Intro There are a range of different factual TV programs such as talk shows which are basically shows like Jeremy Kyle and Jerry Springer in which talk shows typically have more than one person involved as the audience normally have a input, in order to make the programme appear impartial, as not everyone will have the same view or opinion, while other shows like Jonathan Ross and Alan Carr which are chat shows and typically a one-‐to-‐one interview with a celebrity, normally done in the style of a piece of infotainment. While magazine shows have some elements of chat and talk shows, normally it contains soft news and is infotainment. As Magazine shows are typically shows that demonstrate that have interviews stuff with celebrities, cooking things and much more as it is aimed at a specific audience, it can also be seen as ‘infotainment’ as since the show is seen as a magazine programme, they would have someone to interview, about subjects or headlines about the current entertainment of informational or news. While reality shows are completely different as they are meant to be shows that are reality or even observational though they don’t seem like it, they also typically follow interactive elements with each other. EG like Made in Chelsea typically follow these people in their day-‐to-‐day activates. All these shows are shown and broadcast in different ways as all of them can be watched on TV, bought on DVD and can be watched through Internet streaming or online video players like BBC Iplayer, Netflix and more. While the main focus on the essay will be on factual programmes that are contrasting are Documentaries and TV news programmes. Both tend to be ‘Hard News’ which is news headlines that are more serious, and while ‘Soft News’ is news headlines that ‘infotainment’ news that is more entertainment driven. There are also conventions that define it as each typically have presenters that explain what they want to talk about. There is also a distinctive difference between in the camerawork, editing and mise-‐en-‐scene. While these kind of shows also have new headlines while each are done in different ways as news programmes are impartial through the way it is delivered, even though programming can change its ‘mode of address’ with it’s presenter typically carrying the programme throughout, while field reporters provide the audience with in-‐depth stories, with a ‘voice of god’ voiceover that narrates the story, with actuality/archive footage supporting the story, this is similar to documentaries as they use a ‘Voice of god’ that narrates through it, and actuality/archive footage, however this may change depending on the style of the documentary, as each is very different in the way that it presents their information. As each documentary has a way of telling what it is, such as expository documentaries typically have a voice of god, and use images to illustrate alongside the voiceover. Whereas Observational documentaries have no interviews, no voiceover and instead opt for a voiceover to narrate. And finally there are interactive documentaries have the filmmakers in the film and a voiceover narrates the narrative. Even though each one of these documentaries are based around facts to different audiences. As each aim for a ‘realistic’ film, but also involve fictional elements to add a narrative. That has a beginning, middle and end. While each type of documentary will also have a view of it such as accurate documentaries are from a first person POV as they are meant to include facts to indicate that the information is correct or accurate. Such as in BFC when we as the
viewer are informed that this bank gives away free guns with a bank account, which is true all though the filmmaker Michael Moore edits the film in a way that misleads what the audience is hearing. But the while it is twisted what he says it is still true that they sell guns alongside with a bank account, but he must also legally tell the truth otherwise he could get sued. While a 2nd POV is normally objective or impartial documentaries in which you would expect to be told the truth and be given a balanced argument, such as in ‘News at 10’ the news is told truthfully without any biased feelings towards a certain subject. The reason for this being that people wouldn’t believe what they hear, if a newscaster favours one headline or subject over another it shows based thoughts and not everyone would agree meaning programming like ‘News at 10’ needs to be truthful otherwise people wouldn’t believe what they are hearing/seeing. And the last kind of POV is third person which is basically a biased or opinionated documentary, as you would hear directly the filmmaker wants you to believe, but unlike Michael Moore who had information that was accurate, but took a view of how their system was wrong. Such as in ‘The Trap’ in the opening we are told how to feel with the situation. The reason for this being that the filmmaker doesn’t want to make it seem like that this isn’t a documentary but a person's thoughts, but the filmmaker makes the documentary seem balanced, but favours towards one side of the argument.
