My Blog!

The cultural resource I decided to analyze for this week’s blog and image that truly represents a reimagined alternative to the conditions of this time is the iconic photograph of Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis in her pink Chanel suit shortly after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963. The image was taken just beside the newly sworn-in President Lyndon B. Johnson aboard Air Force One, as she refused to change and stayed in her blood-stained outfit. Instead of changing her clothes, Mrs. Kennedy felt as though she needed to send a message, as she reportedly said, “Let them see what they’ve done.” The image has since been acknowledged as a remarkable sighting when associated with the assassination.

The image itself is a prime example of representing an alternative to the current politically and culturally unpredictable future of the 1960s. The assassination came as a shock to everyone during the time, with so much potential with him just being a year and 9 months into his presidency, and his legacy symbolizing optimism and idealism. That’s where the image of Jackie spoke so much into a symbolic alternative narrative, being unified and resilient following the tragic death. In a moment where it would be easy to break down or put on a face and new clothes and move on, she did the opposite. Showing that in a moment of panic and national crisis, when millions of Americans were wondering the next step for the sake of our country, she showed dignity and order. Because of this, we can see that the cultural meaning that comes with the photo joined to support the foundation of an idealized time referencing his legacy of “Camelot,” portraying Jack’s efforts for “youthful ambition.”

This imagined alternative wouldn’t require technological change, but at the same time does involve systemic shifts in how fundamentals of public figures and national identity in relation to a president are to be understood in relation to a president. The photo displays a society in which a moment of chaos like that day was handled with dignity and unity instead of division. Cultural expectations decide the type of national response that happens in that case and rely more on said values and norms rather than technological changes.

I believe we are still able to witness similar cultural alternatives in the current state of our world, though different in society and current events, still managing to appear in different forms. I believe that because of the tragic loss, we now as a society have an expectation of public figures to act with such dignity, grace, and leadership in hopes of creating more powerful symbolic imagery due to their composure. In current events, however, I feel as though it is different to have a single photo represent such unity because of the political polarization. The overall ideal of having a universal shared feeling of such a happening nowadays does have a lower probability compared to the current state of shock in the 1960s. Overall, I think the image will always keep its relevance, as it was a big shock to the world for that given time, and will always be a reminder; however, societal changes do affect the formula of how our unity is gathered and might not apply as evenly.

Journalists: The representation of information without favoritism or prejudice. That right there is the expectations in journalism and the ethics you are held to, or at least supposed to. I believe there is a generalization that all journalists are unbiased, which would be wrong. I feel as though people are under the impression that just because someone labels themself as a journalist, then we should automatically assume there to be truth in their storytelling.

I say this because 73% of residents in the U.S. believe that “everyday people” can produce journalism, and yes, anyone can produce journalistic work. However, this goes deeper than a passion project that you might post on YouTube and then call yourself a journalist. The foundations of journalism require training in ethics, media law, and fact-checking that goes beyond the scope of any piece you write for fun. As journalists, we have a responsibility to uphold these rules and to provide truth within storytelling without restrictions. I’m not saying you need a degree to become a journalist or a good one, but there are specific classifications I believe journalists need to share to continue reporting on the truth for their watchdog roles. 

I believe not every journalist upholds these responsibilities, just as those who do not know what they do. Some things we believe to be truths aren’t always able to be held up in court due to the fact that they are subjective. There are biases within everyone, and U.S. journalists even say that 55% of them believe every side does not always deserve equal coverage, a foundational ethic. That makes me think, am I biased in my writing? Do journalists often experience implicit bias? Implicit bias also doesn’t always have to be with ill will, but it does distort your ability to see others’ truth.

I wrote a piece in my two years of college, where a professor told me they felt as though my writing seemed to be angled, guiding the audience to a truth I personally sought. This was where I learned implicit bias, that what I was writing had a bias I did not know I had taken. So are all journalists unbiased? No, some experience challenges they do not know they have, meaning implicit bias doesn’t always have to be with ill will, but still distorts your perspective of others’ realities. 

