2. Why is the notion of “truth” so important to news?
I believe that the notion of truth is incredibly important to the the news because it is the foundation for
every single story, the news is suppose to portray important articles based on factual information from
across the globe. It is one of the most common ways that information gets around about important
events/incidents, the information displayed needs to be accurate, even if they decide to leave out
important facts. The news gets the ability to manipulate whatever story that they are currently reporting on
by leaving out crucial details in order to make the audience react in a certain way.
3. How does the news relate to truth?
The news needs to relate to the truth because it is the main way for people to learn about events from
across the globe. If it was all based on lies, nobody would rely on it to provide factual information and find
out about stories happening in other countries. This would greatly affect news sources with high credibility,
such as BBC, ITV or Sky News. People rely on sources such as these and newspapers rather than your
typical FaceBook or Twitter feed due to the fact that these channels are trusted sources and are usually
back up with evidence or statistics.
4. How can the truth be altered in editing?
There are many different ways in which a company can manipulate what an audience sees to change their
view on a particular story. They have the ability to interview a wide variety of people but only show a
certain group of people who all share the same or similar opinion to reinforce a point. They could also
shorten shots to show somebody saying something which might be considered risky to show in order to
portray this person in a negative light and change the audience's view of this person. They can also merge
scenes together in order to create a different outcome, for example they could put in part of a speech
which ended in cheers and swap out the audio for dead silence, this would make a situation look better or
worse for the audience.
5. How are the participants or subject represented in the news extract you
have chosen?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xll0vB7Ic-A
This video explains the tension which lies between Saudi Arabia and Iran by using two people to show
both sides of the story. The video seems to voice some of the larger concerns but leaves out the more
common ones which affect the most amount of people. The video also suggests that the situation between
the two countries is quite straightforward to understand, where as the tension will be due to hundreds of
little disputes. The accuracy of these opinions are also up for debate because they could be simply
making each other look worse than they are.
6. Do any issues on your glossary exist in the news report?
As previously mentioned in the last slide, accuracy is quite a large problem due to the fact that we cannot
verify that what is being said is the complete, unaltered truth. For all the audience knows, everything has
just been massively blow out of proportions to make both sides look worse and the situation more
interesting. Apart from this, the other issue with this video is
8. Documentary 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SO_YS9941Kw
The first documentary that I have chosen is part 4 of the BBC documentary series Life, which is presented
by Sir David Attenborough. The series began on October 12th 2009 and finished on December 14th 2009,
this particular first aired on November 2nd 2009. This particular episode focuses on the life which lies
below the ocean's surface and looks into the unusual aquatic beings. This first season was produced by
Mike Gunton and the episodes were written by Paul Spillenger.
9. Documentary 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JK6G3YU3rd0
My second piece of factual programming that I have chosen is a Louis Theroux documentary called
Behind Bars. This documentary shows the audience a behind the scenes look at San Quentin prison. It
shows the various sections of prison life like the relationships, the racial segregation and the leaving
process. This documentary first aired on January 13th 2008 and was written and presented by Theroux
himself.
10. What are the documentaries trying to show you?
Behind Bars is attempting to show the audience what life looks like within San Quentin prison. It shows
you the relationship between some of the prisoners and the guards, the racial separation, the worst of the
worst and the leaving process. I believe that it is trying to inform the viewer to that prison life works quite
similarly to our normal lives and yet it is so different. They show this through various interviews with
prisoners and guards and having Louis narrate the non interview scenes in order for everyone to
understand what is going on.
Life episode 4 is attempting to show the audience what unusual and interesting creatures dwell below the
ocean's surface. It shows you a variety of species and for each one it displays their unique features, where
they are found and what they do for food. They manage to show this through underwater cameras
showing of the particular species and then having David Attenborough narrate over what we see on
screen. This is once again used in order for everyone to stay on the same page and be able to follow what
is going on.
11. Style?
I would say that the main style for Behind Bars would be interactive/participatory. I believe this because for
the majority of the documentary, we can see Louis going around the prison complex and having lots of
interviews with both prisoners and the guards.
I would say that episode four of life main style would be expository. I believe this because for the majority
of the documentary, we only hear Attenborough explaining what we are currently seeing. The other
section of the time the style would be Reflexive. This is because we can see the camera crew going out
on a boat to find these interesting species.
13. Why is the notion of “truth” so important to documentaries?
The notion of truth is also exceedingly important to documentaries due to the fact that they show you
groups of people, animals and locations in the most remote and desolate parts of the globe. Even though
they are supposed to show you the definite truth, it is more than likely a reconstruction, someone else's
view on the truth. This means that everything which you see in the media is based around the truth, but
has been tampered with to make it either more entertaining or more appropriate for the main target
audience. If the tampering of the truth to make the documentary more appropriate goes too far, the
documentary maker will lose credibility and every piece of factual programming that they create after this
point will not be taken too seriously.