Part 1 All news programs have a unique way of presenting itself with news conventions such as the set that is used in ‘News at 10’ which has a set of features which make it identifiable as a news program has to typically have studio news presenters and a title screen to introduce the program with the presenter saying ‘welcomes’ and then talks about the headlines. As news at 10 typically has Huw speaking in a loud, but clear and doesn’t convey any sort of expression again illustrating how he is being impartial and being objective. As the first headline which is about the Economy being messed up more, which includes actuality footage of David Cameron, talking about the situation, As the presenter Huw Edwards says “David Cameron says we need to foster a ‘can do spirit’ to remedy the economy”. As News at 10 use this repeatedly in order to use this as a soundbite and by showing the actuality footage of Cameron saying “Britons need to come together and utilise a can do spirit”. As they use this to make sure that the to make sure the audience get into their heads, as the soundbite would be used as perfect sort of intro to the news, since it perfectly fits in with its headline and then can go straight into the news headline. as the footage is meant to prove that what he is talking about is necessarily accurate, as it further proves that Huw is telling the truth, as he has evidence to indicate that this. As simply showing some form of actuality footage helps prove the accuracy of what a newsreader is talking about, this is also used in documentaries however different as a documentary you would typically hear it through a voiceover, whereas a news programme would typically use a newsreader (non-‐diegetic sound).
The footage either way helps illustrate literally what the newsreader (or voiceover) is saying as, as it proves to the audience that whatever the person is saying or reading is accurate. As to further cement the accuracy of the footage they have shown, as they get a manager in Tesco’s to talk about how for Tescos this has been a hard time due to the economy being messed up. As this shows what Huw is saying is truthful, through the fact that they this proves it is really since they have asked someone about what Cameron said in the actuality footage, further proving its accuracy. As this person helps create the accuracy in this situation since what he is saying, proves that he is an expert on these matters, as he is talking about how tescos is losing money from this situation. However a problem with this is that even this can be seen as biased, since they only talk to business leaders. As by only speaking to Cameron, this shows only one side of the political parties atcen on this subject. Which in certain peoples eyes is somewhat biased. As this even though not meant to be subjective is represented as being objective. As News at 10 are still objective,a s they are simply reporting a news story about the most important person in the country talking about economy While they ask Tesco’s talk about how for them this been a bad time for them, and the fact that they accuse him of empty phrases and don’t really mean anything. And this means that News at 10 comes off as expressing their opinions, while news is meant to be impartial and objective. However it can also be seen that they simply only reporting the facts, in that Tescos are losing money from this situation. and that they are presenting the news in an objective and impartial, by reporting the news and not indicating any sort of opinion in the piece. It may then cut to field reporters on location with him or her maybe interviewing someone about something. While throughout the music adds more atmospheres being theatrically with his tone of voice grabbing the viewer attention. While the second headline is different as this headline is about the scandal with the Pakistani cricketers that were found out to have cheated. However instead of showing any sort of actuality footage, they simply show some graphics, of picture of the cricketers moving ever so slightly. As the graphics were created by the BBC, which doesn’t do too much to actually prove what they are saying is fact, since they wouldn’t have any sort of actuality footage on this situation. However the graphics are made to highlight elements of the scandal, as the graphics at points show the cricketers looking sad almost depressed (through the images), and here it is where they start to bring in some biased viewpoints, as in the graphics they put clouds in eh background to almost suggest to the viewer that it is serious and again highlights the bad thing that they have done. As the images portrayal the individuals in question for this piece, as the mise-‐en-‐scene is very dark,as it is meant to highlight the bad thing that the men have done and this is done through the setting of a cricket field that has a dark sky, again highlighting what they have done. while the costumes also do this as even though all it tells us is that they are cricketers, which is something that needs to be clear if anyone just turns over the channel to see this news story. While there body language and facial expressions, while minimal since it is just a animation,
