport of College Football. This film brings to light the topic of whether or not college football players should be payed. Here are some points from both sides of the arguments.
Pros:
1. The players make a lot of money for the schools and deserve a monetary reward for their efforts.
2. Student athletes do not have time to work so they are at a disadvantage financially to regular students.
3. A lot of players come from impoverished families and they need a way to support their family.
Cons:
1. Student athletes are students before athletes and a free education is enough of a reward.
2. The players already have stipends to spend on their everyday lives
3. Players represent the school and are being given a free education
C. I did not find very much bias in this documentary because the film interviews many different writers, coaches, and players who support both sides of the argument.
D. I believe student athletes, if popular enough, should be allowed to sign endorsement deals since endorsement promote individuals. This has not been a solution because the schools believe the athletes are part of the institution and do not deserve to benefit off of their own image financially.
E. The argument on whether student athletes should be payed will be making headlines for many years to come because of the popularity of college sports in America.
1. Ethan, Hungry for Change, Netflix.
ReplyDelete2. The controversy covered within Hungry For Change is the obesity crisis within America. The main point made is that the common American is improperly educated, or uneducated all together on the topic of consuming healthy and nutritional foods. The central problem is that unhealthy food, full of carbs and of no nutritional value, is easily obtained almost anywhere for cheap. So their argument is that the average American is Ignorant and doesn't know what he/she is putting in their bodies. In the film they are also somewhat against GMOs taking the typical "We have no idea what the long term effects are standpoint. Three counter arguments to these points are: 1. Each and every public food service is regulated and approved by the FDA meaning that its healthy enough for mass consumption by the public. 2. Use of GMOs is not a bad thing, almost everyone eats GM foods; and people in less fortunate countries literally need them to survive. 3. There is an element of social and personal responsibility when it comes to food consumption. It's not a food industries fault if you become overweight, its your own choice to eat there. Those who say "it's too expensive to eat healthily and to buy healthy ingredients at the grocery store" need to learn and educate themselves on shopping and cooking healthily.
3. This doc is extremely biased. Everyone who speaks in this film is either a health professional or a medical professional to support the argument against the food industries "responsible" for the obesity problem here in the Unite States. The intent of the documentary is to educate and also scare people to the extent of switching up the way they choose food and eat.
4. In my opinion, the solution to this problem lies with education and self control. People need to be educated on the short and long term effects of certain lifestyles. People also need to take responsibility for their own actions and learn some self control, whether it be through public education or simply within upbringing. If we had better programs to quickly educate people about healthy food consumption people might become more aware to the consequences of an unhealthy diet, but the responsibility lies with their own decision in the end.
6. My opinion is pretty much what I said in number five. I believe that people need to be educated in a more efficient way about healthy food but ultimately they need to make healthy decisions for themselves. As biased as it was, the documentary was quite informative and didn't resort to pseudoscience like most other projects of this kind do, which I appreciated. However there was one comment that angered me and turned me off to the entire rest of the documentary. This is a paraphrase but it went something like this "The sugar problem in this country is so bad that you might as well roll up your child's sleeve and inject heroin because its just as bad". I understand that she's trying to push forward the issue of sugar consumption in the United States, but come on! Heroin? People die from heroin withdrawal. It just bugged me. This was a very informative (but biased) documentary and I would encourage anyone interested in the subject to watch it with an open mind.
1. What is your name, the title of your documentary, and the source from whence you viewed it
ReplyDeleteCourtney Dunning, Miss Representation (2011), Netflix
2. Include a brief summary of the controversy and three specific arguments on both sides of the controversy from the documentary itself (6 total).
The documentary Miss Representation focused on how women today are represented in media. This showed how the limitations that were put on young women constrain their capabilities. The way women are presented in media creates an unrealistic idea of what women can and cannot be in the United States. The controversy was over how the public is letting this continuing and trying to find ways to stop it.
The side against changing how the media broadcasts women:
-Some men believe that women are too “emotionally vulnerable” to be in powerful positions
-Some directors and writers believe the social norm is for men to portray lead roles and that’s its a classic directing style
-By casting physically “perfect” women many producers of media believe they are “just giving their audience what they want”/the exploitation of women bodies sells products
The side for changing the way media broadcast women:
-It is believed women do not see other women in powerful positions in the media and therefore have lower expectations and goals for themselves
-This representation of women can stereotype women as competitors against one another which in turn, make the views believe this competition among women for male attention is healthy
-Because the women manly seen in mainstream media have an unnaturally “perfect” bodies, women feel as though they are not meeting these expectations and are not good enough leading 65% of women and girls to develop eating disorders
3. Record any bias you found, or explain why you thought the documentary contained no bias.
This documentary was made up of a lot of bias. Although there were both men and women with different backgrounds they all were supporting a stronger attempt to provide an accurate portrayal of women in media. The interviewers all had some sort of experience to add into how this inappropriate portrayal had affected their lives, thus their opinionated answers.
4. What do you see as the most viable solution to the problem presented in the film? Why has that solution not been adopted?
Towards the end of the documentary, the interviewers ask the audience to fight against the in misogyny the media. They ask viewers to support movies and book written and directed by women, as well as boycott television channels and magazines which standardize unrealistic beauty and female stereotypes. This solution has been overseen because many people do not realize this issue and its harmful affects. In order to do that, people need to be better educated on the sexism in media and truly make an attempt at change.
