Nicholls Modes

Rationale

Conventions of a news studio- Videos

Studio news readers or anchors ( Me and Farhana)

In our video we looked at the reader and anchor. We looked at the costume, framing, choice or presenter and the body language of the anchor. I feel as if we showed the conventions of a news anchor very well. We showed that the anchor needs to wear formal clothing by making myself, who played the anchor, wear casual clothing. Also we made some of the framing in certain shots not be the right camera shot. For example we put the shot in a long shot when it should have been a mid-shot. We also made our anchor be the weather reporter as well. This shows the convention of choice of presenter, by showing that the anchor and weather report should not be the same people. We also look at the anchors body language, and showed the anchor sitting with his feet up and leaning back on his chair. This shows the viewers that a proper anchor should not be doing this.

 In this video they looked at the mode of address to the viewers. They showed us what the anchor should be doing, by using graphics, and texts. Then it showed us what it would look like if the anchor did not follow these rules. For example at 0:07 it says that the anchor should talk clearly. But then we see Antony not speaking clearly. This then shows the viewers that it is like when the anchor is not speaking clearly. Also they look at where the anchor should be looking when talking to the camera. We see this at 0:20 the anchor looking around the room as he talks. It shows the viewers what it would feel like if the anchor of a real new show was looking around the room as they give the news.





Interviewing experts and witnesses (TJ and Kavel)

In this video they looked and interviewing expects and witnesses. I really like how they got this news convention across to us. For example they used graphics to show what has to be on screen as the interview is taking place. You see this at 0:17. We also get to understand what kind of camera techniques are used in an interview. This is shown at 0:11, when they show a panning shot of something random before the interview. This is done to set the scene. We also get a feel of what locations are used to suit certain people. We see two interviews, done in the park, which tells the audience that the people that are talking are just normal everyday people.





Report structure (Ellie and Taylor)

In their video they looked at the report structure of a news report. We see her give a understanding of the order of the start of the show. This is because. Taylor signs in, by saying her name, institution and her location. We also hear music being played in the background, which is Taylor, explains has to catch the mood of the report. This is shown at 0:14, it is done to match the report more dramatic and to build tension so that viewers stay watching. Taylor also talking about interviewers with someone from another location. This is shown at 0:44, Taylor makings a joke about it, saying that the interviewee does not really care about the topic and interview. She also says that after the report, there will be a rundown of what has just been talked about with graphics and a voice over. This is done at 1:02.

Factual TV rules for beginners

Accuracy in the term of this context means, how the presents and communicates facts to the viewers. Also the facts they are giving the audience, if they are real or fake. This rule is important to the producer because if the documentary was found out to be giving false information to the viewers, it will lose a huge amount of viewers and also it could be punished and fined by the corporation. Also it is important to have accuracy, so that the views are getting a true account of what happened, and true facts about the topic, because they could be using the documentary for educational reasons and will have to have true facts to help them with educational reasons.  

Good example

This monkey world documentary is an example of a documentary that shows good use of accuracy. The show archive footage of actual monkeys in their day to day lives, which is not staged and is all accurate. This is shown at 2:56; we see a monkey stealing food from a house. Because this is actual footage the viewers will know that this is a fact and monkeys actual do this. Also at 8:10 the voice over says that a certain kind of monkeys have orange babies. We then see a real life video of an orange baby, which connotes to the viewers that the voice over and whole documentary is real and the facts that they say are all real and truthful. Also the documentary presents the facts with a voice over, along with actual real like footage of what the voice over is talking about, which backs up what the voice over is saying, making the audience believe it more. This is shown at 10:40, we hear the voice say that the monkeys will go down and eat clams, we then see the monkeys actually doing this, which is evidence that the voice over is truthful.  

Crime watch is a bad example of a show showing accuracy. This is because even though they are reporting real life events, they also do a reconstruction of the event and in this to produce a narrative will make the story look and sound even more dramatised than it is. For example at the show will put together a scene to what they think happened on that night, and will also put other stuff in it, to make you think and feel different ways for different people. So for example at 13:19 we see the family walking in the house together and talking. This might have not even happened in this way but, the documentary has put this in there to make us like the family more, so that when they are robbed we feel even sorrier for them. 

Balance in term of a documentary is looking at a documentary and seeing if it has both sides of an argument in it. If it does it is thought to have balance and is it does not it does not have balance is not normally in all documentary because the makers want to you believe one side and not the other. In a balanced document, facts supporting both sides will be told and, shown to viewers, and normally, you will see leaders of the both sides talking. This rule is important to the producer because if it has both sides it will appeal to a wider target audience, which will boost the show’s ratings. Also it is important to have balance for the audience so, that most people can feel passionate about the show from both sides of the argument.

Good

 In BBC polities we see the leader of UKIP being interviewed by two presenters. This is an example of a show that used balance, this is because we do not just hear one side of the case, we get different people who are on opposite’s side of the argument, talking about the topic. In this even though there is not a direct opposing view, the presenters question everything he says, and will sort of go against what he says, which will  make the show has a balanced arrangement. For example at 3:38, Nigel say he does not want to get rid of something, then the presenter buts in and say "but would it not be better to do so" This is making the view point balanced, by given all of the opinions and not just the on from Nigel. 

