This section of my blog is going to be about the different issues relating to factual programmes for the TV. I aim to explain and expand upon all 9 topics within this blog.
These 9 are the following:
These 9 are the following:
- Accuracy
- Balance
- Impartiality & Objectivity
- Bias & Subjectivity
- Opinion
- Representation
- Access
- Privacy
- Contract with Viewer
The word ‘accuracy’ literally means if something is accurate it should have the meaning to be 100% correct or precise. An accuracy in terms of a television programme would be something similar to the news. This being because the news is one programme we rely on to know the knowledge of facts that are certainly true, and are not just guessing the information they’re feeding us.
Within the news there are different levels of accuracy, but unfortunately by reasons such as simple human error, whether that be loss of communication or simply interpreting the story wrong when broadcasting. Sometimes even here can cause a minor lack in accuracy. However, this does not happen often, as if it did we would stop believing the news and I think we would become less reliant.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYlQJbsVs48 23-01-15
Within the news there are different levels of accuracy, but unfortunately by reasons such as simple human error, whether that be loss of communication or simply interpreting the story wrong when broadcasting. Sometimes even here can cause a minor lack in accuracy. However, this does not happen often, as if it did we would stop believing the news and I think we would become less reliant.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYlQJbsVs48 23-01-15
The first level of accuracy that is more than likely to stay accurate are the types of stories and events the news looks at which are statistics. An example of this, in recent news would be the percentage drops/rises in the supermarket’s profits over the Christmas period. Quite often news programmes do their own polls and surveys, such as Good Morning Britain, where they are the people who set them up and then share it with us, so it is less likely to become inaccurate as nothing is really able to get lost in the process of communication.
The second level of accuracy within the news that I think is very poignant at the moment is the 2 big shocks we’ve had over the passed two weeks that have been ‘breaking news’. These were the first person in the UK to touch British soils with Ebola, and the second the shooting in Paris. This type of news is more likely to be slightly inaccurate as it is the most recent and instant type of news which means all details that are immediately coming straight through to the broadcasters and news programmes may not be 100% as no further investigations have been able to be made yet. However, I do think as viewers we can appreciate that they’re doing all of what they can to give us as much information as they know, regardless of whether that piece of information will end up being 100% accurate after further tests and findings have been made, and this can only happen throughout the time within the day, as various events take place for the news to become clearer and therefore potentially more accurate.
The second level of accuracy within the news that I think is very poignant at the moment is the 2 big shocks we’ve had over the passed two weeks that have been ‘breaking news’. These were the first person in the UK to touch British soils with Ebola, and the second the shooting in Paris. This type of news is more likely to be slightly inaccurate as it is the most recent and instant type of news which means all details that are immediately coming straight through to the broadcasters and news programmes may not be 100% as no further investigations have been able to be made yet. However, I do think as viewers we can appreciate that they’re doing all of what they can to give us as much information as they know, regardless of whether that piece of information will end up being 100% accurate after further tests and findings have been made, and this can only happen throughout the time within the day, as various events take place for the news to become clearer and therefore potentially more accurate.
Balanced: Being equal and fair to both parties, and showing both sides of an argument; sitting on the fence.
The most clear and obvious example of this would be BBC1’s Question Time. This show is a spin off from the radio show that was broadcasted called ‘Any Questions?’. The presenter (David Dimbleby) is sat on a panel with a member form each party; labour, conservatives, and liberal democrats. Also including one other person to join the panel whom of which is a valid figure of the media industry of entertainment, and in this following episode of Question Time it is Russell Brand, who is a very controversial character within his comedian-based career.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3lgVblBG04 23-01-15
The most clear and obvious example of this would be BBC1’s Question Time. This show is a spin off from the radio show that was broadcasted called ‘Any Questions?’. The presenter (David Dimbleby) is sat on a panel with a member form each party; labour, conservatives, and liberal democrats. Also including one other person to join the panel whom of which is a valid figure of the media industry of entertainment, and in this following episode of Question Time it is Russell Brand, who is a very controversial character within his comedian-based career.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3lgVblBG04 23-01-15
Here you can see all members of the panel, each from a different party.
The way that the show ensure that the show is initially began to ensure that is starts being fair and balanced from the onset is the fact that the audience are a huge part of the show.
The way that the show ensure that the show is initially began to ensure that is starts being fair and balanced from the onset is the fact that the audience are a huge part of the show.
Out of all the members on the panel, the person that must ensure is most fair is the chairman, in this case, David Dimbleby. He has to ensure that all parties keep it PC and clean, being non-biased to any parties by doing so. Even though, naturally there will be a difference of opinion but thats why it's good to watch, as people enjoy a debate and getting involved as things get heated. This creates a wide range of an audience able to watch, as each party representative is there, which means all those who are passionate for their party will support at least one, and debate among themselves from home.
The audience ask the questions for the panel to debate with one another in the most balanced and non-biased debate they can cope with. Naturally this is a show which is a recipe for disaster, but due to the nature of the programme and being politically correct to the nature of politics it is important that they stay as neutral as possible. As I earlier spoke about the fact the audience of viewers is a wide one, and open to all members of each party representative present, this shows exactly why the fact members of the general public are a big part of these show, asking the questions, real people want to know. Keeping it a balanced, fair, and realistic kind of show.
Impartiality & Objectivity. Accuracy and balance both fit in to this category. These style of factual programmes include a different, and varied amount of views and opinions within the subject in question. Giving neither an option, view, dominance, or even providing a strong personal opinion on the topic. An objective style of factual programme can either be detached, unemotional or impersonal.
The TV news and Question Time would both be factual programmes that fit into this category style. The news would do so because its absolute truth and nothing but factual information with no opinions on the subject. As the presenters broadcast the latest news and stories they are literally just reading a script which has all of the relevant facts that we need to be notified about.
Another factual TV of Impartiality TV would be Louis Theroux’s “A place for Paedophile’s” documentary where he would be finding out and being amongst of those who are known as paedophiles. Louis is in front of the camera during his documentary doing this, asking all of the questions that we as the audience want to know. https://archive.org/details/LouisTheroux-APlaceForPaedophiles
The TV news and Question Time would both be factual programmes that fit into this category style. The news would do so because its absolute truth and nothing but factual information with no opinions on the subject. As the presenters broadcast the latest news and stories they are literally just reading a script which has all of the relevant facts that we need to be notified about.
Another factual TV of Impartiality TV would be Louis Theroux’s “A place for Paedophile’s” documentary where he would be finding out and being amongst of those who are known as paedophiles. Louis is in front of the camera during his documentary doing this, asking all of the questions that we as the audience want to know. https://archive.org/details/LouisTheroux-APlaceForPaedophiles
During his time asking the questions that he knows will keep the viewers interesting and involved in his documentary, he also has to ensure that while he is doing this he is non-biased, or prejudice - as by doing this it keeps the audience happy, which automatically widens the amount of people who will stay in tuned watching. As well as this, most people only watch factual TV programmes in order to actually learn something new, or widen they’re knowledge further within that subject, and not have to endure an argument between the presenter and a potential poignant character within the documentary.
In terms of Objectivity, a example of a factual TV programme that has been made was the Dispatches: Meeting the Taliban [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZPxkuxBVQo]25-01-15. This was about a man who had himself, witnessed the battle for the town of Garmser in the Helmand Province of Afghanistan. The man is named, Sean Langan goes to meet the fighters British troops are facing.
This TV programme falls into this category because objectivity means that you as the person, and in this case it is Sean Langan is making his own judgement, based on what he has seen personally. However, as difficult as it may be to do so, the presenter and/or maker of the documentary is not able to involve any of his emotions of prejudices.
This TV programme falls into this category because objectivity means that you as the person, and in this case it is Sean Langan is making his own judgement, based on what he has seen personally. However, as difficult as it may be to do so, the presenter and/or maker of the documentary is not able to involve any of his emotions of prejudices.
This factual programme is definitely subject to objectivity. This means that whatever clips and footage that is shown, the audience are then left to create their own ideas and potential objectives of the subject in hand, in this case the Taliban. This means that as Sean feeds out information, on both his personal experiences as well as factual information about the troops, the fact that he is not biased or impartial as he presents this content allows the audience to make their own judgements, and arguments amongst themselves, rather than being fed a heap of information purely sitting on one side of the fence.
Bias and Subjectivity
These genres of TV programmes, again, like in with the two I have just spoken about, fall into one category where they all intertwine together. However, before in the two genres above, they were more about the factual programmes NOT being biased due to the subjects. Whereas during this one, they are almost promoting one view in particular, or an opinion going up against another opinion. The same with the subjectivity - it is based or greatly influenced by own personal beliefs.
An example of this factual programme that falls into this category would be BBC’s Newsnight. This show is on during the week, is a Television current affairs programme which focuses in analysing the [often] robust cross-examination of senior politicians.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bddWaHuxTz26-01-15 & https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynq_KqlmHIY 26-01-15 - Here the presenter Jeremy Paxman, shows an interview which are often controversial and create a very heated debate and has now built up a reputation for his ‘unfair’ comments and lack of patience in terms of letting the audience and guests listen to other views, and have their own say. This is where bias and subjectivity programmes are different to impartially and objectivity genres.
These genres of TV programmes, again, like in with the two I have just spoken about, fall into one category where they all intertwine together. However, before in the two genres above, they were more about the factual programmes NOT being biased due to the subjects. Whereas during this one, they are almost promoting one view in particular, or an opinion going up against another opinion. The same with the subjectivity - it is based or greatly influenced by own personal beliefs.
An example of this factual programme that falls into this category would be BBC’s Newsnight. This show is on during the week, is a Television current affairs programme which focuses in analysing the [often] robust cross-examination of senior politicians.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bddWaHuxTz26-01-15 & https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynq_KqlmHIY 26-01-15 - Here the presenter Jeremy Paxman, shows an interview which are often controversial and create a very heated debate and has now built up a reputation for his ‘unfair’ comments and lack of patience in terms of letting the audience and guests listen to other views, and have their own say. This is where bias and subjectivity programmes are different to impartially and objectivity genres.
Jeremy Paxman creates such a heated debate amongst his fellow interviewee and panel on the show that he does not give a chance for any other opinions, other than his own beliefs which is when the type of genre of the show becomes clear to us as viewers, as it is biased and only one side of the subject in talk is being spoken about.
I would say that Newsnight with Jeremy Paxman is more within the biased style of genre, whereas “Supersize Me” documentary would be more towards subjectivity, in my opinion. This documentary is someone sharing their lifestyle and life in general, with the cameras and therefore us at home - from which we can then judge for ourselves and create our own opinions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GA8LnPg4ZA 30-01-15. The documentary shows a social experiment in fast-food gastronomy that the creator of the show Morgan Spurlock, attempting to eat only McDonald's food for a whole month. During the process his weight greatly increases, and his energy level dips extremely low and he experiences all sorts of unexpected very concerning side effects. Alongside doing this, he begins to examine the ‘giant’s' growing role in the lives of American consumers and explores its methods of incising and encourage all people of any age into the tasty, yet unhealthy lifestyle of fast food.
During his time doing this, he ensures that he includes the professionals along the way, whom of which turn out to be quite a large part of the documentary. This is because, it is a factual programme, and people are watching not only to watch a real person do this outrageous food challenge, but they want to know the real truth and facts behind it. If Morgan Spurlock was to tell all the facts himself, it may not give his audience a true image or a believable image, whereas having interviews and meetings with doctors, nutritionists and all the people who research these facts, it gives a real image. As well as simply changing the scenery and making it more visually interesting for us at home as viewers, to be looking at different faces.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GA8LnPg4ZA 30-01-15. The documentary shows a social experiment in fast-food gastronomy that the creator of the show Morgan Spurlock, attempting to eat only McDonald's food for a whole month. During the process his weight greatly increases, and his energy level dips extremely low and he experiences all sorts of unexpected very concerning side effects. Alongside doing this, he begins to examine the ‘giant’s' growing role in the lives of American consumers and explores its methods of incising and encourage all people of any age into the tasty, yet unhealthy lifestyle of fast food.
During his time doing this, he ensures that he includes the professionals along the way, whom of which turn out to be quite a large part of the documentary. This is because, it is a factual programme, and people are watching not only to watch a real person do this outrageous food challenge, but they want to know the real truth and facts behind it. If Morgan Spurlock was to tell all the facts himself, it may not give his audience a true image or a believable image, whereas having interviews and meetings with doctors, nutritionists and all the people who research these facts, it gives a real image. As well as simply changing the scenery and making it more visually interesting for us at home as viewers, to be looking at different faces.
Seeing as this documentary is American, the one similar that we have in the UK is channel 4’s “Supersize Vs. Superskinny” where two strangers are put in a house to live together for a week and swap meals, so the overweight guest will eat the underweight guests portions and the same with the underweight guest. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yz7aOPI-J54 .30-01-15.
From this we see the emotional damage eating disorders from both ends of the scale really are, both mentally and physically. In terms of falling into the bias and subjectivity categories, I think this programme is allowing you to become more opinionated about one of the guests rather than the other, by comparing them while you watch. The guests understand that they are as bad as each other, and us as the audience are then only going to judge them by the effort they put in. I do believe that this in some ways, is a little more harsh than the Supersize Me documentary, as we’re almost having to pick someone to scrutinise more than the other, as naturally we’re going to warm towards one member more. Whereas Supersize Me, is just the one person transforming his life, and experimenting himself. But this is the difference, Supersize Me is an experiment kind of show, whereas our version, Supersize Vs. Superskinny is more life changing and realistic for the individuals oppose to one person showing his transformation.
From this we see the emotional damage eating disorders from both ends of the scale really are, both mentally and physically. In terms of falling into the bias and subjectivity categories, I think this programme is allowing you to become more opinionated about one of the guests rather than the other, by comparing them while you watch. The guests understand that they are as bad as each other, and us as the audience are then only going to judge them by the effort they put in. I do believe that this in some ways, is a little more harsh than the Supersize Me documentary, as we’re almost having to pick someone to scrutinise more than the other, as naturally we’re going to warm towards one member more. Whereas Supersize Me, is just the one person transforming his life, and experimenting himself. But this is the difference, Supersize Me is an experiment kind of show, whereas our version, Supersize Vs. Superskinny is more life changing and realistic for the individuals oppose to one person showing his transformation.
Opinion, what does it mean? Someones opinion is based on their own personal views or beliefs. These views may not have any factual content or truth behind them. It’s possible to have an opinion backed up by an argument, although others within the argument may share a completely different set of opinions. In terms of factual programmes, and example of this would be Channel 4’s Documentary “Kids with Guns”. This is led by one strong character whom of which shows the lives into the parents of America who are passionate about guns, and live for pulling the trigger as it were, so they then pass it onto their children, and teach them how to use guns from a young age.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kqSWG0ZPR8 01-02-15
But because of the style of documentary it is - being a very controversial subject, especially with the viewers at home of the UK, where having possession of a gun is not legal, unlike it is in the US, it causes even more of a rift here in England. Therefore due to this, the fact that this subject of the style of documentary is so controversial it means whatever individual thoughts about the subject, becomes our own person opinion, within our of beliefs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kqSWG0ZPR8 01-02-15
But because of the style of documentary it is - being a very controversial subject, especially with the viewers at home of the UK, where having possession of a gun is not legal, unlike it is in the US, it causes even more of a rift here in England. Therefore due to this, the fact that this subject of the style of documentary is so controversial it means whatever individual thoughts about the subject, becomes our own person opinion, within our of beliefs.
This style of documentary has got a camera following these individuals of the documentary around while they're living their lives, which makes it seem like we are the camera following the characters around. Because of this, it means that no one such as a presenter, whether that be something like the film maker themselves [such as the way Louis Theroux does his documentaries], or the company hire a specific person/type of person to present the documentary. Through out the whole of the documentary the characters and people involved are speaking and giving us information about questions that'd need to be asked, however a lot of the time these questions are not kept in the footage, and this would have been done during the post-production stage, when putting all clips together.
However, throughout this documentary there are parts where the questions are kept it, but we continue to not see a face to the voice in question. The question may have been kept in as it is more important to at this stage if the answer given was more poignant in response of the question asked. I think another reason as to why the questions are not always kept in the footage, is because the way or tone that they're asked in may be in a way that could have an impact on the way the question was answered, which has an impact on our opinion, which is what is supposed to be left to us to figure out alone, without any possible influences.
During the producers making this documentary, they would still have to ensure that it was filmed completely impartially and non-biased to the subject, other wise this could mean that it has an impact on the viewers opinion. Therefore in order for us to be able to create our own opinion it is their job to create and include the questions and answers that can let us as the viewers create our own ideas and opinions.
However, throughout this documentary there are parts where the questions are kept it, but we continue to not see a face to the voice in question. The question may have been kept in as it is more important to at this stage if the answer given was more poignant in response of the question asked. I think another reason as to why the questions are not always kept in the footage, is because the way or tone that they're asked in may be in a way that could have an impact on the way the question was answered, which has an impact on our opinion, which is what is supposed to be left to us to figure out alone, without any possible influences.
During the producers making this documentary, they would still have to ensure that it was filmed completely impartially and non-biased to the subject, other wise this could mean that it has an impact on the viewers opinion. Therefore in order for us to be able to create our own opinion it is their job to create and include the questions and answers that can let us as the viewers create our own ideas and opinions.
Representation: the way in which something/a subject is portrayed.
This style of factual documentary is based on the way that it has been made, in a result of the way it is portrayed to us as the viewers, and whether or not from this we create our own opinion, the way it is represented to us has an impact on our initial opinions. Many documentaries enforce and 'stereotype' subject as their choice of topic for the documentary. This makes it easier for them to portray the subject, and/or the characters of and within the subject in a specific way. This isn't always a positive thing, and most definitely one out of the two that I have chosen to look at aren't. However, some representation style documentaries are done in a positive way and can actually leave their audience in a more understanding manor.
These 3 screenshots are some of the very first clips of the documentary footage that we see on our screens once 'My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding' has begun. This are quick snapshots and vox-pops of the types of things we are expected to see from the onset and throughout our whole time of watching the documentary. There are a wide range of shot types featured during this documentary which gives us, quite literally a view of all aspects of not only the traveller lifestyle, but also the big lead up to the biggest event in their lives, and how much of an impact their big, overdone wedding day has on the whole travelling community, and how it can also cause interference with the world outside of the travellers community.
The types, variation and amount of shots that the documentary includes, is an if not the most essential element of the whole type of documentary. This footage and things we see, is based on the way the makers are representing the subject topics to be. The screenshot above is at one of the annual traveller events that a character of this episode in particular would never not attend. Even though it is presented in a neutral way, as the voiceover shows - the use of tone is quite sarcastic and patronising, as we are all not stating the obvious - they leave us to decide this. If they didn't do it this way, it would be too easy for the travelling community [and other members of the public] to complain to Channel 4 about prejudges or ethical issues. So the way that they do this, is in a way that it is what they do not say, oppose to what they do. This states the obvious just as much as it is too obvious not to notice.
On the subject. Portraying a certain stereotype and representing them, in a documentary style is still factual and truthful. This would be the reason why that the show does not get as many complaints as we, as non-travellers actually might think. The way the documentary makers do it is very clever and intriguing. They capture all the [shocking] elements on their subjects, and with the use of a neutral voiceover put it into one short film. The types of shots they use are only pure honesty, and the events that happen is what becomes the content. Just because the public that are not travellers, whom of which are watching this documentary may not understand it, there is a reason for this as to why we are watching this factual programme: to be informed.
This non-traveller character is a vital element of the documentary, as she is well known all over the UK within the travelling community for being the best wedding dress-maker there is. She gives us a non-travellers view on the time she has with the travellers and so her role is sort of the middle-man between the travelling community and us at home, as we only judge by the extremities and a short amount of their lives that we are having an insight into during our time watching documentaries. So she can fill us in on her view being like us as the majority of the viewers, oppose to being bombarded by a completely different way of life, that the travellers live. So this character definitely eases us, as viewers into the hectic events of the documentary. She can then change our views and opinions of the way that they have been portrayed to be, initially.