5. Explain your opinion on the controversy having watched the documentary.
I knew that sexism very much existed in the media but not at to this extent. I feel much more educated after watching this and hands down agree that their are major problems with how women are represented in mainstream media. It was frightening to realize how women few themselves is so closely directed from how media displays women. This has made me realize and value the importance of powerful women across the world.
Kyle Howe, The Human Experiment (2013), Netflix
ReplyDeleteI watched The Human Experiment for my documentary and it was a very interesting topic. The film portrays the growing controversy of the use of chemicals in society, and wether they are beneficial or harmful to future generations. Both sides of the argument were extremely convincing. On the harmful side, more than 800,000 chemicals are in the world and many of them are harmful. Such as lead which has been traced back to things such as children's products. Cleaning products as well have been big issues. Especially for professional cleaning services who deal with them on a daily basis. A group of scientists from The University of Syracuse conducted a survey where they would take 1,000 people and test them for BPA (bisphenol-A). BPA being an extremely common chemical in plastics since 1953 when it was constructed. 90% of those surveyed showed that they had the chemical in their bloodstream. To go off of this survey, many of these chemicals that find their ways into people's bodies eventually are the cause for birth defects. However, on the beneficial side of the argument many of these chemicals have come to create jobs, as well as new or improved products. More than 20,000 jobs have been created due to the use of chemicals. Chemicals also have shown to save lives. Such as DDT which is found in bear, mosquito, and wasp repellent. Another benefit that has really exploded over the last decade is the use of pesticides to save crops from predators. As well as other chemicals to keep the crops growing for an extended season.
I found that many of the people fighting for an end of chemicals are prejudiced by the social stereotype of the word, "chemicals". And they are right in my opinion. It sounds more negative than positive. However, there are people rallying for and end to them backed by facts and studies. Both sides have come up with great reasons to either ban or keep chemicals but there are so many of them that its hard to determine wether they are beneficial or harmful to society.
I reiterate that there are so many chemicals out there that it would be almost impossible to determine which ones are harmful or benefit society. However, there are many harmful chemicals that have made the capitol about their ban in society due to their effects on the consumer. Those major chemicals however are essential to many businesses and people. I didn't see a clear solution to this issue, however I am interested in wether they ban the most harmful chemicals or wether they restrict their use in society.
I understand that almost all of products produced in the current decade have some sort of chemical in them whether it is a pigment for color or a flavoring for taste. We are around them without noticing the damage they are causing. At the end of the documentary they showed a small experiment of how over time a cell phone can emit a harmful amount of radiation if used frequently. That study was shocking due to the fact that our generation can't put them down. In my opinion I am on the side of chemicals being harmful and the notification of society about their effects. If we continue to use these chemicals, diseases and other defects involved with chromosomes will increase. Autism has already increased and is continue to do so. This is the time where we stop them.
Always Bring Up Politics and Religion by Cohen Bailey
ReplyDeleteWhat is your name, the title of your documentary, and the source from whence you viewed it.
My name is Cohen Bailey, and the documentary is called The Unbelievers which I watched on Netflix.
2. Include a brief summary of the controversy and three specific arguments on both sides of the controversy from the documentary itself (6 total).
Secular Humanism (atheism):
a) There is no empirical solid proof of a deities existence.
b) The universe coming from nothing is a highly supportable theory that is backed by the most current information and theories of today.
c) There is an enormous discrepancy between what has been empirically proven about human history, evolutionary history, and the overall history of our universe and that which is claimed to be true in various religious texts.
Religion:
a) The complexity, beauty, and order of the universe could not have spawned from nothing so there had to be a higher power that created it.
b) The Earth has such prime conditions for complex life that it cannot be an accident, thus a deity must have created it.
c) God must exist because everything that has ever happened was too perfect not to be designed by a higher power.
3. Record any bias you found, or explain why you thought the documentary contained no bias.
This documentary is heavily biased towards the atheist point of view due to the fact in mostly chronicles the debating and traveling of the so-called ‘militant atheists’ Richard Dawkins (evolutionary biologist) and Lawrence Krauss (theoretical physicist). The bias was mostly based on what information was presented and the lack of supporting interviewees for religious belief. Considering that the vast majority of the world population identifies with believing in some higher power and this being one of the few atheist driven documentaries (or any type of film for that matter), this bias was purposeful in bringing up a controversy that most despise to discuss.
4. What do you see as the most viable solution to the problem presented in the film? Why has that solution not been adopted?
I see the most viable solution for everyone to expose themselves to all points of view and as much information as possible before they make a judgment on what they believe. Complacency is the bane of human existence. If we complacently dwell in the realm of belief most comfortable to us that we have always known, then we will always be ignorant of other possible concepts and never be able to truly solid our belief or completely alter them. This has not been adopted because most people do not see it as a valuable use of time to understand the views and observation about our universe. If you have read every new finding or theory on how the vast cosmos works, and still maintain your belief then that is perfectly fine, but if you do not reach out and comfortably stay in a small box of biased knowledge then you will never truly know what you might believe instead.
5. Explain your opinion on the controversy having watched the documentary.
Being raised by a devoutly religious family, obsessed with Catholic morality, one might assume I have also followed that path. However, I have actually found myself a devout atheist (or secular humanist). Since I began to be able to truly listen and understand what the priest was talking about and also began to understand current theories in physics, I started to realize how I could not stand idly by accepting what I was told from an ancient text. Dogma has always been something I could not stand, so I began to study how wonderfully scientific knowledge and theory evolves and constantly revises itself, searching for a better explanation of the universe. From heliocentricism to quantum mechanics the scientific community is always questioning its own axioms while religion maintains a fairly constant group of ideas. Although I do not disrespect anyone who happens to believe in a higher power, I am unable to do so with the current information I have learned and introspected.
