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.
No comments:
Post a Comment