Factual TV Rules for Beginners

Accuracy

'Accuracy' is a term used to describe facts and the truth in a documentary or factual television programme. It is important that the facts are precise and correctly shown to the audience in order to gain a type of belief/trust and to keep them watching the show.

 

This is a bad example of an accuracy video because Crimewatch is using a staged scenario in order to fill in the missing gaps of the Christina Edmond's story. This type of video is deceiving because the producers have imagined a story to play and used it the documentary in order to keep the show interesting and the viewers watching. In this documentary, there was 3 interviews with the victim's family and friends that was with her before she died. I have chosen this as a bad example as a accurate documentary because at 2:36 to 3:02, it shows the scene of what the police assume happened right before she died. Because there was no evidence and eye witnesses, Crimewatch had to improvise and include a few staged scenes because no-one knew what happened during that time-period. This could negatively effect the audience because it's not showing them the entire truth which could leave the audience confused and not interested. In 4:08 to 4:20, it shows the perpetrator attacking the victim they way the injuries showed but the actual attack might not of even happened that way. 

 

This is a good example of an accuracy video because Crimewatch has used a story where there were key events and eye witnesses so there was no staged scenarios or improvisations in the reconstruction. With reconstructions, there is always a disbelief This story was about a woman, Laura, who in a domestic abusive relationship with her boyfriend and he ended up stabbing her to death. The events in the reconstruction are shown and documented from the family's memory and encounter with the attack. During 3:17 to 4:42, we are shown everything that happened on the night she was killed. Because she was with her family in a house, it means there was multiple witnesses which made the story accurate and believable. This would leave a positive effect on the audience because they can believe what they are being shown due to the multiple witness accounts proofing that it did happen.

Balance

'Balance' is a term used to describe both parts of a story or a case study, a "for" or an "against" in simpler terms. By having Balance in a documentary, the show will gain the public's trust and interest as they are providing positive and negative facts about the topic. This also portrays the debaters character and show who they are as people. 

 

This is a good example of balance because there are two different sides, a for and an against. In this television clip, Katie Hopkins and Katie Waissel are debating whether tattoos of body art or graffiti. We see the for side and the against side in this television clip and it is left up to the public to determine whether who was right or not. Katie Hopkins is a very opinionated and argumentative person which makes her very likable because she is entertaining. Katie Waissel, on the other hand, is a relevant individual to the topic because she has multiple tattoos and expresses how she feels about them from her own experience which could change some of the public's perceptive of them and how they make a person. Hopkins states at 1:35 that tattoo's are body graffiti and she would never employ a person with tattoos and that she disrespects people with tattoos. Waisell then states at 3:20 that it doesn't or label a person and it's just body art. From my personal opinion, I agree with Katie Waisell that tattoo's are just body art but I understand Katie Hopkin's point of view saying it can be regrettable and can be overdone. This episode of Daybreak showed a balanced debate between the for and against of tattoo's, hence why I used it as a good example of this television rule.

 

This is a bad example of a balanced documentary because we only see one side of the bad 

story, The E15 mothers are a group of women that was evicted from their homes in Stratford, instead of leaving quietly then made a massive protest in and around Greater London and have appeared on television and the news in order to make the point that they will not leave.  We only see one side of the story and are expected to side with the mums and be against the government and the mayors side because they were the ones that keep the mothers out. In 1:05, we see archive footage of the founders of group making an appearance on stage talking about how to government was planning to send them to Manchester, Hastings or Birmingham. Throughout this whole documentary, we see this topic from the mums' point of view and and how their the victims of social cleansing, it makes it biased and not impartial that we only see this story from one perspective because we can't understand why they specifically have been targeted. 

Impartiality

'Impartiality' is a term used when a story is un-biased or favoured. This allows the documentary or television programme to show both sides of the argument or story to determine whether they are positive or negative opinions which enlightens and occupies the audience.

The Steve Wilkos Show is a good example of impartiality because we are not expected to side with anyone in some stories. We are expected to listen to both sides of the story from each parties perspective making it un-biased. Even though Steve Wilkos is a show where we are supposed to side with one character, I felt this story was hard to judge who was right and wrong. In this episode we are introduced to a female teacher who waited until her student was 18 to have a sexual relationship. Instantly, we would class her as a woman who has abused her power as teacher. At 1:22, we learn that he was only sleeping with the teacher for money making her seem taken advantage of and not so much in the wrong. From 1:48 -2.0, the student's mother comes on stage saying to her son "You can't blame that woman for everything!" which is true because he did use her, but she also says to the teacher "In my eyes you're sick! You're one sick woman, you need help!" which is alternatively correct because she did abuse her power as a teacher. Technically, both parties in this story are in the wrong so it makes this episode un-biased and impartial.

