UPDATE

The team got together last night and finished filming our project, it went well! Now I'm just going to be editing non-stop until thursday:)

Media theory Script

Media Theories

For my segment I used two articles in the new york times.  one was written by warren hoge on march 27, 2004.  In this article he referenced secretary general kofi annan who was at the time the head of United Nations peacekeeping . HE claimed that they knew genocide was occurring and took blame for not acting more to prevent it.

The second article was published June 10, 1994 by  douglas jehl.  He wrote about the killings in rwanda and how people were instructed NOT to say the word genocide.

A media theory that goes along with this is agenda setting.  Through the use of their words and how the government talked about the events at Rwanda, they wanted the public to think a certain way about it.

agenda setting is also demonstrated because the government didnt want to get involved in Rwanda, and therefor didn’t allow words like genocide to be said in reporting, as that word brings negative feelings and would incite the american people to action. 

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

Kade, I'm glad you brought up the "G-word." My question is, WHY do we sugarcoat the subject? Douglas Jehl published on 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.

(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

I will be using the same article as Jisa as to show comparison but I will also be using another article as well. I will be using these articles to show that the New York Times didn't seem to favor one side over the other and that they did report on every sides of the story.

Here are the links to the actual articles:

http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/news/international/countriesandterritories/rwanda/genocide/index.html

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9507E0DF133AF933A25755C0A962958260&ref=genocide