Factual Production
Popplet for factual production
Audience viewing figures
If our documentary was a full length 1 hour documentary made to be aired on TV it is likely that it would be a one off documentary made for either channel 4 or BBC 1,2 aired in the 9pm to 10pm. A documentary series currently airing in that time slot on BBC 1 is the David Attenborough series Africa. That series is proving to be hugely successful.The episode on the 13th of January gained audience figures of 7,515,000. So this would be a good time slot to air a documentary in. The documentary it's self however is completely different to ours.It's an observational documentary made with a much bigger budget than we would be allocated. A more similar documentary to ours would be the documentary Dear Censor which was aire on BBC 4 on the 11th of August 2012 in the 23:25 to 12:25 time slot. This like our documentary is a 1 hour expository documentary on the issue of censorship which uses a mix of archive footage and talking heads. However this documentary didn't gain high audience figures not even making the top 10 highest viewed BBC 4 programs that week so therefore gaining viewing figures of less than 239,000. Although BBC 4 doesn't usually attract high viewing figures as it only gains 0.9% audience share. However this is still a cause for concern as it suggests that there isn't a big market for our documentary. Furthermore the Hugh Grant channel 4 documentary titled Hugh Grant: Taking on the Tabloids, which is a documentary also on censorship, didn't score big viewing figures not even polling in the top 10 channel 4 programs of that week so scoring viewing figures below 1,510,000. Although expository documentaries do gain high audience figures for example the episode of the expository documentary series panorama, Jimmy Savile – What the BBC Knew aired on BBC 1 in the 10.35pm – 11.35pm timeslot gained auidence viewing figures of 5.09 million. I am a cunt. This means there is definitely an audience for our mode of documentary and our intended timeslot is deffinately a timeslot that attracts a good auidence however our subject matter doesn't attrack the biggest of auidences. Hopefully we can change that by making our documentary more balanced than the previous documentaries about censorship. There is a definately a big auidence for factual production as other facutal production attracks high auidence figures for example the live news broadcast new year live attracted an audience of 9.73 million on Monday the 31th of December 2012 and furthermore an observational documentary called One Born Every Minute was the highest audience figures on Channel 4 for the week of the 7th of January to the 13th of January.
Proposal
Legal and Ethical
Research on different censorship bodies
Pros and Cons of media censorship
Worst countries for media censorship
Statistics
Crimes inspired by films
Shooting Schedule
Interview schedule
Secondary Research
We did a lot of secondary research before conducting our interviews, as we wanted to know what topics we wanted to include in our documentary and therefore know what questions we needed to ask to get the desired response. The first thing we did was watch other documentaries on censorship to gauge how original this idea was and how we could tackle the issue of media censorship. Most of the documentaries on media censorship just simply examine a load of specific cases of media censorship without focusing too much on the morality or practicalities of censorship such as the BBC documentary on British Board of Film Classification called ‘Dear Censor’. So we decided in our documentary to tackle documentary from a more general moral/ethical stance asking the question ‘is censorship right or wrong’. We wanted to keep our documentary balanced so we decided to spend as much time on the positives of censorship as the negatives. We went on a lot of discussion forums such as Digital Spy and watched TV discussion programs on censorship such as the national coalition against censorship coalition panel hour long program. This helped stimulate discussion between me and the person I was making the documentary. From these discussion we agreed to definitely include the role of media censorship in repressive societies. We wanted to keep the documentary as balanced and objective as possible. We decided to break down the documentary into 6 main chapters/sections one section stating a negative aspect of censorship and the following chapter stating a positive aspect of censorship, therefore we can state three benefits and three disadvantages of censorship. For example one section of the censorship would be about how media censorship can stifle creativity then the following section would be about what could happen if we didn’t have censorship. For each section we want to have a voice over narration, which states an example of an incident/event from history, which illustrates the point being made in the chapter, then we cut to some interview responses, which relate to the section. We were therefore making an expository documentary. We also deiced that we don’t want to include the sound of the interviewer asking the questions to be in final documentary. Therefore we needed to research examples incidents of media censorship that illustrate our points. Our brief stated that our documentary had to be short around the running time of 10 minutes so we couldn’t give too much of a detailed account of the incidents in the documentary so we therefore didn’t want to waste time researching the example incidents in too thoroughly. For example in one section when we talk about the severely consequences of censorship we recount the death of Victor Jara under the Chilean Pinochet government we just simply state the reason Pinochet targeted Victor Jara among other members of the new Chilean song movement and anti government spokesmen, when he was killed and how we was killed. We don’t include how he was found out, how he was captured or the public reaction to his death as we simply don’t have time and it’s not essential to the documentary. Although we only have time in our documentary to include one example incident for each section we decided to research a multitude of incidents so we can ask the interviewees about them or use them to provoke answers from the interviewees. It also helps to know about as many example incidents so if the interviewees mention them in the response we can ask follow up questions. Therefore I also watched a 2 part 4 hour long set of feature film documentaries on Tiananmen Square massacre called ‘Gates of Heavenly Peace’ and an episode of the popular TV show panorama which investigated the censorship in Azerbaijan around the time of the Eurovision song contest and skimmed through text books on Nazi Germany such ‘The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich : A History of Nazi Germany‘ by William L. Shirer, as they were example of extreme state censorship of the media. We also decided that we would choose to interview people we thought were intelligent and would be likely to know about media censorship for example A star A level students and Media teachers and Media students. However we did want most of the interviewees to give general interviews which didn’t reference specific cases of censorship. Most of our research for these six negative and positives sections of the documentary was qualitative research however we also needed some quantitative research such as how many films were censored in the UK.