This is a bad example of impartiality because we are specifically made to side with one character in the show. Steve Wilkos is a character, like all the chat shows, that is designed to judge a person based on the crime they have supposedly committed and with the audiences body language and reactions. We are then given the opportunity to decide whether they are good or bad. Usually we only hear one side of the actual story and even if we get hear the opponents side's say in the situation it is less time because we are specifically made and expected to either side with one of the two people on Steve Wilkos show. In this episode, we are introduced to a mother explaining to Steve how her 4 year old child made accusations of his grandson molesting him, we are then instantly then led to side with the mother because of believing the grandfather was a peadophile. At 1:41, the lie detector test which the grandfather took turn out to be true meaning the allegations were false and he was an innocent man. This would then change the audience's judgement on the grandfather and would change who the audience had sided with. The reason I have chosen this clip as a bad example of impartiality is because we would side with one person when we're supposed to side with no-one and be unbiased.

Objectivity and Subjectivity

'Objectivity' in the media is a fact that cannot be argued with because there is proof and evidence to support it. 

'Subjectivity' in the media is where an individual is rightly allowed to give an opinion on the topic that is talked about because there isn't general facts based on how someone feels towards someone or something.

 

This is a good example of objectivity because it is stating what is the unarguable truth. Instead of watching a two hour long documentary on World War II, I chose a seven minute summary video in which the narrator explains World War II in a nutshell. The documentary stated unquestionable facts throughout the documentary which was all true which made it an objective documentary. 

 

This is a good example of subjectivity because we are given the choice whether to agree or disagree with the statement. In this documentary Katie Hopkins was giving her opinion on children's with certain names, in one scene the presenter Holly Willoughby expressed how she didn't agree with what Katie said and actually stopped her from speaking towards the end of the show because she got annoyed with her.   

Opinion

Opinion in media is where the presenter, narrator of interviewees are freely expressing their opinion and feelings throughout the documentary or television programme. This allows the audience to see and understand what they are thinking and feeling, which gives us a rough idea of what they are experiencing.  

I have chosen 'An Idiot Abroad' as a good example of opinion because Karl Pilkington always expresses his emotions and opinions throughout every episode. In 'An Idiot Abroad', two presenters think of a place to send Pilkington to so he can experience different things from each culture. He is assigned different tasks which are usually very entertaining to the audience, this is where we see Pilkington expressing himself either in laughter or pain. 

 

I have chosen 'Question Time' as a bad example of opinion because the presenter David Dimbleby rarely expresses his own opinion about a topic that is being discusses. 'Question Time' is a topical debate show typically featuring politicians and other public figures answering discussing a topic that they have selected from members of the public. This type of show is designed to give a 'for' and 'against' answer by each political party and the presenters own judgement and interpretation of the topic.  

Bias 

Bias in media is a term used to describe a perspective of something and abolishing all other possibilities or alternate points of view. An example of bias would be an American saying that The United States was the best country in the entire world or a mother saying her daughter is the most beautiful child anyone has ever seen.

 

I have chosen this documentary as good example of bias because it is shown entirely from one perspective. Nothing could be more bias than a country explaining to the world whar what happened and how they were effected, everyone is aware with the tragic 9/11 attack that happened in New York and the blame was put on the Al-Queda as a terrorist attack. This documentary is a special documentary film which used re-enactments and CGI to re-create a minute-by-minute account of what happened inside the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City during the September 11 attacks.

 

I have chosen this documentary as a bad example of bias because two perspectives are shown of every animal that is characterized in the programme.

Representation

Representation in media is a term used to portray a character in a documentary or television programme. We, the audience, are expected to make our own judgement on the characters we see in whatever watch. An example of this would be with the famous fictional character Homer Simpson. In "The Simpsons", we portray him as a dull, overweight, lazy alcoholic.
 

I have used this television show to demonstrate a good example of representation because in this episode, we are introduced to a warm-hearted young boy with a severe stammer. We are told about how it effects his life and how he gets over having a speech problem. In this epsiode, we are introduced to a school boy who was in a meeting with the headmaster and teachers due to his behaviour in school. In 1:55, the headmaster tells us that he had an altercation between him and students on facebook and the boy wrote something quite offensive. This would instantly lead us to believe he is a common irresponsible youth.  Throughout the episode, the camera is focused on Musharaf to see how his behaviour and responsibility has improved. In 18:17, we witness him finally being able to speak his oral exam without stammering. With the instrumental music and empathetic teachers in the background, the audience would have a different judgement on him realising he is a troubled teen, lashing out his anger on others becuase of his stammer but really he is a sweet, intelligent boy.

I have chosen this television programme to demonstrate a bad example of representation because The Jerry Springer Show is a tabloid talk show where we usually witness the good vs. the bad. In this episode, we are told a story from one of the guests explaining how he had a fantasy of having a sexual encounter with an overweight woman and explained how he met someone online and lied to them about loving them. During 0:02-1:00, we see the guest telling Jerry what he's done, giving us the impression he's a cheater. Later on in 1:06, the second guest whom is the love struck victim comes out and he tells her that he doesn't love her and states "It was a joke.". This allows us to judge him as a cold-hearted cheat and her as an insecure, sweet woman. In 1:42, his girlfriend appears explaining to him that she is embarrassed by what he has done and tells the woman that she is a "beautiful woman" in 1:50, this tells us that she is a kind, warm-hearted person that has just been taken advantage of by the cheating boyfriend. 