Scott Overbey
ReplyDelete“The Human Experiment” (Netflix)
“The Human Experiment” is mainly concerned with the danger of the growing chemical industry and the unchecked safety standards that are currently in place. In 1976, the Toxic Substances Control Act provided the Environmental Protection Agency with the authority to require proper record-keeping and testing for new chemicals before they reached the market. However, over 62,000 chemicals were grandfathered in with the bill because they were already assumed safe since they were on the marker. Some of these chemicals included, lead-based paint, cigarettes, asbestos, and PCB’s. All of these have been proven to be harmful since then. Because of instances like this, many people want tighter restrictions on the chemical industry to prevent the spread of toxic substances. With current regulations, chemicals are innocent until proven guilty and will not be investigated until it’s too late.
The three main arguments for tighter chemical regulations are stopping the spread of toxic chemicals already out on the market, preventing more toxic chemicals from reaching consumers, and giving consumers peace of mind when they buy products.
The three main arguments against tighter regulations are that there are better things like education reform and healthcare to talk about, there was not enough evidence that chemicals were actually causing health issues, and there were not enough chemicals on the consumer-level for consumers to be harmed.
Bias was readily present. This documentary met with many people who believed they were readily affected in their daily lives by chemicals. For example, we met Jenn Canvasser, a mother who has Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome. During the documentary we see Jenn and her husband struggle to get pregnant. After several attempt, Jenn ends up being pregnant with twins, but loses one of them after they are born prematurely. She believed both her disease and her baby’s death were due to chemicals that her body had collected throughout her life since her family had no history of POS and both her eggs and her husband’s sperm were fertile. The documentary interviews others who also believe chemicals were the reason behind autism, cancer, and other health issues.
The most viable solution to the problem of chemical safety for consumers is to pass regulations that will require tighter restrictions and testing for chemicals before they are put on the market. This has not happened yet mainly because chemical companies have both sidestepped questions for decades and lobbied against many attempts to change regulations in Washington.
I agree that there should be tighter regulations on chemicals before we put them on the market, so dangerous side-effects like cancer are limited.
1. What is your name, the title of your documentary, and the source from whence you viewed it.
ReplyDeleteMy name is Isabelle Saulnier, I choose the documentary To Russia With Love from Netflix.
2. Include a brief summary of the controversy and three specific arguments on both sides of the controversy from the documentary itself (6 total).
This documentary was about the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia and the fight for gay rights. The government and most of Russia believe that gay people are lesser and not part of society. Putin made it a law that it is illegal to be homosexual in Russia and this side believes that gay people are just breaking the law. People against gays also believe that the gay people can turn off their gay-ness. However, on the side that supports gay rights, they understand that gay people cannot choose their sexuality, it is who they are. This side also is fighting for equality for people that are oppressed and often harmed for something that they cannot change about themselves. Another thing that they lbgt activists support is that if a person can do something good enough to make it to the Olympics, then they should be able to do it.
3. Record any bias you found, or explain why you thought the documentary contained no bias.
This documentary was bias towards lbgt supporters. It followed multiple gay athletes that were competing in the Olympics and some that had retired and lbgt youth. This documentary supported this community that is fighting for their rights in Russia, and may other countries around the world.
4. What do you see as the most viable solution to the problem presented in the film? Why has that solution not been adopted?
I think that the most viable solution for this controversy is to make homosexuality legal in Russia. This has not be adopted because around 85% of people in Russia are anti-gay. If these people listen and begin to understand what it is really like to be gay and that it doesn’t change your personality, just your sexuality, then they might start to accept people that are different than them.
5. Explain your opinion on the controversy having watched the documentary.
I support the lbgt community. This documentary opened my eyes into how harsh it really was for people who are gay in Russia to live. It must be hard enough understanding that you are gay and then the country that you live in is so against who you are and victimize these people is disgusting. One of the Russian lbgt youth talked about how everyone at his school bullied him, even the teachers and assistant principal. He described how his classmates would beat him up, rape him, pour urine on him, and many other terrible things just because he is gay. He said that the assistant principal came up to him on the first day of school and whispered in his ear “You will end up badly. Wait until you see your grades and your diploma, homo.” It is near impossible to live without any support from anyone around you.
1) My name is Emma Worple, and I watched Ivory Tower on iTunes.
ReplyDelete2) In America colleges are requesting more and more money for tuition. The prices are rising because colleges are taking that money and building lager and better facilities. In other words colleges are becoming businesses. The videos emphasizes that colleges are making tuition costs higher and higher in order to compete with other colleges by building more facilities, when the main focus should be improving the quality of learning. Most students who go to college are left with debt and no job. College was founded on the idea that people could go on to get a higher education and pursue greater jobs. Before if one didn’t get go to college one would most likely end up working in a bar or restaurant, however, now more and more college students are working bars and restaurants with huge debts hanging over their heads. Some may say that college is important, because it is a time for one to find oneself and grow into a new human being. It is argued that college teaches one to become independent and organized. As well, the money is being used for important things like the sports facilities or locations where students can workout and be healthy.
