Task 1
In Factual Programming there are many different concepts to factor into account. These are crucial in factual programming for many reasons which will be explained. The things to take into account are accuracy, balance, impartiality, objectivity, subjectivity, opinion and bias.
Accuracy
Accuracy, in it's simplest way, is to be accurate, which is to not miss a physical/metaphorical target, to be on point and to be precise. As such this is all too true with factual programming, when you film a documentary for example, you need to be accurate in your information and research. By gathering information, you have to make sure that it is backed up by evidence, being either images, video, statements and audio, even published nonfiction works count too.
Example of inaccurate documentation - Film: Bowling for Columbine - Michael Moore
A keen example of an inaccurate documentary is the one mentioned above, 'Bowling for Columbine'.
A reflection on US society, this documentary film won many awards, yet had some shortcomings, including manipulated speeches and interviews. They twisted meanings of sayings and scenes to send a different message, which wouldn't have been intentional if they didn't edit it.
One scene in particular which is often called out upon, is when they interview the National Rifle Association President, Charlton Hestons. In the interview, they discuss gun laws and such, but there is one line that Charlton said which made a very impressionable moment in the film.
He says "I have only five words for you: from my cold, dead, hands". This was edited and slapped in to footage of a Denver demonstration, with weeping children stood outside the Columbine school. This manipulation made this section of the film inaccurate, the accuracy was too off, as the Denver demonstration, had nothing to do with Columbine, so they had taken two separate objects and meshed them together to give another meaning.
Rather than being clever symbolism, they were inferring that this was a direct response, which it wasn't.
Balance
Balance is to be even, fair, and in factual programming it's very much the same, for balance in factual programming is to have the argument be fair and equal from both sides.
When your documentary is balanced, it could be about any argument, but either way it is fair, it is not one-sided and it also knows to be equal, without deviating to one side and hammering down one side of the argument.
If you lack balanced points of view and arguments it will turn off either side of the argument in terms of viewers. They will just give up watching your documentary and this can lead to a misleading documentary.
Having balance in your documentary also means having factual information, and not just focusing on one side, if you do that, your coverage will become more and more misleading and it will lead to inaccuracy also.
When your documentary is balanced, it could be about any argument, but either way it is fair, it is not one-sided and it also knows to be equal, without deviating to one side and hammering down one side of the argument.
If you lack balanced points of view and arguments it will turn off either side of the argument in terms of viewers. They will just give up watching your documentary and this can lead to a misleading documentary.
Having balance in your documentary also means having factual information, and not just focusing on one side, if you do that, your coverage will become more and more misleading and it will lead to inaccuracy also.
Impartiality
Impartiality means to view both sides and opinions the same, on the same level, and to not take or make a personal judgement which could affect how the viewers see your reporting and your documentary as a whole.
If you go around making claims and being one sided, you're not being impartial. You can get into more situations and issues if you make your own judgments and don't make your documentary balanced, and making sure that people see both sides of the light. Because you can make many people give up with trying to listen to what you have to say as they'll assume you haven't done much research on the other side and also want nothing to do with it.
Objectivity
Objectivity is to be honest and truthful, it is to use evidence, facts and other similar pieces of proof to show fair views from both sides of an argument. It is important to tackle a subject with both perspectives, for example, you could cover the topic of alcohol.
Alcohol is a controversial topic, some people drink a lot, some drink some, and some drink nothing whatsoever. So if you were to cover the positive effects and sides of alcohol, as well as the negative sides and effects of it too, you would be being objective.
As long as you're not "biased" (a term that will be explained further on), then you're going to be fine when covering any sort of topic. You must make sure not to bring your personal belongings and beliefs into any documentary that aims to please both sides, or anything whatsoever.
Subjectivity
Often associated to when you discuss a topic and subject, and talk about both sides of the argument objectively. Often not used in documentary programming as this can lead to not facts being used, but being slightly bias to your views (see bias below).
If you are subjective in this regard, it's always best to state that your opinion is an opinion, and make sure that it has not been enforced by anyone else and it's not something which has been scripted.
If you are subjective in this regard, it's always best to state that your opinion is an opinion, and make sure that it has not been enforced by anyone else and it's not something which has been scripted.
Opinion
An opinion is your personal or someone's personal take on a topic. If you think the opposite to someone on a topic, for example, if you think that in a documentary, people shouldn't be supporting war, then that is your opinion.
Best associated with debates, if you claim your take on something, and you include phrases such as "The way I see it" and "From my perspective", then you're expressing your opinion.
