Friday, December 3, 2010
UPDATE
Media theory Script
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Script
AMELIA- Kade, I'm glad you brought up the "G-word." My question is, WHY do we sugarcoat the subject? Douglas Jehl published in June of 1994 that Trying to avoid the rise of public pressure to stop the mass killings in Rwanda, the Clinton Administration instructed its spokesmen not to describe the deaths there as genocide, even though some senior officials believe that is exactly what they represent. This is completely ridiculous as genocide is exactly what was happening! So, because they don't want us to protest, be unpatriotic, or wait, lastly, stop the mass killing, the truth is being sugarcoated? This seems like an ongoing trend that the government will never breakfree of.
JISA- This is exactly what happened in Iraq! We stormed in there searching for Weapons of Mass Destruction and didn’t find any, how could we have been sure that acts of genocide were occurring in Rwanda at that time? David Rawson, the United States Ambassador to Rwanda, said in an interview, "As a responsible Government, you don't just go around hollering 'genocide,'" "You say that acts of genocide may have occurred and they need to be investigated." Cries of Hypocrisy
Amelia- we KNEW what was going on, the U.N. was there as well as a few journalists and had scarring images of what was going on. It was completely irresponsible and un-american of us to not interfere and help those people. The New York Times published on multiple occasions in 1994 that there were mass killings going on. America just didn’t want to take responsibility so the “G-Word” wasn’t used.
JISA- It is true that we didn’t act when we should have, and now looking at it, it is something we should have done. The New York Times, again, was accurate in their reporting but anytime government officials talked about Rwanda, they weren’t allowed to use the word Genocide.
(BOTH LOOK AT THE CAMERA)
Jisa's Script Project#3
(CAM, please insert this image while I'm talking.)
http://kaganof.com/kagablog/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/rwanda-genocide300.jpg
WEBSITE: kaganof.com
So, because they don't want us to protest, be unpatriotic, or wait, lastly, stop the mass killing, the truth is being sugarcoated? This seems like an ongoing trend that the government will never breakfree of.
David Rawson, the United States Ambassador to Rwanda, said in an interview, "As a responsible Government, you don't just go around hollering 'genocide,'" "You say that acts of genocide may have occurred and they need to be investigated." Cries of Hypocrisy
(DAVID RAWSON IMAGE)
http://www.maadichurch.org/images/rawson.jpg
WEBSITE: maadichurch.org
I couldn't agree more with Ambassador Rawson. This lets the nation be a bit more knowledgable to what's really going on, the truth, with a bit of compassion. The fact that he adds, "they need to be investigated," lets us know the military isn't just out there killing one another, but who, what, and why it occured.
The articles which I will be using
Here are the links to the actual articles:
Monday, November 29, 2010
The article JISA is using. :)
I found this article on the NYTIMES website that Cam posted. I plan to incorporate & use the article in my script. My theme is going to be something like, "WHY were they there? Why were there so many deaths? Why did the government try to HIDE the truth?" & I figured, by using this article I'd be able to identify my reasoning behind these questions we'd be able to use media theories such as, GATEKEEPING, agenda-setting, cultivation, etc. I only chose some of the quotes in the article, not all.
The RWANDA Killings link:
http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/news/international/countriesandterritories/rwanda/genocide/index.html
THE link to the actual article:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9507E0DF133AF933A25755C0A962958260&ref=genocide
Officials Told to Avoid Calling Rwanda Killings 'Genocide'
By DOUGLAS JEHL,
Published: June 10, 1994
WASHINGTON, June 9— Trying to avoid the rise of moral pressure to stop the mass killing in Rwanda, the Clinton Administration has instructed its spokesmen not to describe the deaths there as genocide, even though some senior officials believe that is exactly what they represent.
But American officials say that so stark a label could inflame public calls for action the Administration is unwilling to take. Rather than compare the massacre with, for example, the deaths under the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, the State Department and the National Security Council have drafted guidance instructing spokesmen to say merely that "acts of genocide may have occurred."
Still, with independent witnesses providing detailed accounts of organized killings of members of the minority Tutsi ethnic group by the majority Hutus, some senior American officials acknowledge that the Administration's public posture reflects a certain lack of candor.
"Genocide is a word that carries an enormous amount of responsibility," a senior Administration official said this week. If the United States joined in describing the killings as genocide, the official and others said, it would be natural -- and unwelcome -- for voters to expect that the response would include dispatching troops.
"As a responsible Government, you don't just go around hollering 'genocide,' " David Rawson, the United States Ambassador to Rwanda, said in an interview. "You say that acts of genocide may have occurred and they need to be investigated." Cries of Hypocrisy
Herman Cohen, a former Assistant Secretary of State for Africa, used an op-ed article in The Washington Post last week to lambaste the Clinton Administration for what he called its "wimpish approach" in Rwanda. Mr. Cohen declared flatly that the killings there "must be called genocide."
"Another Holocaust may just have slipped by, hardly noticed," Mr. Cohen wrote.