Bad

In this documentary about the E15 mums, it shows a very un-balanced side. The documentary just listens to the E15 mums, and what they think about the situation and having to move out of their flat due to them not being posh/ rick enough. What makes this documentary not balanced is the fact that we do not get to hear from the council in why they are making the mums move out. The viewer does just get to see the reactions of the E15 mums. For example at 4:30 we see a mum say why she is being kicked out and where she has to live. But we do not get a say from the council, on why they are doing this and the benefits it will have on others if this does through.  

Impartiality in term of a documentary is when the show does favour a certain side of the argument. The show is un-bias towards any side, and will allow both side of the argument both have equal air time to talk about what they believe in. Also the presenter, who is presenting the show, will not give his or her opinion on the topic, even if they do have a strong opinion.      

An example that shows a good use of impartiality is Question time which is shown on BBC. In this they show will focus on topic and on question that will be talk about by professional people how know a lot about the topic, and also will allow the audience to give their opinion on the matter. The presenter does not give his opinion; he just acts as the mediator, allowing people to have time to talk. This rule is important for the producer because it will make the show seem fair and will not be scrutinised for taking a certain side to the argument. So for example 3:41 a man is talking about Scotland independence, and when he finishes talking, the presenter does not agree or disagree on what he is saying, all he does is asked a member of the audience is they feel they say way, and if not asked them to say what they want to say. 

Jeremy Kyle is an example of a show that shows impartiality being used badly. This is because Jeremy has an opinion on each person that comes on the show and the situation, he will show the audience and views his opinion, throughout his facilely expressions and body language, and also the ways he talks to people, such as this tone of voice. For example at 11:25 we see Jeremy, question what the mum says and makes her statement false and incorrect, This show that he is bias towards the topic and is giving his opinion on the situation. Also at 33:18 we see Jeremy make the man say sorry to his girlfriend. He says it in a very loud and dominating voice, which connotes to the viewers that he feels as is the man is wrong in the situation and women, is right. This again is showing that Jeremy is bias towards the women side, which does not show impartiality. 

Objectivity & Subjectivity 

Objectivity in term of a documentary is when the show only shows facts and statistics, about the theme of the show. This is likely to be in a special interest documentary, which is very niche appeal.

A show that shows good use of objectivity is The Gadget Show. This is because they will talk about a gadget and will inform the viewers on all of the facts about the gadget, such as price and who made it. For example starting from 0:50 we get information about computers, the presenter says "laptops arrive on the scene in the 1980s. This is an objective fact that cannot be questioned. The rule of objectivity is important for the producer because it will make their show trust worthy, which will make viewers want to watch it, because they know that they are not being lied to. It is important for the audience, because it will allow the viewers, to know that what they are watching is a show that they can trust and use to help them make decisions on buying gadgets. 

Subjectivity in term of a documentary is when the show does not give facts on the matter, and what they say you cannot prove it. This normally will be seen in live audience shows where the audience give their opinion on topics. A show that uses a lot of subjectivity is "The Big question" This is because the audience give their opinion on the topic that is being disused, without any facts what so ever. So for example at 1:19 the women share her opinion and say that Islamism is a growing concern, and that we are scared to confront it. This is a clear subjective opinion, because there are no facts to back up what she has to say. Also because people on the opposite side can question her, shows that it is a subjective view.   

Acts

Opinion in terms of a show t is what the show does to show their own opinion on the matter, and also what they do and show the audience to make them think a certain way, though camera language and what they choose to show the viewers. The background music and tone of voice that the voice over has will also show connote to the viewers and make the viewer’s thing a certain way.

This show has a clear opinion on what they are filming. It is based on working class people that are finding it hard to live. It makes the viewers have an opinion on the topic by doing certain thing. Firstly, the tone of voice the presenter will use it very soft and warming when talking about how the family live. This is done to connote to the viewers that they feel sorry for the families and so should you. If the viewer’s feel sorry for the people that are involved, it will make the viewer’s carry on watching the show, which is good for the institution. Also the show will only show certain information to the viewers that will make the viewer’s change their opinion on what they are watching, For example at 2:20 we are informed that the father bikes home after working, having to travel 5 miles just to save on the bus fare. This may be a lie, but it is put in the show to make the audience have an opinion on the topic, which is that we all should help and feel sorry for these families affected. The rule is important to the producer because by showing a clear opinion on the matter, will make the show more factual and will make people that also have the same opinion on the topic stay watching the show. The rule is important to the audience, because if the show shows, a clear opinion on the natter, it will influence the viewers, to think the same. At 5:20 we see facts being presented to use on screen, which will make the viewer’s understand how hard the families are struggling, to live. The facts are blunt and straight to the point, allowing the audience to understand what the family is going through even more. This will make the audience stay watching the show because they are emotional attached to the show. Also it is good that the show has a clear opinion on the theme, and shows this to the viewers because it will give the viewer’s something to engage in and have an opinion on as well.    