again it tells us a lot as it shows that they are dejected, highlighting how they should be ashamed about what they have done. Yet when this piece was released it wasn’t yet fully proven that they did what was said. Yet this still fits in with a general news story as it covers a serious subject, as the images and the music, with Huw’s tone of voice which would have been serious so that it wasn’t misrepresented All of this can be seen with the mise-‐en-‐scene that is used to create this serious sense with Huw Edward’s even clearly making it seem serious with his body language showing no emotion of connection to make the viewer think he doesn’t like a particularly person or thing. He is also seen to be serious with his clothing which when compared to something else like ’60 Seconds’ which has the presenter dress casually to appeal to it’s audience, whereas he Huw Edwards has to be shown impartial and formal so that it isn’t favoring towards one side. The camera shot also is shown as a mid-‐shot to show his body language and the fact he doesn’t really change his facial expressions. The editing is also done in a way in which the viewer can get the information from Huw Edwards and use archive footage to talk about the particularly subject matter. It also includes elliptical editing so that the viewer gets a understanding of the important parts of the news headline..The program also uses Rolling pieces of text to bring up other bits of news that isn’t as important or serious as the other subjects being covered. News Programs also typically have a particular angle of framing such as the the way ‘60 Seconds’, ‘Newsround’ and ’News At 10’ all have a way of framing that keep in the style of the program such as in ‘News At 10’ you always have a shot of Hue Edward that is centred in the middle, and has most of his chest and head in shot. One thing about news in the UK is that despite they’re being the presence of some biased views, in what they are reporting and how they present certain news headlines. They also however present it in an objective way, meaning that they are not often or not influenced by their personal opinions on certain news subjects, as they will generally be impartial to how they present the news, as their body language, facial expressions and tone of voice will all be presented without expressing a personal viewpoint on individual headlines. As I mentioned earlier Huw presented the story on the Economic problems, in an impartial way, that include elements of biased viewpoints, but overall it was objective as it didn’t really express a certain viewpoint, instead it was just the people that were involved in the piece, showed some viewpoint, since they asked certain people about his indicating a somewhat biased point, however the piece was impartial as it. The reason for this being that if the news were presented in a way that favoured one side of an argument, this means that the audience would receive the news in a way that favours one side, meaning the audience wouldn’t really be allowed to express
their viewpoint on a subject, as they will believe that the news is always truthful, meaning if they hear something on the news no matter what, they will either believe that or take it as fact. As without an impartial view on the news, the audience will perceive it as accurate and truthful, as simply things like a news presenters tone of voice, facial expressions or body language can give off a view on that subject, meaning the audience could be given false information. As a network that is infamous for its biased reporting is Fox news in the US, where the laws stipulate that news can be subjective, something Fox news are known for. Which is something that is very different compared to British news presentation. However one thing that is extremely biased in the UK is the British tabloids which are known for taking political sides, and that they use this to great effect on the general public. whether it be The Sun, Telegraph or Daily Mail which are all in favour of the Tory party. While other papers like the Guardian and Mirror are labour. As this helps give off someone’s opinion, rather than presenting the news truthfully. However an action to this kind of situation is that if someone is reporting from a war zone, and they don’t express or indicate any sort of emotion or response, we as the audience may be left wondering whether or not they are presenting the news accurately and in some peoples eye’s this person may be left looking heartless, through the fact that they didn’t indicate any sort of response to a grave situation like this. An example of how the news should be presented is last year when an article was published on the guardian website that talked about the importance of ‘’reporting these horrors of war with accuracy and without prejudice’’ in which Marie Colvin gave a speech about having to be accurate and objective, even though she presented some of feelings/emotions about what she had seen. As in the article she talks about “The fact that the public have the right to know what our government, and our armed forces, are doing in our name. Our mission is to speak the truth to power. We send home that first rough draft of history. We can and do make a difference in exposing the horrors of war and especially the atrocities that befall civilians.” As here she is talking about how the news about the war is often misrepresented, and the fact that the news needs to “speak the truth”. She also talks about how “In an age of 24/7 rolling news, blogs and Twitters, we are on constant call wherever we are........The real difficulty is having enough faith in humanity to believe that enough people be they government, military or the man on the street, will care when your file reaches the printed page, the website or the TV screen” As throughout the article she talks about the importance of finding out the truth no matter what the cost, as the quote above talks about how today people have news accessible to them 24/7, in order to keep up with the most update news stories possible. And how we as the audience and public need to know whether or not we will “care when your file reaches the printed page, the website or the TV screen” which agains stipulates how us as a culture will still need that news when it is actually released, or just move onto another subject that has more importance now.
