Week 4 Post - Aurora Hindman

 1. How does the Guard Dog article (Ronald Bishop) relate to previous readings (Week 1) discussing defining the study misinformation when it comes to expert or credible sources? Essentially, is a source labeled credible or official always accurate and unbiased? How does this historical tragedy inform this issue?

As the article mentions, the blurry lines of "credible" or "official" sources contributed to misinformation, propaganda, and emission of information during the time of Japanese-American internment. Although quotes or information could be from the President, for example, it could be biased and inaccurate. Furthermore, despite certain news sources being considered credible, many "news organizations are part of conglomerates" so there is, in some ways, simply an illusion of choice and variety. I relate this to the documentary we watched early in the semester-- capitalism is detrimental to truth and ethics in news. As we also discussed in class, there have been clips put together today from different modern news channels where anchors and reporters would say the exact same clip. Yet some sources may be considered more credible than others. Even "official" and seemingly trustworthy sources in the 1940's contributed to the internment. It is important to think critically beyond reading an author's or publishing company's name.

2. Absent Images of Memory (Sturken) - According to Sturken, what influenced the forgotten nature of the internment? How do historical narratives change over time? Should we try to intervene in the way media and lack of media control historical narratives? 

My favorite quote from the essay is, "On the one hand, camera images can embody and create memories; on the other hand, they have the capacity through the power of their presence to obliterate other, unphotographed memories. As technologies of memory, they actively produce both memory and forgetting." It is difficult to say if we should and how we can interfere with historical narratives that are created by iconography and lack thereof. We, as Americans, as filmmakers, have power over certain things-- the bias and narrative pushed in the news, like newspapers, as Bishop wrote with the Guard Dog journalists. Hollywood and the film industry, as a highly consumed and influential form of media, could have a role or responsibility in the narrative. Yet, I think some of it is unfortunately not in our collective control directly. Counter-images-- in fact, any images-- were produced showing the internment, yet did not become iconic and well-remembered. Therefore, the internment is not "remembered," meaning is not common knowledge in culture and not taught significantly in schools. Some genocides other than the Holocaust, as Sturken mentions, are treated in that same way. The process by which history is written, spread, and becomes a narrative is complex. I think there are some ways certain groups, like the government, journalists, and filmmakers, may have a responsibility and influence, but in other ways, some things are out of the control of at least the average American citizen. Sturken's commentary on how photographs are technology of memory, producing memory and forgetting, is really crucial to the conversation, I think.