As well as the six main sections on the positives and negatives of censorship we will also include four introductory sections that introduce the importance of media in the modern world, what censorship is, different kinds of media censorship and how media censorship works in this country. Most of these sections required quantitative research, as I needed to give the audience a general view of the scale of importance of media censorship. For example in the first section which states the importance of media in modern society we needed to find on average how many people get their news updates from television or newspapers. We therefore visited websites which give statistics on media consumption such as Infodocket.com. We also needed to start thinking of what songs we were goanna use for documentary. We decided that the tone of our documentary was serious so we needed to use serious songs. We therefore looked on many top ten piano instrumentals such as www.lastfm.com and went on online discussion forums such as yahoo answers. We will still continue to do a mass of secondary as well as primary research as we are still playing around with the shooting script.
As well as the six main sections on the positives and negatives of censorship we will also include four introductory sections that introduce the importance of media in the modern world, what censorship is, different kinds of media censorship and how media censorship works in this country. Most of these sections required quantitative research, as I needed to give the audience a general view of the scale of importance of media censorship. For example in the first section which states the importance of media in modern society we needed to find on average how many people get their news updates from television or newspapers. We therefore visited websites which give statistics on media consumption such as Infodocket.com. We also needed to start thinking of what songs we were goanna use for documentary. We decided that the tone of our documentary was serious so we needed to use serious songs. We therefore looked on many top ten piano instrumentals such as www.lastfm.com and went on online discussion forums such as yahoo answers. We will still continue to do a mass of secondary as well as primary research as we are still playing around with the shooting script.
Constraints
In terms of constraints there are a few factors we have to consider such as time limits, limited team members to complete the project, budget limits and legal and ethical issues. Time limits effect our group as we’ve been given a deadline to complete this project which is some time in April before the easter holiday starts so we have to make sure everything is finalized by that deadline or we will fail the brief and unit. We have to make sure all the filming, editing, planning and reviewing is done in seven weeks after the proposal, in order to do this we will plan effectively by dividing the different parts up e,g, week 1 storyboards and script and shooting script, week 2 plan interview slots, prepare questions and equipment week 3 film interviews, week 4 film vox pops and actuality footage week 5 find archive footage and record voice over week 6 edit all footage togeather week 7 review and make changes. Limited team members/personnel also doesn’t help because we only have two people in our group which means each person has to do a lot of work so it takes a long time and can be hard to manage which could jeopardize the project but if we had more people to help the easier the work load becomes and the quicker we could get it done. As a result this will mean we will both have to take on several job roles such as the editor, cameraman, director, actor and writer; we will also have to get additional team members from other groups when recording interviews so that the sound can be recorded, checked and synced this is the only way this project will become feasible. The budget is another important constraint to remember because we only have a limited budget it effects what we can produce in terms of its professional look and how long we have to produce the work which could mean the project is rushed to an extent so the quality is not as good. In order to make the documentary look professional we need to get some descent equipment most of which we have but not all of it so we will have to either buy it or do without it as we cant afford it, so in reality the project will look less professional if we cant get the right gear so budget is a big constraint. The way the budget problem will be solved is by the school providing all or most of the high standard equipment we will use, we will also use archive footage under copyright laws so we don’t have to pay for its use, with regards to paying peoples wages the only people that will work on this project is students who work for free or teachers who have already been paid. Legal and ethical issues is the last constraint with have to consider this can effect the documentary massively as there could be certain laws or regulations on what we can include content wise because of boards like ofcom which can change how the documentary is interpreted by the audience. Also with regards to ethical issues this is mainly to do with the audiences reaction and personalities which can cause problems for us because if some audience members don’t agree with a point we are making as its against their ethics we would have to change the content so we don’t alienate our target audience. So we have no problems with legal and ethical issues we will get the permission of all our actors and interviewers to be able to interview them and post the interview on the internet we will do this through release agreements. We will try and present a balanced argument and not be biased to any person or company in order to avoid getting sued for slander or libel. When presenting facts we will double and triple check them and make sure they come from a reliable source so our audience cannot sue us for lieing to them or misleading them.
