Friday, April 26, 2019

In-Class Write

Frost/Nixon Essay
Adam Tyler

 For someone wishing to learn about the tv news industry in a fun and exciting way, I would definitely choose Frost/Nixon. In this movie, you can learn various things about the conflict as David Frost interviews Richard Nixon. David Frost interviewing Richard Nixon was one of the most surprising events in the late 70s. From the movie directed by Ron Howard, people can see the explosive interview, but can also see more clearly what led to the interview and what happened after it. In the movie, David Frost starts out as a television show host, but he wants to be more than just being remembered as a tv host and wants some actual recognition, so he attempts to interview Richard Nixon with help from BBC's director general John Birt, reporter Bob Zelnick, and news writer James Reston Jr. However, Nixon wants to re-ignite his reputation after he was confirmed to be in the Watergate Scandal, so he accepts the interview, especially since he'll be receiving a lot of money from it. From this direction, the audience can see that both are after the same thing, fame and fortune, which is what Frost and Nixon wanted in real life.

From this movie, the audience can see Frost and Nixon then preparing for their big interview. They can realize how hard both have been studying to take each other down and feel somewhat sympathetic for them. Soon enough when the final confrontation comes, the audience can see that there was a whole lot of tension on the set of the interview, including Nixon even shouting this when Frost tries to tell him no one is above the law, “When the president does it, that means it’s not illegal!”, which is not really true at all. Then, Frank Langello does a stunning job acting as Richard Nixon when he finally admits to the Watergate Scandal, “I let the American people down.” Right there, people can learn that even the president can do wrong and bad things. Both in the film and in real life, Nixon admitted this and he remained low in his San Clemente house for the rest of his life while Frost finally got the fame he wanted and became a well-respected celebrity. For anyone who was thinking that the president always knows best, you were wrong. This movie shows the real-life events that an underdog reporter brought the president down, and it was a pivotal moment in history.

Although you can learn a lot fromFrost/Nixon, like the riveting interview and its prologue and aftermath, one thing you may not learn about is the whole Watergate Scandal. The film only briefly circles around why Nixon was in the scandal, not what it actually was, so the audience may not get a full explanation of what he did, which is very important for a movie like this. The Watergate Scandal happened on June 17, 1972 when some men were caught breaking in. It was later found out that they had ties to the presidential administration of Nixon. Although Nixon denied any involvement in the trial, he was soon found out to be a big fat liar when it was discovered that he had recorded an important conversation he had with HR Haldeman, the chief of staff at the White House. The tape called “The Smoking Peanut” proved Nixon was guilty, yet people weren’t sure how to convict a president, so Nixon voluntarily left the presidency while his Vice President Gerald Force pardoned him for the crime. Yet, a whole lot of people were infuriated.

Another aspect that the audience won’t learn all the pressure Frost was under from other people besides his interviewing team. The audience doesn’t even hear or see anyone criticizing Frost about interviewing Nixon. A lot of people thought he couldn’t do it, even Frost himself thought he couldn’t, but in the movie it seems as if no one even bothers. In real life, this made the stakes even higher as he would be remembered as a failure and an embarrassment to tv news and he would probably never hear the end of it. In the movie Frost is afraid of losing everything to this interview, but the movie forgets how other people will see him if he loses and that he is now not on tv.

If someone should add in an extra 20 minutes to the movie without worrying about losing the audience’s attention, I recommend adding 20 minutes about the side characters’ lives. Even though the movie is titled Frost/Nixon, Ron Howard spends very little time on the more amusing and interesting John Birt, Bob Zelnick, and James Reston Jr. In the movie, they are shown as somewhat of a comic relief, while they definitely worked hard in real life. The stakes are very high for David Frost and Richard Nixon since they could lose their reputation, their job, or even their wealth. However, the movie doesn’t focus very closely on what was at stake for these three. Only John Birt had a family and he could’ve lost his job if the interview went badly, but we don’t get the same type of drama we see with Frost and Nixon. If 20 minutes were devoted to these side characters in the middle of the movie when they were working on the actual interview and discussing how they could tear down Nixon, it could help the audience care for the characters more since they were important too. 