Part 2 All the news programmes I will be looking at '60 Seconds', Newsround' and 'News at 10' all of which are made by the BBC, all also have unique, ways of telling the news or have specific features that would only appeal to their target audience's. As each has to be represented differently in order to appeal to their different target audiences. As each has to be easy to identify and appeal to their different audiences as they will enjoy other things compared to other news programming. Such as '60 Seconds' which is aimed at young teenage mainstreamers, while the subjectivity in this programme is mainly entertainment news, as it follows activates that the target audience would be more interested than a typically news programme like 'News at 10' which covers more ''conventionally'' news topics, as this audience compared to BBC 3's is more formal in that the audience has a better understanding of the subject matter, whereas BBC 3, news coverage is almost dumb downed in order to gain the interest of its target audience who would most likely be wanting to watch a comedy type programme. Whereas the audience for ‘Newsround’ is much younger, meaning the programme would represent a themselves differently through the “headlines”. In a show like ‘News at 10’ the serious nature is represented by the politics headline, featured with a serious problem currently going on, whereas Newsround’s main subject matter is sports representing itself in a way that appeals to young people as a young audience like this wouldn’t be too interested in as serious politically headline, they would be into more light hearted news (i.e soft news) As this shows mode of address is very different compared the other news programmes, as Newsround has a newsreader called Ricky who was a much more relaxed and represented himself as an approachable and friendly person, through the fact that he talked with a light tone of voice, and body language that represented him as a much more natural instead of forced. The show was also very different since it covered soft news only, since this is a child friendly new station as the show runs on CBBC, meaning that they wouldn’t really have a news headline that headlights a big subject, that younger viewers wouldn’t typically understand, as Newsround chooses news stories that represent the programme as ‘friendly’ with nearly all soft news as these would be headline that would attract a young demographic like that of CBBC. However CBBC is somewhat subjective and even biased as Newsround portrayals a light side of news, whereas every other news program here in the UK, represents the news as serious news program that covers a range of things. But mostly hard news, which perhaps is biased as representing the news through only soft news stories.
Whereas since Newsround only cover soft news, they can be somewhat, seen as misrepresenting the news, even though it is for children, meaning they have to make sure that is light hearted, yet still covers a form of news. However they also don’t take a side as there news coverage focus on subjects where there are no sides to an argument really, as it is just silly stories that children can enjoy, without the need to be impartial or objective or subjective since you couldn’t really take a side. All the while ‘60 Secs’ is appealing to it’s demographic, through the colourful, animated graphic design, which represents the news in a sort of fun way and grabs the viewers attention with the blue colour, highlighting and making it stand out. Like ‘Newsround’, as everything about the ‘60 Secs’ news presenter he is informal, with his clothing being casual, this represents him as approachable and ‘fun’ and friendly which is something it’s demographic can relate to and not something that ‘news at 10’ chooses to do. They try to keep the audience at a distance through Huw’s formal costume and serious tone of voice. It’s mode of address is also different as it’s new presenter is much like Newsround since it has young presenter, who has a calm tone of voice, but doesn’t express himself much like many other presenters as his body language and facial expression, doesn’t indicate or favour either side. This then represents him as an impartial person much like Huw, yet still his clothing and general mode of address represents him as a more approachable person than that of Huw Edwards. As since it is part of the BBC, they have to make sure that they do not portrayal any opinions through the news. While 60 seconds is a mixture of hard and soft news, as it covers a range of topics, ranging from the biggest headlines that would be shown on the likes of News at 10 and more mainstream news programs or channels, while 60 seconds also covers much light headlines from sports to some silly things. ‘News at 10’ however is different as it has a news presenter wearing a suit, represents himself in a way that clearly is identifiable with it’s demographic through his facial expressions, tone of voice, as each is much more relaxed. Unlike 'News at 10' which is more formal in that Hue Edwards speaks in a more monotone voice and speaks directly to the viewer, while also being almost aggressive towards the viewer, with a serious voice and the fact he is shouting out the news headlines. He is also ''dressed up'' in that he has to be impartial about the headlines so that he doesn't come off biased. Whereas '60 Seconds' & 'Newsround' represent themselves differently as they come off more informal as there speak in a more conversational lighter tone and speaks less formally, while they both dress casually in that they both are wearing casual clothing that includes bright colour such as Ricky from ‘Newsround’ is wearing a red lumberjack shirt. Making him stand out, While the ‘60 Seconds presenter is wearing a black shirt, which unlike Ricky, presents him in a way that he doesn’t stand out, because of the natural colour that he wears, however since, this only make’s the Pink neon and rolling text of the BBC 3 logo stand out more. And in a more relaxed manner, as they have to come off more casual to their target audience's as someone like Hue Edward's wouldn't attract a younger demographic to watch their programming, while the fact that Hue Edward’s dress in a suit brings across some
authority and highlight the serious nature of what he is talking about while being objective and impartial, this is seen by the fact that during '60 Seconds' the presenter as he starts off the summary of the news by saying what ''another great episode of Being Human'' appealing to the target audience in that it suggesting that he watched it as well, meaning he knows what he is talking about, as he enjoys the same programming and represents him as the target audience and as their friend or even ‘buddy’ .He also uses alliterations such as ''Murray Mania to Murray Misery'' attracting BBC 3's target audience of teenagers and representing the news in a way that is more fun , with a little tabloid like paper who uses alliterations and word play/ puns all the time. As 60 Seconds tries to be infotainment because it covers entertainment and informative material for the news. This is further proven by the source of it's news subjectivity as it covers entertainment news and the fact that it is a summary of the news, as the target audience would get bored of watching a news programme that is long, as they wouldn't want their demographic to get bored and change the channel. Whereas since 'News at 10' is represented as a much more serious news programme meaning that instead of appealing to it’s target audience through would require a bigger budget as compared to '60 secs' and 'Newsround' whose representation is aimed at a bigger audience, meaning it would take more to make it unbiased and attract a range of audience's so that the news can be ''fair'', whereas a American news programme like 'Fox News' is represented in a biased way because of the owner trying to get his POV across.
