Would anyone be interested in a pro-Jameis documentary?

[More Kirk Less Spock]

"It wouldn't come across as a legit journalistic expose' at all. Rather, it would come across as a "fanboy" piece created by an FSU alum and football/Jameis fan."


It completely depends on the content. If you create balance, and allow for the very real but unlikely possibility that he is guilty, you can create a legitimate documentary.

 

[cinemanole]

Originally posted by More Kirk Less Spock:

"It wouldn't come across as a legit journalistic expose' at all. Rather, it would come across as a "fanboy" piece created by an FSU alum and football/Jameis fan."


It completely depends on the content. If you create balance, and allow for the very real but unlikely possibility that he is guilty, you can create a legitimate documentary.

The overwhelming response seems to be to present a balanced perspective. I do agree that if I go on camera wearing my FSU hat, pretty much any viewer that is not an FSU fan will dismiss it. This is another argument for presenting a larger piece with multiple victims and circumstances. Jameis' story is a character, but not the whole story.

 

[NolegirlY2K]

Here are some interesting stats I've found so far for 2014. This is from the American College Health Association. It's only asking about the last 12 months)

7% sexually touched without consent (9.6%, 2000)
2.9% attempted penetration without consent (3.2% in 2000)
1.9% sexual assault (1.8% in 2000) (Also from the raw data I found and some very rough math, looks like 7.9% in 1995)

67.7% report having received information on sexual assault prevention (62.7 in 2008)
55.7% are not interested in receiving information (59.8 in 2008)

This is results from the 1995 survey on CDC's website:

"Forced Sexual Intercourse
Nationwide, 13.1% of college students reported that they had been forced to have sexual intercourse against their will during their lifetime (Table_5). Female students (20.4%) were significantly more likely than male students (3.9%) to report they had ever been forced to have sexual intercourse. Students aged greater than or equal to 25 years (17.5%) were significantly more likely than students aged 18-24 years (10.6%) to report this. Students attending 2-year institutions (15.6%) were significantly more likely than students attending 4-year institutions (11.1%) to report they had ever been forced to have sexual intercourse. Examination of subgroups by sex revealed a significant age group difference between female students aged greater than or equal to 25 years (25.5%) and those aged 18-24 years (17.0%).
Nationwide, 2.6% of college students reported that the first time they had been forced to have sexual intercourse occurred at age less than 13 years (Table_5). Female students (3.3%) were significantly more likely than male students (1.6%) to report first being forced to have sexual intercourse at age less than 13 years; students aged greater than or equal to 25 years (3.6%) were significantly more likely than students aged 18-24 years (2.0%) to report this; Hispanic students (4.9%) were significantly more likely than white students (1.9%) to do so. Students attending 2-year institutions (3.7%) were significantly more likely than students attending 4-year institutions (1.7%) to report first being forced to have sexual intercourse at age less than 13 years. Examination of subgroups by sex revealed a significant race/ethnicity difference between Hispanic (3.6%) and black (0.2%) male students. Examination of subgroups by sex also revealed a significant difference between female students attending 2-year institutions (4.5%) and those attending 4-year institutions (2.2%).
Nationwide, 6.8% of college students reported that the first time they had been forced to have sexual intercourse occurred between ages 13-18 years (Table_5). Female students (11.1%) were significantly more likely than male students (1.4%) to report first being forced to have sexual intercourse between ages 13-18 years.
Nationwide, 3.6% of college students reported that the first time they had been forced to have sexual intercourse occurred at age greater than or equal to 19 years (I added in 17-18 year olds when I did my math) (Table_5). Female students (5.8%) were significantly more likely than male students (0.8%) to report first being forced to have sexual intercourse at age greater than or equal to 19 years; students aged greater than or equal to 25 years (7.2%) were significantly more likely than students aged 18-24 years (1.6%) to report this; and white students (3.7%) were significantly more likely than Hispanic students (2.0%) to do so. Examination of subgroups by sex revealed a significant age group difference between female students aged greater than or equal to 25 years (11.0%) and those aged 18-24 years (2.4%). In addition, white male students (0.8%) were significantly more likely than black male students (0.0%) to report this."