Annotated Sources

Sources:


ABC CLIO: American History. "Watergate Scandal." Information on the Watergate break-in and Nixon's involvement with it.


Richard Nixon: Presidential Library and Muse. "President Nixon." Biography and legacy of Richard Nixon's life.

National Archives. "Memorandum From Feldbaum and Kreindler to Jarwoski: Watergate Special Prosecution Force." Documents of whether or whether not to have Nixon prosecuted for Watergate Scandal.

Watergate.info. ""Transcript of the "Smoking Gun" Tape: June 23,19." The transcript of Richard Nixon talking to HR Haldeman over control of FBI on Watergate Scandal.

The New York Times. "Transcript of Frost's Television Interview." The transcript of David Frost's interview of Richard Nixon.

Empire. "Frost/Nixon Review." Review of Frost/Nixon.

RogerEbert.com. "Frost/Nixon Review and Film Summary (2008)." Review and critical perspective of Frost/Nixon.

The Guardian. "Frost/Nixon." Critical perspective and review of Frost/Nixon.







Menu

David Frost vs. Richard Nixon
Exhibit Menu

Beverage:
Sweet Tea
This drink tastes sweet, but it definitely has a sour aftertaste, but you can definitely handle it. Richard Nixon was at first winning the interviews with David Frost with ease, but near the end, he lost dearly. However, he found a way to live with it.

Appetizer:
Pigs in a Blanket
An appeasing delicacy that feature, small hot dogs trapped in bread. This is similar to how Richard Nixon had wrapped up David Frost in the interviews, until Frost became the bread and Nixon became the hot dog.

Main Course:

Cheeseburger
A delicious food that Richard Nixon can no longer have. Instead, he has to eat "Hawaiian burgers", that he say don't taste like hamburgers. He really wants them, just like acceptance and respect from the American people, but he can't have it.

Side:
Potato Chips
This side will not let you stop eating, even if it is a little unhealthy. Richard Nixon will not let his secrets be exposed and he's eating up the interview with David Frost. Eventually, he's had enough and can't go on holding in his secrets.

Dessert
Trifle
A bowl of tasty looking cherries on top of several layers. As you go through each layer, you start to know what the flavor is. When David Frost started to go through Richard Nixon, he started to discover his secrets.

Exhibit

David Frost/Richard Nixon
Exhibit

Frost vs. Nixon Interview Picture
A photo of David Frost interviewing ex-President Richard Nixon. A historic scene where Mr. Frost convinced Nixon to admit to being involved with the Watergate Scandal and apologize to all Americans.

Watergate Tapes
Three tapes that recorded and confirmed Nixon's role in the Watergate Scandal, which forced him to resign from presidency. This was pivotal for Frost's win when he asked Nixon why he didn't burn the tapes.
Transcript of Frost/Nixon Interview
The official transcript of Frost's interview with Nixon. One of the most shocking and intense interviews in history, which officially made Frost's career and left Nixon in recluse.

The Western White House
A picture of Richard Nixon's home in San Clemente, California. Also known as the Western White House, this is where David Frost met Richard Nixon and officially agreed to do an interview. It also became Nixon's real home after the interviews were over and he was disgraced.
Frost/Nixon Interviews from TV Guide
A promotion for TV Guide now showing the Frost/Nixon interviews. They were one of the few magazines to have articles about the interviews, alongside Time and Newsweek in 1977.
The Interview Room
The living room of the home in Monarch Bay that Frost interviewed Nixon. The taping of the interviews lasted approximately 28 hours and 45 minutes. Harold and Martha Lee Smith, the owners, were in favor of Nixon.

David Frost's Italian Shoe
The shoes David Frost wore to the interviews. Nixon attempted to play "mind games" with Frost by calling his shoes "effeminate" to make him nervous. Ironically, many Italian shoes are thought to be high in quality.
Frost/Nixon Interview Tapes
The actual tapes of the charismatic and flamboyant David Frost interviewing the gruff and no-nonsense ex-President Richard Nixon. It was officially released on January 1, 1977.