Part 3 Expository is a particular type of documentary; this brand of documentary is normally so that the filmmaker can express their viewpoint on a particular subject matter. This means that expository documentaries are normally biased as they use conventions in order to convey or express the point of view on a subject matter they believe to be important. These conventions include things like the use of a voiceover to illustrate the narrator's point of view, while also being told from a third person view in that the person is detached from what he/she is talking about and portrayed as a ”voice of god”-‐ which is a non-‐diegetic voice over, by a narrator who makes the audience believe everything they say as fact as if they almost have authority. This is because the character is omnipresent and omniscient, for example in ''Mussolini Italian Nightmare'' with the opening sentence being ''His arrogance, his charm, his desire to rule an Empire, intoxicated a nation''. This proves that the narrator is against Mussolini, as Mussolini is being represented as an “arrogant” dictator through a ‘’voice of god’’ most audiences will believe everything the voice of god says -‐ it will be taken as fact. This is further illustrated with the archive and actuality footage alongside the voiceover, which is seen as one of the main conventions of expository documentaries. With the narrator saying that with “all his wit he was a problem to Italy”, and that he was a bad person, proven by the voice of god when he states that a ''young Hitler Idolised him” this is ‘proved’ by his tone of voice to be accurate as it helps convince the viewer that the voice of god’s representation is right and that
Mussolini is not a good man. The omnipresent voice over is also purposely leaving out information so that the filmmaker can create a biased documentary, that fits alongside their opinion on Mussolini, and the maker also leaves out facts, so that the filmmaker can make the viewer feel as if the narrator is correct and any information that is given to them is completely accurate and truthful so the viewer should believe what they say. The use of montage editing is done, so that the viewer thinks Mussolini is the man responsible for all the actions that are shown, through the use of archive footage. This is done by the fact that throughout the documentary most of the footage is image's of Mussolini at different times in his life, while having a interview over the top, so that he gives information to the viewer that is related to the image that is seen, meaning the viewer would come to a conclusion that the image and voice over fit together to create an accurate representation for the viewer to feel upset about the subject matter. The editing is also elliptical as certain interviews are clearly used so that the filmmaker can get the best of the information that he is given so that he can give his opinion on Mussolini, while being biased so that the viewer feels the same as the filmmaker and the narrator. A soundtrack is also played over the top in order to create a tension that fits alongside the opinion that the filmmaker is trying to get a across. There is also a ''talking head shot'' which is used to inform the viewer to a greater extent through the opinion of a expert on the subject as the first interview we hear from a biographer who talks about Mussolini as a child when he was expelled from his school almost trying to indicate that he had this sort of evil in him even as a child. As the use of an expert helps give the audience more belief in what they are hearing is accurate and truthful and makes you believe that everything else you are hearing in the documentary will be fact. As adding a voice of god helps add to the knowledge. As it represents Mussolini in a way that the audience in this situation would find hard to agree with as Mussolini is someone who is hard to agree or approve of in anyway. As there is evidence everywhere that indicates that he was a dictator that did nothing but bad things. Part 4 Both 'Tattoo Tears' and 'Bowling for Columbine' are very different type's of documentary's with the later being a interactive documentary, while the first is an observational documentary while both have feature to identify it as that type of documentary. While both still follow the same structure created through narrative, mise-‐en-‐scene, soundtrack, editing and cinematography they do differ substantially in the way they represent their subjects and how they tell their ‘stories’ For example in 'Tattooed Tears' the way the scene is presented with the prisoner interviewing the other prisoner as almost he is actually ''acting'' by playing up to the camera due to his nature of looking into the camera. Also the fact that the scene is in the middle of a real camera this is detailed when the interviewer says ''Check this out'' as almost to tell him that the camera is here in front of him, while the person being interviewed doesn't know this due to the fact he is still in his cell, while still being ‘interviewed’ by this person. As audiences general believe that that observational filmmaking is meant to show the events of something in an objective way. This then means that the audience will generally find it more believable and therefore consider what they are seeing as fact and accurate. As the audience will find things like the shaky camerawork, the