 

[More Kirk Less Spock]

A few things I think should be included in your documentary:

1) a montage of the biased reporting and outrageous comments made by commentators
2) a collection of the biased headlines
3) an investigation into Matt Baker's connections to accuser's family/attorney
4) a collection of the vile things said about him on the internet.
5) an interview with the player who was exonerated after being falsely accused.
6) an interview with the player charged by Meggs who was acquitted in less than an hour when tried.

 

[LBoogie28]

 

[Singleshot]

Originally posted by Singleshot:
A good documentary doesn't try to be pro-anything, it gives fair time and opportunity to both sides of an issue, or at least attempts to. Let the work speak for itself and opinions fall where they may, but falling based on actual facts and hearing from both sides, not just one sided crap filled with lies like that mockery of a documentary they put out.

To add, it would be nearly impossible to give both sides equal time since the other side likely won't give you anything unless you're part of their anti-Winston crowd and frame the film that way. They know if everything is fair and equal then they would come out looking pretty bad without any effort to slant it toward Winston being made. So because you wouldn't have much from them to go on other than what they've already done and said, it would probably come out looking like you were being pro-Winston from the start and then they will try discredit it from the start.

 

[Bubbaone]

I would love it! I support Jameis 110%

 

[Gonolz]

This is a great idea. I would like to help financially, but unfortunately I have committed all of my extra money to supporting an aspiring artist in the music business who needed upfront rent money.

 

[given2fly]

Originally posted by Singleshot:
A good documentary doesn't try to be pro-anything, it gives fair time and opportunity to both sides of an issue, or at least attempts to. Let the work speak for itself and opinions fall where they may, but falling based on actual facts and hearing from both sides, not just one sided crap filled with lies like that mockery of a documentary they put out.

I think you would be in the minority with that opinion. The best documentaries are almost always one-side (in terms of popularity)... Food Inc., Gasland, Blackfish, anything done by Michael Moore.

People like winners and losers, they don't like fair and balanced. We live in a world of confirmation bias and our mind is already made up, we just want someone to agree with us.

Just for clarification, there are some documentaries that don't fall into that category (Man on Wire, Jiro Dreams of Sushi etc.) that have a good story and don't require a winner and loser.

 

[More Kirk Less Spock]

"To add, it would be nearly impossible to give both sides equal time since the other side likely won't give you anything unless you're part of their anti-Winston crowd'


You do not need to give both sides equal time, but you have to recognize there are two sides to the story. This is what The Hunting Ground and people like Feinbaum completely failed to do.

 

[EveryoneBleedsGarnet]

I personally love the idea and I think it might go viral, BUT I also have my doubts that you'd be able to convince Winston and the others to go on camera about this. His lawyer will probably forbid it. If you get interview commitments from some of these key people, I think you should launch a kick starter campaign. I know a lot of Noles that would donate.

 

[More Kirk Less Spock]

Winston need not go on Camera in order to make this a credible, successful production. I think, however, it would useful to have Winston's attorneys make statements.

 

[BloodyNoseJose]

I think the only way it would work is if you only used information from the accusers camp. If you could interview KInsman, Baker, Aunt Pat, Kinsman's dad, etc. It can' be made by an FSU grad. Think of how powerful that would be? A documentary where KInsman and her backers incriminate themselves.

That's the only way it would work. A bunch of interviews with Winston backers, made by an FSU alum will be eaten alive.

 

[Singleshot]

Originally posted by given2fly:

Originally posted by Singleshot:
A good documentary doesn't try to be pro-anything, it gives fair time and opportunity to both sides of an issue, or at least attempts to. Let the work speak for itself and opinions fall where they may, but falling based on actual facts and hearing from both sides, not just one sided crap filled with lies like that mockery of a documentary they put out.

I think you would be in the minority with that opinion. The best documentaries are almost always one-side (in terms of popularity)... Food Inc., Gasland, Blackfish, anything done by Michael Moore.

