Wednesday, November 17, 2010

Documentary Analysis

I recently watched the documentary China’s Lost Girls¸ with Lisa Ling. Ling followed American families as they traveled to China to adopt Chinese girls who were abandoned by their parents. Chinese parents give up daughters because of China’s policy that allows families only one child. Boys are more valued in China because they can carry on the family name and work for the family and thus, parents would rather have their one child to be a boy. If they get a girl, they may give her up and keep trying for a boy. 

The main message of the documentary was that the one child policy that the Chinese government enforced is doing the Chinese people more harm than good. To get this point across, Ling interviewed many Chinese people, whose lives were affected by the policy, starting relatively small and showing the effects that that policy has on mothers and then moving on to showing the effects the policy has on society and the country as a whole. For example, Ling interviewed a mother who paid a large fine to keep the daughter she had after she already had a son. The mother said that when she was pregnant with her son, her husband told her that if she didn’t have a son, he would send her away. The documentary then moved on to interviewing a Chinese official in family planning who said that by 2020, there will be such a shortage of females that 40 million marriage-age males will not be able to find women to marry. This shortage could cause prostitution and abductions of women or even riots or uprisings. Ling then moved on to interviewing a detective who worked on finding women who had been abducted and sold as wives. Ling then interviewed a woman how had been sold as a wife who was then found and brought back home. She said that she was repeatedly raped and beaten if she tried to escape. She had a son who was not allowed to come back with her. All of these interviews work to show the negative effects that this policy has brought about to the Chinese people as well as the even worse problems they could cause in the future. 

Once these negative effects were presented, the documentary reported on Chinese citizens’ thoughts on the policy. They said that they were ashamed and disgraced by the fact that they cannot take care of their own children. Instead they rely on people (such as American families who adopt Chinese girls) to raise their girls. They also worry that these adopted girls will not be proud of their country. All of this works to show the viewer how far-reaching the policy can be and how the consequences may outweigh the positive effects it could have on population control. By beginning to focus on mothers and families and then moving to larger issues such as a negative world view of China and the possibility of uprisings, the documentary was able to effectively show how dire the situation in China is and how more work needs to be done to raise awareness about the policy and its effects. 

However, the documentary seemed to have a bit of a hidden agenda. All of the interviews that highlighted the negative effects of the policy were interspersed with footage of American couples traveling to Beijing to adopt a Chinese girl as well as interviews with young Chinese girls who had already been adopted by Americans. The girls talked about how lucky they were to be adopted and how they never could have the life they do if they had not come to America. The American couples who adopted these girls were portrayed almost in a saintly manner. They were looked at as being the only ones capable of saving the young abandoned girls and giving them a better life. For example, when footage was being shown of the girls with their new parents, a voiceover highlighted the fact that only a week ago, the little girls were “among the most rejected in Chinese society,” but now they were being accepted in American society. I think that this footage was unnecessary. It seemed to be promoting American supremacy by portraying Americans as the only people who could help the little girls who were abandoned. No people or organizations in other countries were mentioned, nor were any Chinese organizations besides the orphanages where the girls lived before being adopted. Thus, the documentary seemed to be a little biased towards Americans and their ways of living. The way that the stories alternated between the interviews with the Chinese people and the footage of Americans adopting Chinese babies almost forced the viewer to choose a side, ultimately making the Chinese culture and policy that brought about the abandonment of girls look truly evil and corrupt, even more than it actually is. 

In order to teach students about a documentary and how it communicates it message, I would have students watch a documentary in class. They would then be asked to decide as a class on a main message that the documentary was trying to communicate and cite evidence as to why they think so. Evidence would include whose story was being told, who was interviewed and why (what is their position, what makes them an authority?), how scenes and shots were linked together, what do the voiceovers say, etc. Students would then be split up into groups and each group would be assigned a specific topic related to the documentary that they would do research on. For example, students could research the organization that produced the documentary, organizations or people mentioned in the documentary, opposite sides to those presented, or even get more information on what was presented in the documentary. Students would then present their research to the class. Finally, students would watch the documentary again, comparing the information presented in the documentary to the information they researched. Given what they learned in their research, students could then discuss what information the documentary leaves out and speculate as to why. They could also discuss the information included in the documentary, how it was arranged to create meaning, and speculate more deeply on how that included information works to portray a certain message.

