In Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission (2009), the U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way for corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence citizens’ decisions about candidates and issues that will appear on election ballots. More important, however, for democratic educators, the ruling was grounded in an assumption that citizens can easily recognize “political speech” when it appears in media such as Hillary: The Movie, the film at issue in the case.
Purpose/Objective/Research Question/Focus of Study
This article examines implications of this ruling for democratic education. In particular, this article focuses on the nature of the documentary form in society, including how it is used toward political purposes and how teachers, students, and the public view it as an objective source of information in and out of the classroom.
Research Design
This study is designed as an analytic essay that addresses a critical issue within democratic and media education and draws from a broad base of empirical, theoretical, and conceptual work to examine issues exacerbated by the Citizens United ruling.
Conclusions/Recommendations
This article concludes that critical media education should be a core tenet of democratic education, especially as we move into the 21st century, and outlines areas to address in curriculum, pedagogy, and policy.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndersonS. (2001). History TV and popular memory. In EdgertonG. & RollinsP. (Eds.), Television histories: Shaping collective memory in the media age (pp. 19–36). Lexington: University of Kentucky Press.
2.
Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce. 110 S. Ct. 1391 (1990).
3.
BeVierL. (1977–1978). The first amendment and political speech: An inquiry into substance and limits of principle. Stanford Law Review, 30, 299–358.
BoltonJ. (1980). Constitutional limitations on restricting corporate and union political speech. Arizona Law Review, 22, 373–409.
6.
BordwellD., & ThompsonK. (1993) Film art: An introduction.New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
7.
BuckinghamD. (2000). The making of citizens. London, England: Routledge.
8.
BuckinghamD. (2003). Media education: Literacy, learning, and contemporary culture. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
9.
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 130 S. Ct. 876 (2010).
10.
ColesR. (1997). Doing documentary work.New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
11.
CornfieldM. (2005). Political documentaries in 2004.Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project and Pew Research Center for The People & The Press.
12.
Corporation for Public Broadcasting. (1997). Study of school uses of television and video.Washington, DC: Author.
13.
CroccoM. S. (2007). Teaching the levees: A curriculum for democratic dialogue and civic engagement.New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
14.
DamicoJ. S., BaildonM., ExterM., & GuoS. (2009/2010). Where we read from matters: Disciplinary literacy in a ninth-grade social studies classroom. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 53(4), 325–335.
15.
DamicoJ. S., & RosaenC. (2009). Creating epistemological pathways to a critical citizenry: An examination of a fifth-grade discussion of freedom. Teachers College Record, 111(5), 1163–1194.
16.
EllsworthE. (1997). Teaching positions: Difference, pedagogy, and the power of address.New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
17.
EllsworthE., & WhatleyM. (Eds.). (1990). Ideology of images in educational media: Hidden curriculums in the classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.
HaneyB. (Director). (2011). The last mountain.Waltham, MA: Massachusetts Documentary Productions.
26.
HessD. (2007, May/June). From ‘Banished’ to ‘Brother Outsider,’ ‘Miss Navajo’ to ‘An Inconvenient Truth’: Documentary films as perspective-laden narratives. Social Education, 71(4), 194–199.
27.
HessD. (2009). Controversy in the classroom: The democratic power of discussion.New York, NY: Routledge.
28.
HobbsR. (2006). Non-optimal use of video in the classroom. Learning, Media and Technology, 31(1), 35–50.
29.
HolbertR., & HansenG. (2006). Fahrenheit 9-11, need for closure and the priming of affective ambivalence: An assessment of intra-affective structures by party identification. Human Communication Research, 32, 109–129.
30.
JostJ., FedericoC., & NapierJ. (2009). Political ideology: Its structure, functions, and elective affinities. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 307–337.
31.
KahneJ., & MiddaughE. (2009). Democracy for some: The civic opportunity gap in high school. In YounissJ. & LevineP. (Eds.), Engaging young people in civic life (pp. 29–58). Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.
32.
KellnerD. (2009). Toward a critical media/cultural studies. In HammerR. & KellnerD. (Eds.), Media/cultural studies: Critical approaches (pp. 5–24). New York: Peter Lang.
33.
KellnerD., & ShareJ. (2007). Critical media literacy, democracy, and the reconstruction of education. In MacedoD. & SteinbergS.R. (Eds.), Media literacy: A reader (pp. 3–23). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
34.