14. How does filming relate to the truth?
If you were to place a camera in a crowded area and then pressed record, everything that you see on the
camera would be classed as the truth. But unfortunately it is a bit more complex than that. It matters as
much as what is of camera as well as on camera. You could just film one person having a conversation as
part of a group and that would be the truth. But everything else that the other people would contribute
would also be classed as the truth. This is how factual programming can manipulate what you watch, they
just show you what they want you see, a small section of the whole truth. This can also be modified by the
way that you portray what is being filmed. A good example of this is on Hardtalk with Nick Broomfield, this
clip shows an interview with a serial killer, but the way that it was filmed shows some sympathy towards
the killer.
15. How can the truth be altered in editing?
This slide a ties in with the previous quite well because it is not just about what you see in front of the
camera. Editing gives you the ability to only show clips which you want people to see. If you had a
recording of a speech which only half of it was entertaining, you could simply cut out the boring half and
show the audience the good half, this will change the audience's view of this person due to them seeing
the good half of the speech. You could also do things such as cross cutting between different scenes to
change the outcome of things like speeches or jokes. You could manipulate a scene where a political
figure makes a negative comment towards a group of people and instead of it remaining in silence, you
could change it to positive uproar. Watching a documentary after editing gives the audience the
impression that they know the whole story, whereas in reality, this could not be further away from the
unaltered truth. It can also be censored so that one or two sentences are removed and left on the cutting
room floor which would also have the effect of changing the audience's perception on this particular
person.
16. How are the participants or subjects represented?
Within Behind Bars I would say that all of the participants are represented in a more positive manner, this
is seen whilst Louis speaks with one of the worst criminals within the walls of San Quentin. The whole
conversation is shown to be largely friendly, even at a few moments almost being humorous. I believe that
this has been done in order to make some of the more outlandish characters seem like they would
perfectly fit in people's daily lives, making them more relatable. This also makes the characters within the
prison look more different and outlandish rather than dangerous or intimidating, this would .
17. Do any of the issues on the glossary exist in the documentary?
Behind Bars uses a fair bit of bias within it's full run time. This can be see when Louis goes into the
recreation yard and explains the gang system within San Quentin prison, the only goes and speaks to
members of one of these groups. This can also be seen due to the fact that he interviews more prisoners
to hear their side of the story than the guards woking their. Behind Bars also has some issues with the
accuracy of the prisoner's story. For all the audience knows, the prisoners are just making themselves
appear bigger just because they are being interviewed on camera where as they could have been
arrested by something very minor.
19. What would you do if a subject reveals things to you that they later regret
sharing?
I believe that it would be unfair to use the footage if the subject is unsure if they want it to be shared with
others. If the information provided is going to be an integral part of the production, I would try and attempt
to reach a deal with the subject in order to get as much of the information out there as possible. If there is
no way of being able to get the information out, I would attempt to find a new source in order to share
information and finish of the documentary. If the information somehow got out and would directly impact
the subjects life, it would not be worth the damage on the subjects half. All you would get is a pay cheque
and praise, but you could potentially ruin somebodys life to the point of making them begin to suffer from
depression or something much worse.
20. What are the risks to the filmmaker when making these films?
The dangers and risks towards the filming crew are completely dependent on what is being filmed and the
location for filming. If they are filming something such as a nature documentary, the dangers will be based
around the animals and plant life which they are filming. If they are filming a documentary within a prison,
the dangers will be coming from the prisoners. If you are part of a filming crew for a documentary, you will
have to expect some form of dangers to come with each new filming location.
21. When can there be risk and conflict between the filmmaker and subject?
This occurrence can happen when the filmmaker either gets onto a controversial topic or begins to
become impatient and then becomes more unfriendly with the way they word questions. This will probably
lead to some form of confrontation between the two which will be used in the final version, but it may have
been edited to change the outcome. This could make the documentary maker look very unprofessional
and desperate to get information in order to get fame and a pay cheque.
22. What are the risks involved in trying to tell a story that someone else
doesn’t want to be told?
The risks associated with pulling a risky move honestly depend on whose word you are going to go
against. It is possible to be taken to court for using information that you promised to not publish. This
would reflect poorly upon you and may have knock on effect to your carrier as a factual programme
maker. It could also have the ability to paint certain groups and religions in a negative light, this would
cause major problems for the TV station for showing this content.