Thursday, November 11, 2010

Analysis of KARE 11 News

For this activity, I analyzed a KARE 11 10 O’clock news program. The program broke down as following:

                National News: 2 mins 20 sec.
                Local News: 3 mins 48 sec.
                National National: 1 min
                “Coming up next”: 5 sec
                Commercial Break: 3 mins
                Financial interest piece: 3 mins 20 sec
                “Coming up tomorrow”: 8 sec
                Local interest piece: 1 min 45 sec
                Chatting at news desk: 13 sec
                Local weather: 3 min 15 sec
                “Coming up next”: 8 sec
                Commercial break: 3 mins
                Local sports: 5 mins 15 sec
                “Coming up next”: 5 sec
                Commercial break: 4 mins
                National interest piece: 1 min 20 sec
                Chatting at news desk: 20 sec
                Commercial break:  3 mins

This adds up to:
                3: 40 on national news
                3:48 on local news
                13:00 on commercials
                0:26 on “coming up next” segments
                6:25 on national and local interest pieces
                3:15 on weather
                5:15 on sports
                0:33 at chatting at the news desk

The news program started off with a controversial story about a book on pedophilia being sold on Amazon.com. It interviewed a couple “experts” on the topic as well as some citizens to get a variety of opinions on the subject. Next, the program switched to local news, spending a great deal of time describing the Wadena girls’ volleyball team going to state after a tornado went through the town earlier this summer. They interviewed the coach, who lost everything in the tornado and a few of the players. After this, less than a minute was spent on more serious news and stories about the Dayton/Emmer recount, Michelle Bachman, a race for mayor of Austin, MN, and news about Target Field were breezed through. Next came about 1 minute for a couple national headlines such as news on NASA’s Discovery launch the stalled cruise ship in the Pacific Ocean. The program then aired a “coming up next segment” and went to break. When it returned, a news story about 401K’s was shown for about 3 minutes and 30 seconds. It detailed what people should do with the money in their 401K’s and interviewing various experts. Following this, a preview to the next day’s segment on a soldier finding a long lost comrade was shown followed by the anchors talking about it being the anniversary of the sinking of the ship Edmond Fitzgerald. This transitioned into weather and eventually another commercial break. Sports was talked about next, focusing on local high school and professional teams. The program aired another “coming up next” segment that talked about the Jersey Shore and went to commercial. It ended with an interest piece about a girl who caught a giant fish in New Jersey.
              
  Overall, I was very surprised about how little news was actually reported on. The program was mostly consumer interest pieces and ads. It seemed like the main agenda of the program was to keep viewers watching rather than reporting the news. For example, the broadcast started off with a highly controversial national story about a book on pedophilia being sold on Amazon. I feel that this story was placed at the beginning of the broadcast not because it was newsworthy, but rather because it is controversial and will get viewers’ attention. Following this, local news began with a “rags to riches” type story about the Wadena volleyball team. A lot of time was devoted to interviews with the coach, who lost her whole farm in a tornado and how the team pulled together after the tragedy to get to where they are now.  Finally, after these two stories, more important stories were touched on, such as a local woman being charged with child abuse, a woman killed by a hit and run driver in St. Paul, and news about the Minnesota governor race. After this, it switched to national news, highlighting news about NASA and a stalled cruise ship. However, all of this more important news was squished into about 1 minute and barely any of it was elaborated on. By doing this, the program is shying away from spending too much time on news that might bore or upset viewers. It goes through these stories quickly and then moves on to more feel-good or consumer interest stories that would hold the average viewer’s attention more.

To keep viewers watching, the news program also used a great deal of anticipatory transitions, showing what was coming up next on the program to ensure that viewers would not change the channel during the commercial break. These transitions play to consumers interests or concerns, such as the one previewing an upcoming segment on 401K’s that told the viewer the information in the segment was “everything you should know” about the money in “your 401K.” This makes the viewer feel that if he doesn’t watch the segment, he will miss out on extremely important information and thus lose great amounts of money. This segment was also sponsored by a financial institution, US Bank, which might explain the longer amount of time devoted to this segment than other seemingly more important news stories. The program also used a transition like this before it did its last interest piece on a girl from New Jersey who caught a big fish. The segment played to the audience’s interest and addiction to pop culture, telling the viewer that “news from the Jersey Shore” was coming up next, alluding to the popular reality show Jersey Shore.

In order to help teach students about news programs, I would have each student watch a ½ hour news program and record the order and types of news stories shown. Then, each student would look at a local news paper from that same day (ideally, the news paper would be from the same city that the news broadcast was from). Students would scan through the news paper to find news about the same subjects that was in the news broadcast. Students would record the placement of the news stories in the news paper (i.e. front page, back page, etc) and the amount of space devoted to each story. Students would then write an analysis comparing the most prominent stories and amount of time or space devoted to each story in the newspaper and the news broadcast. I would want them to comment on what they conclude to be the most important news to the broadcast and what news is most important to the newspaper and then speculate on why this is so. Why might a news story make a front page headline when it is buried in a news broadcast? Why would a news broadcast begin with a story that appears below the fold of a newspaper? Overall, I want students to think about what news program’s other agendas might be besides reporting the news.