LaMarreH. L. & LandrevilleK. D. (2009). When is fiction as good as fact? Comparing the influence of documentary and historical reenactment films on engagement, affect, issue interest, and learning. Mass Communication & Society, 12(4), 537–555.
35.
MangramJ. (2008). Either/or rules: Social studies teachers’ talk about media and popular culture. Theory and Research in Social Education, 36(2), 32–60.
36.
MarcusA. (2007). Students making sense of the past: ‘It's almost like living the event.’ In MarcusA. (Ed.), Celluloid blackboard: Teaching history with film (pp. 121–166). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
37.
MarcusA., PaxtonR., & MeyersonP. (2006). ‘The reality of it all’: History students read the movies. Theory and Research in Social Education, 34(3), 516–552.
38.
MarcusA., & StoddardJ. (2007, May/June). Tinsel town as teacher: Hollywood film in the high school history classroom. The History Teacher, 40(3), 303–330.
39.
MartinK. (2007). Teaching the Shoah: Four approaches that draw students in. The History Teacher, 40(4), 493–502.
40.
MetzgerS. A. (2010). Maximizing the educational power of history movies in the classroom. The Social Studies, 101(3), 127–136.
41.
MiddaughE., & KahneJ. (2009). Online localities: Implications for democracy and education. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 108(1), 192–218.
42.
MinowN. (2011, April). A vaster wasteland. The Atlantic, pp. 50–52.
43.
MooreM. (Director). (2004). Fahrenheit 9/11. New York, NY: Dog Eat Dog Films.
44.
MooreM. (Director). (2007). Sicko. New York, NY: Dog Eat Dog Films.
45.
NathanS., & GrimmerP. (2003). Truth, War, and Consequences teacher's guide. PBS Online and WGBH/Frontline. Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org
46.
NicholsB. (1991). Representing reality: Issues and concepts in documentary.Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
47.
NisbetM., & AufderheideP. (2009). Documentary film: Towards a research agenda on forms, functions, and impacts. Mass Communication and Society, 12(4), 450–456.
SeixasP. (1994). Confronting the moral frames of popular film: Young people respond to historical revisionism. American Journal of Education, 102(3), 261–285.
62.
SilberG. (Director). (2009). Labor day. Bloomfield, NJ: Catalyst Media Productions.
63.
SimonA., & XenosM. (2000). Media framing and effective public deliberation. Political Communications, 17, 363–376.
64.
SkaggsA. (2010). Buying justice: The impact of Citizens United on judicial elections. New York: Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law.
65.
StoddardJ. (2006) ‘Was that how it really happened?’ Film as a tool for historical thinking (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Wisconsin-Madison.
66.
StoddardJ. (June 2009a). The ideological implications of using ‘educational’ film to teach controversial events. Curriculum Inquiry, 39(3), 407–433.
67.
StoddardJ. (2009b) Socratic seminar: A model for film discussion in the social studies. In HeilmanE., FrujaR., & MissiasM. (Eds.), Social studies and diversity teacher education: What we do and why we do it (pp. 288–291). New York. NY: Routledge Press.
68.
StoddardJ. (December 2009–January 2010). The History Channel effect. Phi Delta Kappan, 91(4), 80.
69.
StoddardJ. (2010). The competing roles of epistemology and ideology in teachers’ pedagogy with historical media. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 16(1), 133–151.
70.
StoddardJ. (2012). Film as a ‘thoughtful’ medium for teaching history. Learning, Media, and Technology.
71.
StroudN. (2007). Media effects, selective exposure, and Fahrenheit 9/11. Political Communication, 24(4), 415–432.
72.
SunsteinC. (2007). Republic.com 2.0.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
73.
TavesB. (2001). The History Channel and the challenge of historical programming. In EdgertonG. & RollinsP. (Eds.), Television histories: Shaping collective memory in the media age (pp. 261–281). Lexington: University of Kentucky Press.
74.
WalkerT. (2006). Historical literacy: Reading history through film. The Social Studies, 97(1), 30–34.
75.
WhitemanD. (2004). Out of the theaters and into the streets: A coalition model of the politica impact of documentary film and video. Political Communication, 21, 51–69.
76.
WiseH. (1939). Motion pictures as an aid in teaching American history. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
77.
WoeldersA. (2007). ‘It makes you think more when you watch things’: Scaffolding for historical inquiry using film in the middle school classroom. The Social Studies, 98(4), 145–152.
