Communications 260: The JFK Assassination and The Media:

On November 22nd, 1963, in Dallas Texas, a man by the name Abraham Zapruder stood awaiting procession of President Kennedy’s motorcade. He was equipped with a Model 414 PD Bell & Howell Zoomatic Director Series Camera, yet unaware of the ensuing importance of the footage he was about to capture. Abraham Zapruder captured on film the fatal shot that killed President John F. Kennedy, and his footage is the most complete visual recording of the assassination.

Following the assassination, the FBI took hold of Zapruder’s camera and thoroughly examine it. Upon this inspection it was found that the camera filmed an average of 18.3 frames per second. The footage depicting Kennedy’s assassination consists of 486 frames, spanning 26.6 seconds.
The instant the footage became available huge media conglomerates hastily fought to obtain the rights of the film from Mr. Zapruder. On the morning of November 23rd, 1963, merely one day after Kennedy’s death, Life magazine bought the prints rights for the footage from Zapruder for $50,000. The following day on November 24th, Life bought the original copy, plus a duplicate copy, of the film for a total of $150,000, and equivalent of one million dollars in today’s world.

According to Life magazine’s archives, on November 29th, 1963 they published about thirty frames of the Zapruder footage in black and white. Frames were subsequently published in color in the December 6th, 1963 edition of the magazine.

Life Magazine's Memorial Edition for President Kennedy.

For days, the American public sat frozen in front of any form of media that projected news about the JFK assassination. Most of these media forms utilized Zapruder’s footage in some intrinsic manner.

Even the Warren Commission, the government-facilitated organization to investigate the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, employed the Zapruder footage in its attempt to come to a conclusion. And with that said, a conclusion that has been slandered and has illustrated its own hypocrisy. It is, in my opinion, that without the Zapruder film, the government could have hidden and gotten away with a lot more than it in fact did.

In 1963, most American citizens believed the government, and their proposition to pinpoint JFK’s assassination on one man, Lee Harvey Oswald. Though, in consequent years, today as well, conspiracy theorists attempt to disprove the government, and blame Johnson and his peers for Kennedy’s death.

The Zapruder footage has been the backing basis behind proving the government’s “magic bullet theory” invalid. The government claimed that one single bullet, and shot, killed the President. History (or the government’s fictionalized history) tells us that the shot came from behind Kennedy’s limousine, emitted from the book depository. Yet, upon examination of the Zapruder film, it would seem that the trajectory of the shot needed to come from the grassy knoll, in order to match up with the images caught on tape.

We already know that the FCC regulates (or controls, as I like to think), what is placed in our media, and therefore what the people see and thusly believe. Within the last forty years, the question of whether or not the Zapruder footage is legitimate and valid, or is it another government scandal, has been posed. I have never heard of this theory prior to doing my research for this project. According to the Assassination Science website, there is concrete evidence that supports the theory that Zapruder’s film could have been contrived. Evidence illustrates that the film could in fact be a series of still photographs that were doctored in order to make a 26.6 second film. This would not be the only instance of doctoring photos within the JFK assassination seeing as it has been a thought that the photo of Lee Harvey Oswald outside of his home is a fake image because the shadows do not align properly. In the 1990’s scientists came to the harsh realization that some of the images show on the Zapruder footage are completely impossible, and violate the laws of science.

The frontal image from President Kennedy's autopsy, showing very little damage to his face.

Frame 314 shows President Kennedy’s head being blasted away by a bullet wound, yet the photographs released to the public (by the government of course) of the President’s autopsy show his face to be completely intact. Which of the two images are forged remains unknown. Similarly, in stills 313-315 taken from the Zapruder footage, the audience sees blood emitting from Kennedy’s head. Though, when viewing the still in a freeze-frame, the “blood” looks as if it was painted onto the film.

Frame 314 from the Zapruder film, showing the fatal shot that killed Kennedy

Frame 313 from the Zapruder film posing the question of whether or not the blood was painted on the film strip.

The eeriness of whether or not our sole basis, and apparent evidence, of President John F. Kennedy’s death, is in fact yet another lie does not put many conspiracy theorists at ease.

Now moving on from big help to big budget. In 1991, director Oliver Stone released his blockbuster film JFK. Different from Zapruder’s film that was shot on the budget of whatever the cost of his camera was, Stone’s work was filmed on a 40 million dollar budget. In time, it grossed over 205 million dollars.

Oliver Stone's JFK movie poster.

Though the slack and criticism that Stone faced for shining a negative light on the government may have outweighed his grossing income. Oliver Stone greatly risked both his career and his namesake by taking on such a liberal stance. Throughout the film, Zapruder’s original footage is integrated in order to serve as a backing force for Jim Garrison’s belief that the government has remained behind Kennedy’s assassination.

We have to keep in mind that despite the factual references within Oliver Stone’s JFK, it is still a fictionalized Hollywood film. Yes, I do cite this film whenever attempting to wage an argument against the magic bullet theory, though all of the historical accounts are not completely factual.

Communications 160: Celebrities in Politics

Molly Raskin

 

Celebrity Influence on Politics:

            Celebrities have always had a strong influence upon American culture and politics. During the Vietnam War, numerous celebrities spoke out against the government, and similarly today, many stars have made their stand in either support or opposition to the war in Iraq. However, it has not been until the past two presidential elections that celebrities have become a huge part of the electoral process. Recently, in the 2008 presidential election, celebrities heavily and openly stated which contender they were going to vote for; Barack Obama or John McCain. Yet, does the presence of celebrity opinions and voices in politics hinder, or help Americans choose their presidential candidate?