Invitation



GUEST LIST

Ron Howard- director of the 2008 movie Frost/Nixon in which David Frost gets Richard Nixon to apologize. By seeing the exhibit, Howard can see how well the historical accuracy of the movie was, so he'll know he did well with his work.

Michael Sheen- actor who played David Frost in the movie. The exhibit could show him how well he did portraying David Frost in the movie and I think he will be excited to see it.

Frank Langella- actor who played Richard Nixon in the movie. The exhibit could show him how big of a character he played in the movie, even if the movie mostly circled Sheen as Frost. He will be delighted to find an exhibit made from a real event that had its own movie, that he co-starred in.

David Frost- the man himself, the one man who interviewed Nixon and got him to apologize. He will be amazed that this exhibit was based off him interviewing Nixon and remember what a legacy he really had.

Bob Zelnick- an experienced producer who helped produce the makings of Frost's interview with Nixon. Seeing the exhibit will remind him that his producing skills brought down the president for good.

James Reston Jr- a humorous researcher who helped Frost prepare to "interrogate" Nixon by giving him his lines to say. The exhibit will show Frost uttering his words in one part, reminding Reston how good at creating monologue he was.

Michael Kroenwetter- a freelance writer who wrote an article on the Watergate Scandal. This article stood out to me the most because it gave up a lot of information. By inviting him to the exhibit, Kroenwetter could document the exhibit's artifacts and even write an article about the exhibit.

Philip French- a very professional movie critic who wrote a review on Frost/Nixon. Having him see the exhibit could cause him to see the movie differently and portray the movie as having more historical accuracy.

Monday, April 15, 2019

2.10 Thinking Like a Historian

2.10
Thinking Like a Historian
Adam Tyler

Fighting for black power

From the topic civil rights and black power, about 4-6 documents below show the range of perspectives and ideas with the struggle for civil rights in the 1960s. Many peaceful protesters were unfortunately met with police brutality, however some were met with attempted negotiations, however these "negotiations" usually didn't last and many demands still stood.

Tuesday, April 9, 2019

2.9 Incarceration Rates and the War on Drugs


2.9 Incarceration Rates and the War on Drugs
Adam Tyler

 From my notes on incarceration rates and the War on Drugs, I've learned that no matter what, the War on Drugs has not made things much better in America. Unsurprisingly, America has the highest rate of incarceration in the world, even surpassing places like Russia and China. America only has 5% of the world's population and the country has more than 25% of incarceration population. A lot of people tend to blame this on the War on Drugs which was put into action by who I think is America's worst president, Richard Nixon. Many people accused Nixon of just making up the war for an excuse to jail hippies and black people, a lot of whom smoked crack cocaine, which increased mass incarceration as seen in the graph below. However, some people actually think the War on Drugs wasn't actually responsible for mass incarceration. There was a more simple reason than that. It was because prisons held several people in for violent offenses, not people like drug offenders. The real problem for mass incarceration was the higher rates of murder in America, but yet the War on Drugs didn't really help the situation. This is actually still a controversial discussion as to whether it was the War on Drugs or the higher count of violent crimes that caused mass incarceration. I myself am deciding what I think what caused mass incarceration, the War on Drugs or violent crime?
Mass incarceration increasing