Question time again is a show that demonstrates not giving their opinion on the matter. I will just be focusing on the actual presenter, because he is the one that does give his opinion on the topic that is being talking about. The rule is important to the producer. Because it will give them a wider target audience and that they are not just giving one side of the topic and saying that one side is better than another. Also the producer will make the presenter not have an opinion, allowing the show to still be open for further discussion even after the show is finished, which could lead to a part two of the show, making the show more popular and boosting ratings. The rule is important to the audience to the, for many reason. Because the show gives both opinion on the matter it will allow the audience to also   say what they want to say about the topic, which we see at 14:32 where the women is allowed to say what she feels and give her opinion on the matter. So by the show not having an opinion it allows for audience interaction to take place, which will make the audience like the show more and what to watch and be part of it. The presenter does not give his opinion on the matter, allowing the topic to still stay open for further discussion.  

Bias in term of a documentary is the opposite of impartiality. It decides with one side of the topic and will support that side throughout the whole show. They will support the side by showing facts and evidence that will inform the viewers, and will make the viewers also support a certain side. The show will always have an unfair and UN balanced opinion on the topic, in order to portray that certain side as better or right. The background music and tone of voice that the voice over has will also be bias. 

This is an example of a show that only shows one side to a case, which is that McDonald's food, is not good for you. Which means that it is a show that shows the use of good bias. It only shows one side of the argument in order to get the point across to the viewer’s much more effectively and clearer. For example at 2:43 we see that the McDonald chips have not gone off yet. We do not get another opinion to why this is; we just assume that it is because of a bad, un-healthy reason. Also the presenter has a very bias tone of voice towards the McDonald food and the other food. For example at 1:11 he says that he has got a real hamburger where they make real meat, this is a bias view, and is basically saying that McDonald meat is not real meat. We do not get to hear from McDonald them on what is in their meat. By doing this it makes the viewers also have a bias view on the topic and side with the presenter, because he is looked at to have the most knowledge on the matter.   

Bad

This is a documentary that does not give their opinion on the matter they are talking about which is an example of bad bias, because they are not showing any bias in the show, and giving their own opinion on the matter. In the show the presenter does not show a bias view on the topic, all he does it follows the people around and understand why and what they are doing. For example at 3:01 the presenter ask normal question that is no everyone mind such as how did you get into bare knuckles fighting. The rule is important to the producer because by not showing a bias view it allows the viewers to make their own mind up on the matter and they will not be pressured into thinking something, which could make them not like watching the show.

Representation in terms of a documentary is how the show presents certain situation a different people, in order to make use the viewer’s think and react in different ways. You can represent certain situation a different people by the types of sounds you use and the type of camera shots you use for each person. A show that shows good representation will represent the people at more than 2 dimensional, allowing the viewers to see more than one side to the people.  

This is a good example of representation because we get to see

This is a bad example of representation because the show only presents the people on the show as being one thing and not given the viewer’s information on other aspects on their lives. The rule is important to the producer because by just showing one side of a person will allow the show to represent them in a way that the audience will be entertained. So for example if at the start of the show we fully understand what each person that comes on is like in the outside world and what they do, and where they live, we will be able to make up our own opinion on the matter, which could not be the opinion that the show wants us to think. For example at 1:03 the two girls go in to fight and a bell is rung, as in like a boxing match. By doing this the show is representing the girls as fighters, which makes the viewer’s think of them as lower class, making us like watching the show better, knowing that we are better than them.    

Access vs. Privacy in term of a documentary is very important. Access is only showing something to the viewers because we deserve to know and the right to privacy is taken away due to what has happened. It is also when you cannot really get information from the source so you will have to use hidden camera in order to get this information. Privacy is showing the viewer’s something that does not deserve to been show to other people.

This is an example of a show showing access, it is about the 9/11 bombing and the people how were involved, and what they did. We as viewers have the right to know who these men were and what they looked like, so their right of privacy gets taken away. The rule is important to use, because it will allow people it understand what happened on events that has changed their lives. It will allow the viewers to feel as if they know what went on, on that day and know what people now know we did it. At 1:20 we see the face of one of the people that hijacked one of the planes that went into the twin towers. His right to privacy is less important than comparing it to the viewer’s right to access.

This is a bad example of privacy. I feel as if the show should not be looking into the lives of these children in as much depth as they do. The children in the show have got a right to keep their personal lives private from the rest of the world. In the show we get to understand personal issues that the children have in real depth. For example at 8:15 we find out the child parents have split up. People could say that this should be kept private and we should not know this because it is personal to the family. But on the other hand it allows the viewers to engage in the show more and want to watch it.

Contract with Viewers

This show is a good example that keeps with the rule of contract with viewers and gives an accurate account on what happens at the airport. This is important for the maker to use because it will allow the audience get an accurate account of what happens at the airport, which will make them carry on watching because they know that it is all truth.  

This is a bad example of a show that sticks with contract with the viewers. This is because the show leads us to think that bear stays overnight in all of these extreme environments, trying to stay alive, but in reality when we think he goes bed outside, the cameras stop rolling, and bear a his crew go and stay in a hotel an gets to eat a full course meal. But the show does give us this information and makes us think that he has stayed over, which is deception and does not stick which contract with the viewers.