EOTO (FINAL): Siskel and Ebert

 

Siskel and Ebert "thumbs up/thumbs down" promotion

Gene Siskel 

Gene Siskel (1972)

Gene Siskel was born in 1946 in Chicago, Illinois. Siskel had a harsh childhood. His mother died when he was only 10 years old, and his father passed not too long after. Because of this, he was raised by his aunt and uncle, who provided him with a stable life. He was known by his teachers as a bright and curious student. He later studied Philosophy at Yale University. During his years, one of his professors encouraged him to pursue a career in movie writing. This advice set him on the path that would define his career. 

After college, he joined the Chicago Tribune in the late 1960s. He did not start off as a critic; he worked as a reporter covering general assignments. It would be in 1969 when he would have the opportunity to become the paper's movie critic. 

As a critic, he became known for being sharp, honest, and sometimes tough. He never hesitated to criticize popular movies such as Star Wars, feeling that it was more of a spectacle than a substantial one, yet strongly supported films he believed in, such as Fargo, for its dark humor. 

His writing style was direct and accessible, which helped him stand out.

Roger Ebert

Roger Ebert was born on June 8,1942 in Urbana, Illinois. He was an only child, and his father worked as an electrician at the University of Illinois. His family was steady and supportive, which gave him a strong foundation growing up. 

Roger Ebert (1975)

From a young age, Ebert showed a passion for writing. As a kid, he created his own little newspaper, became involved in journalism during high school, and wrote frequently for school publications. During his time at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign in the early 1960s. He was very active in journalism and even wrote for the newspaper there. 

After college, Ebert jumped straight into his career. He joined the Chicago Sun-Times in 1966 as a reporter, and in 1967, he became the paper's film critic. 

In 1975, Ebert became the first film critic to win the Pulitzer Prize for Criticism, which was a big deal because it showed that movie criticism could be accepted as real journalism. 

WTTW 1975

Ebert & Siskel during Sneak Previews 

Siskel and Ebert did not start off as friends; they began as rivals. Both worked for competing newspapers in Chicago, so the two critics were naturally in competition. Their relationship changed in 1975, when a local television producer brought them together for a new PBS show called Sneak Previews. 

At first, it wasn't a perfect match. The two have very different personalities and have often argued off-camera. 

Over time, their debates became the heart of the show. They challenged each other's opinions, they explained movies in a way regular people understood, and introduced the "thumbs up/thumbs down" system. 

 "Thumbs Up/Thumbs Down"

The "thumbs up/thumbs down" system was a simple way for Siskel and Ebert to rate movies on their television show (thumbs up, they recommend the movie, thumbs down, they do not recommend it)

This system became extremely popular because, before this, movie reviews were often very long articles that not everyone read. This system was easy to understand, helped audiences decide what to watch, and made their debates more fun to follow. 

Impact on Society

Siskel and Ebert made a huge impact on how people think, watch, and talk about movies. 

They made film criticism mainstream. Millions of people started paying attention to movie critics, watching reviews became part of movie culture, and made discussing movies feel fun and normal. 

The thumbs up/thumbs down system changed how people decided to watch movies. This system could boost a movie's popularity, and movies started running their movie ratings in advertisements. 

Furthermore, they taught people to think about movies beyond just "good" or "bad". They explained why through storytelling, action, and directing, which allowed viewers to think critically and helped people see movies as art and not just entertainment. 

Truth Under Fire: Shock and Awe Movie Review

Flames engulfed Saddam Hussein's Council of Ministers building in Baghdad
during the 2003 bombing campaign that was mistakenly labeled "Shock and Awe". 
A genuine Shock and Awe strategy applied to Ukraine would be less focused on destroying 
buildings and more on changing the way people think. 

The Knight Rider Newsroom 

John Walcott 

John Walcott, Bureau Chief, is someone throughout the film who demonstrates a moral and editorial backbone. Walcott nudges his two reporters to keep pushing their sources and not to be "stenographers for the Bush administration." He is skeptical by instinct and demanding by principle. Additionally, when Walcott decides to recruit a well-connected veteran, Joe Galloway, to help dig up whistleblowers, showing that his approach to leadership is about chasing the truth rather than waiting for it to be handed to him.

Jonathen Landay and Warren Strobel

Jonathan Landay, reporter, is more hotheaded and driven of the two. He and Strobel both heard completely different stories from their sources inside the government. People tell them that the administration is pushing to go to war with Iraq, even though everyone knows Bin Laden is hiding in Afghanistan and Pakistan. As Landay talks things through with his wife, the film shows him as someone who cannot fully accept when all his sources are pointing him another way. 

Warren Strobel, reporter, is the calmer, steadier one of the two. Like Landay, he wonders if they have gotten it wrong and everyone else has gotten it right, but evidence keeps pointing them in the same way. The film makes a point of showing that these men were fearless heroes who never had doubts. They did, but they kept going anyway. 

Joe Galloway

Joe Galloway, Veteran War Correspondent, is someone everyone in Washington is trying to track down. Although the film doesn't give him a huge role, he connects the reporters to a world of quiet contacts and off-the-record conversations they could easily access on their own. Having lived through real wars, he has no patience for one built on lies. 

The film frames the Knight Ridder team as practicing a fundamentally different kind of journalism from their peers: bottom-up reporting that goes directly to intelligence analysts, Pentagon insiders, and Middle East experts rather than laundering official press briefings as news. Many of the 31 newspapers Knight Ridder served hesitated to publish their findings, fearing they were outliers or simply wrong when compared to major outlets like the New York Times. Even within their own organization, the reporters faced institutional friction. The Philadelphia Inquirer's editor bluntly says the tone of their stories doesn't "fit in." 

Main Stream Press 

The Washington press corps is showcased in a different light. Rather than spending time digging for the truth, most news organizations accepted what they were hearing from the Bush administration and then proceeded to pass it on to readers. Both the New York Times and Washington Post are pointed out as outlets that essentially repeated White House talking points, giving them credibility they did not deserve. 

The Times reporter Judith Miller featured in the film is an example of failure. She is shown helping the administration make its case for the war rather than questioning it. The film ends with real footage of Miller admitting that the Knight Rider reports were the only right ones-a damaging message from the heart of the mainstream media failure. 

The Core Difference 

The film draws a clear line between two different ways of journalism. The Knight Ridder team treated official statements as claims that needed to be checked. The mainstream press treated them as acts that simply needed to be reported. Once an approach led to truth, and one led the country into a war built on lies.