Legal and Ethical Issues
In this documentary we will be using a lot of archive footage and songs owned by other companies, enterprises or individuals. We are covered against any legal action under the use of fair dealing under the 1988 Copyright Designs and Patents Act (UK). These are largely the same as the laws of fair use. I'm covered under the 1st rule 'Research and Private study' and particularly 'The copy is made for the purposes of research or private study'. Here is the specific guidelines taken from the copywriteservice.co.uk.
I. Research and private study
Copying parts of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work or of a typographical arrangement of a published edition for the purpose of research or private study is allowed under the following conditions:
· The copy is made for the purposes of research or private study.
· The copy is made for non-commercial purposes.
· The source of the material is acknowledged.
· The person making the copy does not make copies of the material available for a number of people.
We are also cleared under the critisim and revue rule as we would be critising or reviewing whatever archieve footage we use, the material we will has been made available to the public and as we are covering such a big topic in a short 10 minute documentary we wouldn't quote more of the material than is necessary.
III. Criticism or review
Quoting parts of a work for the purpose of criticism or review is permitted provided that:
· The work has been made available to the public.
· The source of the material is acknowledged.
· The material quoted must be accompanied by some actual discussion or assessment (to warrant the criticism or review classification).
· The amount of the material quoted is no more than is necessary for the purpose of the review.
Making a documentary our main concern were legal issues over accuracy and bias so we looked into the OFCOM broadcasting codes rules on impracticality and accuracy. I looked specifically at section 5 rules Rules 5.5 to 5.12 as they are the rules that 'apply to television programme'. Specific rules that applied to us and that we were most concern with were:
Since three of our interviewees are under 18 or were under 18 at the time of the interview and our secondary audience also includes under 18 so we had to look into the Ofcom's rules on protecting under 18s. It's also a regulation that applies to any program not matter what the intended target audience is.
We also had a look at the Harm and Offence section:
I also looked at section three, Crime as it's a recurring theme in our documentary for example in comes up in the chapter about media censorship protecting easily influenced people in which I mention the batman killings among other crimes and the chapter about the techniques of censorship in which I mention the Victor Jara killing:
I. Research and private study
Copying parts of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work or of a typographical arrangement of a published edition for the purpose of research or private study is allowed under the following conditions:
· The copy is made for the purposes of research or private study.
· The copy is made for non-commercial purposes.
· The source of the material is acknowledged.
· The person making the copy does not make copies of the material available for a number of people.
We are also cleared under the critisim and revue rule as we would be critising or reviewing whatever archieve footage we use, the material we will has been made available to the public and as we are covering such a big topic in a short 10 minute documentary we wouldn't quote more of the material than is necessary.
III. Criticism or review
Quoting parts of a work for the purpose of criticism or review is permitted provided that:
· The work has been made available to the public.
· The source of the material is acknowledged.
· The material quoted must be accompanied by some actual discussion or assessment (to warrant the criticism or review classification).
· The amount of the material quoted is no more than is necessary for the purpose of the review.
Making a documentary our main concern were legal issues over accuracy and bias so we looked into the OFCOM broadcasting codes rules on impracticality and accuracy. I looked specifically at section 5 rules Rules 5.5 to 5.12 as they are the rules that 'apply to television programme'. Specific rules that applied to us and that we were most concern with were:
- 5.7 Views and facts must not be misrepresented. Views must also be presented with due weight over appropriate timeframes. We made sure we weighed up the positives of media censorship and the negatives of TV censorship so it's a balanced documentary. 4 points that are pro censorship and 4 points that are against censorship.
