Comments on: Making TV news more open

By: Kieron

Kieron — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 21:24:43 +0000

It is an interesting idea and the more we’re told that TV can’t be trusted the more feasible it sounds but I still do think people would rather be fooled by editing tricks that make it seem ‘real’.

By: Paul Murphy

Paul Murphy — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 16:08:26 +0000

Nice idea. In the old days in the mid-nineties I had a short stint on Newsnight and would be sent out to shoot interviews with various contribs around the place that would be used in the short films that introduce an item and lead into an interview, usually expressing opposing points of view. (Digression: We filmed at Boris Johnson’s house once and blew the fuses. he seemed like a nice guy). My questions were simply a prompt and I wasn’t featured and the clips would be strung together in the edit with the actual reporter’s voice over. If I’d been briefed properly then I already knew what the contrib was meant to say and would spend the whole time getting them to say that. If they said anything different it invariably wouldn’t be used. I suppose my point is that the ‘deception’ wasn’t in the detail but much more in how you fill the perceived need that TV news needs to have pictures. So you go to a contrib’s office and get them to say what you already know to fill the gaps in what you’ve already determined is the story. Anyway, that’s why I prefer radio news – the agenda is determined much less my access. A sound only interview with Osama Bin Laden would be played in full on the radio news but edited heavily for TV incase people got bored by the lack of pictures with some news reporter paraphrasing.

While I like your idea of news reporting with a director’s commentary as a possible overlay I think the problem is much more about the actual selection of stories rather than how they’re made.

By: Russ

Russ — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 20:47:24 +0000

Interesting idea – Wikipedia’s model allows people to peer behind edits… so it’s already being done on a very reliable and user-friendly platform.

But I think television is different. The viewing experience needs to be much tighter and polished.

By: Steve Bowbrick

Steve Bowbrick — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 00:44:11 +0000

Hold on. Wouldn’t it be cheaper to work this way? No more wild tracks, no more hanging around for noddies, no more camera operators to shoot them… Phony costs money…

By: tvman

tvman — Tue, 04 Sep 2007 23:03:20 +0000

WHY NOT? Because it has no economic rationale. TV news is strung together with gaffer tape. How could they afford it.

By: Steve Bowbrick

Steve Bowbrick — Tue, 04 Sep 2007 16:47:26 +0000

I guess you’re right, but we’d just be replacing one eighty- or ninety-year-old convention (Eisenstein and all that) with a more up-to-date and helpful convention that doesn’t get in the way of the content (keyword: discreet) and actually provides some information. Why not?

By: Stephen Newton

Stephen Newton — Tue, 04 Sep 2007 16:39:36 +0000

Carry on like this and those media studies courses really will be redundant.

Seriously though, people do know stuff is edited but they don’t like to think about it because it’s the content they’re interested in, not the form.