Accuracy
The term 'Accuracy' in factual TV
programmes is how the presenter communicates truthful facts to the viewers. The
information they give viewers should be as precise as it can be. The audience
should not be mislead and should be told facts and not opinions. If programmes
are not accurate, then the viewing ratings will decrease due to the loss of
trust of their audience.
Good:
This ‘Wild Animal
Fights’ documentary is a good example of the rule accuracy. The whole footage
throughout shows animals living their everyday life, which is why it is a good
example of accuracy as there is no staged footage or false facts given. At 2:10
we see two beetles fighting against each other. As there is real footage of
this being shown, viewers will know that this is what they actually do which
benefits them as they are visually told the truth which gains an interest in
the documentary. There are voiceovers throughout the documentary which provides
facts, an example of this is at 14:42 where we have an antelope stretching its
nose, and during that the voiceover says “everything is small about them
actually, except their noses, which they can even stretch” having a voiceover
telling you something that matches with the footage defies the amount of truth that
was in that fact. The audience will believe it even more which then gains more viewers.
Bad:
A bad example of the
term accuracy is crime watch. The reason I have chosen crime watch is because of
the reconstruction events that are shown to explain more in detail what
happened and to give it more of a story. At 4:49, an inflatable doll is chucked
at the girl which then hits her in the face. Her reaction at 4:51 is very
overreacted as she looks like she is pain, however, in reality, the doll
probably never hurt her as much as what the reaction to it looked like on the
reconstruction video. To the viewers they would feel sorry for her because in
her interview, she says that she was “covered in mud” which saddens the atmosphere
even more, but also tying them into the programme as it gets closer to the
climax of the situation. Another example is at 4:56 when the man says “what you
doing?” in a serious tone to its attacker, although the woman in the interview
says that he said that he didn't "want any trouble". The reconstruction video
could have been more dramatic in the way he comes across quite angry, when
really he might have been calm but concerned. The audience would become more
interested as they know something is going to happen any minute which glues
them to the programme even more.
Balance
In factual programming,
the term ‘Balance’ means when something is equalised. When an argument is being
presented on tv, both sides of the arguments should be shown, and one side
should not be presented better than the other. Equally, stories should be told
from both sides and importantly, to try and not be biased.
Good:
Question Time is a show
that has balance because arguments are expressed equally through the audience
and the experts on the panel. There are many different people that get to share
their view, and the people on the panel respond with either in agreement or
disagreement. An example of a balanced view is at 13:29 where the woman on the
panel goes back to one of the audiences view on when he had said “they ended
random testing” to which she then replies “we did not end random testing”,
showing balanced opinions on the fact that the man in the audience gave. Viewers
at home would become intrigued by this because of the many different opinions
being expressed and the educational factor it gives which in a way, benefits them.
Bad:
A bad example of
showing a balanced programme is the E15 mums documentary. This documentary
includes a group of 29 homeless single mothers, about to be shunted 200 miles
away, but have however, taken radical action. The reason, as to why this is an
unbalanced documentary, is because it only shows the e15 mums point of views on
what’s happening. There are no answers in the documentary from the council
being given to support their take on why they are kicking them out of the
flats. This gives a false impression on the viewers as we would just believe
what the e15 mums are saying and not care what the council have to say,
although there could be a reason as to why they are kicking them out which the
e15 mums aren’t telling us. At 2:55, we have a woman from the estate defend her
status by saying “why should we be pushed out in the area because it’s become
trendy and because of the Olympics”, this is unbalanced because there is no say
from the council to argue back on why they are pushing them out of the area,
and why they are doing it because of the Olympics and the trendiness they want
the estate to become. The viewers would abide by what the woman is saying and
would result into having a negative view on the council.
Impartiality
In factual tv
programmes, the term ‘Impartiality’ is when the producers do not take either
side of a story or situation, instead they stay neutral. They cannot be biased
nor prejudice as they have to show the best of both sides. Being impartial is
important as you could cause controversy among your audience.
Good:
An example of
a good impartial tv programme is Supersize vs. Superskinny. This presenter of
this programme is a perfect example of being neutral as he is not judgmental to
either of the two women. Because he is a doctor, he helps them by telling them
facts about their bodies, and what will happen to them in years to come if they
carry on the way they are treating their bodies. He cares about the weights of
the two women; an example of this is when they’re going through the daily
routines of what they each eat in a day. At 9:30, the presenter is telling Dawn
that she “must change because it’s killing you”, although this seems far-fetched
in what he is saying, he says it in the calmest way possible but in a concerned
way to let Dawn know that what he is saying is important and should be taken in
a serious matter. The audiences learn from the facts given to them which makes
it an educational piece, and some could learn from the programme as they could
be going through the same problem as them.