3) I found that the documentary was bias because it didn’t want students to have to pay a lot for college. The documentary honed in on the fact that many students were not coming out of college debt free, while in the olden days would pay their tuition with jobs by working in bars or restaurantes during the summer. As well the video focused a great amount of time on a college that was to remain free to students forever, but ended up trying to make students pay, because they had built a new building (that wasn’t needed) and couldn’t continue to pay for it themselves. As well it stated questioned why students were paying so much when the option to go to college online is so much cheaper. College has increased its tuition fees by 230%. The video states how more and more colleges are being know for their social life rather than the education itself. The documentary wants to show how absurd it is for students to be paying a 60,000$ anual fee to attend school.
4)I think that the best solution would to have the colleges stop spending so much money on the luxury part of the college, but rather spend money to better the education they can over. If colleges stop building greater and more grandiose complexes then the college would’t be in so much debt which means they don’t have to change students as much. This solution hasn’t been adopted, because colleges are so eager to build new facilities to outrank other colleges. It is all a business. Colleges ares spending so much money to look great and have the best outcome for students that they are forgetting to actually teach the students. I think it is important to focus on the quality of eduction rather then the quality of their new basketball court.
5) I believe that college should not be priced at 60,000$ per year. I agree with the documentary, because colleges should be more focused on promoting their education rather than the facilities. We should go back to focusing on becoming more innovative, and not focus on which school has the best pool. Since the price to go to college is so high students are unable to pay off the loans leaving them in a hole, while kids who aren’t going to college are making a profit. While teachers are writing off easy A’s the students aren't really learning, while it does make the school more desirable the students are using their mind to its capacity. College should cost less, so it can be more accesible and less detrimental.
1. Devin Scarborough
ReplyDeleteBlackfish
Netflix
2. The documentary is about killer whales in captivity, but mainly revolves around a killer whale named Tilikum, that has killed multiple people. The documentary is against keeping whales in captivity and shows why Tilikum would attack those people. The documentary shows how inhumane and cruel captivity is and interviews multiple people that have the same views. But it also interviews some of the workers and trainers that are for whales in SeaWorld. It shows the emotional trauma that the whales go through, and a look to see why they would kill people when they are in captivity. The people that were for the whales captivity argued that it brought in more money to SeaWorld, that it was entertaining for all the people watching the whale shows, and that the trainers had a emotional connection with the whales that they did not want to lose. The people who were against the whales’ captivity argued that it was detrimental to the whales mental and physical heath and caused them to die way sooner than whales that are not in captivity, that it was dangerous to the trainers and other people who get near the killer whales, who are very dangerous, and that the living conditions and the way that the whales are treated is cruel and inhumane.
3. The documentary definitely contains bias especially with the trainers and people who work with the whales. Most of the trainers are for the whale’s captivity. They love working with the whales and have a lot of fun doing it. However, there was also bias against capturing the whales. This mostly came from marine biologists and whale specialists who know that captivity is detrimental to the whales’ physical and mental health. They believe it is not good or “fun” for the whales to be in SeaWorld instead of in the ocean.
4. I think the obvious solution to the problem presented would be to not keep these killer whales in captivity. They belong in the ocean and are meant to be free. It is inhumane of SeaWorld to take the whales freedom away. It is not only just dangerous for the whales in captivity, but also for the people and trainers that are with the whales much of the time. The solution has not been adopted because SeaWorld’s main attraction is the orcas, and if they discontinue capturing them, SeaWorld would be negatively impacted financially. They would definitely not get as many customers and as much money as they do now.
5. I remember going to SeaWorld as a kid and absolutely loving the orca exhibit. I thought it was so awesome to be able to watch such amazing creatures. However, after seeing the documentary I am completely against SeaWorld and keeping marine animals in captivity, especially orcas. It is tragic that the killer whales have killed multiple people; however, those animals are meant to be in the ocean with other orcas, not a pool where they are isolated and away from their families. The real tragedy is to the orca whales in captivity.
1) My name is Emma Worple, and I watched Ivory Tower on iTunes.
ReplyDelete2) In America colleges are requesting more and more money for tuition. The prices are rising because colleges are taking that money and building lager and better facilities. In other words colleges are becoming businesses. The videos emphasizes that colleges are making tuition costs higher and higher in order to compete with other colleges by building more facilities, when the main focus should be improving the quality of learning. Most students who go to college are left with debt and no job. College was founded on the idea that people could go on to get a higher education and pursue greater jobs. Before if one didn’t get go to college one would most likely end up working in a bar or restaurant, however, now more and more college students are working bars and restaurants with huge debts hanging over their heads. Some may say that college is important, because it is a time for one to find oneself and grow into a new human being. It is argued that college teaches one to become independent and organized. As well, the money is being used for important things like the sports facilities or locations where students can workout and be healthy.
3) I found that the documentary was bias because it didn’t want students to have to pay a lot for college. The documentary honed in on the fact that many students were not coming out of college debt free, while in the olden days would pay their tuition with jobs by working in bars or restaurantes during the summer. As well the video focused a great amount of time on a college that was to remain free to students forever, but ended up trying to make students pay, because they had built a new building (that wasn’t needed) and couldn’t continue to pay for it themselves. As well it stated questioned why students were paying so much when the option to go to college online is so much cheaper. College has increased its tuition fees by 230%. The video states how more and more colleges are being know for their social life rather than the education itself. The documentary wants to show how absurd it is for students to be paying a 60,000$ anual fee to attend school.
