The Horror, The Horror

Posted on Flickr and Wikimedia Commons,
photo by Doug Kline of Robert Duvall's costume.

In 1979, one of my sisters and I had an odd “Vietnam” Saturday. We drove to Moline, Illinois, where the largest cinema complex in our area was located, and watched two movies, practically back-to-back.

One was “Hair.” The other was “Apocalypse Now.”

Sunday night, I re-watched “Apocalypse Now.” I’m not sure how well “Hair” has aged, but this retelling of “Heart of Darkness” in Vietnam is still a movie classic. It’s a strange narrative, a more than slightly off-kilter story that starts inside a claustrophobic room in Saigon.

I also rented a copy of the documentary that was made some years later about the making of “Apocalypse Now,” but I have not watched it yet.

“Apocalypse Now” is very episodic, with discrete scenes taking place as a small Navy patrol boat moves up a river to deliver an assassin whose mission is to eliminate a rogue colonel. There is the famous assault on a village staged so that a helicopter cavalry commander could find the best waves for surfing.

Most quoted lines from the movie: “I love the smell of napalm in the morning.” Or: “Charlie don’t surf!”

Later, there is the tense search for mangos that ends in a tiger attack. There is the massacre of the civilians in the sampan. And finally there is the encounter with the rogue colonel and his strange tribe of followers deep in the jungle.

As a narrative, it follows the source material, the colonial novel “Heart of Darkness,” surprisingly well. Instead of a jabbering Russian, there is a photojournalist extolling the genius of “Colonel Kurtz.” I did find myself wondering at the story, a bit. If they had helicopters that could deliver combat troops to a village with ultimate surfing waves, and that could pick up a patrol boat and put it where they wanted—why did they bother riding that boat all the way up the river? Why not start the journey at the eerie bridge that was the last American outpost?

For that matter, the ending of the movie is a bit unsatisfying. Why is the assassin popping up out of the water with a machete and sneaking up on the colonel when he’s been spending days in the colonel’s company previous to that?

Still, despite my minor qualms at the plot, I think the movie has a lot to offer. It puts you on edge, and has a lot to say about the dehumanizing effects of violence and war.

I’ve now binge watched “Apocalypse Now,” “Full Metal Jacket,” “Born on the Fourth of July” and “Platoon.” It’s been an odd week. Of the four, “Platoon” and “Apocalypse Now”are the most evocative.

In part, I suppose, that’s because neither Mathew Modine nor Tom Cruise seemed to fit their leading roles well in “Full” or “Born.” In part, it’s because the other two movies are more surreal, taking you to some other place and time and making you feel that you’re not in Kansas (nor Iowa) anymore.

“Hair?” Honestly, it’s not enough of a Vietnam movie for me to include it on my watch list. For now, the Vietnam film fest continues. Again, if you have any suggestions, feel free to comment.

Which Vietnam Movies Should I View?

Logo of MMU fall series, which I am organizing and speaking in. We have 15 public events planned--check out www.mtmercy.edu later in August for more information.

Early in September, as part of the Fall Faculty Series at Mount Mercy University, I will be speaking with another professor in a forum on how Hollywood has told stories about Vietnam through movies.

So I’m spending a few weeks in my own private Vietnam film fest. It started with Oliver Stone weekend, in which I borrowed “Platoon” and “Born on the Fourth of July” from the U library.

Sign in MMU University Center lists series events.

Of the two, I’m not surprised that “Platoon” won best picture. It’s a gripping story that keeps you on edge. I felt that the “good sergeant” was a bit more artificial than the “bad sergeant,” and some of the soldier characters seemed too two-dimensional. But it was a powerful movie, well worth watching.

“Born,” on the other hand, while watchable, was a bit more tiring. Honestly, that might be mostly because I don’t always enjoy watching Tom Cruise. The movie was interesting, but I wish it had explored its main characters change of heart a bit more—I know that’s internal and mental and hard to portray, but I didn’t ever understand what changed inside the character.

So, the Vietnam film series is off to an interesting start. I’m sure I’ll slip “Apocalypse Now” in. I might even do something I’ve never done before—watch a Rambo movie. I have seen “Ballad of the Green Berets” before and have no reason to review it again.