Bad:
An example of
bad impartiality is ‘The Jeremy Kyle show’. This is because of the presenter, Jeremy
Kyle, being very critical and negative towards the guests on the show. An
example of where he is being judgmental towards one of the guests is at 24:50
where he says to one of the women who was the one cheated with “what about
raising the bar and being a bit more classy”, to which she then responds with “yeah”
and then he says “but you’re not are you”. Jeremy Kyle is not being neutral in
this situation as he is taking the situation and putting it into context where
it makes the woman look like the bad one in that particular moment. This means
that he takes the side of the girl who was cheated on by as he has no reason to
judge her.
Objectivity
Objectivity is when you
make a judgement based on what you have seen. What is presented in the
programmes will make the audiences decided on their judgement based on the
footage shown. The argument should be shown across and presented with all of
the research gathered to support the statements without being biased and
impartial.
Good:
This is a good example of
objectivity because there are many different stories within the documentary
explaining the good effects weed has on the body when it is used as a medical.
This allows audiences to decide whether weed is a good substance or a bad
substance judged by the footage they have seen. An example of where audiences
can make a judgement based on the footage they have seen is at 19:40. They are
doing an experiment where two people take a driving test based on one person
smoking marijuana who is a “daily medical marijuana smoker” and another who is
an “infrequent weekend smoker”. When it was put to the test, it resulted that
the infrequent smoker was more trouble behind the wheel (19:57), whereas the daily
medical smoker had no trouble at all (20:02). Having an experiment will benefit
viewers as they are providing visual facts for them which show the trust worthy
that the documentary presents. Knowing that they’re being given facts will be
easier for them to make a final judgement on what they have just seen, and to
maybe change the views of some people’s verdicts as they may have though marijuana
was a very bad substance that harmed people. However, this documentary is about
weed that helps people, not harming them.
Subjectivity
Subjectivity is
when you make a judgement based on your own personal feelings and opinions. The
show itself does not give out any facts. An example of a show where you would
see people give their opinions is in a live audience.
Good:
“The Big Question” is a
good example of subjectivity as it’s a live audience that shares their opinions
on a specific topic without any facts given. The topic I have chosen is on “Should
Britain ban the Burqa?”. An example of where a person expresses their opinion
without any facts or figures is at 1:24 when the woman says “The most
attractive part of anybody is the face” which refers back to the point being
made of why the burqa should be used as it disguises the beauty of the face
that no other man should be attracted to when it is shown. However, not every
other person will find the face an attraction as their first thought of
someone, so what she saying is not a fact.
Opinion
Opinions are judgement's based on your own view. An opinion can be supported by an argument, however, not everyone will have the same opinion as the same argument.
Good:
This is a good example of a programme with Opinions because we see many different people express their views on Michael Jackson's face. At 0:29, they have a computerised generator where they have an image of MJ's face when he was younger, to the development of his face when growing up and receiving lots of surgery that completely changed his physical appearance, till he looked like a completely different man. This happens until 0:53. By showing this for a long time, the viewers would question as to why MJ would do that to his face, which immediately expresses an opinion as they would give their personal view on what they think of his face. An example of someone who expresses their opinion is John Landis who was the director of MJ's 'Thriller' and 'Black and White'. He says in a genuine and polite way; "they are really attractive people" as he refers to MJ and his whole family before getting any surgery done. For the viewers; it is a starting point for them to think about what they think of the family and MJ's physical appearances and whether they agree, disagree or have an opinion of their own that they abide by. Another example of this topic is with a woman at 3:29 who says; "in a way he provides an example to many people of what not to do with cosmetic surgery" this gets viewers to consider the issue which helps them to become engaged as their opinions may be challenged, strongly going against, or agreeing with the statement which gets them into the show even more.
Bad:
Bias
The term 'Bias' in TV production means being on one side and showing prejudice against something or someone unfairly. Documentaries are an example of being biased over an argument. They support one side and attempt to promote the viewers to follow the side they are on. Bias also means blocking out the evidence shown by the other party.