4) I think that the best solution would to have the colleges stop spending so much money on the luxury part of the college, but rather spend money to better the education they can over. If colleges stop building greater and more grandiose complexes then the college would’t be in so much debt which means they don’t have to change students as much. This solution hasn’t been adopted, because colleges are so eager to build new facilities to outrank other colleges. It is all a business. Colleges ares spending so much money to look great and have the best outcome for students that they are forgetting to actually teach the students. I think it is important to focus on the quality of eduction rather then the quality of their new basketball court.
5) I believe that college should not be priced at 60,000$ per year. I agree with the documentary, because colleges should be more focused on promoting their education rather than the facilities. We should go back to focusing on becoming more innovative, and not focus on which school has the best pool. Since the price to go to college is so high students are unable to pay off the loans leaving them in a hole, while kids who aren’t going to college are making a profit. While teachers are writing off easy A’s the students aren't really learning, while it does make the school more desirable the students are using their mind to its capacity.
A. | Eli Bales | Ingredients | Amazon Prime |
ReplyDeleteB. With America’s growing population, local farmers are finding it more difficult to compete with foreign companies and large American industries who can up the quantity of their products in exchange for reduced quality. The main question within the documentary is how much of a part should these larger groups have in American restaurants and markets. While one side claims that these companies provide a wider array of cheaper food to those without a lot of money, the other side focuses on the point that while consumers may be getting more food, it doesn’t contain the nutrients of a smaller dose of a locally grown food source. While bigger companies push pesticides to increase total amount, local farmers reject this as they want their produce to remain untainted and fresh as they believe all food should be. Lastly, bigger companies want a larger role in American food so they can make more money and therefore be able to supply more food, yet smaller farmers don’t want these companies to become any bigger than they currently are because they believed more processed and chemically altered foods will only make the current health problems in America worse.
C. This documentary was very biased. All of the people featured in this documentary were either small farmers or small restaurant owners who bought their produce for their kitchen from small farmers. The documentary was structured where a problem with the bigger companies was explained by the narrator, and then a farmer was brought on to continue this point by showing how his or her farm differed from the larger ones. There were numerous facts brought up in the documentary as well, most if not all supported the idea that locally grown produce is the best way to go and that the way of life for the small farmer was slowly ebbing away. For example, supposedly, people born in the 2000’s have a lower life expectancy than their parents. Also, the occupation “Farmer” is no longer an option on the census. Yet the documentary does try to remain positive by explaining that there has been a turn for the better in the number of local farmer’s markets and local food sources for consumers.
D. The most viable solution is there would have to be a happy medium between the influence of large companies and of local groups. Too much influence from either group does have drawbacks. As previously stated too much influence from the larger companies is seen as a source of many of our countries health problems because of its lack of nutrition, yet too much power on the local side and people with little money could be facing higher food prices with less food variety. To obtain this medium the local farmers need to keep moving in the direction they currently are moving. More and more information about processed food is being released and more and more people see the benefits of buying fresh foods locally. Unfortunately most of these large companies have both the money and power to slow down this process as they try to spread their influence even more, giving a reason as to why we haven’t reached this medium.
E. After watching this documentary I believe we should be much more accepting of locally grown produce than what we currently are. As stated in the documentary, it not only is better for you and tastes better (most of the time), but it also supports a dying way of life that is being threatened year after year. This will of course take a long time, but the benefits it provides can help ease the problems brought on by the fast food industry and the large commercial farming companies.
ReplyDeleteWhat is your name, the title of your documentary, and the source from whence you viewed it.
I am Mackenzie McNeil and the documentary I watched was The True Cost on Netflix.
Include a brief summary of the controversy and three specific arguments on both sides of the controversy from the documentary itself (6 total).
The controversy my documentary covered is how factory workers are paying the price for cheap clothing and how the fashion industry is becoming immoral. the fashion Industry is a 3 Trillion dollar industry and 1 out of 6 people in the world work in some aspect of it, so it is a very important issue. The two sides of the argument are that the fashion industry is not being harmful, but helpful and strengthening economies opposed to others who believe that fashion companies are abusing factory workers and cutting corners. Benjamin Powell, author of “Out of poverty” and director of Free Market Institute, was interviewed and stated the factories workers in third world countries could have worse jobs, and that they are getting paid to do a job. he also said that the wages may seem very low to our standards, but not to theirs. He and many other on the side that the big clothing companies are doing more good than bad say that the so called sweatshops are helping the economies and increasing the GDP. Also Kate Ball-Young, former sourcing manager of Joe Fresh, agrees with Powell and said “there is nothing intrinsically dangerous sewing about clothes and that they have a choice not to work there”. On the other hand though in the past couple of years it has been dangerous to work in these factories in Bangladesh alone fires and building problems have caused thousands of deaths. In the Rana Plaza disaster a building structurally unsafe collapsed killing more than 1,000 and the workers reported issues and concerns to their supervisors before the collapse making it very preventable. Two other disasters mentioned in the documentary were at Ali Enterprises where 289 died and at Tazreen Fashion where 112 died. One Garment worker from Bangladesh named Shima Akhter started a union and was beaten by her employer with sticks. She wanted a raise to help pay for her daughter because her salary was $10 a month. Eventually she had to take her daughter to stay with someone else because Shima wanted her to have a better life.
Record any bias you found, or explain why you thought the documentary contained no bias.