People like winners and losers, they don't like fair and balanced. We live in a world of confirmation bias and our mind is already made up, we just want someone to agree with us.

Just for clarification, there are some documentaries that don't fall into that category (Man on Wire, Jiro Dreams of Sushi etc.) that have a good story and don't require a winner and loser.

I don't think we are disagreeing. By "best" I don't mean the most popular or profitable. I understand the most popular ones are often not fair and balanced or without bias, but that's what I meant by best.

 

[Singleshot]

Originally posted by given2fly:

Originally posted by Singleshot:
A good documentary doesn't try to be pro-anything, it gives fair time and opportunity to both sides of an issue, or at least attempts to. Let the work speak for itself and opinions fall where they may, but falling based on actual facts and hearing from both sides, not just one sided crap filled with lies like that mockery of a documentary they put out.

I think you would be in the minority with that opinion. The best documentaries are almost always one-side (in terms of popularity)... Food Inc., Gasland, Blackfish, anything done by Michael Moore.

People like winners and losers, they don't like fair and balanced. We live in a world of confirmation bias and our mind is already made up, we just want someone to agree with us.

Just for clarification, there are some documentaries that don't fall into that category (Man on Wire, Jiro Dreams of Sushi etc.) that have a good story and don't require a winner and loser.

I don't think we are disagreeing. By "best" I don't mean the most popular or profitable. I understand the most popular ones are often not fair and balanced or without bias, but that's what I meant by best.

 

[given2fly]

Originally posted by Singleshot:

Originally posted by given2fly:

Originally posted by Singleshot:
A good documentary doesn't try to be pro-anything, it gives fair time and opportunity to both sides of an issue, or at least attempts to. Let the work speak for itself and opinions fall where they may, but falling based on actual facts and hearing from both sides, not just one sided crap filled with lies like that mockery of a documentary they put out.

I think you would be in the minority with that opinion. The best documentaries are almost always one-side (in terms of popularity)... Food Inc., Gasland, Blackfish, anything done by Michael Moore.

People like winners and losers, they don't like fair and balanced. We live in a world of confirmation bias and our mind is already made up, we just want someone to agree with us.

Just for clarification, there are some documentaries that don't fall into that category (Man on Wire, Jiro Dreams of Sushi etc.) that have a good story and don't require a winner and loser.

I don't think we are disagreeing. By "best" I don't mean the most popular or profitable. I understand the most popular ones are often not fair and balanced or without bias, but that's what I meant by best.

If you aren't looking at popularity or profitability, I'm not sure what is meant by best. Do you mean your personal favorite documentaries?

 

[Nole Lou]

Even if Jameis was the centerpiece, I would make it bigger than the Jameis story...because it is bigger than the Jameis story. Read the work that woman at Slate has been writing about these issues. I would try to connect with her. Frankly, there are people that have been way more wronged than Jameis has, all things considered.

 

[TexasGooner]

Just be as objective as possible, because you know people are going to think you're simply an FSU homer.

 

[Nolelander]

A documentary about false rape accusations and the ramifications on the falsely accused that highlights JW's case, among others could work on Kickstarter. Starting with the story of Brian Banks would create less resistance than JW, but include JW in as a main story line.

 

[noledoc1]

Originally posted by jhtally04:

Originally posted by cinemanole:

Originally posted by jhtally04:

Jameis and his agency he signed with would shut this down in a heartbeat.

Interesting take - why do you think that? It might be what they're hoping for. Someone other than them to take their side.

It sure would be hard to make the film without Jameis' cooperation, but not impossible. In a weird way, would it be more powerful?

I don't underscore your idea but think about it. Look who he signed with and all the things they are involved with outside just being his agent and crossing the T's and dotting the i's. They build a brand and will be involved in anything and everything Jameis does moving forward and have a huge PR and legal team. There is also timing involved now is not the time to keep shedding light on his past problems and who were involved. Go for it but it would get shut down imo.

About the only thing his agency can control is access to jameis. They can't stop the documentary. It's all public record.