Having an opinion is perfectly normal, and it is very common in documentaries, it is also very common for those who view documentaries. The fact of the matter is, everyone has an opinion on something, so if you make a documentary, you have to make sure that you are accurate, balanced and impartial to avoid provoking someone or risking them not caring for your program.
Bias
Being bias is similar to having an opinion. This is more of when you let your personal experience and preference, take over your study of the documentary. It makes you seem very one-sided, your reasons are often quite weak if you're biased, people often prefer things if they experienced them if they were younger. However your reasons are often weak and not something you can fall back on.
Bias is being pure to just one side, talking down to the other side, and treating your perspective as something like the second coming.
It's ok to have a preference of one side, but you mustn't make that apparent, and you should make sure that your fair and (as mentioned above) balanced.
An example of a bias documentary is the infamous story of Morgan Spurlock's trek to eat fast food for thirty days straight. Titled "Supersize Me", a picture of the man responsible is below.
The reason this documentary was deemed bias, was because of a claim that Morgan made, in the documentary, about eating 5,000 calories of McDonald's fast food, per day in this challenge.
Sounds quite bad for the restaurant doesn't it? Well a press release following this film he made, claimed that "Eating 5,000 calories of any food every day would lead even the fittest of people into obesity".
Thus shooting down Morgan's purpose of this film, and also what he set out to do, to attempt to make McDonald's look bad and flawed for the human body. Turns out, he could've just had the same amount, from anywhere else, and have the same result!
Bias is being pure to just one side, talking down to the other side, and treating your perspective as something like the second coming.
It's ok to have a preference of one side, but you mustn't make that apparent, and you should make sure that your fair and (as mentioned above) balanced.
An example of a bias documentary is the infamous story of Morgan Spurlock's trek to eat fast food for thirty days straight. Titled "Supersize Me", a picture of the man responsible is below.
The reason this documentary was deemed bias, was because of a claim that Morgan made, in the documentary, about eating 5,000 calories of McDonald's fast food, per day in this challenge.
Sounds quite bad for the restaurant doesn't it? Well a press release following this film he made, claimed that "Eating 5,000 calories of any food every day would lead even the fittest of people into obesity".
Thus shooting down Morgan's purpose of this film, and also what he set out to do, to attempt to make McDonald's look bad and flawed for the human body. Turns out, he could've just had the same amount, from anywhere else, and have the same result!
Task 2
Also in factual programming, there is factual television production, and many positions are in this. Mainly in news reporting and documentations.
Studio News Readers
Studio news readers are common place in today's world and are almost always seen when news is being broadcasted. Often at a desk on a set, news reporters in studios often read news at a professional level, needing to be focussed, dedicated and calm. They must also read what must be read, usually from a teleprompter (a device which shows what they need to say, often placed near the camera so it seems like they are still looking and talking to the audience.
Having been around for years, studio news reporters are a sight most people are used to, and they cover many topics such as politics, sport, weather and much more, using many different tools and utilites to aid them in telling us fact sabout the world and its progress today.
Having been around for years, studio news reporters are a sight most people are used to, and they cover many topics such as politics, sport, weather and much more, using many different tools and utilites to aid them in telling us fact sabout the world and its progress today.
Field Reporters
Field reporters are similar to studio news reporters, but a tad different. The reason they differ is because they are known as 'in the field', which means that they are outside, usually near or on the site where the news is being reported on. Field reporters add a different flair to the news, when they are on a certain place, i.e London, when politicians are the topic, it makes the audience understand the situation more, and the scenery has a nice change and it doesn't feel too bland or repetitive.
Field reporters are also more talkative, chatty types of people, not usually needing much other than a piece of paper with some facts about what's going on and what they should probably ask. Basically, they are very chatty and calm people that don't need to rely on teleprompters or being the face of the show.
Field reporters are also more talkative, chatty types of people, not usually needing much other than a piece of paper with some facts about what's going on and what they should probably ask. Basically, they are very chatty and calm people that don't need to rely on teleprompters or being the face of the show.
Interviewing
Another common thing that occurs in today's news and documentation in factual TV, interviewing is a process in which someone asks another person (in this case, a reporter asks someone involved with the story) some questions about what's happening and their take on the event.
Interviews add a more commhnity-driven, personal experience to the report. It helps us not think that the studio is being biased to one side of the story any by interviewing others, you really add a sense of balance and making us feel we have a voice in the situation.
