There Are 9 rules for Factual Television. These are Accuracy, Balance, Impartiality, Object & Subjectivity, Opinion, Bias, Representation, Access vs. Privacy & Contract with viewer. These are often mainly seen in documentaries.
Accuracy is a key factor of Factual TV as it is the presentation of facts. Facts play a major part of Factual Television even more in documentaries as they have to be truthful with the facts they are providing and portraying to the viewers of the documentary. If the facts are not true it will give/show different views or even opinions to the viewer. This means the documentary will become less accurate and potentially allowing the viewer to revoke the trust of the documentary. By providing facts that are accurate you are allowing the audience to gain trustful information and ensure they are engaged to watch further into the documentary. Without the accuracy of a documentary it will make the audience beg the question whether the information they are being given is true.
A good example of Accuracy in Factual TV would be Deadly 60 :
Deadly 60 as an overall show shows a very good aspect of accuracy because of the facts they provide. For example at 5:34 Steve Backshall the presenter talks about his next animal that he will be looking for but he tells us a fact that it is a rare animal. Then at 5:58 we hear from him that they had been looking for a week for these rare dogs. At 6:22 we then go to see him giving us a voice-over of facts about the rare dogs he has seen. He explains how they hunt in packs for their prey. By giving the viewer information that is truthful they get an understanding of how dangerous these dogs can be towards other animals and even humans themselves. While he is doing the voice over for the facts that he is giving to the viewer we see the hunting "in action" to show the viewer how it is done by the pack. By giving facts and figures which are legitimate the rule of accuracy is being abided by the show and allows them to gain the viewers' trust.
A bad example would be Crime watch. This is because these are re-enactment of crimes are often tweaked for the aesthetic pleasure for the viewer so they are engaged to carry on watching the whole show itself. Re-enactment of previously happened crimes tends to have the stories to be twisted which allows the audience to get engaged while watching the video. For example here we have a Crime watch. At 0:44 we see that the voice over is guiding the viewer through the re-enactment of the whole crime that has materialized. By having re-enactments the viewer is forced to believe this story when it has been played with a little for aesthetic reasons and to make the story sound a bit more serious. Re-Enactments of anything tend to be less accurate than what is said. This meaning word of mouth would be more accurate than the re-enactment because of the fact that the director of the show will twist the story up a little to make it seem more enjoyable to watch. At 3:10 we are given more information about the offender who is called "Donald" who is not new to these types of crimes. We are told that he has committed these types of crimes before which show an aspect of accuracy. Also one thing that makes this re-enactment less accurate is the locations they tend to be different to the place of the crime scene which removes the authenticity of the whole re-enactment of the crime.
Balance is often used in documentaries because it allows the audience to gain evidence from both sides of the argument. By having an element of Balance in a documentary the program will gain the viewer's trust as they are providing positive and negative facts about the topic. This allows the audience to get a better understanding of why people have these views and why they don't.
Good Example:
A good example of Balance would by this video showing is hunting endangered animals save the species. At 2:10 we see an interview happening which shows that the man wants to bring back animals which are on the verge of extinction. This has been done so that there can be two sides of the argument. This interview was done so that they are against the fact that they want to hunt animals to "save" its species. Through to 2:38 we see the interview taking place with the expert, which shows that he is against the theory of hunting the animals to save their species. To balance out the “against” facts the documentary at 2.56 we are introduced to "Trophy Hunters". The reason why we are introduced to this topic is the fact that these people hunt exotic animals which are then bought as a trophy for them to take home hence the name of "Trophy Hunters". Therefore this argument is for the hunting of exotic animals which allows a form of balance to be available throughout the whole documentary. Straight after we are introduced to Trophy Hunting for the exotic animals we are shown at 3:31 that they are looking for an exotic animal for them to take home if the catch it. Also if they do hunt it they will have to pay for it to then take home. This shows the audience that the documentary is trying to show both sides of the argument. At 3:52 we see another for argument which shows that exotic wildlife has become a billion dollar industry. They explain this is why people are hunting for these types of exotic animals. To the audience we have told that there are over 14,000 related jobs to exotic animals being hunted. They are also showing that this business might be the cause of extinction which relates to the first part of the documentary where we have an interview about saving the animals from extinction. Straight after that piece of information which the audience received we are then greeted by the animal rights groups at 4.11 where the woman says that they "make it too easy for the animals to get hunted" which shows that this maybe a cause of extinction for the exotic animals. The presenter of the show also said that "it was not easy" which showed that she was kind of taking the side of for the argument rather than against. The presenter also asks the hunter at 4:34 whether he cares about the animals that he is hunting. This shows the audience the hunters' point of view and she also informs him that the type of animal he is hunting is extinct in the wild. This is done so that the audience see what the trophy hunter has to say to the viewers of the show. His response to that question was that he actually cares and that the money he spends keeps those animals alive. Also we are informed that the US Government agrees with the hunting while others disagree because of the fact that it may cause extinction. Proof of this is shown at 4:57 with a quote of "Hunting...provides an economic incentive for... ranchers to continue to breed these species". The documentary shows why people are for the argument by giving quotes from people how actually do the hunting to inform the viewer a truthful explanation. At 6:20 we see another interview with a hunter and the interviewer asks them questions on why these animals are hunted but then through to 7.06 we see the president of the Animal Rights group talking about how she is against the hunters from hunting these animals who are on the brink of extinction.
