CBS and Murrow’s “Harvest of Shame” is one of the best examples of advocacy journalism in history. From a journalistic standpoint, the documentary is well-filmed, contains several hard-hitting and valuable interviews, and a good balance of emotions and facts to educate and influence the audience. People from different sides of the issues were given chances to speak. The documentary opened up with harrowing accounts and heartbreaking interviews with some of the migrant workers and ended with a succinct call to action from Murrow, urging Americans to fight for the migrant workers because they don’t have the political power to advocate for themselves.
“Harvest of Shame” is a perfect work of advocacy journalism that served to educate Americans on the plight of migrant workers and uplift the group. Airing the documentary right after Thanksgiving was also a genius decision, because as Murrow said, the food on America’s tables would not be there if not for the overlooked labor of the migrant workers. The documentary holds up today, but it is clearly dated. If CBS were to revisit "Harvest of Shame" 60 years later and put out the documentary today, how would social media and modern technology transform the documentary?
At its core, "Harvest of Shame" aimed to shed light on the injustices faced by migrant laborers—a mission that remains especially relevant today. A modern version would still use interviews with migrants and their families to evoke empathy and raise awareness about labor rights and social justice issues. The firsthand accounts from workers, as well as interviews with politicians and lobbyists, would serve to influence the audience to stand up for migrants' rights, in a similar fashion to how CBS did in the original documentary.
Obviously, if the documentary was shot today, it would not be shot on static cameras in black and white. Today’s filmmakers have access to advanced technology, such as high-definition cameras and cell phones, which could gripping visuals of the agricultural landscape and the daily lives of workers. The documentary could even incorporate personal videos shot from the cell phones of migrant workers that show the experiences firsthand. The dynamic, higher quality camera work would serve to further immerse the audience in the story, and personal videos would form an even deeper bond from viewer to subject.
Social media, particularly TikTok, would play an interesting role in how CBS would produce the documentary today. CBS could use its social media presence on TikTok to share short, impactful clips from the documentary to reach viewers that might not have tuned in on television. These clips could even go viral, reaching a broader audience and broadening conversations around the issue of migrants' rights. Additionally, taking advantage of the "social" aspect of social media, CBS could add user-generated aspects to the story, encouraging viewers to share their personal stories or thoughts on the issues.
If CBS were to revisit "Harvest of Shame" today, the documentary would certainly retain its mission to highlight the struggles faced by migrant laborers, but the storytelling methods would be somewhat different, given the technological advances. With better cameras and the integration of social media, a modern version would engage audiences in new, more personal ways. By harnessing the power of social media, CBS could amplify the documentary’s impact, making the issues surrounding migrant labor resonate even more strongly in today’s world. The spirit of advocacy remains unchanged; it’s the medium and message that have transformed.
Hi Emma! I really like how you tied our discussion board to your blog post. That is a great way to expand on what we are already learning. I think if CBS were to revisit the "Harvest of Shame" today, we would see social media become engulfed in this topic. Further, we even saw something similar with the BLM movement and how influencers brought forth a lot of awareness with the amount of followers. During this time, many saw their favorite influencers feeling strongly about BLM and so they reciprocated the black screen posts. It seems that if the public is well-informed about a topic, then it is human nature to advocate for reform and a better life for those that are being unjustly hurt. We definitely live in a society that relies heavily on social media, which can often be bad for our democracy. However, when it comes to spreading the word on important issues that require the public to speak up, it can be incredibly helpful!
ReplyDelete