Society's Perception On Drug Use

Drugs have long been perceived as one of the biggest issues facing our country, but how did they reach that place in the public eye? The media has a staggering amount of influence on public perception of social issues, and this is evidenced in the way the media both popularized conversation surrounded drug use as well as demonized it. The media's portrayal of drug use is overwhelmingly negative, which is fine because it is an illegal act, but the desecration of those who partake in it is an unfortunate side effect which can be seen across hours and hours of media coverage of drug usage. In these clips, the various documentarians and news reporters tackle on aspects of drug use the public had no prior knowledge of, simultaneously enlightening them with new information as well as subliminally shaping the opinions they have on the matter.

This clip is picked from a broader series of programs which delves into the issue of teen drug use in suburban America and the various ways in which it can be combatted. As the majority of these programs are presented from the perspective of outsiders, teachers, lawyers and others indirectly rather than directly affected by the problem, this clip is significant for its presentation of a real-life drug user’s real-life point of view, something which was very rare in these kind of programs. In the clip, he discusses the specific things he does and doesn’t enjoy about his drug addiction, even going into the details of how he likes the needle and the way he positions it against his arm. The identity of the drug user is masked throughout the entirety of the interview, reflecting the hugely negative stigma of drugs in the public eye and the necessity of anonymity for those who wish to confess their experience. While it is interesting that the user was allowed to relay their own experience, the anonymity and the fact that Lord still controls the program and ultimately the content itself speaks to the power taken out of the addicts and into those unaffected. Ultimately this clip shows that the issue of drug addiction is a highly stigmatized one in which the addicts are portrayed as disease ridden victims instead of human beings.

This clip illustrates the uncertainty that science had with the drug LSD during this time. Scientists claimed it to be an ‘enigma’. The documentary captures this uncertainty as very dangerous. Throughout the documentary, many issues are examined of how acid could to be dangerous to its user. For the most part, this documentary does not express any favor towards the drug. But in some instances, there are claims by its users and scientists of how it can beneficial to its users. 
In this particular clip, the documentary is painting the dangers of this drug by portraying the usage of it as not only harmful, but also a drug that has many undesirable consequences. What brings meaning to this clip is how a drug like this was viewed during this time. During the 1970’s, LSD was not only a legalized, psychedelic drug but it was also widely and heavily used amongst American adults and teens. This documentary establishing the questions of how it could affect its users was very unfamiliar to the American public. The audience and the documentary share uncertainty over this issue and how it is affecting people.

As soon as the documentary starts, you are immediately shown and told a person’s opinion on T’s and Blues, a heroin substitute. I was immediately intrigued by the man’s devastating description of the drug. Not only are the drug’s effects described in explicit detail, but there are actual shots of injection and preparation of the drug. During the intro in this clip, it is explained that the drug can be obtained with a prescription from a pharmacy. The law enforcement knows that the drug is a problem akin to heroin, but there simply haven’t been any criminal charges that can warrant large scale action against it. According to the statistics cited in the clip, over 30,000 prescriptions were written at the Mohawk clinic, and junkies could waltz in get exactly what they needed, all the way down to the preparation materials. The negative reputation of the drug was emphasized made immediately transparent, yet I found it interesting that I had never heard anything of this drug before. With the measures in place today, this situation likely wouldn't even happen in current society.

While it is good that these programs shed light on an important issue which the public was largely unaware of, the manner in which they presented their findings led to the audience gaining an unconscious bias which is in no way fair and respectful of all sides of the issues. These news reports and TV programs served the knowledge in granting them knowledge, but ultimately ended up presenting them information in a skewed manner that pushed their overt agendas more than assisted the need of the general public or, most notably, those affected by the issues at hand.

Portrayals of Killers in 20th Century TV

The subject of serial killers has always been a hot-topic in the media. The manner in which these mass-murderers were presented has undergone something of a transformation since the early years of television. The transformation started as a simple, factual news coverage of a shadowy monster. As time went on, the transformation progressed to more in-depth documentaries, and lastly, to fictionalized portrayals that seek to understand what occurs in the mind of a killer.

Though pre-1990s news coverage of murders often strictly presented the facts, other sources often provided interviews showcasing an entirely different take on a murderer. “Charles Whitman Sniping Spree,” news coverage of a tragic event in 1966, was presented by local news broadcast station, KTBC News. It covered the chaos that took over the area surrounding Austin, Texas when mass-murderer Charles Whitman shot 49 people.