The documentary obviously thinks the big clothing companies were in the wrong and often disparages them. The documentary accuses them of preying on the weak and lying to consumers. Also one of the producers, Livia Firth, is a public advocate and started the green carpet challenge which asks celebrities and other public figures to try to help change what is wrong in the fashion industry, so clearly she has a bias. In the documentary there was only 5-10 minutes on the companies defending themselves and the rest of the hour and thirty minutes was about what they are doing wrong.
What do you see as the most viable solution to the problem presented in the film? Why has that solution not been adopted?
The most viable solution is for consumers to start buying more Fair Trade products because those companies are doing so much good. As well as giving fair wages and safe working conditions they also help the communities by supplying education services and supplying basic necessities to the people of the communities they work in. People Tree and Swallows are fair trade businesses that do just that. Companies like forever21 and H&M need to stop trying to sell clothes, so cheaply because they are the companies that make these sweatshops cut corners in order to keep business. also there clothes are so cheaply made they fall apart so if they raised their prices and allowed the factories to spend more money on labor and materials they could improve there product. Also finally, consumers need to conscious and buy less of the cheap products or look into how and where the products they are buying are made.
Explain your opinion on the controversy having watched the documentary.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the Fashion industry needs to change because the conditions the garment workers work under are awful, too many people die because of these factories. In addition to unsafe working conditions, they aren’t even payed enough to support their families. hearing Shima’s story of how she tried to change things and was beaten and forced to give up her daughter upset me greatly. Therefore, it has made me want to boycott certain stores till they change the way there product is being made, and look into more fair trade companies. I love fashion and hope to go into the fashion industry one day, but after watching this documentary I feel like if I go into fashion I need to make sure my company is not abusing people, but rewarding them for a job well done.
ReplyDelete1.My name is Gunnar Nixon, I watched Blackfish, and the source was CNN News.
2.Controversy: Is it humane to keep Orca’s in captivity like Seaworld and other amusement parks so?
a.Arguing against keeping whales in captivity
i.the whales are taken from their families at a young age from here natural habitats which is inhumane.
ii.the whales are forced to live in tight quarters and can develop aggressive behaviors
iii.Multiple trainer deaths and injuries have occurred to seaworld trainers.
b.Arguing for keeping whales captive
i.they are breathtaking animals that can move people
ii.Their is no other way of seeing these animals and how intelligent they are
iii.The park brings in a lot of money and visitors
3.A lot of bias that i noticed came from trainers or audience members who had witnessed whale aggression and believed that keeping them in this kind of habitat was dangerous
4.The most viable solution to prevent trainer death/ injury and poor treatment of whales is to stop keeping them captive. the risks that are taken just to show these amazing animals to the public are too much
5.I agree with this solution, the quarters that the whales are kept in have led to aggression and its not natural for them to live in a pool like they are forced to do. It causes whale aggression and puts trainer lives in jeopardy.
1. My name is Bobby Dennerll. I watched “Dirty Wars” on Netflix, which was released in 2013.
ReplyDelete2. “Dirty Wars” follows an investigative reporter, Jeremy Scahill, who has written war articles throughout his whole career. However, in this documentary he discovers a secret United States military division named "JSOC". They go into other countries secretly and hunt down terrorists. Scahill decides to go into the heart of America's covert wars including Afghanistan, Yemen, and Somalia to investigate. Scahill discovers that while Jsoc had many successful missions, they also killed many women, children, and even went as far as killing a United States citizen charged for no crimes. Scahill obviously decided to go public with this information, which brought up the argument on whether the United States should be able to go into other countries without their consent and go through with these assassination missions.
On the positive end of the spectrum:
-Jsoc killed many dangerous criminals like Osama Bin Laden.
-They also go into countries that are really not capable of fending for themselves.
-Finally, they do small secret missions to make sure that starting a war is not necessary.
However, there is a whole other argument.
-Many innocent people are killed including women and children.
-Also, countries started to bite back at the United States for their actions and it infuriated the terrorists still out there.
-Finally, Scahill made it clear that the U.S. would never be able to solve the problem and were spending money, resources, and lives on an unsolvable problem.
3. I did find bias in the documentary. Sad music was played throughout most of the plot and showed many innocent victims of the Jsoc team. There were also far more interviews with people that disapproved of it then approved of it. Scahill made it very clear that he did not approve of the U.S. going into other countries without permission and carrying out assassinations.
4. In my opinion, the only real solution is to go to war with these countries. But that is not a viable option at all and is not that far off from what is going on right now as Jsoc has had over 3000 night raids in the past 4 years. It is a very difficult situation as the Taliban and Isis will keep killing innocent lives but so will we if we intervene.
5. In my opinion we should stay out of it and mind our own business. We are what these "terrorists" despise and us coming into their homeland will only make them madder and will never make them stop what they are doing.
