Television news claims it is a window on the world, which in other words means it shows the audience news in an impartial and unbiased way. However, there is a lot of evidence against the accuracy of the news, in which I will discuss.
The starting sequences and sets, set the tone of the news programme. In the majority of starting sequences there are clocks, which connote that the news team are showing the news as it happens. There are also satellites, connoting that they are using all available technology to bring you the news. The starting sequence also includes transparent objects which connote that the news is a 'window on the world,' and seeing it as it happens; no one is there to influence our opinions. As soon as the title sequence has finished, the first thing you see are the news presenters already on set and dressed smart. These presenters are called news readers. Reading implies not giving any personal slant, therefore showing impartiality. News readers almost always have a limited range of facial expressions which reinforces the idea of no personal opinion or comment. While news readers are talking, they are looking straight down the camera. This mode of address to the viewers makes the audience feel they are being directly addressed and they feel like they are given a true representation of the news.
There are legal regulations that state the news has to be impartial. BBC say "The BBC is required to deliver duly impartial news by the Royal Charter and Agreement and to treat controversial subjects with due impartiality." Ofcom's statement is very similar as they say "All news...should be presented with due accuracy and impartiality," and "Due impartiality should be preserved on the part of persons providing the service as respects matters..." Both of these statements say the team should try to be unbiased as far as possible. However, they may not realised how biased they are, due to the news selection process in which I will talk about I more detail. With all these rules and regulations, we are led to believe everything we have been told is an accurate representation of the latest news.
This then leads me on to the news selection process. Many people believe we have been given the news with no personal comment, but, there are so many events in the world, each story has to be chosen. The process in which helps news stories/events to be chosen is called "Galtung and Ruge." These two men thought up the process. The news stories have to contain enough of the news values to be considered. A couple of examples of the news values from "Galtung and Ruge" are 'frequency,' which means the event has to fit with the cycle of news production, and 'elite nations.' Elite nations means some countries are more news worthy than others, for example, if there was a disastrous shooting in America and in an eastern country, America would be chosen as it is more elite. Next in the process is 'economics of news production.' This is if the news team can afford to do a story on an event, as it relies on the state of the financial year. If a big event breaks early in their financial year, they will be able to afford it. However, if it breaks late in the year, it depends on how much money will be spent on it (costs for flights/hotel fees.) After this comes 'imperatives of competition.' News teams judge themselves against each other. So if the competition is all covering one story, your team will want to cover that story in fear of missing out. After all these processes, you may think the stories stay on schedule. However, newsroom routines may effect this. For example, there may be technological problems with satellite links between the studio, field reporters, experts and witnesses. This may cause a story to be dropped. Late breaking stories can cause a story to be dropped from a running order, even if it follows the process. This is because stories are packaged up; they have times and running order. This clashes with the idea of impartiality, due to the fact of news being highly selected. The events that do not make the show are wasted in the 'dustbin of history.' Due to many of these reasons, trying to be impartial is near impossible as everything news teams do has some subjectivity in it.
The way news is constructed affects the idea that news is a 'window on the world.' The way an event is turned into a story, they use narrative structure. There are many theories about the way stories are told. Here is the 'Classic Hollywood' structure based on the ideas of theorist, Todorov:
This structure can also be shown as:
Many news stories follow this structure of a hero going on a quest to fulfil closure. During actuality footage the field reporter has taken throughout the day, you see some things that may be staged. For example, a news story we have watched during class, the 'hero' walked to his house. This one shot may have had many takes before the team moved on. You also see 'shot-reverse-shot' and reactions. This involves the movement of the camera, meaning there would need to be two cameras already set up (which we did not see), or a pause. This news story was supposedly about the rise in people losing their homes, however, this story was showing a family threaten to lose their house. News teams are hiding the construction of the text, which does look better, but destroys the realism.
From the processes, I'm sure you can see that the news is not a 'window on the world,' but it is actually highly selected with some personal slant of the social age group that makes it. The group is typically middle age; middle class, white southern men.
I believe that it doesn't really matter about the process, as there are a lot of events in the worlds and not every single one of them can be covered. However, I do believe that other people should be used for news reading. We can do this by including someone with a different accent onto the programme. This may help people relate even more to the news and be more trustworthy.
New technology has allowed news to spread quickly and to become mixed up. New social networking sites like Twitter, allow rumours to spread rapidly. I believe that the new technology has made a huge difference to these issues, because there seems to me no 'middle man' involved in the making. The news can be told by anyone in any social class, race and religion. It may also be told first hand. Someone may be at the place in which the event is taking place and they can 'tweet' what is happening.
No comments:
Post a Comment