This clip shows the lead of the story and live shots of gunfire, as well as the public panic that surrounded the camera crew. The information was presented stoically throughout the package. Though the cameras were present during the actual live shootings, the reporters show little emotion towards the events or the killer. This clip is significant because the coverage is journalistically oriented, and in fact shows scarce interest in the killer's motives. Naturally, there isn’t an abstract take on the inner psyche of a killer, as the news is supposed to be as direct as possible. This emotional distance greatly contrasts that of the 1961 program, Volcano Named White. Essentially, Volcano Named White, is narrated by the murderer himself, Don White. Though both the Charles Whitman Sniping Spree and Volcano Named White reported  factual information, the presence of the murderer narrating Volcano Named White showcased what led the killer to commit his crimes. Positive reactions from the audience were arguably garnered because they had the ability to understand Don White’s actions. Though Charles Whitman Sniping Spree and Volcano Named White both covered murderers, Volcano Named White was thought to be more thought-provoking because the coverage of killer was taken in an entirely different context.

Due to the public’s curiosity concerning the influx of serial killers in the 70s, many documentaries were created to unveil the monstrosities that people, many as seemingly commonplace as your neighbor, were capable of committing. While many documentaries were largely informative and spent time delving into the background and psyche of killers in order to determine the causality of their mental instability, the men were never truly regarded as human being, as they were often classified as monstrous.  

This clip discusses many serial killers, including the Son of Sam killer, the Boston Strangler, John Wayne Gacy, and the “classic case” of Ted Bundy by showing intimate pictures of victims, weapons used in the crimes, and the serial killers themselves to create a more real, tactile world for the viewer. As the pictures are presented, a voiceover narration, along with dramatically eerie music, attempts to create a familiar foundation for the all-too-unusual killers as they are repeatedly regarded as “all normal looking…men” who are sometimes “soft-spoken [businessmen]” or even “married with two kids”. This commonness juxtaposed against the revelation of their heinous crimes is the premise on which the remainder of the documentary is based off—unidentifiable murderers. Despite the outlandishly unusual characteristics of these men, they are described as being “just like your next door neighbor…people you would not suspect”.  And it is because of this that they are difficult to identify and, in turn, granted the opportunity to continue roaming the streets undetected; free to commit their crimes.

In documentaries, news coverage, and fictional series, the average program from the 50s to the 90s did not care to explain the why of crime, but rather the who and the how. For instance, ITV’s Jack the Ripper focuses the majority of its screen-time on the adventures of the lead detectives as they encounter grotesque crime-scenes and seek to unmask the killer. It cares less about the psyche of the Ripper and more about the outward devastation he causes. Starting from the mid-90s, more and more television focused on instead understanding in-depth the reasoning behind murders.

In this clip from Cracker, we see the central protagonist of the show, criminal psychologist named Fitz, confronting a suspect in a series of brutal murders. Unlike in shows popular in previous decades, Cracker focuses strongly on individual motivations for crime, and what would drive a person to commit murder. Documentaries on the subject of specific serial murderers often choose to focus on the crime itself, or the victims, instead of decoding the psyche of the criminal himself. In Cracker’s “To Be a Somebody,” the protagonist is chiefly able to solve the mystery of the murders through understanding what is going through the killer’s mind. Though the killer is portrayed as a dangerous character, and one certainly in the wrong, he is not unsympathetic. The audience can both condemn him for his senseless killings, and also understand why he did such a thing.

This is a stark contrast to the previous decades, wherein programs about killers depict their subject in shadows, or else as a crazed lunatic. The crux of the story is not who the killer is—the audience knows this from the start—but rather why he is a killer. This program heralds a shift from the simple portrayal of serial murderers on television as senseless monsters to a more nuanced depiction, one where the audience understands the driving force (even if monstrous).

As time goes on, the perplexities of what makes a serial killer become more and more intriguing to the common consumer. What started as simple news deliveries transformed into the complex documentaries and fictional characterizations that grace television today. Of course, each type of program can only portray murderers in a certain fashion. While the news can only report about the crime and its victims, documentaries have the ability to delve further into the inner workings of a killer, and dramatizations can bring new light to why mass murderers are who they are. Though it is interesting to see these different angles, it is important to understand what biases have affected the programs.

