Hot Chicks of OWS: Would You Consider this Ethical Journalism?
Hot Chicks of Occupy Wall Street from Steven Greenstreet on Vimeo.
This is the website for the senior-level Journalism Ethics course required of students in the Journalism Minor at the University of San Francisco. We are delighted that non-minors are among us this Fall.
15 comments:
If this video's title was simply 'Women of Occupy Wall Street' it wouldn't cause a problem for me. The fact that the title is 'Hot Chicks...' is anti-feminist and is degrading these women's protest into how they look instead of what they believe in.
Yeah, I wouldn't really call this journalism at all. Though the video portrays events as they occur, the whole pretense for the video is limiting. His own opinion dictates who's "hot", and therefore that's who he's showing. While it does serve a purpose, this video lacks the most basic of ideals that would make it journalism; that is leaving one's own opinion out of the piece. In addition, I agree that this discredits what they're working for.
The simple fact that the creator of this video has openly labeled these women as "hot chicks", seems to immediately undermine, and ultimately ignore, the cause that they're fighting for. I'm sure that these are intelligent women, and while he does capture them articulating their thoughts, he does so while simultaneously reducing them to their appearance. The story then becomes about their beauty, not their protest - the actual news becomes a secondary issue. That being said, I agree with both Claire and Christie that this isn't ethical journalism.
This video is not journalism. To me, it's what a film student would do as a doc/short project for class. The quality, editing, and sound added to the video completely surpassed real objective story-telling - because it was groomed and shaped and beautified before released to the public. In other words, tampered with. Not only was the video highly edited, the subjects were, as well. Instead of capturing the event in real time among the real events, he stalked "good-looking women," and only used their opinions. And by using these women's opinion's for his video only because they are "hot," he makes them look kinda stupid, and discredits ugly women. A real journalism video (to me) is almost completely unedited, contains completely randomized interviewers, and is slightly poor/shakey in quality (so you know it's real!). Nanette Asimov's unsteady and unedited video of men spanking each other is an actual journalism video - "Hot Chicks of OWS" can't be termed unethical because it isn't journalism in the slightest.
I agree with Claire in as much as the title is definitely seems derogatory and misogynistic, almost playing down the fact that they are making a serious political protest. However, having said that I don’t feel the video itself was in any way degrading to these women and if that’s the case does the title make a difference? If anything more people may watch the video due to the title and this may have been the filmmaker’s intention to help draw attention to the protests.
I would have to agree with everyone else’s responses and say it doesn’t really seem like journalism but a school video project about OWS and also the title ‘Hot Chicks Of Occupy Wall Street’ seems too ridiculous to be a serious title and it may have been meant in a bit of a tongue in cheek way … at least I hope it was.
While the creator may have attempted to invision the piece as newsworthy or even as a serious art piece, using the title discredits the film and the alters the message.
The film now seems to comes off as a tad bit ironic and should not be deemed journalistic.
Asimov speaks in personal email:
Cool.
Can I do the homework too? It's not journalism. It's art! Peel away Prof. Robertson's label "journalism." Peel away the videographer's distracting title "hot chicks." The video itself is stunning. And if you grow up in the future, say, 50 years from now, wouldn't you be amazed to go back and see this? Imagine if someone had done that at Woodstock! Not journalism, no...just a gorgeous slice of history with lovely music.
I would say this is just like going to a public meeting. The news isn't necessarily what the promoters say it is.
(Oh, and can we do a hot boys of OWS now too!?)
Nanette
It seems we're all in agreement here.. The title is the first thing that's wrong, and the filmmaker definitely did themselves a disservice by giving it such a banal name - "hot chicks." It's a nice looking video and well-made, but with a very limited scope that does not include journalistic integrity.
This video isn't really informing me of anything towards the main issues of the Occupy Wall Street movement (corporate greed, social/economic equality, etc.). The title of the video doesn't match with content of the video. The title makes me anticipate something perverted however the music and the people in the video say otherwise. The women in the video are talking about how responsibility and community but it doesn't present arguments that can lead to productive discussion.
This doesn't strike me as journalism: it is set against music meant to elicit a sense of drama and triumph, it solely focuses on women deemed "hot" by the videographers and portrays their haphazard opinions/commentary on the Occupy Wall Street movement. I agree with Nannette that the imagery and production value of the video are commendable and a worthwhile cultural artifact for posterity. BUT, this doesn't attempt to portray a diverse, multi-sided discussion of the movement - merely a sexist voyeurism that allows the female subjects a few words to step away from objectification. The public does not learn anything substantial about the movement, its constituents and their ideals/ideologies from this video, which would be the purpose of any serious work of journalism on this subject.
I AM NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH THE MAJORITY HERE! What ethical rule is this breaking? I think this is brilliant and not degrading at all. It's quite the opposite actually. Through the interviews, we as viewers are let in as to what these women think, proving these are highly intelligent and articulate women. It is not just footage of "Hot Chicks." I definitely think that the title was merely a "trolling" effort to get more hits, but for the right reasons. People will click these link, watch the vid, thinking it is some shallow attempt to provide a gawking space for people who like to look at "hot chicks." But clearly, the thesis of the video is that intelligence, courage, and political participation are what makes these girls "hot."
I agree with everyone here and do not think this is journalism. It's a film that was created for entertainment purposes. The term "hot"and the background music almost takes away any news from the content at all. Although interviews were conducted to provide the public with an inside perspective, the film is bias all in itself. What would one get if they have "hot" chicks and an controversial issue in one film? Views.
I agree with the majority of the class here - this is not journalism. The filmmaker and editor have created a beautiful "short film" that ultimately represents their opinion of "hot chicks" for OWS in a situation where vanity outweighs the news. Opinions of OWS are shared, but I don't think it's an accurate depiction of the larger scale of the issue. I don't think this short film is breaking any ethics, but it doesn't serve as a newsworthy journalistic piece. And I agree with Christie's comment that leaving one's opinion out is a basic ideal of journalism that this film clearly does not follow.
I’m not sure that I’m with the majority here- I feel like the idea of capturing the feeling of a movement and committing it to film and documenting could be argued as an important part of journalism, but I’m not convinced that this video is doing that. It seems much too arty, and it doesn’t seem like that was at all the intent. I’m also not sure that I think these woman come across as brilliant or anything close. My understanding of the OWS movement is that it at the very least has a basis in rational, educated thought process, and was built up by intellectual members of society hoping to make a change. This video (I do agree that it’s not a piece of journalism. There’s no reporting, no message, and a ton of personal influence on the part of the people behind it.) features women talking about how inspired they are by the movement and how much they support it, but the whole “hot chicks” thing just brings down anything they say. There’s maybe an unethical point in framing an opinion with a low-class title (in the same way that portraying a female rocket scientist as just a “hot girl” takes away some of her sophistication and reputation).
Post a Comment