But, what do you think? What are some “must see” Vietnam movies that either offer some interesting rumination on that war and its time, or are just worth seeing for their own sake? Please comment with your suggestions.

Is The Calumet Going Up In Smoke?

A detail of a recent edition of The Calumet, from a PDF posted by The Muscatine Journal.

The Calumet is the student newspaper at Muscatine Community College, and 12 of its student staff members recently filed a federal lawsuit against MCC and the Eastern Iowa Community College District, alleging a pattern of harassment against student journalists that violates the First Amendment.

I will not pretend to be a disinterested observer of The Calumet-MCC court dispute. My heart is firmly with The Calumet. For one thing, my journalism career began as a writer for The Calumet in 1978—I’m also a proud former member of the paper’s editorial staff and graduated with AA and AS degrees from MCC in 1980.

The dispute between The Calumet and MCC is complex. It involves a photograph of Dr. Richard Boyer, a professor and interim dean there—a mug shot that was published without his permission. The dispute goes beyond the photo. Read stories about it here and here. The lawsuit involves a suddenly removed advisor, the aforementioned photo, a disputed phone call about the photograph and related stories including, of all things, a controversy over “student of the month.” As the saying goes, the most intense and pitched battles in academia are sometimes over the least valuable turf.

Still, it seems to me that MCC officials have treated their own college student newspaper rather badly.

And that’s troubling, on several levels. College papers are taking it on the chin at many institutions. Many colleges and universities are cutting back on publications or moving totally away from print to online news editions. It seems quaint and old-fashioned to publish a “paper” these days when so many students can’t be bothered to read anything on dead trees. Trust me, just ask any professors anywhere how effective or widespread student reading seems these days.

I am an advisor to a university student newspaper myself. Sure, I worry about the trend away from print partly for my own job security. Newspapers are expensive to produce, and as colleges look for ways to trim costs, they’ll naturally be asking if all that ink and wood pulp is worth it to create newsprint products that seem to simply loiter on newsstands and then later fill landfills.

I would say “yes,” for several reasons.

One, although it sounds new age and cutting edge to move student journalism to online platforms, the audiences for such online sources are tiny compared to the readership of print products. I can’t help but think that one attraction of moving to an online news source for college administrators may be that it removes the irritant of the student newspaper and puts student journalism in a “public” forum where almost nobody sees it. Better to have three nerds read that embarrassing story at that dead-end URL than have hundreds of students, alumni and potential donors exposed to that rude “thing” on campus. So to me, one reason to continue the campus newspaper is that it still provides the most authentic and loudest student voice on campus. And if you like online news, the student newspaper also often provides the staff and raw material for the best online student journalism.

Another reason for continuing college newspapers is that a student newspaper captures and preserves key skills, writing and design, in a way that other media don’t. The paper has a value for portfolio-building for future communicators in any professional writing field. Granted, those “clips” are likely to be PDFs, but those PDFs are still “published” works that mean something and demonstrate basic communication skills in a way class projects and ephemeral online content don’t.

And there is also the foundational nature of the skills students learn at a campus newspaper—the ability to interview, to cover an event, to identify newsworthy ideas and effectively pursue them. There is even the leadership of planning and running a journalistic organization. Granted, students can do good writing and journalism on their own blogs, but they are far less likely to, and with less impact and less teamwork, than on a newspaper staff.

I’ve only been a college professor in this post literate century. The handwriting on the wall for the newspaper industry is old news these days. No student should enter a journalism program today thinking he or she is primarily preparing for a newspaper career.

But the web writers, PR writers, technical writers and corporate writers I’m training in my communication classes today all have to apply the same basic journalistic writing skills that a student journalist learns best at one place on campus: the student newspaper.

Kudos and shout-out to Mount Mercy University. It has maintained a generally positive attitude towards “The Times” in a private setting where student journalists have less legal power than they do at a public college like MCC. We have cut back on the number of issues we publish, but nobody has approached me and suggested we stop printing—indeed the feedback I usually get about our student journalism at MMU is positive even when the paper can make many people (me especially) uncomfortable at times.