We see this happen in a lot of media in correlation to their political ideology, which most companies tend to lean towards. Story choice and viewpoint placement play a big role in my example, where Fox News was called out for its article regarding targeting a specific audience of “pro-lifers.” By using leading words, designed to guide the audience to have the answer with just reading the headline. Choosing to start an article with the very subject of women’s rights, Roe v. Wade, and then selecting three opposing Republican quotes following the initial comment makes the reader believe that they are meant to be pitted against Fetterman. 

In my second example, similarly, word choice is another contributing factor to media bias within journalism, also due to political affiliations in the news. USA Today and Fox News both published articles regarding the parents’ rights education bill in Florida. Fox News titled the headline “Polls show Americans support FL education Bill after ABC News polls declare unpopular when omitting key detail,” with contrasting verbiage from USA Today calling it “As ‘Don’t Say Gay’ and similar bills take hold, LGBTQ youth feel they’re ‘getting crushed.’” There are two very distinct differences in the choice of words through these articles, with the USA Today leaning democratic and Fox leaning republican. As journalists, it’s our duty again to uphold the truth for our audience to get the clearest version of the truth, which is conflicting in these examples. 

I believe implicit bias and media biases do cause harm to others and ourselves when writing. Not only are you potentially spreading misinformation or leading people to read, but you are also hurting your credibility as a journalist and not allowing yourself to see others’ beliefs and truths.

The moon landing, one of America’s biggest accomplishments, yet some say we never did it, even calling it a hoax. The event itself has specifically been a topic of conspiracy since it took place; in 1974, a book called We Never Went to the Moon: America’s Thirty Billion Dollar Swindle by Bill Kaysing came out. The book described the “staging of Apollo missions” due to the fact of the space race and the U.S. not having the resources/technology to get to the moon yet. People base a lot of the overall discussions and foundations of argument on this book itself. There was obviously other skepticism before the book was published, with the lack of trust within the government after Watergate. Now, let’s get into some of the facts about the moon landing, also known as Apollo 11, which took place on July 20, 1969. The crew consisted of 3 astronauts: Neil Armstrong, Michael Collins, and Edwin “Buzz” Aldrin. The team set off on July 16, 1969, with over 650 million people hearing those famous words, “One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind,” a quote we have heard in history books our whole lives. It would be a “giant leap for mankind” if everyone believed we actually accomplished the goal.

The “controversy” of the moon landing starts with the fact that the space race against the Soviet Union was a big deal during the Cold War; the idea of constantly competing for the newest advancement in spaceflight milestones was something people followed very closely. This came from JFK wanting the accomplishment of the first man on the moon after Soviet Yuri Gagarin orbited the Earth. Conspiracy theorists have arguments that NASA had the event staged on a set with specific reasons, like the American flag in the video “waving,” no stars, and visible shadows being visible. A big reason people believe this to be true is because of the extensive pressure stemming from the Cold War.

Card-stacking was one of the most common tactics to advance these theories. The ability for conspiracy theorists to select specific anomalies like the waving of the flag and choose to ignore specific scientific evidence supporting Apollo 11 is one of the biggest examples.

Next, ad hominem: the way in which people choose to again ignore evidence but choose to directly come after and attack those a part of the mission years after the event occurred to “put their hand on the Bible” if they had actually gone to the moon, is another prime example.

Lastly, diversion is another prime tactic done over the last 57 years of shifting the public’s initial focus of the discussion to examples of government scandals that have no direct or proven correlation but instead are a failed attempt to prove to people, “things happen daily.”

With all that being said, I don’t believe there will ever be a resolution as to the consensus of what people believe because even if the facts of something are laid right in front of someone, there will always be questions raised as to whether there is something else. As to the general public, the Manhattan Institute did a survey recently by asking that very question, “Did NASA fake the 1969 Apollo 11 moon landing?” with a surprising 36% of Americans being certain that the event was indeed fake. Overall, I think it depends on the person you ask; however, with the given state of the country, I think more people are more likely to be skeptical and give our history more thought as time passes.

Welcome to WordPress. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start writing!