"Swoon"

In the 1990s reading, I read about Queer Theory’s politics, its concern for expressing sexuality “as multiplicity and not as fixed or essentialized.” Queer theory encourages the reader or viewer to view the work “from a new and different angle.” In the first ten minutes, voiceovers of Leopold and Loeb reading letters and diary entries are paired with them showing affection, exchanging rings, having sex and planning their crimes; the text alone could be understood as straight, but when combined with these homosexual images the meaning changes.

Like Compulsion and Rope, Swoon emphasizes Leopold’s aloofness. The scenes of him in the fields alone, transfixed in the taxidermy shop looking at new specimens and looking grim in his room with his collection of dead birds all speak to his remoteness from the real world. Loeb, however, is playful, sociable and constantly grinning. Non-diegetic images of birds and non-diegetic sounds of flapping bird wings throughout the film suggest Leopold is the protagonist even though Loeb receives more attention and esteem in social settings. After Loeb’s death, Leopold’s screams are heard echoing down the hall as the camera works its way to Leopold’s cell. Leopold’s anguish is so great he must be physically subdued. Leopold’s story closes the film—he is the last thing the audience focuses on.

Blog: "Compulsion"

Compulsion brought Leopold and Loeb to life; it was fascinating to see how the characters measured up to my imaginative ideas about the boys. Their interactions with each other and their friends and families make Artie out to be charismatic and manipulative, whereas Judd is more innocent and intellectual. According to the film, Artie is the true psycho: he watches sheep go to slaughter, he persuades Judd to rape Ruthie, he orders Judd to run down the drunk and he generally acts like a maniac. Artie makes all the decisions and seeks danger whenever possible. He enjoys attention from a crowd or his mother’s friends, and will do anything to be the life of the party. The state prosecutor calls him a “wise-guy” because of all the jokes he makes and the schmoozing he gushes out.
The film also emphasizes Judd’s evolving humanism through Ruthie Evans; she evokes the audience’s sympathy when Judd tells her his mother died when he was a boy and that he doesn’t get along with his father. She makes him feel ashamed when he tries to rape her, drawing real emotion from the closed-off Nietzsche fanatic. She tells Sid Judd is no more than a confused child. When Judd turns away from hitting the drunk in the street, Artie threatens to go through with other experiments alone, but Judd blanches and begs Artie to include him. Judd cannot bear losing their perfect relationship; he admires and feeds off of Artie’s intelligence too much. Judd defends Artie to his brother even after Artie abuses him.

After viewing "Rope"

Rope was not what I expected. I can see now the ties to Leopold and Loeb; two prep school friends commit what they deem the perfect murder in order to feel powerful and alive. They believe themselves superior to their victim, and are thus privileged to commit murder. The allusions to Nietzsche’s Superman and Freud were reminiscent of the Tribune articles detailing the psychoanalysis on Leopold and Loeb. I found the arrangements of the credits very interesting. The first character listed is David, then every character after is titled in their relation to him; Janet is “David’s girl”, Kenneth is “David’s rival” and Brandon and Phillip are “David’s friends”. This reminded me of Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar. The play is named after Caesar even though he dies with half of the story still remaining. Shakespeare does this to show the power Caesar has over the characters even in death; his assassination weighs on the consciences of the murderers throughout the entire play. In this same vein, David is the central character or theme; everything in the film comes back to David. His power, his influence are heightened by his death.
In the film, Brandon is clearly in charge; he orders Phillip around, he argues most passionately for his cause, he invites Rupert to challenge his intellect and skill and he is less affected by the murder than is Phillip. The Tribune articles show both Leopold and Loeb as the manipulator of the other; each boy’s role in the relationship is never completely clear. Even though Rupert predicts both boys will suffer for their act, I think the film portrays Brandon as the true villain; Phillip seems more human because of his fear and regret. Brandon is more convinced of his own infallibility, which is even more enforced when Rupert utters “Did you think you were God?!”
The use of off-screen sound in this film emphasizes the suspenseful, uncertain plotline. As the party questions how best to find David, the camera pans away from the circle of friends to Mrs. Wilson who is clearing the chest of the dinner things. The audience anxiously awaits her discovery of David’s body as she slowly removes the plates, then one candelabra, then the next, and finally the tablecloth but is shocked when Brandon suddenly stops her just as she is about to open it; we could not see that he noticed her because he was outside the shot. In addition, as a character has an epiphany of sorts, the rest of the party is out of shot, but we hear them carrying on with the night’s activities.

Before viewing "Rope"

I’m not sure what to expect from this film. I know Alfred Hitchcock films are usually dark and suspenseful, but I have never heard of this film before and know nothing about it. I imagine sound effects, like offscreen sound, diegetic versus non-diegetic sound and sound perspective, will be very important in a suspenseful film. Also, low key lighting and high contrast add a dark mood to a scene, so it would not surprise me if Hitchcock relied on those effects as well.
1948 America was a post-World War II country, so factories and industrialization were at their peak, but many women who had picked up the slack during the War were now competing with returning soldiers for jobs. Also, the start of the Cold War heightened these inter-culture tensions; paranoia among neighbors, friends and coworkers led to an anxious general population.

Leopold and Loeb chapters 16-18

It is not difficult for me to understand how Leopold and Loeb were constantly confused for one another; the boys are represented in so many different manners I have a hard time trying to keep them separate. They really were a team; “One was Leopold and one was Loeb, but they became Leopold and Loeb. Though possessing different personalities, they became the sum of those personalities” (20). The Tribune was quick to point to Leopold as the evil genius and hypnotist and Loeb as gentle and sensitive Dickey, but then they just as quickly changed their story to “Loeb ‘Master of Leopold’ Under Solemn Pact Made: Sex Inferiority is Factor”. Experts debated which one of the boys actually killed Bobby Franks. Alienists portrayed Leopold as the more intelligent of the two boys, whereas “Loeb is pictured as little more than a crude criminal” (220). The many experts “spent twice as much time dissecting Leopold as Loeb. The result has been a distorted and oversimplified picture of Richard Loeb” (219).
The alienists said Leopold, even though the more cunning, saw his friend as “Superman” (210). He was infatuated with Loeb, and apparently initiated homosexual tendencies: “Loeb admitted them but claimed he” only “submitted in order to have Leopold’s aid in carrying out his criminal ideas” (215). The power dynamic again shifts; who was manipulating whom? Higdon believes “there was genius and criminality in both” (220).
The alienists speculated on how the relationship functioned, arguing it was very possible “this friendship between the two boys was not altogether a pleasant one to either of them…Their friendship was not based so much in desire as on need, they being what they were. Loeb did not crave the companionship of Leopold, nor did he respect him thoroughly. But he did feel the need of someone else in his life. Leopold did not like the faults, the criminalism of Loeb, but he did need someone in his life to carry out this king-slave compulsion” (225).

Chicago Tribune Packet (Leopold and Loeb)

In reading these articles on the murder investigation and subsequent trial of Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb, I noticed how different the journalism seemed compared to articles we’ve read from more recent issues of The New York Times. In every article there is a new expert being interviewed, a new theory being developed and more “clews” to be deciphered. The journalists sound more like crime novel authors than journalists. Is it at all newsworthy that the triangle part of the A is larger than normal? How does that in any way indicate that the murderers were intelligent? Many of these experts and sources are unnamed; one girl cries into her tea because she is so sad for Dickey Loeb’s troubles, and yet she is not identified in the slightest. I wonder if the journalists have any grounds for these claims, or if they are merely creating stories to sell issues. The public certainly seemed to stay interested if stories were continuing on the matter four months later, so maybe this extra drama was just playing to that.
Many of the articles discuss the mental states of the boys; their lack of Jewish faith, lack of community, heightened intelligence, parents, lack of discipline and regular consumption of moonshine are all mentioned as explanations for the violent crime these boys committed. There was also great debate to whether or not Leopold and Loeb were sane when they kidnapped Robert Franks. The defense and prosecution go back and forth presenting evidence to support their own claim, including reasons as bizarre as “autohypnosis”. In addition, while one article describes Loeb as the “King” and Leopold the “slave”, yet another says it was Leopold who manipulated the gentle Loeb. The different journalists have their own biases that shine through in their work.

