"What do you want to make those lies at me for?"
by KrauzeThe critics complaining about appearing in the "Expelled" film on false pretenses shouldn't feel so glum. Turns out other documentaries have also sugar-coated the truth to its interviewees. Like the CNN documentary, "God's Warriors":
CNN's three part series God's Warriors was not journalism's or even that ubiquitous cable network's finest six hours. Cobbling together two hours of disjointed footage and commentary, CNN ostensibly exposed many of us - in Israel and the US - as radical Jewish warriors: No different or any less dangerous than those among the world's 1 billion Muslims who are radical in their way too. …
[The CNN producer] learned of our JCRC [Jewish Community Relations Council] through her mother, a non-Jewish resident of a Chicago suburb who admired our leading role in advocating an end to the Darfur genocide. It was precisely this type of activity, the noble pursuit of justice by grassroots people motivated by religious impulses and acting through religious institutions that the young producer claimed the network and its star correspondent, Christiane Amanpour, wanted to explore. After all, she told us, it is such a decent, important activity and so much more real, common and under-reported than the conventional stereotypes promoted by the mass media. She insisted that CNN's aim was not to focus - as others do ad nauseam - on the radical fringes among the Jews, Christians and Muslims.
HT: Verum Serum
October 2nd, 2007 at 3:44 pm
Hi Krauze,
This is interesting on multiple levels.
1. Does the fact that CNN may have done the same thing provide any excuse for the producers of "Expelled"
2. What should we make of your omission of the relevant fact that the reporter admitted to the possibility that the "…producer was sincere and she and perhaps others at CNN wanted to create a program along the lines she originally described, but lost an internal battle over editorial content…"
3. Added to that, the omission that only 1.5 seconds of hours of video was used.
4. P.Z. Myers was not "glum". He indicated that had he known he would have given them even more fuel.
5. I wouldn't call Dawkins' reaction "glum" either.
6. The CNN report was clearly about religious issues and didn't have anything to do with Intelligent Design. Or does it?
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 2, 2007 @ 3:44 pm
October 2nd, 2007 at 10:36 pm
The genesis of Intellectual Impostures was a brilliant hoax perpetrated by Sokal, and the stunning success of his coup was not greeted with the chuckles of delight that one might have hoped for after such a feat of deconstructive game playing. Apparently, when you've become the establishment, it ceases to be funny when someone punctures the established bag of wind. "“ Richard Dawkins
Comment by MikeGene — October 2, 2007 @ 10:36 pm
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:58 am
Mmm, gotta love that spin.
When it comes to interviews in general - especially interviews-for-pay - really, I think a good rule of thumb is to never assume that the focus of the project is meant to endorse your views, or even cast them in a positive light. Even if the person who is interviewing you assures you verbally of one thing or another, the contract you sign is the only negotiator you really need to worry about. Interview footage is a commodity like any other, subject to rights and limitations.
Remember, if how your interview will be used is of paramount importance, you can always make demands in the contract. Sure, it may mean sacrificing a couple grand (or who knows how much) if the paying party decides you're asking for too much control. But that won't be a problem, unless the money's the main concern anyway.
By the way, MikeGene, great quote.
Comment by nullasalus — October 3, 2007 @ 12:58 am