diegetic audio more believable and real meaning they will perceive this as fact, as nothing is changed that affects what they are seeing the audio they are hearing is actual sound, that isn’t scripted or anything. This also helps with the ‘fly on the wall’ way of filmmaking, as no one is actually meant to know they are being filmed, is something that is next to impossible. And when they do know the cameras are there hence the reason for the prisoner going ‘’Check this out’’, and this means that they would, much like many other people would start ‘acting up’ to the camera. Whereas ''Bowling for Columbine'' uses the same type of technique by almost talking with a voiceover throughout the footage of the milkman and farmer being normal everyday things alongside the idea of America bombing countries ''whose name we couldn't pronounce'' and a half naked woman holding a dangerous weapon all being part of ''a typical day in America” and this feature being seen throughout with this type of documentary also being biased due to the nature of the documentary matching only the filmmakers thoughts and no one else's. Another thing is the soundtrack used for both with ''Tattoo Tears'' having no voice over's or music, and instead relying on diegetic sound's between the interviewer and interviewee, with the only work done to the sound is the sound bridge used when there is a cut from a shot of the interviewer's back to his face. While ''Bowling for Columbine'' uses a voiceover throughout the opening scene with a sarcastic yet casual tone of voice throughout stating a ''typical day in America'', with non-‐diegetic sound at the background and the music being almost militaristic and patriotic, trying to convey the feeling of pride for USA, again continuing the feeling of ''a typical day in America''. Also editing is used differently such in ''Tattooed Tears'' is presented in a real style due to the long duration shot, meaning the filmmaker wanted to the viewer to know that it was filmed in real time, making the character's more interesting due to the fact that they aren't being played up and everything they are saying being truthful. Whereas ''Bowling for Columbine'' is presented into a montage with quick cuts to images that separate don't mean anything, however once edited Michael Moore presents it as if it is ''A typical day in America’’ while showing his opinion, as Moore is manipulating the audience and us, in that he is trying to make us believe his opinion (which is clearly biased) simply by the way that he phrases certain words, particularly the bit about the bombing of other countries. As his tone of voice throughout the section is completely normal, as this helps with the reaction of the montage that included a “typical day in America” which had teachers doing their jobs, people making deliveries, and the bombing of other countries all seem normal, as his tone of voice helps highlight this as a normal day, as he uses this kind of dry sense of humour, to make people see his point, through humour as people would have laughed at this. And they would agree with his biased opinion, without really realising that they have. The same here can be said of the scene of a woman wearing a bikini, handling a machine gun, as this is also treated as a “typical day of USA”. Whereas ''Tattooed Tears'' is more balanced relying on actual real time footage to convey the feeling that is fair also correct (or accurate). ‘‘Bowling for Columbine'' also uses graphic match's to show how the woman with a gun relates to the Statue of liberty also comparing the two characters against one another to see the
difference over time. As a number of shots that are accompanied by a voiceover, adds more depth to the scene. As the mise-‐en-‐scene, graphic match and non diegetic voiceover all add and create the scene, as the final bit of the opening scene, goes “Yeah it was just a typical day in America”, next to a clip of a woman wearing a bikini while handling a machine gun, which fades into a graphic match of the statue of Liberty, as here Moore is expressing his subjective biased opinion, as he is trying to say America is crazy, via making things that would typically standout seem normal and such. As the opening scene, which includes the farmer, teachers and milkman, next to a semi-‐naked woman handling a machine gun, suggests that America is crazy once again. As the image of the statue of Liberty typically makes us think that the main idea of America being associated with a gun bikini nut. As the whole sequence is told through his droll dry voiceover which depicts a normal American day. All the while he inserts two things that are not normal aspects of America (Bombing of other countries and Woman wearing bikini while handling a gun). Yet they are handled as normal aspects of America, as if it has happened some many times that it is now part