"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." Thomas Jefferson considered scrutiny of elected officials and the status quo to be one our most important duties as citizens of a democracy—a belief no doubt nourished by his involvement in the American Revolution and the American colonies' struggle against an overseas monarchy. And of course we have a long history in this country of investigative and "watch dog" journalism; that is, journalism whose purpose is to hold elected officials properly accountable and to uncover corruption wherever it may exist.

With the advent of digital technology—the internet, the mini cam, CDs, DVDs—investigative stories have become ever-easier to produce and disseminate. Too, 9/11 and the recent Iraq war have fueled a recent surge in investigative documentaries which probe the business dealings of recent administrations, scrutinize the war on terror, trace money trails of all kinds, and in general challenge corporate-owned, mainstream network news accounts of important recent events. (And of course Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 recently made a very big splash, as documentaries go.)

What arguments are being made in these documentaries? How are these arguments constructed, what are their claims, evidence, and enabling assumptions? Who are the writers, directors, and producers of these works and how are their respective backgrounds important to our judgment of their arguments? How sound, finally, are their arguments? How well do these works help us understand what our leaders are doing—and how do they help us, in fact, understand the responsibilities of leadership itself?


The Visual Component

An additional, very important question for this project: what visual (and audio) devices and appeals do these documentaries develop? How do scene composition, direction, set design, and production effect our acceptance or rejection of the arguments being made? What symbolism, cultural backstory, and emotional resonance do the images (including their shape, color, and interrelationships) carry? What atmosphere is conveyed?

Questions such as these will be important to our viewing of political documentaries, as well as to upcoming projects.

Choose a political documentary which interests you, and rent/buy/borrow it. This should be your choice of any recent film which in some way questions the status quo or which brings to light an unacknowledged or unknown concern. (There is no required political slant here; the film doesn't have to be right or left-wing, Republican or Democrat or anything else —just pick a piece which investigates and challenges a powerful social or political entity.) After watching the film attentively, write a 4-5 page rhetorical analysis of the argument being made in the film.

For help in putting your analysis together, you should carefully review all of Chap. 3 in CTW, including the questions at the end. You should look closely too at the question sheet for documentaries and the Putting Together a Rhetorical Analysis sheet which appear on our schedule.

Your audience for this paper will be your teacher and English 120 classmates. Your purpose is to objectively ANALYZE the argument in question: its thesis, supporting claims, evidence (including kinds of evidence), enabling assumptions, negotiations with its opposition, and, of course, its ethos, pathos, and logos. Though this is not primarily an EVALUATION of the argument, you may include some brief discussion of its effectiveness or soundness at the end.

Examples of possible films (I have multiple copies of several which I can loan out, first-come first-serve):

• The Corporation;
• Heist: Who Stole the American Dream?;
• Food Inc.;
• Uncovered: The Whole Truth About the Iraq War;
• Houston, We Have a Problem;
• The Kennedy Assasination;
• Koch Brothers Exposed ;
• The Billionaire's Tea Party;
• other Michael Moore films, such as Fahrenheit 9/11 or Sicko
• FahrenHYPE 9/11;
• Super Size Me ;
• The War on Democracy;
• War Made Easy;
• America: Freedom to Fascism;
• The American Ruling Class;
• Buried in the Sand (I haven't seen this, but a student recommended it);
• No End in Sight;
• Any political, "watch-dog"-style documentary of your choosing; .

If you don't find a documentary that interests you, you may instead view a docudrama, or even just a drama with an especially explicit political message, such as Oliver Stone's JFK, Tim Robbins' Bob Roberts, or John Milius's Red Dawn. Be sure to discuss this option with me in advance.

Your paper should clearly, objectively, and thoroughly analyze the argument made by the film in question, and it should be informed by recent reading assignments in CTW and discussions in class. (If you'd like to offer a judgment of the argument, that is ok, but evaluation should be kept to a minimum, since this is not the paper's primary purpose.) The piece should show coherence and unity; include an introduction, body, and conclusion; demonstrate attention to its audience; and include discussion of items discussed in class.

Format your paper according to MLA instructions. CLICK HERE for manuscript formatting review. And be sure to edit and proofread your work for stylistic problems and mechanical errors. Please type, double-space, and STAPLE your work.

Document all sources according to MLA guidelines. CLICK HERE for MLA rules.

Grade Scale:

A = fulfills all or nearly all of the above criteria, and does so with distinction. = 22-25 pts.

B = fulfills nearly all of the above criteria, or fulfills all of them but without distinction. = 19-21 pts.

C = fulfills some of the above criteria, or fulfills all of them somewhat minimally or weakly. = 16-18 pts.

D = fulfills very little of the above criteria, or fulfills most of them very minimally or very weakly. = 13-15 pts.

F = fulfills few or none of the above criteria, or fulfills some reasonably well but is egregiously lacking in key areas. = 0 pts.

ALWAYS STAPLE ANY AND ALL WORK YOU TURN IN!