So even though the newspaper medium itself is in steep decline in the “real world,” in academia, that old medium has a key place as a training ground and student voice. Just as TV and movies did not make live theater on campus passé, neither should the student newspaper lose its way.

Back to The Calumet. It’s sad that things went so badly for that paper in recent times that a federal lawsuit has resulted. Surely, along the road to the courthouse, there would have been better ways for the parties involved to handle the situation. Knowing student journalists as I do, I doubt all of the fault should be laid at the feet of Boyer or MCC or EICCD administrators.

Still, changing advisors, cutting funds, investigating the advisor, etc.? There seems an unwholesome pattern of pushing The Calumet around in awkward and heavy-handed ways. Instead of valuing a longstanding student paper that has trained generations of writers, the powers that be at MCC seems to have chosen a lower, more short-sighted road.

Maybe frustration with students drove them to it. But students at a community college come and go quickly, and The Calumet has been a vibrant student voice at MCC since the 1950s. If it’s lost, MCC is a poorer place.

And even if blame could be assigned to both sides of this dispute—let’s recall that students comprise one side while educated adults with advanced degrees comprise the other. The more experienced and educated of those sides should be more mature, have a deeper understanding of the place of student journalism and foster, rather than foil, The Calumet. You don’t handle a “teachable moment” very well by burning the newspaper to the ground.

Named after a Native American peace pipe, The Calumet is doing anything but bringing peace. Then again, the place of any journalist in a healthy, democratic culture is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. I wish that MCC would remember and respect that.

Tickling the Global Village Funny Bone

In this, the final week of our media class, we’re talking about global media.

I wish we spent more time on the topic, although some aspects of the global media system have been included when we covered individual media earlier in the semester.

Still, today our discussion was on what unites and divides media. One point I made is that the “net neutrality” issue is important in both the U.S. and other countries, too. By the way, all of the images below are from YouTube.com

Students, here are two important videos to view: 

John Oliver explains net neutrality.

 Indian comedy group talks about the issue in India. We didn't watch all 9 minutes in class (and didn't watch Jon Oliver at all.)  With a final exam coming, I would suggest the half hour to watch both and ruminate on their main points would be time well spent. Hint, hint, nudge, nudge, wink, wink (apologies to Monty Python, but another global media example).

Anyway, students, the other links below are mostly for entertainment, although you might want to watch at least one in case I ask you to comment on another video of your choice. But I'm not neutral on watching the net neutrality ones!

  

One of the things that unites media is that much global content is prepared, or reasons of historic accident and to accommodate trade, in English. Another is that comedy, which is sometimes very culturally specific (Jerry Lewis is a comedic genius—in France) can also sometimes resonate in different cultures, especially when the topic concerns global communication patterns.

For example, although a particular slang term used in this video is British, Australian comedian Tim Minchin plays off of a common derogatory racial term used in the U.S. and elsewhere.

 Tim Minchin on “prejudice.”

And then there is Ylvis—Norwegian talk show hosts who lit up the internet with their “What Does the Fox Say” video. But they’ve done much more, some of it in Norwegian, some of it in English. One thing we talked about in class is how English is used globally not just to try to appeal to an American market, but because it’s a convenient language that many educated people would speak in any place that’s divided along linguistic lines. Note that the Indian video talking about net neutrality was for an Indian audience, but is mostly in English. And in Western Europe, English is often a second language for exchanging information across cultures that speak different native languages.

Ylvis plays a lot with ideas in English. For example:

A video that mocks several conventions in popular music, obvious the dub step, but also Broadway-style love ballads in general.

And a video that plays off of Norwegian politics in a global sense.

We also watched this multi-linguistic comedy routine, which I told the students I expect to see on American TV soon.

And, just for fun, we also viewed another classicYlvis comedy videos. Most students had seen “What Does the Fox Say” but had not experienced other Ylvis videos, although we did watch this one was by special request of a student who had seen it before.

  

The Internet, of course, can be used for purposes good and bad. It may promote cross-cultural understanding, where we can laugh at ideas that are also funny in Oslo. But it serves to divide, or to united dark forces, too. Much of the concern with ISIS is the way in which the group can use the ‘net to radicalize youth in western countries.