            In 2003, celebrity actor Arnold Schwarzenegger was elected Governor of California, and since then has induced a regime along the lines of Ronald Regan. His election as Governor initiated the popularity of celebrities running for office. Most candidates for any political office begin as politicians, and after their election, become celebrities. However, Schwarzenegger illustrates a celebrity turned politician.  A research-study performed four days prior to his election sent out a survey to which four hundred-sixty people responded. The responders didn’t necessarily believe that Schwarzenegger was fit to be Governor, yet they were still interested in his political standpoints. Thus, Arnold Schwarzenegger’s celebrity status helped him to victory. Progressively, Americans saw P. Diddy in 2004 launch, with the help of MTV, the “Vote or Die” campaign. This campaign was a new take on the MTV program used in the 1992 presidential election, “Choose or Lose,” dedicated to interview politicians on subjects that affect youngvoters. The campaign was geared to the young, MTV, demographic. Blurbs about voting, or showcasing P. Diddy clad in his “Vote or Die” t-shirt, were frequently played on MTV. Many new programs were created to increase awareness in young voters, and consequently, there was a huge increase in the number of new voters who came out to the polls.

            Whether or not the influence of celebrities in politics has positive or negative effects can be questioned. The 2008 presidential election has to be the most media and celebrity driven election in history. That’s an obvious statement, seeing as on the ticket was the first African-American man running, and the first woman who could have potentially been elected into The White House. This sparked numerous amounts of celebrity endorsements, heated debates, and comedic spoofs. Throughout history, voting was always seen as a private act; going into the voting booths and making your decision alone. However, not a day went by in the fall of 2008 that celebrities were not interviewed on the radio, television, or in newspapers/tabloid magazines. Celebrities who openly endorsed John McCain during the election were difficult to find. To name a few were, Jon Voight (actor), Robert Duvall (actor), Jerry Bruckheimer (director), and Lacy Chabert (actor). On the contrary, I came across pages of sites that detailed celebrities who support Barack Obama. The Top Ten Supporters of Obama, according to the Huffington Post, are: (10) Jennifer Aniston, (9) Robert De Niro, (8) Chris Rock, (7) Samuel L. Jackson, (6) Scarlett Johansson, (5), George Clooney, (4), Ben Affleck, (3) The Kennedy Women, (2) rapper Will.I.Am, and finally at number one, Oprah.

            It can be said that anyone who is mentioned or recommended by Oprah Winfrey almost instantaneously becomes successful, just look at Rachel Ray. During the recent election, it was a big deal who Oprah was going to endorse; was it going to be a woman, Hillary Clinton, or an African-American man, Barack Obama? Oprah’s final decision, in supporting Barack Obama, gave him almost nearly an additional one million votes. When Oprah releases her booklist, ratings and sales unquestionably increase, let alone when publically supporting a candidate who is running for public office. Many people questioned her decision, saying that Oprah was betraying her gender. Oprah retaliated with this statement regarding her decision in endorsing Obama: “I thought long and hard before stepping up and out into this because it feels like I am stepping out of my pew and I know that no matter what you do, you’re going to be criticized. So, I weighed it. What is the cost for me doing it? Am I going to lose viewers? I made the decision that I have the right to do it as an American citizen and I am doing this because I feel it is the right thing to do at this time.” Oprah was not turning away from being a woman, but instead she was turning to her race, like many other celebrities. Many African-American celebrities were very enthusiastic about the prospect of having an African-American president, and therefore thought no harm in publically displaying their support.

            However, celebrities have also shed, what can be perceived to be, a negative light upon the 2008 election. While researching for this paper I came across an article entitled “Sexy Celebrities Love Sexy Obama.” Personally, I think that this makes out Obama’s campaign and beliefs to be a mockery. Similarly, but done with a lot more humor, is the popular Saturday Night Live skits of Tina Fey impersonating Sarah Palin. Prior to these skits, SNL was doing poorly in the ratings, but the recurring Sarah Palin spoofs revitalized the show’s popularity.  Parody news shows like the Daily Show and the Colbert Report have become the main news source for many people. In a recent survey of news show audiences, viewers of the Colbert Report were reported to be more politically intelligent than the BBC’s audience. Stephen Colbert’s influence cannot be doubted. He is constantly telling his viewers to vote for him in competitions for the naming of various things.  “The Colbert Bump,” as Colbert calls it, is the phenomenon that occurs when someone appears on his show and subsequently becomes more popular. The Colbert Bump greatly garnered favor for presidential hopeful Michael Huckabee. Overall, whether it be mockingly, or humorous, comedy gains attention from viewers.

        Ultimately, it is clear that celebrities want their words out in the public to positively affect their preferred candidate. By celebrities speaking out, it gives voters a chance to research and perhaps identify with a celebrity on a political basis. There were many debates in lieu of the election as to whether or not celebrity endorsements would in fact persuade the outcome of the election. It can be argued that they did not, however throughout the years it has been statistically proven, that when given a popular celebrity’s opinion, it will drive people to the polls. The presence of celebrities in politics does not appeal too much to people who have voted previous times. It’s more significant to the younger generation. For people my age, my classmates, this was our first time being able to have a say in the way that our country was going to be governed. Most people who I talk to made their decisions based on research, not which reality television star mentioned a candidate on E Entertainment. This is where celebrities’ presence can be negative. As hard as it is to believe, there are people who will vote for a candidate just based on the fact they believe it will bring them closer to a celebrity they idolize. Howe