A very bad example of balance is Fahrenheit 9/11 a documentary on the devastation that occurred on September 11th 2001 which was the terrorist attack on the World Trade Centre (Twin Towers). Here throughout this documentary we are told this was a terrorist attack which is true. The documentary takes one side of the argument which is for the people and states that Bin Laden is the cause for the attack and stereotypes the "Muslim Community" for being terrorists. Without a form of a balance in this documentary the viewers are forced to take one side of the argument which leaves the other side on a disadvantage. This documentary is focused on the aftermath of the whole 9/11 attack, on how people are living their lives. For example at 21:18 we see a clip of Osama Bin Laden indicating to the viewer that he is the reason why 9/11 had happened. Also just before that clip at we see the amount of flights/departures to Saudi Arabia which again shows the documentary is taking one side of the argument and blaming on the Muslim community.
Impartiality allows the documentary to show both sides of the argument whether they are good or bad and informs the audience the points. They show proof/evidence for the points they are making throughout the video and makes it fair on both parties.
A good example of Impartiality would be loose women. The reason why it is a good show because they are having a conversation with good and bad points about themselves or towards the topic. Straight off the bat at 0:30 we see Katie Price and the rest of the people sitting around a table which indicates that they are going to have a conversation and that everyone has their own input to the statements that are made. At 1:28 she makes a statement then which the rest of the guests on the show give their opinion on whether it is a good or bad. By allowing both sides of the argument the audience gain an understanding of why that opinion was given.
Super Size Me would be a bad example of Impartiality because it is only using one side of the argument that McDonalds is unhealthy and fatty. The documentary shows a man eating McDonalds for 28 Day all day everyday which then they see the results of what could happen if it were to happen to one of us. They also talk about Mcdonalds only while there are many other Fast Food restaurants that could in essence do the same damage as Mcdonalds does to the body. They also don't give opinions on the fact that it is a business they just make it unfair on McDonalds and make it seem as a bad thing. Here he is exposing the Mcdonalds' use of preservatives in their food by constructing an experiment which will show the difference between a Hamburger and fries from a restaurant and Burgers and fries from McDonalds. For example at 3:30 we are shown a graphics still which says 8 weeks later which shows the time the food has been in the jar. This is done so they can observe the outcomes of the mould and expose Mcdonalds for their use of preservatives.
Objectivity in this case is a fact that has been proven and can not be argued with. This meaning that there cannot be any opinions towards the fact that has been shown whereas Subjectivity the person is allowed to give an opinion on the topic that is talked upon.
An example of Subjectivity would be Thierry Henry (Hand of God) where he used a hand ball to score a goal against Ireland. So here we can see that everyone was on one side of the argument and Ireland did not get their chance to have a re-match which was unfair. As subjectivity shows the aspect of opinion over the fact at 1.02 we see the opinions of the Ireland Fans who were not pleased with the decision that was made for the goal he had scored. Then continuing through to the next scene of the documentary we see the Ireland Coach giving his opinion on the matter because he was not happy at all. Again because he is giving his opinion on the goal the audience see another side to the argument.
An example of Objectivity would be the Tottenham Riots in London. Straight after we see the introduction to the documentary at 0:50 we are seeing some footage which is trying to prove the fact about the riots. For example there were a lot of young men attacking and breaking windows, cars etc. and the footage shows a "black man" being arrested on suspicion of vandalism. At 2:29 we hear the voice over saying "we" which indicates that the person who is commentating over this piece of documentary was there at the time and is telling us his story. Also this documentary is a fact of what had happened resulting it being a Objective piece of footage. Also the film-maker of this mini documentary has been in the heart of the situation in order to prove the fact of what is being done in the riots.
A good video for Opinion would be An Idiot abroad. This video was chosen because the "Idiot" is giving his own personal opinions on China itself. At 5:38 we can see his impressions on the area he is visiting in China. He says “It smells like China" this is an opinion he is giving to the viewer of what he thinks about the place. Again this is coming from his point of view and he is giving no chances in altering his opinion just for the audience. Also he is saying it so casually just for the audiences' laughter because at the end this is a comedy show. At 6:09 he talks about how weird the Chinese people are about having live toads and then killing them and skinning them. By giving his opinion to the audience, the audience can get different points of view to the argument. They could be thinking on thing while the "Idiot" gives another argument completely different to the viewers.