Global media is not synonymous with the internet. We talked about how innovations in content or technology have long been rapidly used across many media systems, for example. But it was fun today to finish the system on a light note, courtesy of some Norwegian TV stars.

And, just because we did not have time Monday when the topic was British media, a classic Monty Python routine.

Will The Real Edward Snowden Please Stand Up?

From the LA Times, AP photo by Aymann Ismail. Bust of Edward Snowden in a park in Brooklyn, New York.

We’re talking this week in my media class about law and ethics of mass media.

Which raises the interesting question of Edward Snowden, the man who in 2013 revealed how extensive online government monitoring of citizens had become.

We covered some basic ideas early in the week about the First Amendment, and how, even with its absolute-sounding language, that there are all kind of ethical and legal limits on communication.

Snowden revealed the “PRISM” program. The government, in Snowden’s words, “deputized” corporate America to provide internet data to the NSA.

Snowden, after revealing government secrets, fled to Russia and has become controversial.

Students, were is some background information for you:

• Snowden is likely to be in the news as parts of the PATRIOT Act are up for renewal this year. Jon Oliver explains and does interview with Snowden.
• One writer implies that Snowden is gaining influence due to your generation.
• Snowden’s popularity varies worldwide.
• A 2013 column that concerns mixed reaction to Snowden’s leaks.
• Pultizer-prize winning columnist Leonard Pitts says Snowden should have faced courts.

Based on what you read here, where do you stand and why? What are the legal and ethical issues of media practice associated with this? Is it right or wrong, for example, for media to use leaked information under this circumstance?

My Logo Ego Is Bruised, But I’m Fine

Mount Mercy University has started a new thing called, for lack of a sexier name, “The Fall Faculty Series.” We did it in fall 2014 on the 100th anniversary of World War I, and are again planning a series for 2015.

I suggested the original series, and am coordinating the second. It just seems like a good thing, to me, for a small university to foster a big conversation that crosses disciplines and brings people together to ruminate on a set of important ideas. One cool thing about our first series is that it brought lots of new community members to campus—I joked to other faculty last fall that it was the first time in my life I had groupies, but the only disadvantage was my WWI groupies were mostly male and mostly over retirement age.

Early indications are that our second series, which focuses on the legacy of Vietnam, may turn out to be an even more popular event. With the 50th anniversary of the U.S. Marines entering Vietnam in large numbers in 1965, and the 40th anniversary of the war’s end in 1975, this topic seems to resonate—since the faculty chose the topic, I’ve seen several media items about Vietnam. And, of course, there are lots of living vets and others who directly recall Vietnam.

And it’s a big idea with lots of possibilities. For example, the war came at a critical time for race relations in America, and it can prompt us to have an interesting discussion on that topic. The way in which the government informs or misleads people will be worth considering. And how we treated veterans is a big part of Vietnam. The war even came, not coincidently, at the time of an awakening environmental movement, and Agent Orange stands as an enduring symbol of how war can not only destroy lives, but our natural world, too.

Although I consider or first series to be a huge success, I also think some aspects could have worked out better. While we had decent attendance at the WWI events, I would like to see more students, staff and faculty at the series events. I really want this fall Vietnam series to be even more engaging for the people at MMU.

So, I have a personal marketing and PR project on my hands. I’ve been advertising planning meetings this spring—and to promote those meetings, I created a visual symbol for the series after the faculty picked its name: “Stories We Tell: Legacies of the Vietnam War.”

This is what I created:

It’s not the actual series logo. MMU has a PR office with a talented designer, and whatever else I am, I am not a graphic designer. That office will create the actual symbol for the series.

That I’m not a designer is a point that several people have made to me in recent days. Some of these logo critics aren’t experts, and I can shrug their comments off. But at least one is. The message from the expert? “That logo is ugly.”

Ouch. I can’t really argue the point. The expert has spoken.