1) Bridget O’Brien
ReplyDeleteFed Up (2014)
Netflix
2) Obesity rates in America are continuing to rise, however, controversy still surrounds the issue as to why this is the case. In this documentary, the controversy is drawn as the food industry on one side of the debate, and scientists and nutritionists on the other. Both sides of the debate argue different reasons to explain the rising obesity rate. The food industry’s side argues that Americans’ sedentary lifestyle is the main factor causing Americans to become overweight. They claim that Americans can solve the obesity epidemic themselves by practicing self control and becoming more active. Also, they claim that the industry has made numerous attempts to offer healthier options in low fat and lower sodium processed foods. Thus, pointing back to the fact that it’s America’s lifestyle that is causing widespread obesity, not the food. However, scientific researchers and nutritionists argue that the food industry is to blame because they have more concern for making profits than addressing the obesity epidemic. The scientists claim that the food industry has added so much sugar (which has been found to be as addictive as cocaine) to the food being sold to Americans, in an attempt to make food better tasting in order to sell more of it. They state that the average American is taking in nearly quadruple (or more) of their suggested daily sugar intake. Ours bodies are not designed to take in as much sugar as most American do, and therefore that is the reason why Americans struggle to remain healthy. Overall, the nutrition experts claim that the sugar that is added to foods is to blame for obesity epidemic; whereas, the food industry points towards sedentary lifestyle as the reason why Americans are becoming increasingly heavier.
3) The main goal of this documentary is to bring attention to the fact that the ways Americans have been trying to handle the obesity problem is never going to be successful. Naturally, the perspective of the documentary is extremely biased in favor of the opinions of the scientists/nutritionists because advocates of their side of the argument put this documentary together. Throughout the entire documentary, research was cited to back up the scientists points. On the other hand, the food industry was portrayed as greedy and willing to risk the health of Americans in order to make profits. This documentary suggests that Americans should be “fed up” with the way we have previously been attempting to solve the issue and take a stand against the food industry.
3) The main goal of this documentary is to bring attention to the fact that the ways Americans have been trying to handle the obesity problem is never going to be successful. Naturally, the perspective of the documentary is extremely biased in favor of the opinions of the scientists/nutritionists because advocates of their side of the argument put this documentary together. Throughout the entire documentary, research was cited to back up the scientists points. On the other hand, the food industry was portrayed as greedy and willing to risk the health of Americans in order to make profits. This documentary suggests that Americans should be “fed up” with the way we have previously been attempting to solve the issue and take a stand against the food industry.
ReplyDelete4) In my opinion, the most effective solution to the obesity issue is to help Americans become more informed. Before I saw this documentary, I had no idea just how much sugar Americans eat compared to how much they should actually be eating! For example, food labels have daily intake percentages next to everything, except for sugar. It is impossible for Americans to realize just how high in sugar foods are without those percentages and become more aware without being informed about how important it is to reduce their sugar intake without learning about the dangers of high sugar intake. By simply requiring food labels to include sugar percentages, I believe that would be a huge difference in raising America’s awareness. The food industry is not going to change at the expense of their profits, so I believe it is essential that Americans make their own efforts to become more aware of what they are putting into their bodies.
5) I personally side with the argument of the scientists and nutritionists after having watched Fed Up. I believe that the greediness of the food industry is the main cause of America’s rising obesity rate. By using sugar to create foods that are proved to be addictive, they milk money out of consumers at the expense of Americans’ health. However, I do also place some of the blame on Americans as individuals as well. I see that in our fast paced world, it can be a challenge to eat unprocessed foods and make time for regular exercise, however, obesity rates are never going to drop unless Americans make more time for their health! I too believe we should be “fed up” with the way we have been handling the obesity issue.
1. What is your name, the title of your documentary, and the source from whence you viewed it.
ReplyDeleteHelen Kemper, White Like Me, YouTube video on topdocumentaryfilms.com
Link: http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/white-like-me/#disqus_thread
2. Include a brief summary of the controversy and three specific arguments on both sides of the controversy from the documentary itself (6 total).
White Like Me is a 2013 documentary based on the book written by Tim Wise, an antiracist activist who believes strongly in the equality of all races in America. Through historical displays and modern interviews and events, Wise presents several different viewpoints concerning racial injustice in America. He presented several arguments that acknowledged the continuing racial issues, and others that presented the idea that racism was no longer a modern issue. One supporting viewpoint of this is 1) Barack Obama’s election as America’s president broke the barrier of lesser opportunities for minority races, and several believed that the problem was solved for good. However, to counteract that, 1) Wise includes several interviews and news reports of riots against Obama’s election, consisting racist white people infuriated by his election. Another point 2) claimed that reverse discrimination was occurring, in which white people felt they did not receive as many scholarships and acceptance to applications for the sake of diversity. On the other hand 2) statistics in the documentary show that whites with the same education as black or other races are 2x more likely to get jobs. Another point presented 3) is that white people are not the problem, and therefore the issue does not concern them. The last point counteracted this 3) stating that several white people can and are current working to fight for equal rights for minority races. Wise explains that it is unacceptable for privileged white people to ignore the racial issues facing our country, and the first step is to end ignorance.
3. Record any bias you found, or explain why you thought the documentary contained no bias.
Tim Wise definitely thinks that not only racial inequality, but racial bias is most prevalent in modern day. He raises several arguments that counteract the idea that now that Obama is president, racial hatred and inequality is no longer a major issue in America. He used points such as the fact that here are more African American people on parole, in jail, or prison current day than any other race. He also informed about several riots and protests that occurred after Obama’s election. His bias continues with the fact that a majority of whites actually voted against Obama, especially with the polls in southern states such as Alabama. He feels so strongly that economically non-white families have a lesser quality of life; this included healthcare, quality of life, and criminal justice system. Wise couldn’t have emphasized more on the obvious inequality of non-white races and the ignorance portrayed through many interviews of racist white people.
4. What do you see as the most viable solution to the problem presented in the film? Why has that solution not been adopted?