Good:
The example I am going to use for a good bias documentary is 'Supersize Me'. The whole production is being biased because it only shows one side of an argument; this being that McDonald's is not good for the body and it shows how it's breaking down in the body. They do this by carrying out an experiment by putting each food into jars to show how it breaks down on it's own overtime. The presenter shows clearly what they put into each of the jars, e.g. at 0:34 he places the big mac into the first jar. At 1:24 there are graphics on the screen saying "2 weeks later" which transfers to footage of the jars with either no difference at all to the look of the food, or resulting with a mouldy substance. Then it goes onto 3 weeks later, 5 weeks later and each week the mould gets worse and worse. At 2:58, the presenter shows us the Big Mac, mocking at how "it looks good", which would make the viewers feel disgusted and off put which immediately puts them on the presenters side of how bad Mcdonald's really is.
Bad:
'Question Time' is an example of bad bias because it shows two arguments instead of one. At 3:59, the presenter says that Nick griffin said, "If Churchill were alive today, his own place would be in the British national party" and so he asks Griffin "why do you say that and why did you hijack his reputation?" Griffin goes onto saying that "no other party would have him" and in his younger days he was "critical of the dangers of fundamental Islam in a way which would be described as Islamophobic". He then adds that his "father was in the RAF during the second world war while Mr straws father was in prison for refusing to fight Adolf Hitler". The presenter argues, "how has that goes to do with the issue?" and Griffin says "Mr Straw was attacking me and I've been relentlessly attacked and demonised over the last few days and the fact is that my father was in the RAF during the second world war, I am not a Nazi I never had been." A man in the audience argues back about race at 5:25. He says "you have been forced to look at accepting people of sort of a different racial background... could you not think of the benefits that parents from an Asian, from an Indian, from a Pakistani background have brought to this country... all you're thinking of doing is trying to poison politics and poison the minds of people in this country, the vast majority of this audience find what you stand for to be completely disgusting." Two arguments are presented clearly through the dialogue of Griffin and the man in the audience, and also it doesn't show prejudice against something or someone. This viewers at home will have their own opinion of whether they agree with one party of the other.
Representation
This is when something is being portrayed in a particular way. This could either be done in a positive light or a negative light, depending on how you want them to come across to the viewers watching.
Good:
This is a good example of Representation as it first represents someone in a bad way, but then shows a background story of the person which makes the viewers feel sorry for them. At 19:40, a girl is being accused of posting a naked picture of someone else on a social network. The head teacher asks her if she posted the picture and she says that she did because the girl was being rude to her. The head teacher says, "what you have done is a criminal act, it's against the law" which puts the girl in a negative light, making viewers annoyed by the actions she decided to make. However, later on in the programme around 22:06 when the head teacher explains that she's excluded for a day, the girl responds that she doesn't live with her mum, and that she lives with her aunt because her mum is really sick and is in hospital. The camera language has close ups at this point, e.g. 22:20, of the girls face - looking down which shows that shes upset and is having a hard time at home. At 22:38, a voiceover appears which goes onto explaining her mum has a "chronic condition that effects her digestive system, she's been in hospital for the last 10 weeks after undergoing emergency surgery" this then changes the audiences views on the girl as they would feel sympathy towards her as it must be hard to to school acting like everything is normal, when really she has her mum at the back of her mind.
Bad:
This is a bad example of Representation because the programme is based on people being in a negative light. 'Benefits Street' is a documentary series revealing the reality of life on benefits, as the residents of one of Britain's most benefit-dependent streets invite cameras into their community. Already at 0:06, people are put into a negative position because a woman, who lives on the street and so therefore she is on benefits, walks down the James Turner Street and points at every house shouting 'unemployed'. Viewers may feel angry by this because of the amount of people that don't have a job, and it also makes it seem like they're not doing anything about it. A woman at 0:41 says "probably 5% of people on this road are working", because the figure is so low, viewers would react in a shocked way because they would look at the figure of people who are not working on the road. Another representation that is being set is at 0:52 where the people are drinking alcohol in the day time. This shows that they are wasting their money on alcohol and not spending it on things that they really need, and are also not spending their money wisely. The camera emphasises this at 0:54, as the camera pan into the alcohol.
Access Vs Privacy
Access is having the freedom to use something, and in TV production, this would mean being able to access footage. Permission has to be given in order to display the footage to the viewers watching at home. In documentaries there are interviews, and in order to publish that interview, the camera crew have to be given permission to record it and use it, otherwise it's destroying that persons privacy.