Still, here is my lame logo defense. First of all, I did try to create it with a deliberately “retro” feel. I used Ariel, the most Helvetica-like font available on my PC, because Helvetica was a popular logo font in the 1960s and 1970s. The common diamond-shaped bullet, the ubiquitous Wingdings v, was another retro element.

Most of the art is copyright free work from Wikimedia Commons, and is referential of the era—the dove of peace, the peace symbol, an M-16 rifle and a map of Vietnam. The one image that isn’t from the wiki is a detail of a photograph by famous AP Vietnam photographer Horst Faas. I found the image on a Denver Post web page that has lots of Faas photos of the Vietnam War.

That gallery is worth a look. Faas was quite a photographer. And at right, again from the Denver Post, is the original Associated Press image of a nameless solider with the timeless message on his helmet.

Anyway, I hope that the image I created was useful for its purpose—drawing attention to the series. Getting students, faculty and staff aware of and excited about the series now is a big part of what I’m trying to do now.

And the person who called my logo ugly? All is forgiven. For several reasons.

It probably is ugly—it is a crude design by a non-designer. The critic’s verdict was delivered in a humorous, teasing manner. And most of all, and more important, the knowledgeable logo critic is enthused about the series and is coming up with all kinds of cool ideas that can help make it an even better event.

So, even if my logo ego was mildly bruised, I consider my amateur foray into logo design an overall win.

Well done, ugly logo, well done.

The Strange Case of Vietnam PR

Vietnam Memorial in Washington, DC. I took this photo in March.

We’re close to naming a title for the 2015 Fall Faculty Series (unofficial name) at Mount Mercy University this year, but even if the name is up in the air, the topic is not.

The series will be on the War in Vietnam. It’s timely due to two anniversaries:

1) The first really big surge of troops came in 1965, 50 years ago. Advisors had been in Vietnam for years, but when the Marines went in big time in 1965, it meant thousands of American combat boots on the ground. A total of 3 million Americans would see service in Vietnam.

2) The war ended in 1975, 40 years ago. American combat troops left in 1973, and in 1975, the American Congress would not vote funding for more advisors and aid. When American support moved out of South Vietnam, the North Vietnamese Army moved in.

This week in my media class, we’re talking about public relations and advertising—in effect, the role of advocacy in PR.

I told the students that judging advocacy—to determine if you agree with it or think it’s positive or ethical, for instance—means basically looking at two sides: the message and the means used to deliver that message.

The War in Vietnam, whatever else it was—and it was a lot, hence the series—was a PR disaster. I think partly that came from the top. President Johnson ran a sometimes-delusional administration, and some of his advisors confidently predicted a quick end to the war if American boots hit the ground.

Well, the boots hit and then sank into a quagmire. The military was hampered by lots of things, among them the creativity of the NVA and the Viet Cong, who understood they were fighting a war of attrition and simply needed to outlast the Americans (this same crew had managed to outlast the French 10 years before). The war did not have clear aims or even a clear enemy; it was never fought “all out” as World War II, for example, was.

And it was a horrible war. There were napalm attacks on villages and “free fire zones” were anybody who wasn’t in an American uniform could end up dead. The policies the U.S. followed and the way they were implemented—defoliate jungle, bomb an agrarian county, prop up a corrupt regime in order to stave off the spread of Communism—added up to a long-term disaster.

It was a disaster partly built on deceit. Congress approved the Tonkin Gulf Resolution in 1964 using hazy evidence of alleged attacks on the U.S. Navy that, it appears, never really happened. And both the Johnson and Nixon administrations did their best to “craft” their message to gain maximum support—which often left both lacking in the honesty department.

In some ways, I supposed, Vietnam was a dress rehearsal for some of the dreary mistakes we’ve made since 9/11.

The media are often, and correctly, criticized for not doing enough to inform Americans about reality behind facades. But, in defense of our dysfunctional news media, it’s also fair to ask how informed people want to be. If Americans cared about facts, there would be no Fox News.

Anyway, students, we talked about the “means” and the “message” to judge PR advocacy. The U.S. Government used dubious means to push an iffy message in the 1960s to promote the Vietnam War. What do you know about that failed PR effort? And what would you like to learn? What topics of conversation could engage you in our fall series?