Thursday, November 4, 2010

Cooking Shows!!

One of my favorite channels to watch on TV is the Food Network. Most of the time, I have it on as background noise or on mute if I’m doing homework. I think that the thing that appeals to me the most about cooking shows is their predictability and familiarity. There are almost no plot lines to keep up with (or if there are plot lines, their simple ones like, “my sister is coming for dinner and I’m going to make her something wonderful.”) Plus, there are never any plot twists or dramatic moments in a cooking show, nothing to keep me on the edge of my seat. I don’t have to piece together plot lines or delve into the motivation of the character; I can actually relax when I watch them.  If I miss ten minutes of the middle of the show, it doesn’t matter because I can jump right back into the show and not be confused about what’s going on. In addition, I really like watching people cook and seeing what kinds of food people come up with to make. Most of the time, the dishes they make are never something I would make and/or eat, but it’s intriguing to see how people make them and the kinds of techniques they use. 


A lot of the predictability and familiarity of cooking shows stems from the fact that almost all of them use the exact same format and just switch out ingredients and “chefs.” There is always at least one chef (sometimes there is two, but that gets kind of crowded and annoying.) The chef never really seems to be overly qualified to be a cooking show host; some have no culinary education and others have only finished part of culinary school. However, the chef is almost always somewhat attractive and has an engaging, bubbly personality (all of them are always super excited to be making whatever it is they are making.) Most shows have some kind of premise or category they specialize in, for example, 30-minute Meals centers on complete meals that can be made in 30 minutes or less and Semi-Homemade with Sandra Lee focuses on making complete meals with store-bought food mixed with fresh ingredients. In addition to the over-arching premise of the show, each individual episode usually has a theme that is carried throughout the episode, such as an episode of Giada at Home where Giada makes three different dishes that she will serve to her aunt who is coming to visit. Despite these different themes, almost every show works with the assumption that its audience is somewhat inexperienced in the kitchen. The show then tries to show its viewers that cooking really is easy and that anyone can do it if they simply follow the recipes, techniques, and tips that the chefs describe.


I think one of the biggest assumptions that cooking shows have about the world is that cooking is solely a woman’s job, or more specifically, it is a stay-at-home mother’s job. The majority of cooking shows have a female host and are set in a mock kitchen. The host tries to relate to a busy or working mother, often giving her tips on how to make a “quick and easy meal that the whole family will love” or how to get your kids to eat healthily. A perfect example of this is Rachel Ray’s 30 Minute Meals where she gives countless easy recipes that can easily be made in the 30 minutes between the time that a working mother gets home and dinner time. Ina Garten’s Barefoot Contessa also works toward this assumption. Although she doesn’t have kids, her show always focuses on her cooking for her husband or any one of her male friends. In addition to this, cooking shows seem to portray their women hosts as sex objects; their bodies are focused on just as much as the food they make. For example, Giada de Laurentis and Sandra Lee are always perfectly made up for their shows, often wearing low-cut tops or tight-fitting clothes, lending themselves to the idea of a “perfect woman” (not only can she cook, but she’s sexy too!) If there happens to be a male host, he is depicted doing super masculine things, perhaps to off-set the perception that cooking is a woman’s job. For example, on Grill It with Bobby Flay, Flay leaves behind the “feminine” space of the kitchen completely and takes his cooking show outside, focusing on barbequing and grilling, ultimately more masculine forms of cooking. When a male host doesn’t opt to go outside, he instead makes the kitchen as masculine as possible. For example, on Guy’s Big Bite with Guy Fieri, the kitchen is decorated with a variety of essentially masculine things, such as a pool table, car parts, and a drum set. Even his refrigerator is “masculinized”: it is painted and stuck with decals to look like a race car. 


To help teach students about the cooking show genre, I would focus on how the cooking show has evolved from highly trained chefs cooking exotic foods to be more focused on everyday people and common ingredients.  To do this, I would show a clip from an older cooking show (such as this one from The Frugal Gourmet http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkjcUc8ekRY&feature=related). I would contrast this with a clip from a modern cooking show (such as Rachel Ray http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHgvkq3aCqQ). Students would then discuss how the cooking shows differ. To get them thinking about this, they could answer questions such as: How is each chef dressed? What kinds of ingredients does each chef use? Who prepares the ingredients? What techniques do each use? Eventually I want students to be able to think about the audiences for each show and how cooking shows have changed their format to cater to their audience. I also want them to think about societal changes have affected the focus of the cooking shows (for example, how has the emergence of working mothers changed the agendas of cooking shows?)

Here's a link to my powerpoint presentation. (You may have to download it. Google Docs isn't letting me view it.)