Comments on Unit II Blogs

My blogs for Unit II are much more consistent than my blogs for Unit I. After being duped by journalistic tricks and biases in Unit I, I think I was more critical in my readings of Schanberg’s New York Times articles, and also in my comments on the film. This unit, I tried to go deeper than just noticing interesting aspects of the writings or the film and ask myself why they were interesting or what purpose they served. While extensive and sometimes confusing, the website about film analysis was extremely helpful in my understanding of the different possibilities certain visual or sound effects had on a single shot. For instance, in analyzing the use of shallow focus in the scene at the Coca-Cola factory, I tried to imagine how the scene would be different if the director used deep or raking focus instead. I also tried to trace several themes throughout all the mediums; this helped me when I was writing my screening report because I felt like I had concrete examples to draw on from my blogs. I hope the same will prove true for my essay.

Spalding Gray: Swimming to Cambodia and Rolling Stone article

I am amazed that Spalding Gray has the same voice in both the article and the monologue, though he says very different things. Reading the Rolling Stone article after Swimming to Cambodia, I can definitely recognize his personality and his mannerisms in the second work. I had grown so comfortable with his voice that it took me until after I finished to article to realize this seemed to be a very different Spalding Gray even though he sounded the same. In Swimming to Cambodia, Gray seemed completely lost. He rambles on humorously enough, and recounts Perfect Moments as well as exotic adventures, but he is not a man at peace with himself or his surroundings. Without warning, he is struck by moments of intense grieving and guilt for Cambodia: “How could I think of my pleasure when the world still suffered so? How? How? Oh, the shame of it! I needed to get back to give my old sweaters away to the Cambodian refugees in Far Rockaway” (124). His paranoid freak-outs result from stress, fear and anxiety about whether the life he has chosen for himself is in fact the right one: “Renée, it was a mission, a mission! I was on a mission. I’m not supposed to be back here” (108). When he talks about fame in the monologue it is only in comparing himself to John Malkovich and talking about the envy he feels for “the huge party” the film cast and crew held “when Craig T. left” (97). He calls Craig T. Nelson a “Professional Actor” and Malkovich “a good storyteller” (97). He discusses fame through his lack of it in the monologue, but in the article he relates his own anecdotes about dealing with his newfound fame. He talks about getting limos and private jets sent for him, going on The David Letterman Show and bowling for People magazine. He is witty and biting, but he is more confident. Gone are the stories of empty promises and fights with Renée. He has finally made a decision and seen it through. His experiences in Cambodia have now opened creative doors as well as financial ones, whereas before they isolated him: “But instead I ended up in Krummville with Renée and it was horrid. Horrid because I didn’t want to be there and I saw all the hardwoods as palm trees. At night I dreamed of taking the magic mushrooms and scuba diving with Ivan on a perfect enchanted isle somewhere in the Indian Ocean” (107). And his “semistardom” turned out “to be a lot more humbling than total obscurity”, so this new self-confidence has developed out of humility rather than egocentrism (Rolling Stone 31).

Film Sequence Blog (The Killing Fields)

The sequence I chose is from 23:44-27:20. It starts off with Pran waking Sydney up, bringing him coffee and a telegraph. The article Sydney and Pran wrote about the accidental bombings was on the first page of The New York Times. The director utilizes low-key lighting for this scene: Pran approaches Sydney with his wife’s concerns. While Sydney makes light of the subject, Pran’s face shows his worry, but he says nothing about his own opinions. Pran stoicism shows his deep loyalty to Sydney; he would never abandon him. As they talk about what the future may bring, the camera zooms into close-ups on their faces and racking focus; when Sydney speaks, the part of Pran’s face in the shot is out of focus, but when Pran starts to speak the focus switches to him and Sydney is then out of focus. This scene shows the close connection between the characters; Pran enters Sydney’s room to wake him up and remind shim “not to go back to sleep” as he leaves Sydney to prepare for the day. The two men are equals in this shadowy room with sparse décor. When Sydney learns of the story’s prominence in the newspaper, he says, “we must be doing something right”.
The sequence continues from the dark, quiet, private indoor setting to a chaotic outdoor setting through a sound bridge. Sydney talks about the Khmer Rouge’s advancement, but he is not yet in the camera shot; we see their jeep driving through the smoky city as fires rage. Sydney curses as he talks about how American involvement has caused suffering for Cambodians. This emphasizes the fault Sydney finds with American policies, as does the wide-angle lens that allows the viewer to see the many refugees filing into the city, fleeing from the insurgents. As they drive through the green countryside, a young soldier with pink flowers in his machine gun asks Sydney about American cars. He is depicted as an innocent boy; the close up on his face when Pran gives him a Mercedes symbol reveals his gleeful expression. When they reach the base, machine gun-wielding soldiers run past carts pulled by oxen and the soldiers are using a Coca-Cola factory for a war base; the conflicting interests of both the West and the East are evident in this sequence. An American soldier embraces a Cambodian soldier and their voices continue as the camera jumps around (off-screen sound) to different happenings; a wounded soldier smoking a cigarette, soldiers roasting a stray dog to eat, racks and racks of Coca-Cola bottle. The Cambodian soldier switches from his native tongue to English when he asks the soldier “Are we winning?” The director uses shallow focus to highlight Pran’s nervous facial expression; his worry from the earlier scene has carried over to this exchange. The camera then brings Sydney back to focus (racking focus) in a medium close up of the two men; they exchange concerned looks. Their close bond is reflected here; the men are reading each other’s thoughts. In more off-screen sound manipulation, the soldiers are discussing defensive plans when a bomb hits the factory.

Response to the film, The Killing Fields

Watching The Killing Fields, I was struck me by the subtle references to America. Interwoven throughout the film, these references hint at the horrid consequences of the Western involvement in Cambodia. When Sydney and Pran investigate Neak Luong in 1973 after a B-52 accidentally dropped 20-plus bombs on the refugee packed city, the camera scans the scene of wounded refugees and soldiers as a soldier listens to “Band on the Run” by Paul McCartney on a radio. In the midst of all this destruction and suffering, Western pop culture reminds the viewer of just who is responsible for this mess. Another example is the Coca-Cola factory being used as a military base for wounded Cambodian soldiers; bloody soldiers are outstretched on and propped up against crates of Coke bottles. When the American embassy evacuates Cambodia, the helicopters fly into the smoke-filled sky as a soldier takes down the American flag. As the capital falls to the Khmer Rouge, a French man at the embassy utters wistfully, “Adieu l’ancienne regime”: goodbye to the West, goodbye to the old, beautiful, gentle Cambodia. Throughout the film, the West is associated with death and danger: after the insurgents take over, any Cambodian who knows English and French is at risk of execution. Pran is constantly tested to see if he will respond to French commands or English questions. The comrades ask the group in English that those who were once doctors, professors, and other middle-class professions to confess and be forgiven by “Ungar”. Those who confess are embraced in front of the group, but executed under the cover of darkness.
The effects that most resonated with me when viewing this film were sound effects. Sydney listens to heartbreaking opera music when he misses Pran and watches coverage of Cambodia on the TV after he returns to America. The music is dramatic when Pran must decide to stay in Cambodia or leave with his family, suspenseful when he is trying to escape the killing fields. Children constantly scream and cry when Sydney and Pran hunt down war stories but when the mass exodus begins and we see Pran in the killing fields, there is only silence. No screaming children, no crying victims. Pran remarks that the best way to survive is to stay silent. The only noise is from the insurgent leaders who use loudspeakers to propagate the new government and convince the Cambdians of memory disease and the death of God.

Sydney Schanberg's articles for the NYTimes

Reading these articles, I find it very interesting that we hear only one journalist’s opinions and thoughts. Obviously Cambodia was not a safe place for anyone, let alone an American, to be in, and Sydney H. Schanberg was very brave to stay past the American evacuation. He offers us a unique look into what was really going on; it took years for Congress to realize that American troops were bombing Cambodia and another year for Congress to realize that Secretary of State Henry Kissinger ignored a Cambodian plea for peace negotiations, but Schanberg reports on real time happenings in the remaining “Lol Non Cambodia” and gives voice to the Cambodian refugees. However, his bias does shine through even in his more news-y stories. He employs pathos frequently, in particular with his titles and pictures, and states his opinion as fact, especially when he talks about the opinions of the Cambodian people or Cambodia stationed diplomats in regards to the apparent failings of the American government. Sometimes he seems completely against the American involvement in Cambodia, but at other times he does agree that there seems to be no right plan of action; along with the diplomats, maybe he too believes “we got them into this mess we can’t abandon them now” (Apr 10). So many of his articles cited the interminable waiting game the people of Neak Luong or Phnom Penh were forced to play. For five years, the insurgents slowly took more and more land, and the people were forced to flee inward, leaving their homes and lands in the countryside for the protection of the city. The government lost supply route after supply route as the number of people needing food, water and medical supplies increased. The country was basically starved to death, and the citizens were so used to it that they didn’t even flinch when a headless body of an insurgent floated down the river! While Schanberg does try to give us insight to how the people really felt, I think reading the Killing Fields will be a more accurate depiction of Cambodian sentiments.

Twilight Production starring Anna Deavere Smith

I assumed the video would not be that different from the book, but if I thought I understood different perspectives in the book, it was nothing compared to the production. Smith’s portrayal of so many different characters was beyond impressive. She switches from a female Beverly Hills real estate agent to a male Mexican victim of police brutality seamlessly. Each character has a unique way of speaking, of expressing emotion, of being. Smith somehow makes every character unique and different, even though she is the only actress in the whole production. Some characters, like Angela King and Charles Lloyd, were nothing like I thought they would be. However, I didn’t mind losing the fantastical image I had developed, because her interpretation was so rich and vivid.
The way she wove the other clips and the music and the footage into the narrative added a lot of drama to the story. For example, in the Josie Morales segment, the music came in right as Josie started talking about her dream. In her dream, the officers were acquitted. She emphasizes that she wasn’t thinking that the officers would be acquitted, that it was never something that occurred to her consciously. She insinuates that an acquittal, the result that in fact becomes truth, was so absurd as to be only possible in a dream. This is emphasized by the eerie, mystical music in the background.
Another especially interesting part of the production was when Smith interweaves Chief Gates’ interview with Mrs. June Park’s interview. Smith juxtaposes Mrs. June Park’s interview, her angry, hopeless wonderings about her husband’s death and musings on how he was well-known for giving money to the community and working with the police, with Chief Gates’ interview and his attempts to defend his actions as the riots were starting up. It makes for a very interesting experience. In reading Gates’ interview I felt some sympathy for him, but next to Mrs. June Park’s heartbreak and despair, any sympathy I had for him disappeared.

Twilight by Anna Deavere Smith

In her introduction, Anna Deavere Smith writes, “This book is first and foremost a document of what an actress heard in Los Angeles” (xxiv). In her interviews, she seeks out many different responses to the riots. Smith believes “words are not an end in themselves,” rather, words are “a means to evoking the character of the person who spoke them” (xxiii-xxiv). Something I noticed is that in each of the interviews, the person’s voice shines through their words, whether it is the diction used, the stutters, the snaps, the repetition, or the hand slaps. Their personality is evident in what they are saying. By acknowledging the voice of these people, Smith gives their emotions, their experiences worth and meaning. Like Lou Cannon, Smith recognizes that there are many sides to every story. There is no one voice that Smith feels sums up the experience; all the responses are equally important because they are genuine and real. Just as no one factor caused the riots, no one person’s reaction is “right” or “best”. One example of this is in Chief Gates’s interview. In the news coverage of Gates in The New York Times articles we read, Gates gives only terse, one-word answers. Smith, however, allows him the chance to speak eloquently and passionately. Though Cannon points out that Gates mishandled the riots and was by no means infallible, Gates resents becoming the scapegoat. He defies the media’s representation of him: “Who told you this? What gave you this idea? You don’t know me. You don’t have any idea what I’ve done” (185-6). Gates argues that he was once the “most popular Republican in Los Angeles and Los Angeles County” and then suddenly he was the national symbol of police oppression (186). At the time of the Rodney King beating he was in Washington, DC receiving recognition for his forty-three years of civic service. The president declared him “a national hero” one day, and the next he is vilified across the country (187). In his response, his passion, biases, and motivations are laid bare, and it is much easier for me to understand how and why he made the decisions he did at the time.

