Media are supposed to reflect society, in terms of coverage and real-life depictions of how life is. Filmmaker Ken Burns recently made a World War II documentary called "The War", which some say excludes minority groups like Latinos and Native Americans. Over half a million Latin Americans served in World War II, yet these groups say none of those 500,000 were even mentioned in the documentary, despite the wide range of interviews Burns did with people all over the country (a family from Waterbury was even featured in it). Burns is being accused of having malicious intentions by not honoring these groups as much as the more prominent ones. Do you think he, or any media commander, is purposely excluding certain minority groups in some forms of media? If so, is there an ulterior motive or just an agenda-less lack of recognition?
That's an issue in itself, but a second layer comes from Burns now announcing he will not change the original documentary, but add extra footage specifically focusing on Latino and Native American contributions to the war. This, I feel, is the biggest part of the minority issue, not whether they're properly covered in the original form--is Burns adding on to the documentary because he feels not all groups were given equal respect, or is he adding on simply to quell the protestors? An even more current example of that similar problem is the Don Imus controversy. Is Imus apologizing for racist comments made on his show because he feels bad, or because he got in trouble and wants to cover his a**?
This article is actually the transcript of a conversation between Maggie Rivas-Rodriguez, who led some of the protests against Burns, and the host of radio program "Democracy Now!" They discuss the bigger picture of minority coverage, not just in the Burns documentary.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/04/13/1421225
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Today’s media faces so many issues including violence and sex, and race is no exception. In this case there was a large group of people who were over looked in a documentary about World War II. However, I feel as though that lies in the hands of the filmmaker Ken Burns. While there may be an underlying bias on his part, I also see this as pure laziness. The lack of care taken in the interviews and not being thorough enough to represent all people is in part to laziness. Burns overlooked the fact that over 500,000 Latinos served in World War II and touched on them very little in the documentary. In his defense, he agreed to add on to the film to compensate for his mistake. The fact that he agreed to fix the problem in the end shows me that part of the oversight was laziness, but the fact he will not change the actual, original film proves some bias. Today, media has to be so careful, especially in the race issue. However, I feel as though no matter how thorough a filmmaker may feel they are being, there is always that chance that someone will be offended by their work.
I agree that this issue lies in the hands of filmmaker Ken Burns, but also the public. I can see the absence of Latin Americans being represented in the film both: as laziness on behalf of Burns, not enough research or lack of representing research that would support the film and secondly, more cynically, as a lack of representation by cause of agenda by the filmmaker. As the article states, they don't know what Burns' methods were for collecting interviews so it is hard to judge. In either case, it is good that democracynow is a functioning group that caught this issue and did something about it. The choice, or reaction, by Burns to add on to the film is recognition to the efforts of the group and the public that were not identified in the original cut of the movie, Latin Americans.
This issue makes a good example of informal groups that help regulate our media. When media and society function without interference or governance in a proper and productive manner, we see that the free market and self-regulation is the way to go. Also, we can understand the many issues that media face when producing something and that much of the weight falls on the leader, in this case, filmmaker Burns. It is a difficult, nearly impossible task to cover all the bases and make sure information isn’t misdirected in some form. This is why people can openly complain and change the media and this example proves this way works.
That seems a little strange that he would neglect to include Latin Americans in his film if so many served, but, how many people did he actually interview/have on film. Also, maybe he just didn't think to include a segment or commentary on the role Latin American troops played in the war. It seems like being PC is of utmost importance these days and people are always worried about offending someone. They almost always cave quickly under pressure too if they are being criticized by a certain group, issuing an apology or altering something. This guy made the film, finished it, and it did not focus on Latin American soldiers, there were complaints and he tacked on a section dedicated to them. If this was done to be thoughtful, and he really did just forget to include focus of Latin American troops, and after having been criticized realized that it was something he wanted to portray in his film, than that seems fine. If adding on some extra material at the end of a finished film just out of fear of being criticized was the reason for the changes, it just, well seems a little off to me. The article also mentioned how Native Americans were not portrayed as well. Should he also tack on a second segment the role of Native Americans in the war? What if a third group emerges and complains; a third segment? I think it's all good and fine to recognize who played what role and try to include focus on as many groups as possible, giving them the credit they deserve, but, I also don't think that people should alter their work strictly out of fear.
I guess his decision to include a post-script addition of the latino and native american WWII experience is a step in the right direction. However, I think it still marginalizes these two ethnic groups and sets them apart from the "white" experience. There were half a million latino soldiers, why should they not be included in the same war story as the white soldiers who served? The documentary is still not an inclusive story of WWII if some groups of people are highlighted and set aside. It still leads us to an "otherness" way of looking at minority groups.
Post a Comment