Privacy is keeping something to yourself and not sharing it with other people. Everyone has the act of freedom to privacy, so no one has to share something if they don't want to. It is apart of someones human rights.
Access:
This is an example of Access because the woman who reveals these videos gives permission for the camera crew and documentary to use it and show it the world. This panorama episode is about care home abuse, and the daughter of the mum who is in the care home, places a camera to secretly film the care home staff doing their job. The people in the secretly filmed video haven't had access to the footage, but it is in the public's interest to know that what they are doing is wrong. The presenter and the daughter both watch the footage together as the presenter reacts to the video. At 0:26, the man in the video violently pushes her on her side to give her her morning bath. The presenter echoes the actions that are happening, "oh gosh, he's just pushing her over" while shaking her head at disgust. At 0:33, the man slaps her while swearing, to which the presenter says gasps and is appalled. Having the presenter react this way, reflects on the viewers mood as they would react in the same way. Having the footage shown to the viewers will allow them to be careful as not all care homes are what they seem, which is clearly witnessed in this situation.
Privacy:
This is an example of Privacy; it's a panorama episode about Muslim Sex gangs grooming white girls in Britain. The two police detectives drive around and come across a young girl at 0:52 on her own "and looking vulnerable". When we see the girl, she has her face blurred out. In some documentaries, people will have their faces blurred out when they are talking. This is an element of privacy, because the young girl doesn't want anyone to know who she is and what's happening to her in the situation the TV is producing. We have another girl who is being interviewed, but has her face blocked out for the same reasons as to not wanting to be seen that she's apart of the 'sexual' act victim, and to also, not get into trouble by the gang as they could possibly come across the footage and she would get into trouble for it. Viewers would upset the reasons as to why they would blur out their faces which makes them feel sorry for the them. This is also a warning to the viewers which would make them become more interested as to what is going on with the issue.
Contract with Viewer
The meaning of 'Contract with Viewer' in TV production is to have an agreement with the viewers. It's about presenting something that the audience would typically expect. Contract with the viewer ensures that
what they show to the audience is nothing but the truth. The facts and what is
actually being presented should be accurate.
Good:
A good example of Contract with the Viewer is in relation to the 9/11 attack that happening in New York. The documentary would have archive footage of the attacks which is one thing that tells the truth to the viewers... this happens right at the start of the video 0:05 where we see a lot of smoke coming out of one of the twin towers. Having this right at the start of the documentary puts into perspective what the documentary is about, and how it will hold a lot of truth. However, this documentary is about finding out the 'Falling Man' is, a photograph taken by Associated Press photographer Richard Drew of a man falling from the North Tower of the World Trade Center. It was dubbed as a fascinating and peaceful photo, which is why it took to many people in a certain way. The image is shown at 0:27 which gives the photographic truth so viewers know what famous photo they are talking about. The voiceover gives some facts at 1:27 about the twin towers, "when they were completed in 1971, they were the two highest buildings in the world, standing 110 stories high" this gives a little introduction about the twin towers to give the viewers an insight to what was so intriguing about the world trade center, and it also shares an accurate truth which is a benefit to the viewers believabilty of the show.
Bad:
This is an example of a bad contract with the viewer; 'Bear Grylls'. The show has been claimed to be fake because when the cameras stop rolling, he supposedly stays in a hotel for the night instead of living in the extreme environment that he was set. This means also that they eat a proper meal in the hotel which defeats the survival routine as he's only supposed to eat the things that are in the environment outside, resulting in cheating. The show tends to make the scenes seem really dramatic to grab the viewers attention, e.g. at 0:20, Zac Efron says "this is way too high, way too steep, this is a death trap" and then this is emphasised of a close up of the waterfall with intense music in the background. Having this in a show like this, attracts the viewers even more which makes them forget that really, climbing down the rock isn't as bad as what the show is making it out to be. An example of where the cameras don't show how they're going down safely is from 2:22. There could be a possibility that there are people safety people surrounding the lead that is connected to the pair, but viewers can't see this because the camera focuses solely on them ans their reactions. This would be cheating the whole idea of the show because it's supposed to be about the Bear Grylls and Zac Efron are surviving on just themselves without any help, yet it defeats the idea because there could be helpers among their reach. This gives viewers a deception which demolishes their trust to the show as it doesn't stick to the rule of contract with the viewer.