Official Negligence by Lou Cannon, Chpts 15-18

In Chapters 15, 16, 17 and 18 Cannon effectively investigates what was going on behind the scenes, uncovering the "official negligence" surrounding the second case.  Cannon reflects the damage the legal mind games between Braun, Stone and Judge Davies; though the memo "did not contain much that the defense could not have figured out for itself," it created unnecessary drama between the different defense lawyers and wasted valuable time (402).  Because the situation was handled so poorly by all three parties, "instead of equalizing the odds, the memorandum damaged the defense it was intended to help" (404).  In addition, the media manipulated the vulnerability of the city in its portrayals of the trial, running stories on the necessity for a guilty verdict of the city was to ever recover form the riots of 1992 (405).  The trial itself was also run poorly; Cannon states that the defense and prosecution basically ran circles around each other, choosing jurors based mostly on race alone.  Cannon reveals "Both government and defense lawyers presumed much and knew little about the jury candidates whose merits they debated.  The Watts man proved a competent juror who listened to the evidence, leaned initially toward acquittals, and eventually went along with the majority... Braun was wrong... Salzman wrong... and Clymer wrong" (410).  True that Cannon has the benefit of hindsight, but you would think a defense as premier as this would have more intelligence than to resort to blatant racial stereotyping.  As Braun said during the trial "'We survived the prosecution just fine.  The questions is whether we can survive the defense'" (430).  The defense was its own worst enemy because of miscommunication and ignorance.

Rodney King NYTimes Articles: a biased story

The New York Times reports on the Rodney King case present a story to the paper's audience. Here is my interpretation of the story told by five different articles.

March 10: An investigation began into the beating of a 25 year old black motorist by three white police officers as 15 other officers, including a sergeant looked on. A videotape shot by an amateur photographer, which has been broadcast all over the nation, captured the 56 kicks, stomps and hits to King's person as he lay on the ground offering no resistance. His doctor has said some of the extensive injuries may be permanent and his lawyer stated the beating will do severe damage to King's emotional stability. The police said that King resisted arrest after a high speed freeway chase at which point King reached 115 mph in his car. However, King denies both charges and the director of public relations at Hyundai Moto America says the car cannot top 100 mph. Many people believe the beating to be an example of racism and excessive aggression in the LAPD.

April 3: Disputes between the Mayor and the Police Chief have surfaced as tensions continue to rise in the aftermath of the Rodney King beating. After initially reserving judgment, Mayor Bradley is now calling for the resignation of Chief Gates because he can no longer count on the Chief to do what is best for the city. In his briefing room, the Mayor said the Chief is taking the investigation as a personal attack rather than an opportunity to improve his department. Though the Chief still enjoys a large following of supporters, many minority and justice oriented groups have asked for the Chief's resignation since the incident last month, saying the healing process cannot begin until there is a new Chief. However, a representative from the police union has said opening up the position would cause even more chaos in this difficult time and that the accusations of the Mayor are unfair and are a result of personal feelings.

June 7: Confidential reports released today illustrate the latest Rodney King run-in with the LAPD. Reports had previously indicated that King was suspected of trying to run over an undercover police officer with his car after officers found him with a transvestite prostitute, but new reports say he fled from undercover cops because he was paranoid they were trying to kill him rather than trying to flee arrest. King walked with a cane and appeared panicked. His lawyer believes this to be the latest of an ongoing attempt by police officers to incriminate King so he will lose credibility, an accusation the police department vehemently denies.

June 12: Judge Bernard Kamins ruled that past racist comments by police officers involved in the Rodney King beating may be used as evidence in the upcoming trial because he believes race played an important role in this incident. At the hearing, the judge also said that it is only fair to use information from the officers's past since the defense will be using information about King's past in the trial. The hearing also marked the first time King had face-to-face contact with the officers in question and the first time King met with Judge Kamins, who seemed sympathetic about King's medical condition and emotional state. Kamins has begun a jury selection process, as the trial will begin on June 19.

July 10: An independent commission released today came back with a harsh judgment of the LAPD. The commission reports extensive internal issues including promotion of minority officers, prevalent racism among officers, falsified police reports, ignored complaints dealing with racism, sexism and excessive force and little to no enforcement of punishments against officers. The commission calls for major reorganization within the department, including the resignation of Police Chief Gates and the Police Commission. The Mayor supported the findings of the commission and called for their suggestions to become enacted immediately. Chief Gates acknowledged the weaknesses highlighted but said they were limited to a small percentage of the force and refused to resign until the change in the City Charter limiting the chief term to 10 years is approved.

Official Negligence by Lou Cannon, Chpts 1,2,5

Here are the examples of biases of journalism and features of argumentation at play in the three chapters I read for tomorrow's class.