I could say The War on Drugs certainly put a lot of drug offenders in jail at the time. Unfortunately, people discovered that black males were being imprisoned almost 8 times higher than white males. This lead to a lot of outrage, believing that this war was just a front to be racist once more. Although Nixon claimed that the DEA (Drug Enforcement Administration) was heavily aimed at marijuana users, that was said to be more dangerous than heroin, this was a dirty lie and was just an excuse to arrest more hippies. There started to be all sorts of conspiracies that Nixon was just imprisoning non-violent offenders that didn't deserve all the jail time they got. In the 1980s, the Corrections Corporation of America started to imprison humans for profit. This made private prison incarceration rates increase by nearly 20%. Corporations had found huge benefits from private prisons from low-cost labor, so people started to become incarcerated more and more. As prison numbers jumped, black and brown people were in a very disproportionate size with the next being rural white people. John Ehrlichmann, a man at the White House, even said "The Nixon White House had 2 enemies, the antiwar left and black people. By getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities." In 1985, Americans who were against drugs as "the number one problem" was just 2-6%, and then four year later, it became 64%. People wanted mass incarceration to stop since they thought it was racist with all so many black people in prison, and it was tearing peoples' lives apart, so many wanted low level offenders to be set free so the "real bad prisoners" would be the only ones who were in the prison. I was shocked to learn that the War on Drugs could affect people so much.
War on Drugs not working so well
Although I was convinced that the War on Drugs was absolutely responsible for mass incarceration, I started having second thoughts when I found new sources that told me otherwise. Apparently, the War on Drugs isn't actually responsible for mass incarceration, a high rate of violent crimes is. This whole new theory started when Michael Pfaff wrote Locked In: The True Causes of Mass Incarceration add How to Achieve Real Reform, which contradicted the popular book, The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness, written by Michelle Alexander. Pfaff explains that the War on Drugs didn't make incarceration any better, but the real problem is violent crime, and stopping the War on Drugs wouldn't make things any better. In reality, only about 16% of state prisoners are drug dealers and 5-6% are non violent or at low-level as shown by the chart below.   Also, despite many black people being in prison, most were there for horrendously violent crimes, so putting those people in jail wasn't racism and they definitely weren't there for minor offenses. Pfaff even states that letting people out of prison for drug-related charges won't change anything either and that this just guarantees a higher crime rate since they won't really learn anything from what they've done, especially since drug charges are usually for DEALING DRUGS not just using them. Pfaff says that The New Jim Crowe just absolves criminals of their responsibility for their "poor choices". A good example is one prisoner named Jarvious Cotton killed someone, and even though his ancestors were abused and killed, racism and poverty aren't excuses for his actions and you can't just let him off the hook for it. Pfaff says the real way to stop mass incarceration isn't to let low offenders go, but to assure criminals pay for their choices while also making sure the punishment doesn't cause too much damage, since the punishment also affects the prisoner's family. This whole idea put a serious change of thought into my brain, and I actually started to think the War on Drugs wasn't in fact responsible for mass incarceration.
What the prison system could really looks like
In my final answer, I decided that mass incarceration was more the result of violent crime rather than the War on Drugs. Although I have to agree that Richard Nixon definitely didn't help things with the war and just got more people imprisoned, violent crime just landed a whole lot more people in jail. I think people just thought that the government was being so racist, that they wanted black people out of prison since they "were just low offenders". That isn't true at all and most of them did the awful stuff they were held accountable for. It's not racism, it's just a surprising coincidence, no matter how hard it could be to believe. Also, I definitely agree with Pfaff when he says that letting low-level offenders is a bad idea. How can you assure that criminals are getting punished when they're basically just being given a hall pass? They need to be PUNISHED. However, I'm not entirely sure I agree with Pfaff when he says that the way to achieve real reform is to make sure prisoners suffer the most without their family suffering. Although, the prisoners' families don't need to suffer and they shouldn't, I don't think you need to be so extremely hard on the prisoners, because prison can turn people into monsters. You can start out by being a simple drug user and then turn into a psychopathic murderer when you're let out of prison. What's the real way to stop mass incarceration? I certainly don't know and I'm probably not the one to make the choice, but all I can say is that you need to keep criminals locked up.

In conclusion, mass incarceration is a big problem for America and it's probably one of the hardest problems to solve since it involves nearly everyone related to the offender and it can break the offender if things don't turn out the right way. The mass incarceration discussion still goes on today and I'm not sure if I'm right or wrong but I made my choice, so America can still imprison criminals and not disrupt the system in any way, whether it be drug offenders or violent criminals.

Sources: