Factual Programming - Theory
After analysing a study completed by OFCOM (who conducted consumer research into the most popular genres of TV in the UK) it is clear factual programming/documentaries are the 3rd highest viewed on TV/ Video on Demand and online services such as BBC Iplayer. Although, this category is one of the most viewed in the UK, a whole series of problems are generated in the creation of pre production stages. These problems ranged from accuracy problems I.E getting a fact wrong such as saying Winston Churchill was born in 2011; when actually he was born in November 1874.
(Image from)
Accuracy
The term accuracy in factual programming means that any facts or figures presented to the audience are of quality, precision and are correct. This means all research and pre production into the field of the chosen subject area, whether its a news report on "red meat causes cancer" or a documentary on the Pyramids of Egypt, has to be fully backed up and well investigated. Things such as speaking to experts (often scientists or people with degrees in niche subjects), going out and completing first primary research through surveys and vox pops and not just taking the first fact thats presented. If you do not fully research your area well enough then inaccuracies in your data and incorrect facts are likely to be broadcast.
However, this creates a huge amount of problems. For a start all factual programmes, especially the news, have to be accurate otherwise the audience is being mislead. Depending on the context, this can further snowball out of control and cause mass panic. Take this clip from the BBC news for instance:
The first thing that could create problems is the catch line for the news piece, "Could Cannabis Oil Cure Cancer?". Without watching the piece you can already tell that the piece will need to have solid facts and backings of medical scientists. If not the general public are being mislead by the fact that cannabis oil cures cancer; therefore by using Cannabis you will be cured by a life threatening disease. Which may have a knock on effect of more people using Cannabis, all because the presented piece was not accurate or fully developed. Luckily, the report is backed up one of the worlds leading cancer doctors, who also helped cure Lance Armstrong, has strong evidence that Cannabis helps cancer patients recover. Other back ups is the use of tests on lab animals such as mice, published lab reports and human trials. This sort of thing can also be seen with recent news stories.Say a store has just been robbed, they will interview an eye witness or the police who where on site in order to get credible and accurate information. They wouldn't go and ask someone who lives miles away to describe what has just happened as they were not on site. So by having the right interviewees can also prevent inaccurate/ false information from being presented.
Another example is the revealing of who Jihadi John is:
In the piece, the name of the male who is Jihadi Jon was revealed alongside his accomplices. However, if the information wasn't accurate then someone who is innocent could of been wrongly accused of murder and terrorism because of a mistake in factual programming. The inaccuracy could of also lead to a man getting wrongly abused and even killed which is very extreme over a very simple mistake. Although, not all factual programmes have been accurate:
In 2012, Lord Robert Mcalpine was involved in a libel law feud as it was alleged he was a peadophile and a child abuser. This feud began in 2012 when Mcalpine was said to be involved in a North Wales child abuse scandal, which the BBC Newsnight claimed was a "Senior Conservative; although no names were mentioned several rumours began and Mcalpines name started to appear on social networking. Although the people who were commissioned to write the story were not aiming to name McAlpine the guardians states: "they were not pursuing new evidence against Lord McAlpine, nor did they intend to name him. The goal was to look at the failings of previous police investigations and the supposed failure of an official inquiry into the scandal "
(Image from)
It occurred after a debate in the Oxford Union, people there were Michael Crick who was Channel 4's political correspondent and Iain Overton BIJ's editor amongst others. Overton began to boast about how Newsnight was about to expose a senior Tory as a pedophile. Crick pushed Overton who revealed the name as Lord McAlpine. Overton took to social media and tweeted "If all goes well we've got a Newsnight out tonight about a very senior political figure who is a pedophile."
The final statement made on the show was "A Newsnight investigation into the abuse of boys at children's homes in Wales can reveal that two victims say they suffered sexual abuse at the hands of a leading Conservative politician from the Thatcher years." The day after the broadcast the Guardian news paper denied the rumors and made clear that McAlpine was a victim of mistaken identity ,although they didn't reveal his name. A week after McAlpine went on to say that the victim , Messham , was mistaken and the allegations were false. This was confirmed by Messham after seeing a photo of McAlpine and stated he was not the abuser. As a result of this the director general,George Entwistle , resigned and the BBC paid £185,000 in damages. Which means that we as a UK citizen were fined as we publicly fund the BBC.
Not only were the BBC fined, but ITV also. As "This Morning" presenter Phillip Schofield handed a list of alleged peadohiles to David Cameron who was being interviewed at the time. But the list was a name of rumoured names that came from the internet. It was said that some of the names on the list could be seen when viewers pressed the live pause button.
Although, this story had only come out after the Newsnight broadcast. If this programme hadn't made the story out to the public then the matter would of never escalated. ITV, Schofield and McAlpine settled the libel claim and apologised and paid £125,000 in damage costs. Although the fact did not include the name of Lord McAlpine the way the show presented to alleded peadofile was done in a inaccuarate way. As viewers were figuring out who it was from the fact "at the hands of a leading Conservative politician from the Thatcher years." which links libel slander in with accuracy. Not only did an innocent man get involved in a sex scandal, ITV had to pay a huge fine because of inaccuracy, further adding to the list of problems accuracy can create.
Also, because the audience is watching a factual piece they know to expect facts and figures; not opinions. Which makes them more likely to trust in what is being said to them. If a programme is pulled over for being inaccurate then viewers will begin to mistrust the network and could lower the ratings for that channel. Branding that programme as having a low credibility. Which would result in a lose of profit for the production teams, networks and those involved. As we saw in the news piece all of the content spoken by the presenter is scripted. He may not of wrote what he's saying; which means he has no reason not to say what he's told. Which is why the facts need to be checked and clarified before production. Another big area of factual programming that relies on accurate information is any documentary, as again the audience is trusting on the information that is being fed to them. If the viewer is new to a topic area, then they are more likely to be fooled by false facts and figures which they could take through live believing to be true.
If it was a documentary based on lifestyles and it presented something that states it improves your life expectancy; when in fact its true can have physical effects to the audience. As they have misled the audience in a way of thinking which has reduced their health because they listened to inaccurate information; which again is why accuracy is really important for the "ignorant" consumer who might not know better.
_A30.gif)
(Image from)
In order to prevent accuracy from becoming a problem in the future, channels set up guidelines for producers to follow. For instance, Channel 4 has a whole section on Viewer Trust and state: "Channel 4 has a bond of trust with its audience and a duty to ensure that viewers are not deceived or misled by our programmes. "
Last of all it is important that accuracy must come before speed. Which means no matter how long it take to build a news piece, documentary of other factual programme the detail and the facts make the story. Which pays of more for the audience and production company as they have attained quality through the facts and figures. As a great Old West lawman once said:"Fast is fine, but accuracy is everything".
Balance
Balance is looking at a topic from both sides of the argument. Think of a TV programme as a law suit, you don't just hear from the victim you hear both accounts of those involved. This way both sides get a fair representation which the audience (or jury) decide which is the side for them. This being said both sides of the argument should be accurate and fair otherwise problems referenced previously could occur. One of the main reasons there is balance in factual, is to stop glorification. This means targeting one area and will often not focus on the other topic.
Take the subject of Middlesbrough for example. A factual programme exploring the area could explore all the negative sides of the area; which would put of tourists and audiences. As they are only seeing the harmful and highly negative side without exploring the good in the town. By doing this you are making the audience believe what your telling them, as there are no counter arguments against your view,which may well be biased. (See later on for more detail).
By segregating a show by a biased opinion the relevant facts get took out of the mix and the programme will be lacking in quality. The audience will then notice this and brand the programme as favoring one thing other another.This can easily be avoided by remaining neutral and fair by not including an opinion on a topic; unless its a member of the public doing a vox pop or an expert being interviewed. Most factual programmes will have conclusions which will sum up both sides neatly at the end. Some shows may end on the side they think is right, although there should be plenty of information throughout that applies to both sides of the subject area. Take the recent 7 political party debate which took part on ITV:
During the live broadcast of the debate, a group of the public (who had no political bias) were sat in a room. During the debate if they liked what they were hearing from one of the leaders they would vote it up. This would then change a line graph that was currently being update. This meant that the show was fully balanced as not only did they have 7 different view points on the same subject of becoming prime minster. Those involved in making choices rated everyone fairly, as they had no outside knowledge, where general members of the public and had no one to influence their choice apart from the current people debating. If the show was unbalanced and bias then the members voting would of been from the parties being grilled. Although, due to precautions this was avoided. This is normally the case as any extreme misleading and bias products are checked through the channel guidelines and OFCOM.
However, there are times when programmes are more unbalanced than others. Take this BBC documentary on "Confronting racism face to face"
Another good example of media being biased is Fox news. Which is owned by Rupert Murdoch who is also in charge of the global media crossover Newscorp.
Take the subject of Middlesbrough for example. A factual programme exploring the area could explore all the negative sides of the area; which would put of tourists and audiences. As they are only seeing the harmful and highly negative side without exploring the good in the town. By doing this you are making the audience believe what your telling them, as there are no counter arguments against your view,which may well be biased. (See later on for more detail).
By segregating a show by a biased opinion the relevant facts get took out of the mix and the programme will be lacking in quality. The audience will then notice this and brand the programme as favoring one thing other another.This can easily be avoided by remaining neutral and fair by not including an opinion on a topic; unless its a member of the public doing a vox pop or an expert being interviewed. Most factual programmes will have conclusions which will sum up both sides neatly at the end. Some shows may end on the side they think is right, although there should be plenty of information throughout that applies to both sides of the subject area. Take the recent 7 political party debate which took part on ITV:
During the live broadcast of the debate, a group of the public (who had no political bias) were sat in a room. During the debate if they liked what they were hearing from one of the leaders they would vote it up. This would then change a line graph that was currently being update. This meant that the show was fully balanced as not only did they have 7 different view points on the same subject of becoming prime minster. Those involved in making choices rated everyone fairly, as they had no outside knowledge, where general members of the public and had no one to influence their choice apart from the current people debating. If the show was unbalanced and bias then the members voting would of been from the parties being grilled. Although, due to precautions this was avoided. This is normally the case as any extreme misleading and bias products are checked through the channel guidelines and OFCOM.
However, there are times when programmes are more unbalanced than others. Take this BBC documentary on "Confronting racism face to face"
One of the biggest problems is that the show is more favored to the victims of racism and not the people who are targeting black people. The whole documentary is presented from the a black women Mo Asumang, a victim of racism, This makes the show become biased because she is talking from a personal point of view where she has strong opinions. For instance one of the questions she asks a German racist states: " What do you plan for people like me" which favours the questions more to the fact they are racist and not why. To reduce the bias, and make it more balanced a presenter who has nothing to do with the subject could of asked "Why do you use derogatory terms towards black members of the public?" which would then widen the subject focus. The show also mainly focuses on all those who are racist with only one person who is against the idea. If there was more focus on both sides, instead of the main idea of everyone is racist in Germany than the show would have a more developed area of interest.
Another good example of media being biased is Fox news. Which is owned by Rupert Murdoch who is also in charge of the global media crossover Newscorp.
(Image from:)
As we can see from the Image, not only does News Corp own several factual programming companies, but various forms of other media. Because the company is so big, they have a big influence on the audience by acting as a "mouth piece" for the government, which can have devastating effects. This can have negative effects as the viewers/listeners are being bombarded with one view point, and since media is huge around the world, companies can be in total control. It is known that Fox news has a political bias towards the Republicans as they voice more new stories favoring them and more negative reports towards the Democratic party. Which is huge unbalancing in the way it delivers its content. Although, this is allowed in the USA due to the programme being privately owned, Compared to the UK which has the state owned BBC. Which has to be impartial and fair to all political party's are is its funded by the general public who deserve a wide range of views points for a massive audience. As everyone in the UK must pay for a TV license which funds the BBC.
This is ultimately seen during the following clip (see link for details)
(Image from)
The video explores Bill Maher an American political satirist (whose job is to pull apart and shame individuals, governments, society and large corporations. I.E Fox news). He notices how that fact that the bias of Fox news is creating an America where Americans are no longer questioning the facts for themselves. Because they are listening to what is in front of them. Due to the fact that Fox News is unbalanced and bias he notices how this is becoming an concerning problem. For a full transcript and the video check the link here.
My last two examples also look into politics. The first is a standard episode of Question Time:
The topic from the clip is reviewing the recent debate between David Cameron and Ed Miliband, The panel that are disusing the topic are all from different political backgrounds so through debate and arguments both sides are explored. In this episode they have the conservative education secretary; leader of the Scottish labour party; leader of the welsh nationalist party and a tv presenter/newspaper columnist. Because there is a wide range of people from different political backgrounds and a host to keep them in line; they can fully dig into what each other is saying. This means that there is no bias as the host does not set the questions, and the panelist are from different areas so there are no direct pairings between the panelist. I.E two people don't go in from the same party agreeing with each other. The questions are then delivered to the panel through either an email or text from the TV audience, or a member of the general public who is in the audience. This also means that the panelists do not come in prepared for set questions and makes the response natural and balanced. If it were bias and unbalanced then only one party would be on the panel and they would already be prepared for questions.
My last example is the debate mentioned in Question Time:
The debate involved David Cameron and Ed Miliband being separately grilled with tough questions by Jeremy Paxman. To keep it balanced and fair both pairs were interviewed at separate times both with the same time and same level of hard questioning. The show would of become unbalanced if they only focused on one party and the questions were adapted to make one party look better than the other. If this had of happened then the audience would favor one side other another due to the way the programme was set up. And with such an important subject, all TV broadcasts have to be fair in order to prevent corruption in voting for a leader. To keep it legal and legitimate everyone gets a fair share of grilling without them being together.
Again, like question time the audience was the general public who have no involvement in the government. After the grilling/ or before the political leaders where questioned by the general public on subjects that were no set in stone. For instance one member of the public asks David Cameron: "Will you appoint a cabinet minster for the older people" Which was of a concern for the public, not including in Paxmans grilling. To make the choice of the viewers even more fair to what is being presented in the balance program the comments have been disabled on Youtube. Finally I end this section with a quote from Stephen Colberty another political satirist: "The media promises to report on reality. But we know that reality has a well known liberal bias "
Impartiality
Impartiality is linked very closely to balance. As by being impartial you do not favour one side over the other; instead being unbiased by taking no side. Which is how it links in very closely to balance, as by having a balance you are then also being unparial by being on a fair and neutral standing. This also means opinions and prejudice are taken out of the mix; for instance if you were doing a documentary on Asian culture you would keep an open mind to the subject instead of using stereotypes and derogatory terms. Due to the fact you would then be moving into dark territory which is no longer balanced and fair as you have a partial motive.
This can then go on to be seen as controversial by the audience who can then go and complain to the regulatory bodies such as OFCOM. So in order to please the public factual programmes aim for high standards when it comes to the concept of impartiality.By having an open mind and no bias towards a subject; you can really pull out the facts and narrative of a story in a fun and presentable way. Although there has been a few times when a programme has been deemed controversial due to harmful comments. Take the "Factual programme" Top Gear for example during the main factual part of the program, the news section, the trio are looking at a recent car that was created in Mexico. However, instead of talking about the facts and figures of the car they targeted the fact it was created in Mexico which left many fans feeling insulted about their comments. In order to keep it fair and neutral they could of talk about the car itself rather than insulting Mexicans as a whole.
(0-0:21)
Impartiality also means that viewers can make up their minds about a subject without having the show to do that for them. This is why news reporters will read from auto cues as they are worded in a way to be facts and not opinions. Because to make an impartial judgement you have to gather all the relevant and accurate research and present them properly. By bringing in an opinion or judgement the audience begins to lose trust as they suspect a bias viewpoint. A really good documentary that shows impartiality is "Supersize V Superskinny" instead of going with media trends and saying all people that have bad diets end up overweight; the show explores how overweight and underweight is caused by poor diets.
Not only does the show discuss how over eating in snack foods can cause medical conditions such as being over weight; but by not eating enough of the required nutrients it can have over long terms effects. Such as being medically underweight. Which helps tackle the main issues people associate with diet; as if you say you have a bad diet to a typical person they presume you are eating too much fats and carbohydrates. When in fact you might not be eating enough carbohydrates or minerals which could cause mental conditions such as anorexia or bulimia. They manage to do this by having the pair switch diets in a medically supervised environment. They then follow a healthy eating plan set in place by medical experts before checking the weight gain/loss.
Again, using things such as sticking to the same plan, in the same environment for the same time help keep up the consistencies not only in the terms of science but in terms of media. As you can see both sides going through the change without focusing on only one of the two. Impartial also covers discrimination as well as prejudice, covering concepts and themes such as race, hair color, social norms and religion. Which is why both sides are crucial to be shown in a programme so the show does not get backlash from the viewers.
Another good example of a factual TV show that is impartial is "The Moaning of Life" which is a travel based documentary with Karl Pilkington. The show follows Karl exploring topics he has given to though to throughout his life. These topics include themes such as marriage and death. Every week he would explore different countries in order to explore how the world explores the traditions.Because Karl has no previous knowledge he has no bias in the facts or figures as we explore the learning process with him.
Although, he gives his opinion every now and again it is a reflective process before and after to sum up his experiences. Whilst the actual facts and figures take place when he speaks and explores the traditions in various countries. For instance he takes part in a blind marriage in India and through a fly on the wall sort of style we see how he copes with the various traditions set in place by cultures. If he was biased we would only see one form of one tradition, in one country alongside of an opinion why, which could of included insults to those who take part in that style of wedding. Which would of caused controversy, upsetting the audience. Instead we see him explore arranged marriage in India, drive in weddings in Las Vegas and a social media style wedding in Banglore. Showing his full respect to different races without being prejudice or discriminatory. For more instances on impartial programmes, see balance for more detail.
(Image from)
My quote for this section is from one of Louis Theroux documentaries, a man who has become known for getting the best of the eccentric, "Louis Theroux - When Louis Met - The Hamiltons" . After dealing with interviewing members of the KKK, female body builders and porn stars, Louis had to deal with one of the hardest subjects yet. The Hamiltons. A former corrupt Tory member Neil Hamilton, known for taking bribes, alongside his wife were falsely accused of raping and indecently assaulting her to gain money and a celebrity status.
Louis wanted to explore the area, before the trial, although he had no idea where the couple stood and whether it was true or not. Louis states: "As a journalist I had to remain impartial". If he hadn't of remained impartial then he could of been responsible for getting the pair falsely arrested with the evidence of his documentary. Instead he carefully approaches the subject and gets an idea of their life before hand and the lead up to the false arrest by the police. He becomes a part of the couple as he follows them around in their now chaotic lives. By not speaking directly to the camera, instead operating the camera and speaking to the couple, he does not give his opinion on whether they are guilty or not. Instead he focuses on how the pair are handling it and not whether they did it or not. Link for video.
Objectivity
Objectivity is a judgement based on observable phenomena and uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices to certain topics. Which in general means: "Striving (as far as possible or practicable) to reduce or eliminate biases, prejudices, or subjective". Which is generally done by supplying the audience with true facts in a balanced manner. Other wise they would be failing into subjective territory (making judgement on opinions and impressions.) This concept is generally applied to subjects where audiences don't have to think much about the topic area; instead they are being taught something interesting. Whereas subjective pieces will get the audience thinking, as the opinions provided will be looking past the facts. Objective factual programmes still look at things form both sides but stick to facts rather than opinions. Leaving the audience to form their own opinion on the subject rather than making an opinion of others judgments.
Objectivity can easily be seen in the News. As the reporter has to be unbiased and show a story from a fair point of view as there job is to inform the audience with facts. Take this news story for example:
When the reporters are presenting a news piece they leave the opinions to those involved in the story rather than themselves. This is so they have no bias or subjecting over the matter which allows the audience to make their own choice. As you cannot force an opinion in the news, otherwise you are misleading the audience. Instead reporters will offer facts and statistics alongside the interviews/vox pops. If we look at the frame 3:03, on screen is the cost of a single flat-rate payment which is a fact from the department for work and pensions as so stated in the bottom left of the screen. This already helps face any problems when gathering a presenting the facts. As if you have an objective programme and your telling made up facts, it is again misleading the audience. Facts also have to be correct as we saw in the accuracy section earlier on. So by having the source on screen the audience can see that what the News is telling them is credible. Facts are also interlined within the reporters with every fact being linked to a credible source. In this case certain facts come from independent economists and the institute of fiscal studies.
One of the things to notice is that no matter what the story is the news reader has to say those facts without branding his opinion; which for some people is hard to do. They may not enjoy doing this but it is a requirement for the job. Not only is the news a good example for this, but nature documentaries. If we take a look at this short clip from David Attenborough's "Frozen Planet"
Like all of his previous documentaries, he will get hands on and will fully explore the area he is presenting. In this clip he is exploring how a penguin attracts mates. He starts off by introducing why its times for penguins to make a nest and how many are doing so. The numbers given is that around 5 million penguins will be buildings nests. He then fully explores the facts by showing how penguins attract a mate by building a nest of rocks. He also shows that penguins will steal from each others nests rather than building one from fresh. If he was subjective he would be guessing to why they are making piles of rocks instead of directly telling the audience why, like he does in this case. He would then go on to say whether he agrees with whats on instead of explain with the truth.
My last example is from a recent documentary The Mafia With Trevor McDonald. Throughout the documentary he focus' solidly on the different mafias and the facts without putting his own opinion into the mix. He explores different mafias by looking into their past and often states facts and figures about those involved; he also doesn't jump in and then say what he thinks of these actions. Instead he questions the people themselves about their lives and what they were thinking at the time without judging them. This allows the audience to make their own choice about the those involved instead of getting a stereotyped view of all mafias and gangs and bad people. Although it seems biased at first because they only speak to the Mafia; through the question and interviews we can see both sides in the Mafia. Those who chose this live as a living and are proud alongside those who regret getting involved. He meets those who use to be in the business and those who are still in the life to fully explore a sensitive and dangerous subject. If he started to include his opinion in his question, he would be putting his life in risk as those he is interviewing have a life of crime. Not only could he get hurt; the entire crew could be hunted down for one persons comments.
For more problems with objectivity see the following sections above. As objectivity has links with all of them. My quote this time comes from the Vice President of India: " Certain media-related developments in the country are raising questions regarding its objectivity and credibility. Paid news and the declining roles of the editors and their editorial freedom is posing a major threat to the Indian media." Although its not the UK its easy to see how objectivity can be ignored in the worlds media. Once you start moving away from the truth it because a major problem for a nation. As in this case corruption from those high in the chain is responsible in India; yet the reasoning can still be applied worldwide.
Subjectivity
Subjectivity is the complete opposite of objectivity; instead of making judgement based on observable phenomena and uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices to certain topics. subjectivity is making judgements based on personal feelings and opinions. The main difference is that subjectivity focus on the thoughts of people rather than the facts. Instead of allowing the audience to make their own decision, a subjective factual programme will use a controversial topic to persuade and form an opinion rather than presenting the truth through facts which an audience can adapt into their own opinion. This means programmes will be biased as you can present the topic in any way you want. This is why the news stays objective in order to avoid controversy. Unlike the other areas we look at earlier ,balance, subjective forms a more one sided view.
Without another side to the story the audience is being mislead into a mindset that does not allow for open thinking. Which can cause problems such as the FOX having a political preference which had a knock on effect of Americans becoming Polarized by the news.This is ultimately seen during the following clip (see link for details)
(Image from)
The video explores Bill Maher an American political satirist (whose job is to pull apart and shame individuals, governments, society and large corporations. I.E Fox news). He notices how that fact that the bias of Fox news is creating an America where Americans are no longer questioning the facts for themselves. Because they are listening to what is in front of them. Due to the fact that Fox News is unbalanced and bias he notices how this is becoming an concerning problem. For a full transcript and the video check the link here.
The important thing to remember about subjectivity is that you must state that its only your opinion otherwise viewers sense biased implications; which can have a knock on effect of what the audience take away and whether they tune into the programme again. As opinions are not necessarily a bad thing, although if there is no context or balance then thoughts become one minded. There has been many instances where factual programmes have offered a biased/subjective point of view. One documentary that is subjective is a documentary film that uses mix of found footage and shot footage, "Fahrenheit 9/11" by Michael Moore explores the ex president George W Bush and his involvement in the War on Terror:
Throughout the documentary Moore uses a voice over alongside the footage to a allude to various scenarios developed by Moore. Of which he presented them in a way which caused controversy as his opinions and feelings caused mass dispute over the accuracy of his ideas. As he states that the American media encouraged the 2003 invasion of Iraq; although he didn't supply any accurate or factual evidence when speaking in his voice over. Other events allude by Moore includes the idea that friends and allies of George W Bush work with Fox News to rig the election in his name and suggested there was several cases of election fraud with one state involved being Florida.
Because Moore so often makes statements that have no factual back up, the audience becomes very aware and start to question the bias of what Moore is doing. Which is what lead to the complaints that the accuracy in the documentary was lacking. It also shows that without the view of both sides and objectivity the credibility starts to slowly decrease, moving away the audience. If any thing without the hard facts and credibility of the sources it turns more into a conspiracy story rather than an "uncovering into political secrets".
This can also be said for any other Micheal Moore documentary's as his style is to find a subject where he can put his opinion in place and created a story around it. Rather than finding a story of fact. Although it gets more people talking, the facts used in his programmes are not always true; and sometimes if they are they are used out of context in order for Moore to further push his opinion onto the public. Which is misleading and harmful to the audience as although they get to see a different view point on a topic; they are not presented with a balanced argument.
This is further seen in Moores questioning style as his questions are used to force an answer relating to his mind set for example in Bowling for Columbine : (1 hour 13 minutes) "Why do you think we have so many gun murderers in America? " before asking do you think there is a lot of murderers in America? He uses strong worded language to get his opinion from others. Its also interesting that in order to proof his point Canadians don't murder he asks one person whether "he knows any murderers" instead of looking into the facts he asks one person to further have his subjective opinion come across. For more details on the effects of subjectivity in factual programming see the sections above.
One really good quote to sum up subjectivity is "I personally think honestly disclosing rather than hiding one's subjective values makes for more honest and trustworthy journalism. But no journalism - from the most stylistically 'objective' to the most brazenly opinionated - has any real value unless it is grounded in facts, evidence, and verifiable data." Although this quote is by Glenn Greenwald who works with journalism it has its involvements in factual programming as the news is a piece of journalism. ( Glenn Greenwald is an American Lawyer, journalist and author who writes for The Guardian). The quote sums up that as a piece of subjectivity and objectivity is requited to give a real meaning to the story. As its okay to have strong opinions and feelings as-long as its fully backed up by balance and accuracy. Without it you either have an educational objective piece in which you can judge for yourself, or a subjective piece of factual programming that's based off opinion alone rather than a backed up piece of work.
Opinion
Throughout the essay I have been exploring how the other various concepts can lead to opinion having a biased and unbalanced view on a subject area. Because I have already looked at this area in detail, this section will include a summary of my findings, whilst also using older examples.
An opinion is someones view point on a certain topic.A persons opinion can be based on fact or on anything they may of come across. A passive audience is one that takes media and uses it to create their own opinion. This often means a persons opinion might favor one side of a story other another. Which means producers have to get a wide range of opinions included into the news/factual programme in order to keep a balanced and unbiased view point. As the viewer should be able to see both sides and then decided for themselves where they stand. This is why news reporters will stick to the facts and allow the general public, who have no background with the case, to offer their opinions on the news story through a vox pop. This can be seen in a students recreation of a typical news piece on Youtube:
The piece explores how newspapers are slowly being replayed by other methods of viewing. The piece starts with a fact saying how news is moving away from traditional methods and gets a wide variety of people answering the question. Instead of having loads people saying they all go online, the piece has been included in a way so a variety of opinions can comes across; widening the subject area. In this case many people would discuss what paper they read if they do in fact read a newspaper, others explore what sites they get the news from and others will state they barely read the news but will check the TV every now and again.Not only does this mean the presenter doesn't get accused of corruption or biased, this method of getting opinions across is done in a fair way. A simple way to look at it is without opinions you have a stack, but with opinions the stick becomes a branch as your idea is starting to widen out by looking at all the other viewpoints.
For instance we saw earlier how opinion can caused a one minded and single tracked factual programme: "Fahrenheit 9/11" by Michael Moore explores the ex president George W Bush and his involvement in the War on Terror:
Throughout the documentary Moore uses a voice over alongside the footage to a allude to various scenarios developed by Moore. Of which he presented them in a way which caused controversy as his opinions and feelings caused mass dispute over the accuracy of his ideas. As he states that the American media encouraged the 2003 invasion of Iraq; although he didn't supply any accurate or factual evidence when speaking in his voice over. Other events allude by Moore includes the idea that friends and allies of George W Bush work with Fox News to rig the election in his name and suggested there was several cases of election fraud with one state involved being Florida.
Because Moore so often makes statements that have no factual back up, the audience becomes very aware and start to question the bias of what Moore is doing. Which is what lead to the complaints that the accuracy in the documentary was lacking. It also shows that without the view of both sides and objectivity the credibility starts to slowly decrease, moving away the audience. If any thing without the hard facts and credibility of the sources it turns more into a conspiracy story rather than an "uncovering into political secrets".
(Image from)
This can also be said for any other Micheal Moore documentary's as his style is to find a subject where he can put his opinion in place and created a story around it. Rather than finding a story of fact. Although it gets more people talking, the facts used in his programmes are not always true; and sometimes if they are they are used out of context in order for Moore to further push his opinion onto the public. Which is misleading and harmful to the audience as although they get to see a different view point on a topic; they are not presented with a balanced argument. If we had more opinions rather than a voice over with only one opinion you would be able to understand where Moore is coming from. It also adds more balance to the story as you cannot go around stating what you think happened without producing physical evidence in the form of a fact.
You must also be careful who you ask for opinions, in the first example the general public normally have no biased towards a topic unless they are involved in something similar or that news event. Unbiased opinions make the programme more authentic and the audience actually take something away from the programme themselves without being forced by a one way mind. Take the recent 7 political party debate which took part on ITV; the example which we looked at earlier in balance:
During the live broadcast of the debate, a group of the public (who had no political bias) were sat in a room. During the debate if they liked what they were hearing from one of the leaders they would vote it up. This would then change a line graph that was currently being update. This meant that the show was fully balanced as not only did they have 7 different view points on the same subject of becoming prime minster. Those involved in making choices rated everyone fairly, as they had no outside knowledge, where general members of the public and had no one to influence their choice apart from the current people debating. If the show was unbalanced and bias then the members voting would of been from the parties being grilled. Although, due to precautions this was avoided.
One last thing to remember about using opinions is asking a wide/diverse ethnic and audience. There's no point getting questions of one social, racial class etc... by getting a mix not only do you get more accuracy into what the public think but it also helps with widening the subject and being unbiased.Take the vox pops we looked at earlier, in the video a wide range of people in age, gender, social class and race were all asked the same question. If you were to go out and ask one group of people, say the upper class for example "What do you think about the current benefits system" those who are upper class will have a different opinion to those who are lower in the hierarchy.
(Image from)
My quote for this section comes from Sir David Attenbrough, a man who has spent the majority of his life exploring the world creating interesting and entertaining documentaries on nature; alongside other works such as history " In the old days... it was a basic, cardinal fact that producers didn't have opinions. When I was producing natural history programmes, I didn't use them as vehicles for my own opinion. They were factual programmes." Not only does the quote suggest that producers are no longer producing factual programmes, but are producing mouth pieces for their own opinions it suggests that opinions should not be included in a factual program. As what people think and say moves away from the solid foundation of the truth.
Opinion
Throughout the essay I have been exploring how the other various concepts can lead to opinion having a biased and unbalanced view on a subject area. Because I have already looked at this area in detail, this section will include a summary of my findings, whilst also using older examples.
An opinion is someones view point on a certain topic.A persons opinion can be based on fact or on anything they may of come across. A passive audience is one that takes media and uses it to create their own opinion. This often means a persons opinion might favor one side of a story other another. Which means producers have to get a wide range of opinions included into the news/factual programme in order to keep a balanced and unbiased view point. As the viewer should be able to see both sides and then decided for themselves where they stand. This is why news reporters will stick to the facts and allow the general public, who have no background with the case, to offer their opinions on the news story through a vox pop. This can be seen in a students recreation of a typical news piece on Youtube:
The piece explores how newspapers are slowly being replayed by other methods of viewing. The piece starts with a fact saying how news is moving away from traditional methods and gets a wide variety of people answering the question. Instead of having loads people saying they all go online, the piece has been included in a way so a variety of opinions can comes across; widening the subject area. In this case many people would discuss what paper they read if they do in fact read a newspaper, others explore what sites they get the news from and others will state they barely read the news but will check the TV every now and again.Not only does this mean the presenter doesn't get accused of corruption or biased, this method of getting opinions across is done in a fair way. A simple way to look at it is without opinions you have a stack, but with opinions the stick becomes a branch as your idea is starting to widen out by looking at all the other viewpoints.
For instance we saw earlier how opinion can caused a one minded and single tracked factual programme: "Fahrenheit 9/11" by Michael Moore explores the ex president George W Bush and his involvement in the War on Terror:
Throughout the documentary Moore uses a voice over alongside the footage to a allude to various scenarios developed by Moore. Of which he presented them in a way which caused controversy as his opinions and feelings caused mass dispute over the accuracy of his ideas. As he states that the American media encouraged the 2003 invasion of Iraq; although he didn't supply any accurate or factual evidence when speaking in his voice over. Other events allude by Moore includes the idea that friends and allies of George W Bush work with Fox News to rig the election in his name and suggested there was several cases of election fraud with one state involved being Florida.
Because Moore so often makes statements that have no factual back up, the audience becomes very aware and start to question the bias of what Moore is doing. Which is what lead to the complaints that the accuracy in the documentary was lacking. It also shows that without the view of both sides and objectivity the credibility starts to slowly decrease, moving away the audience. If any thing without the hard facts and credibility of the sources it turns more into a conspiracy story rather than an "uncovering into political secrets".
(Image from)
This can also be said for any other Micheal Moore documentary's as his style is to find a subject where he can put his opinion in place and created a story around it. Rather than finding a story of fact. Although it gets more people talking, the facts used in his programmes are not always true; and sometimes if they are they are used out of context in order for Moore to further push his opinion onto the public. Which is misleading and harmful to the audience as although they get to see a different view point on a topic; they are not presented with a balanced argument. If we had more opinions rather than a voice over with only one opinion you would be able to understand where Moore is coming from. It also adds more balance to the story as you cannot go around stating what you think happened without producing physical evidence in the form of a fact.
You must also be careful who you ask for opinions, in the first example the general public normally have no biased towards a topic unless they are involved in something similar or that news event. Unbiased opinions make the programme more authentic and the audience actually take something away from the programme themselves without being forced by a one way mind. Take the recent 7 political party debate which took part on ITV; the example which we looked at earlier in balance:
During the live broadcast of the debate, a group of the public (who had no political bias) were sat in a room. During the debate if they liked what they were hearing from one of the leaders they would vote it up. This would then change a line graph that was currently being update. This meant that the show was fully balanced as not only did they have 7 different view points on the same subject of becoming prime minster. Those involved in making choices rated everyone fairly, as they had no outside knowledge, where general members of the public and had no one to influence their choice apart from the current people debating. If the show was unbalanced and bias then the members voting would of been from the parties being grilled. Although, due to precautions this was avoided.
(Image from)
My quote for this section comes from Sir David Attenbrough, a man who has spent the majority of his life exploring the world creating interesting and entertaining documentaries on nature; alongside other works such as history " In the old days... it was a basic, cardinal fact that producers didn't have opinions. When I was producing natural history programmes, I didn't use them as vehicles for my own opinion. They were factual programmes." Not only does the quote suggest that producers are no longer producing factual programmes, but are producing mouth pieces for their own opinions it suggests that opinions should not be included in a factual program. As what people think and say moves away from the solid foundation of the truth.
Bias
Throughout the essay I have been exploring how the other various concepts can have knock on effects of being biased/ one sided. Because I have already looked at this area in detail, this section will include a summary of my findings, whilst also using new examples.
Bias is a personal motive where you favor one side of an argument over another. I.E when a parent might defend the actions of their child at school because of the way they see the child at home. They see it from the perspective that no matter what their child is perfect in every way; ignoring that facts over personal opinions. Although it is common for the newspaper industry to favor political parties, for instance the Sun supports Conservatives, factual programmes should try their best to avoid using bias in there products. As by being biased in a documentary/programmes can cause audience backlash which could also create a great deal of hassle for the channel and the broadcaster. For instance, the BBC has a role in being impartial but doesn't always stick to it; which also has the effects of offence and mass debate.
This video explores Bill O'Reilly responding the criticism over his comments made towards the opposition on gay marriage supports when he said they needed to do more than "thump the Bible" in order to win an argument. To help his case he invited on a women called Laura Ingraham to support his case; which is the first sign towards his personal bias. Infact, instead of supporting him, Laura told Bill he was wrong. To make matters worse, everytime she tried to make a point O'Reillly began to shout over her telling her "I'm disappointed in you". Not only is this bias because he's taking his own opinion into his hands and not others; he repeatedly attempts to deny access to a fair argument by attempting to silence her thoughts. Most importantly for a news channel the lack of facts,impartiality and hard evidence make the show highly biased. Which begins to support claims that America is becoming polarized by one track minds. This isn't the first time Bill O'Reilly takes his opinion into his own hands and ignores the other side of the argument:
This time O'Reilly is more aggressive and begins to breakdown in an angry rant. The video alongside the clips of Bill O'Reilly explores how one minded and bias Bill is towards his own perspective without listening to the other two people contributing to the argument. In the clip from Fox News, Bill O'Reilly unleashes a one sided argument against the promise's Obama made. After insulting the others on the show he attempts to apologize the next day; whilst trying to justify his breakdown but yet still sticking to his own opinion.
Other examples of extreme media bias include the works of Micheal Moore which we covered in Subjectivity and Opinion. My last example of this section comes from a recent political debate that occurred on the BBC. Which saw the main party leaders of the UK (minus the Conservatives and the Lib Dems) have a 5 way debate about common policies:
Again the comments section on the Youtube video comments have been turned off to reduce an bias made in the comments. Yet there was complaints from Nigel Farage that he was being targeted not only by the other leaders (expect in a debate) but by the audience. In fact, Nigel Farage has set lawyers on the BBC after he claims the audience was the majority of the left wing; I.E for labor. A formal letter sent to the BBC asked the following questions to be answered: which company picked the audience, how that company was chosen, what research was done into the company and the political make up of the staff. This was further seen when Farage stated in the debate it was “remarkable, even by the Leftwing standards of the BBC”. After all the audience that pays into the BBC deserve to know how the BBC sets up factual programmes as they want a safe guard in place to protect the audience from bias viewpoints in order to mislead the audience into their way of thinking.
During the live debate, the audience began to cheer for more public spending and defense on immigration; although when Farage jumped in to say the audience was prejudiced and biased he was booed down an silenced. Which is biased in itself. Eventually after looking to the company that chose the company, which was outside the BBC, the majority of the audience was for labour. As in the audience of 200, 58 were Tory, 102 were all left wing parties I.E Labour, SNP, etc... with only 40 undecided. As we saw earlier the audience used in the ITV Labour and Tory debate consisted of an equal audience and for the mass debate between the 7 leaders only those who were undecided got to show their opinions through the live updated graph.
Like ITV the BBC also had this graph during the live broadcast, yet it was done by 20 voters in the studio. Which was, as we found out biased. Because they the audience are being mislead into thinking that its the general public who have no motives are rating the show, when in fact a bias audience is doing so. "Professor Colin Davis, of Bristol University, said the worms can produce as much as a 30 per cent swing in voting intentions." - quote from the Express online. Which not only shows the dangerous sides bias can have over the production of factual programming; but that by simple slip ups in the production of factual programming serious consequences can often arise. My last quote for this task comes from American politician Curt Weldon: "The mainstream media has its own agenda. They do not want to print the facts. They have an agenda, they have a slant,they have bias. It is outrageous to me". Whilst this isn't a big problem for the UK news; its a serious problem in the American industry. In what should be a factual programme that tells the nation/public the straight facts more and more news programs are being adapted to have blames to target others so one news channel can gain from the destruction, For instance, Fox News's political bias will mean the way they word and report news stories will twist from the truth in other for their one mind thinking to be implemented without giving the audience enough facts and opinion for them to make their own mind up; without changing the channel and looking elsewhere.
Other examples of extreme media bias include the works of Micheal Moore which we covered in Subjectivity and Opinion. My last example of this section comes from a recent political debate that occurred on the BBC. Which saw the main party leaders of the UK (minus the Conservatives and the Lib Dems) have a 5 way debate about common policies:
Again the comments section on the Youtube video comments have been turned off to reduce an bias made in the comments. Yet there was complaints from Nigel Farage that he was being targeted not only by the other leaders (expect in a debate) but by the audience. In fact, Nigel Farage has set lawyers on the BBC after he claims the audience was the majority of the left wing; I.E for labor. A formal letter sent to the BBC asked the following questions to be answered: which company picked the audience, how that company was chosen, what research was done into the company and the political make up of the staff. This was further seen when Farage stated in the debate it was “remarkable, even by the Leftwing standards of the BBC”. After all the audience that pays into the BBC deserve to know how the BBC sets up factual programmes as they want a safe guard in place to protect the audience from bias viewpoints in order to mislead the audience into their way of thinking.
(Image from)
_A30.gif){kind=link}
