Unit 27 - Factual TV programmes issues

Accuracy

Accuracy programs should be precise, reliable and trustworthy sources. Factual programs have to be accurate as they need to provide correct information. Factual programs shouldn't mislead the audience as there would be a lot of complaints from the audience and the TV program would be known to mistreated. Before doing a factual program a lot of research must ensue to be getting the correct information. Factual programs should not have opinions because of this type of program is produced to give people real facts about a topic. When doing a factual program you should always be truthful because if not you will most likely lose your audience and people will think your untrustworthy. I have chosen the news as my example of accuracy because when watching the news as the audience we watch the news to get information bout what is happening and we expect the people giving us information should be honest. We know when the news are honest with us when there is actual footage to back them up. They will talk about something and show us a video so we know what they are saying is reliable.

Balance

 Getting both sides of the argument. When there is a balanced program the program shouldn't favour another a side. An argument should present both sides, so its fair. There are always two sides to an argument. Both sides of the argument must be acknowledged and the information given should be clear, correct and fair. It is important to keep balance on views and investigate to find both sides of the story's. If a factual TV program is siding with another side, then the TV program can lose audience as people would think the show is biased and unfair. The program should have the same information for both sides as if if your favour when one side because it viewers feel that you are bringing your judgement. The program must try to remain fair and neutral because the show isn't about your opinion, the show is about showing people both sides of the story and letting the come up with their own judgement.


Impartiality 

Remains neutral to their output, avoiding personal opinions or beliefs. It is important when doing a factual show that the present/filmmaker should be in between if there is a discussion. You cannot be biased neither prejudice, you have to show the best of both sides. It is important to be impartial as you could cause controversy among your audience. Many media services always maintain being neutral, this is to please their audience. Many people watch factual programmes just to gain the facts. For example, the Nick Campbell remains neutral during his discussions when its about a certain topic. He doesn't give his opinion as he lets both sides of the people talk and lets them talk about their opinions, he doesn't interfere or state what he thinks. This is good because people know his show isn't biased as he doesn't agree, he stays in the middle. 

Subjectivity 

Is when their opinions, beliefs and values affect their storyline. Subjectivity doesn't depend on facts or example footage. Subjectivity isn't really used on TV as it doesn't rely on facts but people's opinions which can make the program biased towards viewers. Usually, if this is presented on a factual program a person would mainly put bad views down about a specific subject they are talking about which is trying to persuade the audience to agree with them. However, not all the time is subjectivity bad as people can do documentaries on what they went through on a specific subject and see how others are going through what they did. An example of this Mona Chalabi on her documentary 'is Britain racist'. Her documentary is mostly focused on opinions, facts and her views and beliefs. 

Link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06g55y0

Opinion

Filmmaker/reporter's opinion is an effective way of engaging and influencing an audience. An opinion is a single persons view on a subject when it comes to factual film-making opinions are useful for when you are basing your factual on a subject as you could get peoples opinion of this specific subject. But what you want to make sure is you use these opinions in the right way without making the person look bad by editing the footage in a way to make them sound the person they are not because this would not just be using the footage in the way it shouldn't have been used but also not accurate because you are not giving people the correct information from the subject you received the opinion from.It allows the audience to have their own opinion on what they have seen. A good example, of a factual programmer which uses their opinion a lot is Stacey Dooley. Her documentaries are not balanced as she always looks at the bad side of things and we know its accurate because of all the footage of what we see as she also introduces us to real life people and their problems and even has interviews with them. 

Representation 

How people are represented. Representation means how something is constantly portrayed or the stereotype of a certain thing. You have to be careful not to stereotype anything during a factual programme as this can lead to some information being wrong. Representation is showing  someone or something being portrayed in a certain way. In a documentary if you wanted the audience to have a particular view on someone, you would have to represent that person in a particular way, either in a good way or bad. Sometimes you see positive representation, this can be done to cause the audience to have sympathy towards someone. However, sometimes you can also see negative representation, victimising individuals or groups.