My first example deals with the document titled "McCone Revisited". This was a report issued in 1985 which addressed many issues due to the rapidly enlarging population of South Central Los Angeles. The title "McCone Revisted" is an allusion to John McCone, a former CIA director who "headed the inquiry into the 1965 Watts riot" (Cannon 14). The report noted problems with education, housing, "equitable law enforcement" and "police-community relations, police-community understanding and the current allocation or deployment formula [of police] in South Central Los Angeles" (Cannon 18). The report was largely ignored however because "it was issued on plain paper, written in uninspired prose and had no illustrations" (Cannon 14). It was also contradictory to Mayor Bradley's lavish and optimistic LA 2000 report. This is an example of visual bias; the report was ignored because there wasn't a flashy image to go along with it.


My next example is the edits made to the George Holliday's video by KTLA. KTLA edited out the first 13 seconds of the video because after three seconds in, George Holliday moved the camera, causing a ten second fuzzy patch.  For aesthetics sake, KTLA cut that part out. However, the first three seconds depict Rodney King resisting arrest; a crucial piece of evidence. Many news agencies, and millions of viewers watching the footage from their homes, did not even know the video had been edited. This is an example of a couple different biases; it is a visual bias because the producer wanted the most aesthetically pleasing shot and also a bad news bias if the decision was intentional to paint the police in as poor light as possible. But the fact that the other new agencies never checked all the facts before releasing the footage is an expediency bias; they were so anxious to be cutting-edge and have the story first that they released the footage without a clear understanding of the situation.


My next example deals with a feature of argumentation. It is possible to form a deductive argument based on cultural or social truths leading to specific conclusions. Srgt Koon used deductive reasoning as he tried to understand the situation unfolding in front of him. Rodney King was not responding to the Taser, he appeared intoxicated, he giggled and mumbled incoherent words, was drenched in sweat despite the cold weather and seemed to exhibit superhuman strength as he resisted the arresting officers. Koon's experience with PCP users taught him that they were impervious to pain and acted strangely, so Koon decided Rodney King was under the influence of PCP and he carried out his plan accordingly.   Even though there were other explanations for all of Rodney King's behaviors, Koon only saw one option because of his deductive reasoning: PCP users are impervious to pain and act strangely; Rodney King is resisting multiple acts of force and is acting strangely; therefore, Rodney King must be on PCP. 




My next example deals with the language used by journalist when describing the tape. On many news programs, the Holliday video would play in the background as "wallpaper" as the following statement scrolled across the screen: "white officers beating a black motorist" in an attempt to highlight racism as a cause or factor of the the event (Cannon 49). This is a bad news bias because the news agencies portrayed the situation as gravely as possible to create controversy. It is also an example of a narrative bias because by drawing conclusions and enhancing the drama, reporters created a story-line. This story-line of racist cops beating a defenselessness, pleading victim was understood by many as fact rather than as one interpretation. Because viewers never received another perspective of the event, they were shocked by the acquittals of the officers. 
 

Rodney King NY Times articles

The assigned articles span over a year and highlight different aspects of the beating, trial and ensuing violence, but several themes are universal.  In almost every article, the journalist refers back to George Holliday's videotape of the Rodney King beating; the shocking evidence forever immortalized this case and elevated this instance above all other cases of racism or police brutality of that time.  The videotape was the catalyst in this explosion of racial tension; one 80 second video spurred riots so destructive that the National Guard had to be called in.  The videotape was immediately broadcasted throughout the whole country and world.  The degree to which the beating and trial consumed L.A. is enormous: the trial was moved to Ventura County because the judge decided a trial in L.A. would be too biased, and yet almost all of the potential jurors from Simi Valley had already seen the videotape before the trial.  But the video also allowed the beating to be removed from any sense of context; in one of the articles, a witness called "Mr. G" described many of the rioters and looters as "opportunistic thugs who have absolutely no feelings about Rodney King and were just out to get stuff for free".  The video became an excuse for complete chaos and unchecked brutality, as is seen in journalist Richard Perez-Pena's comparison of the Rodney King video to the video of store owner Soon Ja Du shooting and killing a teenaged customer whom she believed to be shoplifting.

My first post

First class today-- so here goes my semester long blog!