- 5.9 Presenters and reporters (with the exception of news presenters and reporters in news programmes), presenters of "personal view" or "authored" programmes or items, and chairs of discussion programmes may express their own views on matters of political or industrial controversy or matters relating to current public policy. However, alternative viewpoints must be adequately represented either in the programme, or in a series of programmes taken as a whole. Additionally, presenters must not use the advantage of regular appearances to promote their views in a way that compromises the requirement for due impartiality. Presenter phone-ins must encourage and must not exclude alternative views. When editing the documentary we make sure the interviews which are anti censorship directly follow ones that are pro censorship and there is an equal amount in each segment of the documentary.
- 5.10 A personal view or authored programme or item must be clearly signalled to the audience at the outset. This is a minimum requirement and may not be sufficient in all circumstances. (Personality phone-in hosts on radio are exempted from this provision unless their personal view status is unclear.) All person views are given through talking heads and no personal opinions are expressed in the voice over which is where the facts will be expressed.
Since three of our interviewees are under 18 or were under 18 at the time of the interview and our secondary audience also includes under 18 so we had to look into the Ofcom's rules on protecting under 18s. It's also a regulation that applies to any program not matter what the intended target audience is.
- 1.3 Children must also be protected by appropriate scheduling from material that is unsuitable for them. If our program was broadcast on TV it would be aired at 9pm which is known as the watershed. Ofcom state that programs that feature 'material unsuitable for children should not, in general, be shown before 2100 or after 0530'.
- 1.17 Material equivalent to the British Board of Film Classification ("BBFC") R18-rating must not be broadcast at any time. This means we can't show any films that were given the R18 - rating by the BBFC as an example of what the BBFC censors. We may have to just show a film still as on screen graphic while mentioning what is censorsed if we want to talk about the specific censorship of a film in our documentary.
- 1.22 No film refused classification by the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) may be broadcast unless it has subsequently been classified or the BBFC has confirmed that it would not be rejected according to the standards currently operating. Also, no film cut as a condition of classification by the BBFC may be transmitted in a version which includes the cut material unless:
- the BBFC has confirmed that the material was cut to allow the film to pass at a lower category; or
- the BBFC has confirmed that the film would not be subject to compulsory cuts according to the standards currently operating. This similar to the previous rule. Although this rule means we can't broadcast any films that were cut by the BBFC in their original form to show how BBFC cuts work. This may harm our documentary but the cut scene from Brighton Rock was aired on a 1995 BBC documentary Empire of the Censors.
- 1.28 Due care must be taken over the physical and emotional welfare and the dignity of people under eighteen who take part or are otherwise involved in programmes. This is irrespective of any consent given by the participant or by a parent, guardian or other person over the age of eighteen in loco parentis. This rule means we can't ask questions that distress or trouble the interviewee's who are under 18. We also can't grill them for answers if they don't wamt to or are unable to interview a question.
- 1.29 People under eighteen must not be caused unnecessary distress or anxiety by their involvement in programmes or by the broadcast of those programmes. This as with the previous rule means we can't ask questions that distress or trouble the interviewee's who are under 18. We also can't grill them for answers if they don't wamt to or are unable to interview a question.
- 1.14 The most offensive language must not be broadcast before the watershed (in the case of television) or when children are particularly likely to be listening (in the case of radio). We don't have to worry about this because our program will not be broadcast before the watershed.
We also had a look at the Harm and Offence section:
- 2.2 Factual programmes or items or portrayals of factual matters must not materially mislead the audience. We have taken special care not to be accurate in our facts and not enforce our opinion on the auidence or promote our opinions to the auidence.
- 2.4 Programmes must not include material (whether in individual programmes or in programmes taken together) which, taking into account the context, condones or glamorises violent, dangerous or seriously antisocial behaviour and is likely to encourage others to copy such behaviour. (See Rules 1.11 to 1.13 in Section One: Protecting the Under-Eighteens.) It means we can't explain how people say that films or video games are the cause of violent tragedies like columbine. This is not to much of a set back to our documentary as it's a short 10 minute documentary so we don't have the time to go into this kind of detail however if we were making a longer documentary this rule may effect the quality of our documentary.