A bad example of Opinion would be Question time. At 5:24 the man is giving a direct answer to the topic they are discussing. He is not allowing others to answer the question because he has evidence towards that topic. He looks down and reads of the sheet of paper also showing that the audience that what he is telling is the truth because he is quoting the statement. At 7:42 we are shown that this woman is interrupting the speaker to ask her about the UKIP policy. This is to show that with the true facts the people can "put each other down" because they are answering with a false fact. This shows the audience again that the facts that are being told is the truth but also shows that there is now opinion aspect towards the matter. All of the statements that the people have said is either true or has been referred to / quoted from other sources.
A good example of being bias would be Super-Size me. Not only is the argument one sided but the "actor" in the video demonstrates it to the audience to further exaggerate the bias aspect of the whole documentary. At 1:20 we are shown that he is getting a stomach ache because of the fatty foods that he has eaten. This shows the audience that he is against the whole aspect of eating Mcdonalds.Not only that because he is eating this fatty food with large portions it is showing that Mcdonalds' food is very unhealthy which is the topic they are experimenting with throughout this documentary. This shows that the documentary is bias towards Mcdonalds because of the food portions and un- healthiness of the foods that they serve. In essence he is risking his life to show the viewer what could possibly happen to them if they eat Mcdonalds on the regular. At 3:13 we are shown evidence towards the topic he is talking to the audience about. As Mcdonalds is unhealthy and harmful to the body he's is showing that via an animation of how the McNuggets are made.
A bad example of being bias would be Big Brother. This is because the evictions are done through the audiences' vote which shows the viewer that it has been done fairly and not to a bias extent. Also 2:43 we are told that there are 52 Camera around the house which covers the whole house. This was again done to show that everyone will be treated the same and not one camera is focuses on a singular person. They had shown the audience this because they know that they are not focusing on one individual but all the people in the Big Brother house, At 3:18 we are shown the people who have entered for the Big Brother House who may or may not get into the house. This was again done to show no bias on the people that did not get into the show. The audience get another view of the show for the potential personalities they may be seeing in the actual house which is going to be aired on TV.
A good example of representation would be Crime Watch because the people here are being represented properly without showing any aspect of bias on one sided arguments. Also the re-enactments of the crimes are represented to the closest to what could have happened in the real situation. At 1:40 we are shown the "faces" of the fraudulent people who live out there. Here they are represented as people who are criminal (which they are) and it shows and tells the audience that if these faces are spotted around their area to contact them. Also the victims’ relatives are portrayed as people who have been hurt/scarred for life due to their loss. At 2:16 we are told about a brutal murder which this father was stabbed at his local park. She says "We need your help" asking the audience. This shows the viewer that the whole situation is real and has happened somewhere in the UK. At 2:20 we are shown the reconstruction of the stabbing to give the viewer and idea of what could have happened or what had happened.
A bad example of representation would be Catfish. This is because the people here are portrayed negatively to the viewer. Here the person "Abbey" is shown as an individual that is a mystery to the audience. At 7:20 we are shown some proof that Abbey's mum is quite suspicious with Abbey’s behaviour. In the end Abbey is shown as the "Bad guy" of the whole film/documentary because she is the one who is doing things out of bound and sending out a lot of mail to Nev "the friend". There is only one side to the whole representation of Abbey therefore making Catfish a bad example.
Access & Privacy:
A Good access to privacy would be the VICE documentary about North Korea when two men get lucky and get into North Korea. As the viewer’s know North Korea is one of world's most isolated places. We are given that access throughout this documentary showing the process of getting into North Korea and how isolated they are from the rest of the world. At 4:47 we see he has a camera and he is recording the process of each side of Korea. It shows the division between North and South Korea. At 8:44 as they said cameras were restricted they would have to film it secretly for the audience. Again by doing this Korea's privacy is being accessed by the population.
.A bad example of Access to Privacy would be on this news clip where the government wants to access everyone's phone and internet connections for privacy. This is breaching the access and privacy rule as it is not getting the full consent of the people who use the internet and phone. Also at 0:07 he says that it is for Security reasons but the people will not know whether their information will be safe with the government themselves. At 0:21 we are told the Big Brother full access is a small step away from the government bringing out these laws. This shows that the people's information HAS to be accessed but it means that the people do not get their say in the law whether it should breach their privacy or not.
Contract with Viewer:
Here a Contract of viewer has been breached by the show Storage Hunters. Contract with viewer often shows that there will be no breach on what the audience see and what is done off camera. It also states that everything that is done in the show is legitimate. Most Contract of Viewer elements are related to Reality TV. Here in this clip we are shown that the contract with viewer was breached. This is shown at 0:17 where the Painting was previously exposed and not it is underneath a cloth. This shows the audience that this has been altered by the crew members which can raise a suspicion that this show is fake. Also this video was done to expose the show itself to tell its viewers that it was fake. As the contract with viewer was breached it will show the viewer that the show is fake and it has been all acted out. This video had shown proof that the "Bins" as they are referred to are being altered by the creators of the show.
No comments:
Post a Comment