Bias 

Being biased is when someone takes one side of a story or using one side of an argument and ignoring the other side of the argument this is pretty bad when it comes to factual film making as this can lead to loss of audience and complaints about your factual because you aren't giving the whole story they are wanting to receive, because lets to be honest every argument has two sides and its not right to take one side and not knowing the other side which could actually be a more reasonable side than the side which was used. An example, of this is was Michael Moore's documentary on 'bowling for columbine' was said to be biased as his documentary was not balanced on both arguments. He focused more on one subject and let the other subject look bad to the audience eyes, which made his documentary untrustworthy and something people wouldn't want to watch. 


Access

This is when a journalists will report on a certain topic in detail while being given permission from the person they are interviewing or the place they have filmed at. It is important that a journalist will get permission because they can get sued with if they aren't film without consent. A journalist must make sure also that what they are saying about the person is all true and they haven't changed the truth. 


Privacy 

When doing a documentary it is important that you think of a persons privacy. A person can also get in trouble if they aren't careful and invade a persons privacy without their permission. However, some people will allow the cameras into the personal lives and let us the audience watch they do day to day. An example of this is 'Keeping up with the Kardashians'. They allow cameras into their house and let people film what they do and the drama that arises.  


Contract with the viewer 

This is an unwritten rule between producer and audience where all content is deemed accurate, honest and engaging for the audience. This is important to have because when watching a documentary the audience want to watch something that has correct facts. 

Unit 27 - Analysing vice.com documentaries

Documentaries 

On vice.com there is a documentary about Pablo Escobar. This is a documentary which talks about him when he was alive and what he done. It shows two DEA agents who spent years on trail on him. Even if this documentary is very accurate it is not very balanced. The documentary is mostly the DEA agents and doesn't have peoples opinions from people Pablo knew. They favour the police's side on the documentary making it unbalanced. They didn't have other people talk about Pablo who knew him would've made the it have made the documentary better because we would've gotten more information and learnt more things. We only know about him from the police experience when they were working on his case. For example, they talk about how smart, cunning he was as they weren't able to catch him. They spoke about how he had a 'robin hood mystique' because he built churches and gave money to the poor. They also spoke about his bad side, how he tortured people and how he invented 'Narco terroism'. The documentary is also very impartial. This is because during the documentary the two DEA agents remain neutral. They don't put their own opinion and beliefs on what they thought about Pablo. This is what made the documentary good because they showed the best of both sides. 


When watching a documentary you want it to be accurate and factual. What the people are talking about needs to be true as you don't want to watch something that could give you false information. This Pablo Escobar documentary was accurate and doesn't have ant misleading facts. This is because they have experience as they were working on Pablo's case from when he was alive and also because they have videos and pictures to back them up. 

Link: https://video.vice.com/en_us/video/cocaine-narcos-sicarios-and-peru-part-1/56019b06b4e7abe15ebcc3f8



Another documentary I found on Vice.com was Maternity leave: How America's is failing its mothers. Its a documentary about America and papa new Guinea being the only countries in the world that does not have paid maternity leave. The documentary follows Tracie Morriessey who talks about the problems American's face when they do not have paid leave. The good things about this documentary is its very accurate and realible. Even at the start if the woman talks about her experience she doesn't stay on the subject for too long and already starts stating facts and goes onto an interview about a woman who did not have paid maternity leave and later found her son dead. However through the documentary Tracie is giving facts, showing charts and interviewing people. She even interviews people who work for the government and what they think which makes the documentary more reliable and trustworthy. Tracie is also speaking directly to the camera also which makes the audience feel involved and will engage them more. The documentary is also very balanced as she involves both opinions of what people think about the maternity leave. She doesn't stay on one side which will make it more interesting for the audience as they would want both opinions on this. What is also good about this documentary is that the woman is impartial. She states facts and doesn't give her opinion and the only opinions that are spoken are from the people who agree and disagree. 

Link: https://video.vice.com/en_us/video/ovary-action-maternity-leave/56afd1501f8f224341d4947a