I also looked at section three, Crime as it's a recurring theme in our documentary for example in comes up in the chapter about media censorship protecting easily influenced people in which I mention the batman killings among other crimes and the chapter about the techniques of censorship in which I mention the Victor Jara killing:
- 3.1 Material likely to encourage or incite the commission of crime or to lead to disorder must not be included in television or radio services. It means I might not be able to show any clips of films that are said to have inspired crimes.
- 3.3 No payment, promise of payment, or payment in kind, may be made to convicted or confessed criminals whether directly or indirectly for a programme contribution by the criminal (or any other person) relating to his/her crime/s. The only exception is where it is in the public interest. This may mean we wouldn't be able to interview any of the criminals involves in the crimes that were said to be inspired by films that are mentioned in the segment about media censorship protecting easily influenced people.
- 3.4 While criminal proceedings are active, no payment or promise of payment may be made, directly or indirectly, to any witness or any person who may reasonably be expected to be called as a witness. Nor should any payment be suggested or made dependent on the outcome of the trial. Only actual expenditure or loss of earnings necessarily incurred during the making of a programme contribution may be reimbursed. This means we may not be able to interview any of the witnesses to the crimes that are mentioned in the segment about media censorship protecting easily influenced people.
- 3.6 Broadcasters must use their best endeavours so as not to broadcast material that could endanger lives or prejudice the success of attempts to deal with a hijack or kidnapping. This may mean we can't interview anyone who is in someone knows someone who has been kidnapped by a government as part of media censorship.
- 7.1 Broadcasters must avoid unjust or unfair treatment of individuals or organisations in programmes.
- 7.3 Where a person is invited to make a contribution to a programme (except when the subject matter is trivial or their participation minor) they should normally, at an appropriate stage:
- be told the nature and purpose of the programme, what the programme is about and be given a clear explanation of why they were asked to contribute and when (if known) and where it is likely to be first broadcast;
- be told what kind of contribution they are expected to make, for example live, pre-recorded, interview, discussion, edited, unedited, etc.;
- be informed about the areas of questioning and, wherever possible, the nature of other likely contributions;
- be made aware of any significant changes to the programme as it develops which might reasonably affect their original consent to participate, and which might cause material unfairness;
- be told the nature of their contractual rights and obligations and those of the programme maker and broadcaster in relation to their contribution; and
- be given clear information, if offered an opportunity to preview the programme, about whether they will be able to effect any changes to it. This means we have to brief the interviewee's before we interview them.
- 7.6 When a programme is edited, contributions should be represented fairly. We will definitely do this. We will always try to put the interviewee's words into the proper context they intended. This may mean that some of the longer interview answers might take up more time in the interview than we wanted them to.
- 7.9 Before broadcasting a factual programme, including programmes examining past events, broadcasters should take reasonable care to satisfy themselves that:
- material facts have not been presented, disregarded or omitted in a way that is unfair to an individual or organisation; and
- anyone whose omission could be unfair to an individual or organisation has been offered an opportunity to contribute. Anything we mention about a historic event is true and we simply state the facts and recount the event we don't give our personal thoughts towards the historic event.
8.5 Any infringement of privacy in the making of a programme should be with the person's and/or organisation's consent or be otherwise warranted. This means we can't invade people's privacy to find out information on censorship. It means we can't record people's private conversations without them knowing it just to capture their views on media censorship.
8.7 If an individual or organisation's privacy is being infringed, and they ask that the filming, recording or live broadcast be stopped, the broadcaster should do so, unless it is warranted to continue. If an interviewee want to leave during an interview we must not stop them doing so. This rule may be very relevant when filming vox pops.
8.8 When filming or recording in institutions, organisations or other agencies, permission should be obtained from the relevant authority or management, unless it is warranted to film or record without permission. Individual consent of employees or others whose appearance is incidental or where they are essentially anonymous members of the general public will not normally be required. This means we need to gain permission from thomas tallis school before we can film in the school and we need to find out if we're allowed to film on Oxford street.
8.12 Broadcasters can record telephone calls between the broadcaster and the other party if they have, from the outset of the call, identified themselves, explained the purpose of the call and that the call is being recorded for possible broadcast (if that is the case) unless it is warranted not to do one or more of these practices. If at a later stage it becomes clear that a call that has been recorded will be broadcast (but this was not explained to the other party at the time of the call) then the broadcaster must obtain consent before broadcast from the other party, unless it is warranted not to do so. This means if we conduct a telephone interview for our documentary we must tell them what the interview is for at the start of the telephone call.