The Future from Past to Present

Throughout human history, predicting the future has preoccupied the imagination and brought on everything from novel invention to widespread panic. Stories were concocted about the end times, fumes were inhaled to receive divine insight, and all manner of objects were consulted, all in an attempt to predict what was coming next. Television, like any storytelling medium, was also used to convey ideas about what the future might be like—using predictive strategies from serious contemplation to idealistic daydreams to plain old SWAGs. What follows are a series of examinations of different techniques used in television to predict the future.

Early in television history, Walt Disney’s show Disneyland was submitted to the Peabodys multiple times. When it won in 1954, the Peabody panel said it had “changed the bedtime habits of the nation’s children.” The “Tomorrowland” segment always had audiences thinking about the world of tomorrow, if there was life on other planets, and new technologies that could be developed. In one episode entitled “Mars and Beyond,” Disney focuses on efforts to build a spacecraft that can reach Mars. The episode is documentary-like, detailing humanity’s interaction with Mars, from Greek philosophers to a 1957 scientist explaining how it is possible for Mars to sustain life. Everything is illustrated, there are even accounts from scientists to back up the points the episode makes.

The most notable aspect of this episode’s approach to the future is that instead of explaining the trip to Mars using conditional words like, “could,” “would,” “maybe,” or even the future “will,” the Disneyland episode is all in present tense, as if the launch was actually happening then. As everything is said, it is carried out through cartoon, models, or still images. The only time conditional words are used is after the spacecraft makes contact with Mars, because no one at the time had actually seen close up what the surface of Mars looked like. This decision to use certainty made the program’s predictions of impending travel to Mars more engaging and entertaining for its audience—fueling the imaginations of the young viewers, as was ultimately the show’s prerogative.

On July 10, 1962, ABC launched Telstar; it no longer runs today, but this communications satellite was considered a big deal by everyone in the industry. It was the first satellite to send television pictures, telephone calls, and fax images from space. The launch of the satellite coincided with a film entitled Worldvision: A Passport to the Future.

    

ABC believed that the launching of Telstar would influence how communications would evolve, and as such the company would be at the forefront of this technological advance. Exalted for its stunning visuals, this program tragically no longer exists beyond a working script and an audio recording. However from these, the optimism of the broadcaster is clear as the program exclaims that with the satellite, the communications industry would be launched into the future and, as the title implies, ABC was inviting the world to come along for the ride.

Conversely, The World of Tomorrow takes an approach to visualizing the future based largely on novelty. The program emphasizes the “wow factor” of technological advancements possible in the next decade (from 1984) with flashing lights, outer space-themed graphics, musical accompaniment reminiscent of futuristic programs like Star Trek and the astonished-sounding narration of William Shatner. It presents dozens of future inventions like computer-generated graphics in movies, interactive laser compact discs, and lasik surgery—which in hindsight, weren’t too far off. There are few dramatizations; most of its glimpses of the future are of the specific technology in play during the present, so its conceptualization was founded entirely on things currently in existence, with no speculation really needed. By keeping few its forays into the realm of complete conjecture, the program embraces extraordinary aspects of its future world while keeping it grounded in reality.  However, when the era of the future being predicted is only a few years off, rather than centuries, the margin for error shrinks considerably. Programs like this, which aim to legitimately give their audience a glimpse into the near future, must take care to ensure that their representation has a good chance of being accurate, because many who watch it will actually live to find out. 

On a very different note, Time Trumpet is a documentary made in 2031—or a satirical faux-documentary made in 2006, depending on who you ask. It takes then-contemporary trends to the illogical extreme by making the program as scatterbrained, celebrity obsessed, and ill-focused as its audience “will be.” It pokes fun at human nature as something absurdly shallow, yet pushes no real agenda; it simply deteriorates into nonsensical logic and jabs at people, corporations, and the documentary format. It uses the near-future as a fun house mirror for the present.

Finally, Futurescape opens segments of its program, like this one, with dramatizations of the future that introduce its discussion of how modern research could develop into technologies that shape the distant future. Here, the scene-setting sketch portrays a future city much like one today, except with high-rise structures built with some amorphous future architecture and flying cars zooming through the air. Yet when it zooms in to street level, we see people who remain dressed in modern American style, speaking English, and exhibiting behavior no different than one would expect of people today. This concept of the future, it seems, is different from the present in very imaginative ways - like robots who look like and live alongside humans - yet similar and largely identical on other levels. On the one hand, the idea of robots with human functions who demand the right to vote is highly presumptive, given that today’s robots can barely manage to traverse such difficult terrain as a slightly raised threshold. On the other, it’s an equal stretch to assume that the United States government, the English language, and modern customs and lifestyles will still exist a hundred or more years from today. It’s something drastically advanced fit into familiar and realistic concepts.

Such is Futurescape’s approach to visualizing the future: a sensational portrayal built around actual technological advancements that are unlikely to affect the future in the ways the show presents any time soon. Research into mapping the circuitry of the human brain may, in fact, enable scientists and engineers to build computers that can mimic or duplicate its functions. Achieving this is one thing, developing it into a viable technology that is consistently problem-free and successful is another. As neat as it is to imagine the possibility of having computer chips that enhance the processing power of the brain or humanoid robots with emotions and ethical decision making power, the odds of it all are slim for the foreseeable future.

However with futurism, an artistic movement that rejects traditional forms in order to celebrate through art the energy and dynamism of modern technology, the canvas on which to paint is boundless. Programs like The Jetsons and Star Trek have made use of those endless possibilities in their depictions of the future—some intentionally absurd and some borrowing from principles of theoretical physics to legitimize the program’s scenarios. With no definite predictor of exactly what is possible years down the road, no idea of what the future might hold for humankind is too outlandish. Futurescape seems comfortable, within the constraints of reason, to go as far as they can with that creative license. 

Choosing a strategy for portending, predicting, or playacting the future all depends on the oracle’s goals. From the idealism of the technology advertiser to the scathing absurdity of the satirist, no one way is useful for all objectives. Though some strategies may prove more accurate in the long run, very often the aim of the program is more immediate. In fact, the way in which the future is presented says more about the present than its ostensible subject matter. Starry-eyed idealism and outlandish optimism may serve the advertiser and the entertainer, but realism is more apropos for the journalist, as pessimism is for the activist documentarist.

Media Coverage of Women's Issues

We watched several segments that attempted to educate women about their bodies and their options pertaining to reproductive health. While these segments were certainly a step in the right direciton, we feel as though women and the issues surrounding reproductive health were misrepresented. Many of the segments ignored women's larger needs. 
For Women Only: Birth Control is a 1968 30-minute episode of the NBC series dedicated to tackling women’s issues. To discuss reproductive health, the network assembled a panel of six experts, made up of five men and only one woman, ranging from medial doctors to leading university researchers. The all-female crowd featured few women below the age of 30, some even appearing to be elderly, and very few women of color. As seen in the clip, the single female panelist presents birth control as not only a primarily female responsibility and duty, but as a means to maintain a stable relationship with a husband by preventing pregnancy. In this clip and throughout the entirety of the program, sexually transmitted diseases are ignored. Sex functions as merely a tool for reproduction, and female sexuality is seemingly non-existent or shameful. While educational, the doctor’s discussion of birth control is somewhat exclusionary and reflects largely conservative attitudes. Single women are not in the audience nor are they considered, and LGBT women are not referenced at all. While confronting birth control, the program often approaches women’s health as a whole in the context of a partner’s or societal concerns. As we see often in media today, the discourse about women’s health is then diverted away from women themselves, and a program that was made “for women only,” ignores their overarching needs. The clip I chose is from a special called; For Women Only: Abortion. The special features a panel of people ranging in careers, and each offers a unique viewpoint on the issues surrounding abortion. The panel members are: Dr. Kleegman, a professor, Father Granfield, a professor of criminal law at a Catholic university, Harriet Pilpel, an attorney, and Dr. Nathan Rappaport, an abortionist. I chose to use a clip from this special because I think it adequately demonstrates the viewpoint towards women’s health issues during this time period: it looks at the issue through the perspective of everyone except the woman herself. 

In the clip, Dr. Rappaport insinuates deserving the audience’s pity, as opposed to the woman who has to undergo the abortion herself and deal with both the physical and mental effects afterwards. Not only that, but he insinuates that a pregnancy is a negative “situation”, which creates a sense of fear, and negative stigma that prevents people from talking openly about the issue. Throughout the entire segment, many opinions were given on the matter of abortion. But none seemed to be directed towards the average woman: the person who actually undergoes an abortion.

Furthermore, this could have been a great opportunity to open the floor and discuss the legislation surrounding abortion. There were many educated people there who could've provided the audience great insight as to the pros and cons of legalizing abortion. However, it turned into a personal argument between two professionals.
I chose a roughly two minute clip from the program Unwed Mothers (Minneapolis, MN) for our project (from 8:18 to 10: 45). Released in 1960 as a public service program, it effectively captures both the public sentiment towards illegitimate childbirth as well as the desire to change the stigma that surrounds it. The program looks at the issue and the women involved in a way that urges the public to sympathize and understand what they’re going through rather than judge or look down upon them. This clip starts out with the narrator saying that while the women are generally happy inside of the home, they don’t face the same reality outside of the home where they are met with stares and criticism. The program then follows three pregnant girls taking a trip to the park with the narrator describing how they deal with the judgments they receive. He says they put on fake wedding rings, and he even mirrors public sentiment by adding, “it’s embarrassing to have to buy your own wedding ring.” However, he is trying to evoke compassion in the audience as the explains the ring as “a bitter reminder of the boy who refused to marry the girl or of the parents who wouldn’t give their consent.” It’s interesting to note that he doesn’t mention the possibility of the girl having any say in her relationship. We continue to see clips of the girls at the park as the narrator notes how viewers would probably judge the girls by only seeing their pregnancy with the absence of wedding rings. He urges them to see the girl as a whole person who just made a mistake and is “unable to hide her wrong.” This clip shows how the program as a whole represents the issue of illegitimate pregnancy and addresses the negative stigma around it, all while looking through the lens of a conservative 1960’s America.

You Can Get an Abortion, Even If You Don't Need To! (1975)

This was an expository news program, in which female journalists in Florida go into aboriton clinics and claim that they need an abortion. What they discovered was startling. Five out of the eight  abortion clinics were doing abortions, even when the women weren't pregnant. There was an influx of people commending the show, and the show even spurred legislation in Florida that regulated the abortion clinics. A few were even shut down. This piece demonstrates the true power of television, and it contains what the previous segments were lacking: total representation of the truth. This representation caused progression, which ensued throughout both the media and legislation.

A Woman And Her Gynecologist.

This was a segment that came out in 1975, which served to empower woman to educate themselves about their bodies and their options when it comes to reproductive health. Many of the women in this show described their previous experiences with male gynecologists as unsettling and uneducational. The gynecologist, Dr. Maureen Chua, in this special was a female, and there was footage of the women interacting with her during their appointment. Dr. Chua takes the time to educate women about their bodies and options, and after their appointment each of the patients are interviewed. Across the board, each woman said they preferred their experience with Dr. Chua over their previous experiences with male gynecologists. This program was extremely educational, and certainly empowered women to not be ashamed to simply ask questions and take care of themselves. We think this was such an effective piece for this time period because it was produced by only women, and was funded by a women's rights group.

OVERALL TAKE: The medium of television has a unique power in making issues relevant and creating a forum for society to discuss those issues. It is important that women and women's health issues are represented on television, however, there is a long road ahead in fairly and accurately representing women's health.

LGBTQIA Pre-Y2K, As Told by TV

LGBTQIA Pre-Y2K, As Told by TV

The right to lead a life without prejudice from others has been a long fight for the LGBTQIA community. We set out to determine what life was like, according to Peabody Award nominated television, for LGBTQIA people before the year 2000, when the movement for acceptance began to gain momentum in the United States. The movement began with the Stonewall Riots in 1969, which marked the beginning of the gay rights movement in New York City. From that time on, the media became increasingly open about sharing information of “homosexual” lifestyles. We discover that the prejudice ran deep in the early years of the movement, with discrimination from not only common neighbors but also leaders in the community. The following clips are evaluated together to examine the different types of prejudice the LGBTQIA community has experienced since the struggle came to light in the late 1960s.

In 1972, the public service documentary Coming Out focused on educating its audience about gay people and their culture by trying to convey the motivations and thoughts behind being gay. A large part of the PSA was footage of men in drag at the Miss Gay America Pageant in Nashville, blatantly and immediately displaying the lack of concern for desertion among the different types of LGBTQIA people in the 1970s, long before the term existed. This grouping details the lack of concern addressed to differentiating between the types of gay, lesbian, transsexual, bisexual or in-between orientations that existed.

The documentary interviews priests, doctors, and police officers which all frame the topic of homosexuality as something that is scientifically explainable, curable with religion, or manageable with jail time. Many of the gay men interviewed chose to do the interview in shadow so that their families will not be offended or shamed. The lack of acceptance in society at the time called for the men to literally hide their faces when talking about issues of homosexuality.

This specific clip of the PSA features commentary from gay men themselves. The men explain that they are not harmful to society, as many people believe they are. The men have honest intentions and explain they have no control over their sexual orientation and no intention to do anything but live their lives and be happy. The man featured at the end of the clip, Tony, explains to the interviewer that he does not identify as gay and rejects societies labels, claiming he is just “Tony” and nothing else. We then see her, Tony, lip-syncing to a song about freedom of self-expression and love, symbolizing the slow yet steady strength that LGBTQIA people were gaining in the early 70s.
 Throughout the remainder of the 1970s, the LGBTQIA population continued to face discrimination from society at large. Often misunderstood and feared, the LGBTQIA population was routinely excluded from positions of power and importance within the community. A champion of the gay rights movement, Harvey Milk broke though the ceiling imposed on the gay community when he became the first openly gay person to be elected to a government position in the U.S. Although he shattered boundaries, the pushback from a largely unaccepting society shadowed his term in office.

The following clip exposes internal tensions as Harvey Milk and John Briggs, the leader of Proposition 6 an initiative that aimed to strip openly gay schoolteachers of their jobs, fought over the bill. The clip contains a news scene from 1978 where Briggs and Milk argue about the proposition. The argument arises because Milk makes a jab at Briggs regarding the statements Briggs made,

saying there was a positive correlation between gay schoolteachers and child molestation. Milk then continues to corner Briggs into admitting that he assumes that gay schoolteachers are child molesters, and that the only way to lower the number of child molesters, whether heterosexual or homosexual, is to take out the homosexual group.

The scene expresses the bias against the gay community during the 1970s. Even in a “progressive” city, such as San Francisco, the news stations still felt Briggs’ argument was substantial enough to air. In his argument, which continues to equate gay people to prostitutes, Briggs voices the concerns of the conservative population who are afraid of allowing gay people to interact with their children.

By 1981, the societal acceptance of the LGBTQIA population had not vastly improved. Many of the religious biases against LGBTQIA people that are still present in some groups today were prevalent in the 1980s. As evidenced in the documentary All God’s Children?, the difficult and often painful relationship between homosexuals and religious institutions were still prevalent. The clip provides a succinct summary of the tensions between the homosexual population and the church, incorporating several interviews with various clergy members, medical and psychological experts, and professors who offered contrasting outlooks on homosexuality and its place in religion. The exposition of different ideas from both sides of the tension aids in presenting the topic in an unbiased, purely educational fashion. However, dramatization is still present in the contrast of the expressed beliefs; some believe homosexuals feeling shamed by the church are unfairly mistreated, while others insist there is no place within the church for homosexuals choosing to be open with his/her sexuality.

The exposition of these contrasting views lends meaning to the program by educating the viewer on aspects of homosexuality, including their treatment by many religious institutions. The analysis of this sector of society casts a wide range of understanding about how the gay population is treated by society—the shame they are often made to feel, the contrasting, but mostly negative, reactions they are often met with, and the struggle they must endure in order to live contently within their identities.

As evidenced by the media, the LGBTQIA population faced years of discrimination from society, religious groups and political institutions. As the LGBTQIA population continues to gain momentum, it gives gravity to those who stood at the forefront of the movement when discrimination was at its highest, allowing the LGBTQIA population today to push new boundaries into complete acceptance. The fight for equal rights has been long, but well worth the many years of struggle. Most recently this effort culminated in the 2015 victory of Jim Obergefell in the Obergefell v. Hodges case, in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled gay marriage legal. The media pre-Y2K contributed to shaping the history of the LGBTQIA community and undoubtedly had an impact on the modern day movement.  

Post by: Charlotte Burney, Emma Demint and Christin Wade-Vuturo