Celebrity Big Brother [https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=HVAZAu8y17Y 06-02-15] and normal Big Brother are another representational style documentary that channel 4 do. Even though, I don't think this would come across to be a documentary as it's not really that factual, but the idea of following individuals around and analysing them and their characters all the time, is going to give you a small amount of knowledge and factual information, even if that is just on that individuals opinion on a subject matter in the conversation for example; you're still learning.
The way that this representational documentary is different to Big Fat Gypsy Wedding representational documentary, is the cameras follow the characters around on Big Fat Gypsy Wedding, whereas during the contestants time in the house, there are built in cameras in every room, so wherever there may be a person, the camera has the footage of them and can display it not he airtime if they editors decide the footage is interesting enough. Also the contestants of the Big Brother house know what they're being set up for, so play for the cameras a little, and are being controlled by the outer world, which isn't as honestly portrayed as the way My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding is done and created which is what makes them different types of representational programmes.
Access is a style of documentary that is going 'behind the scenes' and are working almost 'under cover'. When the makers of the short film need to ensure that the people/businesses involved need to be notified that filming is being taken place, and quite often the producers do this afterwards, as the reason why they're doing it secretly is to capture the most true and realistic image to portray as possible. This way the documentary will be 100% factual and honest in every way. If however, the subject characters/businesses are notified beforehand and they object, then the filming still goes ahead this cause cause ethical debate and arguments. However, most documentary makers don't do this as they are almost certain that the secret footage will prove guilty and can be found out and use the footage as evidence, which will scrap all regards for a ethical argument as the subject characters and/or businesses and companies on film will not really have a leg to stand on.
This is a recent episode from East Midlands 'Inside Out'. This factual is a 30 minute Access programme made by the BBC. During this one it is about the recent events of nail bars using incorrect glue, which may as well be superglue and should not be used in the salons (MMA glue). However, during this programme, one of the team goes undercover by secretly filming the goings-on in a day in the nail bars.
In order to ensure that the programme makes it believable for us, as viewers to watch and appreciate - they have to make sure they have proof and background information before they show anything else. By them giving us all of the actual facts and statistics of the subject in question, it naturally makes us want to find out more, and see what proof they're about to show us. In this case the proof for this programme will be the secret filming. The two screen shots above are scenes from the programme, where the investigator [left] is interviewing and talking to a woman [hairdresser on the right] who went through this nail crisis, and suffered with her nails having been to a cheap nail bar where they were using this MMA substance. Again, we get to see what it really looked like, making the programme continue to be facts; true facts within the image.
Once an interview with someone who can tell their own personal appearances, another clip is then shown, which is the professional opinion and knowledge. Again, this not only provides us with more reassurance that this is true facts and figures, but it also backs up the interview of someone who has suffered through the after-math, and this Dr puts all of that, into a way that shows us the truth of the real facts behind the product, MMA. All of this footage and knowledge is the build up into showing us the proof and evidence that the secret filming should show us.
When the footage of the the clips of the actual secret filming, they put a bar of text stating 'secret filming' this ensures us as viewers and the audience that this is the clips we need to listen out for, to hear the voices that we may not get a chance to see, depending on where the 'secret camera' is hidden. Another example of access style factual documentary would be 'Benefits Street' - in this case the camera crew probably were not fully clear as to what this documentary is being filmed for, and whether or not it will even be aired, let alone on one of the top 5 viewed UK channels [channel 4].
Privacy is a very similar style of factual documentary to Access. This is because in order to film, the company/film makers need to have granted permission. An example for this that I know people have had to go through, is wanting or actually filming in the Highcross shopping centre, a member of the security team within the building will soon ask you if you have been granted permission to film, and to show proof if so. Similar in the actual stores if you take a photograph of the items in store. Like Access, certain filming could leave a debate of Ethics completely open for debate and argument.
An example that we would have all seen at some point on the TV, is when peoples faces on the programme is when faces have been blurred out, this happens because that individual doesn't want to reveal his privacy. The documentary makers have to ensure that if an individual requests to not be shown, or does not grant the makers documentary permission to film them, then it is absolute that their requirements are met. An example of this would be Donal Macintyre's football documentary. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0nadafM3fY ]08-02-15.