ReplyDeleteI think that this issue has been built up since the beginning of history in the United States, and the social and economic effects has left a seriously detrimental result for minority groups in America. There is no easy way to fix a racial issue that has been prevalent for decades in America. Obviously, raising awareness for all races is the first step. However, just in this film it is easy to see how extremely difficult it is for a whole country of people to agree on a solution. Even with Obama’s election and welfare system, there has been significant backlash and conflict from many communities. People cannot just become blind to race, but they have to see it, accept it, and abandon the stereotypes. However, for decades people have been raised to discriminate and hate races other than their own. Also, a majority of people believe that racial injustice is no longer even an issue, which is so far from the truth. If people don’t think it’s really an issue anymore, then it becomes really hard to fix.
5. Explain your opinion on the controversy having watched the documentary.
I feel very strongly that racism is definitely not ever going away, and in fact, it is very prevalent today. As a privileged white person living in such a community, I feel it is very important for me to recognize how privileged I am, but also recognize that we cannot ignore the racial hatred going on. We cannot ignore the fact that people of different color are treated differently politically, economically, and socially. They are not receiving the rights that we are fully granted, and that is totally unacceptable. The huge number of police brutalities, murders, and riots of the non-white races is one of the most urgent issues of our society today. I agree with Tim Wise with the fact that racism is never going away, and it is not something we can ignore. The issue is much more than just social equality. Several statistics show that employment, housing, education, and healthcare is significantly worse for African American and Latino people compared to white people. Not to mention the justice system is biased against said races. This issue is not going away, and if anything, I see it worsening. I believe that Obama being president was a just a small victory in this huge war for equality. It is up to us to stop ignorance and raise awareness for this continuing injustice.
1. Charlie Zack, Going Clear: Scientology and the Prison of Belief, HBO
ReplyDelete2. The documentary basically explains the happenings and insanity behind the Church of Scientology with first hand accounts of people who have escaped the church. It talks in specifics about the founder of Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard, and the ways that he made the religion appealing to so many people. The requirements for Scientology are essentially to be wealthy, preferably a celebrity, and to have an open mind. The documentary goes through the mind control, imprisonment, and abuse that takes place inside the church. The differing viewpoints come from current Scientologists and former Scientologists. While current members believe that they are paying for knowledge with each session they do, former member sbelive its a scam. Also, some people believe it is a religion while others think it is just a tax free way to make money. Finally, some people believe in the story of Scientology while others find it utterly insane.
3. I believe that if there was any bias it was from the people who have escaped the church because they were the only ones to be asked direct questions from the interviewers, while current members all denied interviews. The only times Scientologists spoke was when the documentary played snips from other interviews or speeches with them.
4. The only solution I can think of is to deny or at least discourage more people from joining Scientology. Contrary to that, they are protected by the First Amendment in the constitution and regardless of how insane their practices are, they are legal. One solution would be to sue for mistreatment within the church, but that may just create more publicity for the church.
5. My opinion is that by just thinking rationally, people can stay away from the church and live happy lives without it. Scientology starts with ideas that are a little bit out there and then quickly devolves into insanity. Contrary, I do believe that ones own religion is their business and no one elses; my opinion is still that Scientology is a complete scam that does nothing but fills one with false euphoria, and tries to keep that person within the church for life.
A. Darius Dudley, Jesus Camp, DVD from the public library.
ReplyDeleteB. Jesus Camp, follows the lives of three kids who attend an Evangelical bible camp, led by Pastor Becky Fischer, where political beliefs are pushed into their minds with their religion. The film's controversy lies in how ethical it is to push kids to advocate for the causes of a religious, and what some consider to be, political movement; and whether or not, these are merely teachings or indoctrination and brainwashing.
Unethical/indoctrination arguement
-The children are indocrinated to see a narrow, unchanging point of view, that they don't truly understand, and become politcal advocates for.
-The Evengilical movement is pushing into government, threatning seperation of church and state.
-Some say the veiws of Evengilicals are quite radical.
Ethical Arguement
-The kids are learning to be involved with their communities and church.
-Most kids are indoctrinated by their parents religious beliefs, and being taugh Evangelical beliefs is of more benefit then harm.
-Government could benefit from a religious guidance.
C. I think the film tried very hard to remain unbiased in the delivery of information. Child Pastor Becky Fischer represnts the pro-evengilical movement arguement, and the radio host represents the opposing view. They both debate with each other at one point in the film and both talk extensively about their views. Based on the title of the documentary, I had assumed it would have a bias towards the unethical argument, but the scenes involving the sermons and family, are delivered in a very unbiased manner.
D. There is not really any proposed solutions, or any solutions to actually be proposed. The controversy is about how ethical certain teachings are, and their are not many "solutions" that don't involve treading on free speech.
E. I find myself agreeing more with the unethical/indoctrination argument. I, myself, do not find myself to be a religious person, but I do accept that others have different beliefs; but, upon watching this I found that some of these teachings could be harmful to future progress of humanity. For example, a scene plays out in which one of the children, who is being homeschooled, is taught from a creationist book that "science has no answers." He is told that global warming is a myth (one of the politcal views taught by the church) and that evolution is a lie. Teaching kids that their is no need to worry about the environment, I think is posionoius to the progress of humankind, and I also do not advocate the indoctrination of children to any belief system, whether they are mine or otherwise. I think the right to learn and choose is a uniquely human quality.