Access vs Privacy

Access and Privacy is based on the publicity and how it's contained. With access, it means data, footage or information is broadcast on television or radio so the public and authorities are aware of it either for their own benefit or to make them aware of a situation. Privacy is where footage, pictures or types of information is obtained illegally and shown to the public eye without permission. An example of this would be where there was an outbreak of leaked pictures by a hacker exposing actresses such as Jennifer Lawrence, Kate Upton, Rihanna and Victoria Justice.

 [access]

I have chosen this television documentary as a good example of access because it shows the audience something that would benefit them. The example I have used is a recurring television documentary called 'To Catch A Predator'. This documentary sets up hidden camera investigations by the American news-magazine television programme Dateline NBC and watchdog group 'Perverted Justice'. The aim of this show is to use male or female decoys impersonating underage children in a rented or set up home, where the male adults who have contacted them over the Internet for sexual liaisons, travel there where they are then confronted by presenter Chris Hansen and then detained and arrested by police. This show is very beneficial for the public because it teaches children and teenagers that they should be careful who they are talking too and teaches parent that they should monitor their child online and can have an understanding of local predators whereabouts. I have used this specific episode because Chris Hansen described it as "the most shocking thing he'd seen in his career." One perpetrator who had been previously caught by the sting operation was caught again the next day by another sting. From 0:12- 2:55, we see the archive footage from when he turned up to the "14 year old boys" house naked ready to have sexaul liaisons with the child. He was confronted and caught by police but released on bail. But from 3:39-4:03, Chris Hansen explains to us that he hadn't learnt his lesson and was repeating the same thing again. At 4:08, we see the footage of the same perpetrator attempting to meet another child the same day. Shortly after the confrontation, he was arrested and refused bail, this would leave the public quite shocked and disgusted about his actions, which is why this type of show is a good idea to show to the public.

 [privacy]

I have chosen this as a good example of privacy because the public to see what happens behind closed doors and how the people we trust abuse their power. In this documentary, we are shown a secret recording of how patients at a care home were being mistreated by their nurses. It was shocking video that went viral, even though it was illegal to secret record and broadcast the tape, it showed how the care homes really were run and how the perpetrators responsible for mistreating the elderly patients were dealt with. In 0:47, we are shown the nurse punch the old woman in the back for no apparent reason, this would certainly shock the audience because we put them in a position of trust to care for our love ones. Throughout the clip, we are shown how he treated the lady which would really make the audience's blood boil and reach out to her and her family because it is shocking to watch. This is a very good example to use to broadcast to the world because in these situations, we need to see what happens behind closed doors and how people are treated.

Contract with Viewer

Contract with the viewer is a term used to show whether the truth in a documentary or television programme is shown. This type of rule usually shows proof and opinions in a truthful documentary.  

 

I have chosen this David Attenborough documentary as a good example of truth shown within the documentary because the narrator states the facts and then the matching footage is shown to back it up and proof his what he's saying is indeed true. David Attenborough is a famous English broadcaster and naturalist, commonly known for presenting and narrating nature and wildlife documentaries across the world. This documentary focuses on life down in the ocean showing how the food chain works between the plankton, tuna and sharks. During 1:35, Attenborrough says " they attract visitors from the open oceon...tuna". Shortly after, we see swarms of tuna fish arrive in 1:48, and starting eating all the permanent small fish that live off the coral reef. From 1:48 to 2:16, we are shown evidence to back his statement up indicating that he is telling the truth. Shortly after in 2:17, Attenborough then states ".. this movement attracts even larger predators; sharks, hundreds of sharks." The music then changes very dramatically and eerie emphasizing that it is now dangerous. From 2:57- 3:18, we are watching footage of two species of sharks in very large numbers swarming over the mount, this also proofs that what the narrator is saying the truth and the information is correct.

 

I have used this television series as a bad example of truth shown within the documentary because it in fact doesn't tell the truth. The entire show is a deception towards the audience by the acting and situations the towers get themselves in to. The show I have used as an example would be 'South Beach Tow'. This show is is an American television series that shows dramatized re-enactments of everyday business of Tremont Towing. Although the television programme is fictionalized, Tremont Towing is a real Miami towing company. In this episode, we see Bernice doing her daily job which is towing cars away until this day where she is stopped by a police officer. In 0:50, the officer states that he would arrest her if she didn't drop the car, he then cuffs her and forcefully enters her truck to drop the car. In, 1:55, Bernice starts asking questions about where he is located and what his badge number is because she doubts he is a real police officer. He says "I don't need to show you s**t!" so she turns around and accidentally breaks the handcuffs, realising they're fake, she puts it together that he is also fake and wants the car. In 2:17 she confronts him about it and then punches him in the face. It is obvious that this whole scenario is false because the music added in the background is very dramatic the cameraman would of intervened instead of filming. This could leave a negative effect on the audience because they are being mislead and it could seem not interesting.