of traditional America, as he manipulates us into believing that America is mad for their normal reaction and response to guns and war. As his voiceover helps present his biased opinion through the non-‐diegetic voiceover. As he basically tells us what he wants the audience to know, and persuades us of this making the audience believe his biased opinion. As the archive footage that he uses shows us what he wants to see, as the footage is meant to visually illustrate what his voiceover is saying, which have to illustrate Moore’s opinion on America, through the non-‐diegetic voiceover. Moore also leaves out footage on purpose in order to create the feeling he is trying to present to the viewer, with the footage being made to look like he can got a gun in one day, as long as he didn't have any criminal charges, but could be crazy, when in fact the gun was shipped in over night from another bank 300 miles away, while he also had to sign other papers in order to get a gun such as a mailing gun orders and to have a background check afterwards. Conclusion The main difference between TV news and documentaries is that TV News needs to be impartial, truthful and accurate about the information that they send out, as we as an audience believe everything that they say to be true. As if it is found out that the news isn't telling you the truth then, you will most likely get sued or even fined by OFCOM, and your audience wouldn’t believe anything that you said after that. A recent example of this kind of situation is when Newsnight had broadcast a report, that indicated that a politician was a paedophile, and this news was later found out to be false, and due to this the programme’s audience didn’t believe everything that they, said and were forced to pay the person for compensation, and all of this for a while threatened the state of the show. Whereas Documentaries are more in line to be subjective, through the filmmakers opinion, this typically done in a third person point of view meaning the audience are more in line to believe what they are seeing. As an example of this use is when a ‘voice of god’ voiceover is used by someone who
is detached from the subject matter, as this is something typically seen in expository documentaries to be specific, even though documentaries are subjective, since it express a point of view in a third person view, meaning we preserve it as being accurate. Another issue is the representation that the filmmaker chooses in order to preserve the subject that they are covering it, weather it is in a negative or positive (or a balanced argument) light. As the use of the soundtrack, the editing, mise-‐en-‐ scene and camerawork can all be presented in a particular way that controls the way that it is shown in. As a show like News at 10 has a very different target audience when compared to something like Newsround as News at 10 is aimed at a serious audience of adults that are interested or want to know the big news going on in the day. While a children’s programme like Newsround. Highlights the less major news events and follows almost happy news programmes with it being someone doing something semi-‐successful. News programmes also rely on the use of sound to help indicate the authenticity or ‘realistic’ nature that diegetic sound is used to represent as if it is ‘actual’ sound. Whereas Non-‐diegetic sound instead how you can change how your subject matter is presented, as you could add a ‘voice of god’ voiceover to express a clear view point, while music can be used in the same way to help express your idea or to make the viewer feel a certain way about something that they are seeing, as non-‐diegetic sound is traditionally called ‘Commentary’ sound. However a filmmaker can also present their work in a biased manner, as showing them a one-‐sided argument, and not a balanced argument, which lets the audience, make up their own mind. This is a typical problem with a biased viewpoint; the audience could disagree with your opinion, meaning they won’t believe what they are seeing in the documentary. Documentaries aren’t the only form that is biased as the news is to, as the news typical presents the news in the viewpoint of a certain country of even a TV channel, an example of this is news of UK troops dying in Iraq/Afghanistan, but not other countries. Another important thing for factual programming is all programming is made for a particular target audience, a somewhat niche audience with filmmakers knowing this as they made it to appeal to a certain demographic, meaning viewers that are not in the target audience, wouldn’t turn over and watch this programme that isn’t clearly aimed at them. But some viewers will watch and disagree with the programme, such as them noticing that it has a subjective viewpoint, with the filmmaker only showing evidence that further helps prove their point, however not all audience members will notice this and are more inclined to believe everything they see as objective, as they believe documentaries are something that is proven to be fact and accurate, even though everyone’s opinion is viewed truthful to themselves.