Privacy is a very similar style of factual documentary to Access. This is because in order to film, the company/film makers need to have granted permission. An example for this that I know people have had to go through, is wanting or actually filming in the Highcross shopping centre, a member of the security team within the building will soon ask you if you have been granted permission to film, and to show proof if so. Similar in the actual stores if you take a photograph of the items in store. Like Access, certain filming could leave a debate of Ethics completely open for debate and argument.
An example that we would have all seen at some point on the TV, is when peoples faces on the programme is when faces have been blurred out, this happens because that individual doesn't want to reveal his privacy. The documentary makers have to ensure that if an individual requests to not be shown, or does not grant the makers documentary permission to film them, then it is absolute that their requirements are met. An example of this would be Donal Macintyre's football documentary. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0nadafM3fY ]08-02-15.
http://www.channel4.com/producers-handbook/c4-guidelines/secret-filming-guidelines 09-12-15- These are the guide lines that channel 4 provide. These state what the programme makers have to ensure that they do to make it all legal, and all well worth doing. For example, ensuring that people under 18 years old definitely need a parietal consent, and if not it is absolute that their faces are blurred out, so their privacy is protected.
The screenshot above is an indication as to what some of the footage looks like while secretly filming. As I have previously stated earlier, this style of documentary is very similar to Access. Seeing as it is not guaranteed to get a good amount of footage, subtitles and voiceovers are almost essential for this kind of documentary. These are a both big elements of this documentary as it helps the audience to understand whats going on.
The main difference I think that is between Access and Privacy style documentaries is with Access they're not so brutal, and aren't going out of their way to put someone in particular to shame - it is more a investigation into all aspects, so more like a business/company as a whole - whereas with privacy it can be one person in particular, so long as the address all the rules and regulations before going ahead with the filming and making of the documentary, for example if on channel 4, they stick to the guidelines I previously showed the link for.
The screenshot above is an indication as to what some of the footage looks like while secretly filming. As I have previously stated earlier, this style of documentary is very similar to Access. Seeing as it is not guaranteed to get a good amount of footage, subtitles and voiceovers are almost essential for this kind of documentary. These are a both big elements of this documentary as it helps the audience to understand whats going on.
The main difference I think that is between Access and Privacy style documentaries is with Access they're not so brutal, and aren't going out of their way to put someone in particular to shame - it is more a investigation into all aspects, so more like a business/company as a whole - whereas with privacy it can be one person in particular, so long as the address all the rules and regulations before going ahead with the filming and making of the documentary, for example if on channel 4, they stick to the guidelines I previously showed the link for.
Contract With Viewer is when you have an agreement with the audience. It is when you present something that the audience is expecting for example if you have watched a documentary about hospitals, you would expect the documentary to be focused particularly on everything about hospitals. Even though channel 4 is the channel I have focussed on for a lot of these documentaries, I have chosen to do BBC and look at the series 'Panorama' as I feel the stories featured on the show are always current and a big part of the news at the moment in time. http://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/page/guidelines-interacting-introduction/ 13-02-15.
These are screenshots I took while watching Panorama's 'The Innocent Serial Killer' episode, regarding the nurse who is now currently in prison for 30 years for the murder of 4 elderly patients. As this style of documentary [Panorama] is an all-rounder factual programme. The elements are similar to those other factual programmes I have been looking at in other categories. For example the way that it has been made is similar to Bias and Subjectivity programmes 'Supersize Me' and 'Supersize Vs. Superskinny' as it has an introduction about what we should expect [following from the synopsis of the programme for viewers]. Before long it cuts straight into an interview of someone who has experienced the subject in question themselves and then onto a interview with a professional body within the profession of this subject. This is also similar to Access, and the private filming. Some programmes have a presenter, who is also the voiceover - which is the case here. But during 'Supersize Vs. Superskinny' they have the doctor who presenters it [male] and then the voiceover is different, as it is a female voice. This keeps it fair.
Overall, all of these different types of factual programmes and documentaries all link in together somewhere or somehow. This is due to the fact that a documentary/factual programme has to consider so many elements towards their programme, even if the categories only slightly fall into another category - it is still likely that they will.