Interviews add a more commhnity-driven, personal experience to the report. It helps us not think that the studio is being biased to one side of the story any by interviewing others, you really add a sense of balance and making us feel we have a voice in the situation.
Experts and Witnesses
Experts are people that are at an incredible knowledge and high level of reliability on whatever is being reported. More often than not, when the news discusses anything, especially if it's about animals, the economy or politics, they will bring an expert into the report.
This can range from someone giving their take on it from their knowledge or just giving us straight up facts, both of which are valuable. They can really help back up one side of a debate and experts really help us understand the story a lot better, one way or another.
Witnesses on the other hand are a tad different, they are more like people that aren't experts at all, and rather are interviewed and asked questions based off what they've seen. A hint in the name, witnesses are usually a 'witness' to the incident/coverage.
They're usually asked 'what happened' or 'what they saw'. More often than not too, they are often connected to the story somehow, for example, if there was a domestic incident, then the neighbours are often questioned and asked things. Usually asked questions like if they 'heard anything' or if there were any signs 'they saw this coming'.
This can range from someone giving their take on it from their knowledge or just giving us straight up facts, both of which are valuable. They can really help back up one side of a debate and experts really help us understand the story a lot better, one way or another.
Witnesses on the other hand are a tad different, they are more like people that aren't experts at all, and rather are interviewed and asked questions based off what they've seen. A hint in the name, witnesses are usually a 'witness' to the incident/coverage.
They're usually asked 'what happened' or 'what they saw'. More often than not too, they are often connected to the story somehow, for example, if there was a domestic incident, then the neighbours are often questioned and asked things. Usually asked questions like if they 'heard anything' or if there were any signs 'they saw this coming'.
Report Structure
The report structure can easily be summed up.
Firstly, the audience is welcome by an introduction of sorts, then followed by a studio news reporter, who will go over the main highlights, these are stores that they intend to cover throughout the time slot.
Then they move onto deeper coverage of the main headlines, beginning to show signs of balance, reliability and so forth, using field reporters when need be, and using them to interview witnesses and experts when need be.
When they find their results, the studio news reader will often leave the argument at an open end to avoid seeming bias to one side. They will then move onto the weather report, which will change the focus to the reporter for the weather.
Once they cover all they need to cover, the predictions and estimations of the weather. They go back to the main studio news reader, who will go onto more stories and eventually will rinse and repeat this process until all stories are covered.
Firstly, the audience is welcome by an introduction of sorts, then followed by a studio news reporter, who will go over the main highlights, these are stores that they intend to cover throughout the time slot.
Then they move onto deeper coverage of the main headlines, beginning to show signs of balance, reliability and so forth, using field reporters when need be, and using them to interview witnesses and experts when need be.
When they find their results, the studio news reader will often leave the argument at an open end to avoid seeming bias to one side. They will then move onto the weather report, which will change the focus to the reporter for the weather.
Once they cover all they need to cover, the predictions and estimations of the weather. They go back to the main studio news reader, who will go onto more stories and eventually will rinse and repeat this process until all stories are covered.
Documentary
Dramatisation
Dramatisation in documentaries is converting a story into a documentary, it's similar to the definitition of dramatisation. Which is turning a short story into a play or visual performance. It is often done in documentaries to show people another angle, and a different perception of a certain topic so they can learn more about it and get some light on the matter.
Realism
Realism in documentaries is more-a-less accepting a situation as what it is and dealing with it, it is showing exactly what they are trying to show you, and not sugar coating it, or lying or fibbing in any way whatsoever.
Documentaries that have realism are documentaries that are aiming to be very accurate, to the point and purely factual. They try and show the truth on certain matters and try to show that things are not what they seem.
Documentaries that have realism are documentaries that are aiming to be very accurate, to the point and purely factual. They try and show the truth on certain matters and try to show that things are not what they seem.
Narrativisation
This is narrating a topic, subject or story and communicating in a way that makes the topic a lot easier to understand. Much like when a documentary digs deeper to find more facts, clues and evidence about what they're reporting on, this is with the intention of reporting, to understand what they're reporting.
Narrativisation is also showing experiences and events in a form that is shown visually, when you narrate over a certain experience and show the depths of the report and the tale behind it. Often seen in documentaries on historic events like war, or political situations that didn't go well, even in certain killings.
Often there will also be witnesses involved, and by having their take and claims on what happened, we can therefore experience what happened due to them narrating the scene to us, the audience.
No comments:
Post a Comment