|
|
|
|
An assignment to develop media literacy - by Nola Galagher (Corrimal High) Try watching several TV news programs on the same night, and you'll soon notice how they differ in the way that they present any event. The contrast is particularly obvious when comparing a commercial network with a government station such as the ABC or SBS. It is also apparent when comparing local and national news coverage of the same event. Here are some focus questions to consider when watching the news: 1. Notice Priortiy a) Notice networks' priority in placement of news items What type of stories were given greatest importance? Determine this by noticing which stories had • the longest running times • prime position in running schedule • high entertainment value, used as teasers in promos and at the start of the program b) Why were these stories chosen? Why would this network make this choice? (consider target audience, type of story, quality of footage)
2. Compare running times a) Record the length of news items dealt with by each of the news programs e.g. • SBS main story: 13 minutes on the Kosovo crisis, refugees and imprisoned Care workers, compared to 3 minutes on the ABC. • SBS coverage of Australia's World Cup win: 2 mins only, screened 20 minutes into program, compared to ABC, which led with the cricket for 5.5 minutes. b) If there was a difference in running time, what extra information did the longer story contain? c) Suggest reasons for this choice.
3. Consider the choice of visuals (video footage, camera angles, editing techniques). a) Is it trying to force a particular response from the viewer? e.g. making us sympathise with fleeing refugees or feel national pride over winning a big overseas sporting competition b) How is this effect achieved? c) Does the footage sensationalise an event or emphasis it disproportionately? How? d) Does it distract the viewer from the information being given in the commentary? e) Why has the network chosen this emphasis on entertainment, rather than information?
4. Observe who was interviewed and why: a) Were both sides of the issue presented? b) What type of interviewees were chosen to present each side? c) Were their actual words recorded? What impression was created of the person when he/she was interviewed? e.g. were they made to look sensible, or fanatic, or an extremist, or stupid, a bully or a hypocrite? d) How was this effect created? e) Are some interviewees chosen because they are rather photogenic or very articulate? f) For overseas stories: the people who speak English as a second language have often had a superior education and are from more middle class backgrounds. Would they always make the most reliable witnesses? Why/Why not? g) Why do commercial networks avoid using subtitles for their interviewees? h) What problems do relying on translators and interpreters and those who dub speech on film create?
5. Watch for sensationalism "If it bleeds, it leads" (Walter Cronkite) a) Was there any violence shown? If so, were the most violent parts also shown in the opening teasers? Why? b) How many times was the same footage played, and were slow motion replays used e.g. on sporting incidents. Why do news programs present violence in this way?
6. Watch for manipulation a) Be aware of emotional manipulation: b) Did the news program force the viewer to sympathise with one side? e.g. was the victim of the violence interviewed, and the physical damage show? Was anyone crying? c) Why would TV News programs so often display these intimate scenes to the world?
|
