Week Three Response: Toothless Tiger

This post is a response to the question posted here. Other people's responses here.

The Question:

In the lecture during week 2, I suggested that while ACMA has regulatory powers over broadcaster is Australia, when it comes to ethical breaches in the news, they have proven, in some cases, to be a “toothless tiger”. See this Media Watch episode for a good example.

So, this week, I want you to consider regulation of broadcast news. Does the broadcast news media need to be more tightly regulated? If you think ‘yes’, what aspects of the broadcast news reporting might need better rules and regulations? If ‘no”, why not?

My Response:

When looking at regulation issues and privacy, we have to consider that the media is the fourth estate.

Firstly, the fourth estate is supposed to be watching the government and therefore the media should be able to uncover corruption. Unfortunately the lines have been blurred on what kind of surveillance is acceptable. I would think recording a financial transaction in order to reveal bribery would be acceptable, but filming someone carrying out their daily chores at home would be unacceptable. Despite this, the paparazzi are constantly taking photos of celebrities through the windows of their house. If I did this I would go to jail, but they do not. In this regard, I believe that tighter regulation is needed.

Secondly, as the term fourth estate implies, the media is a large organisation on par with the government. Just imagine what would happen if the government collapsed. I believe that the ending of large media organisation would have the same effect. That is why ACMA would not take away a broadcasting licence even though they can. It would create a void that would bring uncertainty in society.

It appears that there is much regulation but not much enforcement. I do not think removing licenses would be the answer but penalties do need to apply more.

HAM433 Week Two Blog Response: Broadcast and technology

This is the lead response to a HAM433 class activity which is based on the case study that can be found at http://www.newsu.org/. The case discusses the time when footage on KARE-TV of an ice boat sailing event that was sped up to make the boats look like they were travelling faster then they were. The ethics of manipulating images was raised.

The way that a video is edited definitely can alter the perceptions of the audience. Guide lines should be in place to ensure that the audience understands what has been altered.

Speeding up footage is something that would be associated with a slick television ad. Those spray and wipe type cleaners come to mind. The “before” and “after” photos of people in ads for some weight loss programs also bring up ethical issues.

The issue of slowing down footage was highlighted on the TV show “Chaser’s War on Everything”. The show is always critical of the techniques used by Today Tonight and Current Affair, a common user of criminals walking slowly. Once, the Chaser team slowed down footage of ordinary people walking so that they would look like criminals.

Another common practice is the use of stock or file footage during news reports. This is a useful tool but unfortunately I have noticed a trend over the past year. Footage is being placed into reports without mentioning that it is stock footage. It looks as it is part of the news story. This could mislead viewers into thinking that it is new footage. Some of the footage does not accurately represent the current situation but a generalisation of similar events.

The reality show Survivor had controversy a few years ago when it was revealed that many of the wide shots and aerial shots were made using hired extras instead of the contestants. This allowed the show to contain camera angles that were not possible during the original recording. The revelation put into doubt the reality of reality television.

The viewer needs to be told about the manipulations before and during a story if they are to trust the media. If the viewer finds out after the show through another source, they will definitely feel deceived or tricked.

There needs to be assessment of when it is the right time to use the techniques such as slow-motion, speeding up video, freeze frames and dissolves. Slow motion and speeding up definitely should not be used when the speed of an event or object is the issue. Speeding up of the boat footage might have made the activity look more risky or reckless then it is.

Speeding up footage can be useful in situations where it is important to show events uncut in short amount of time, such as showing a couple of minutes of security camera footage in a couple of seconds. Slowing down footage can reveal hidden actions that would not be noticed at normal speed.

With both the altering of film speed and use of stock footage, I strongly believe that it is important that, at the minimum, to display text at the top or bottom of the screen saying “file footage” or “footage speed increased”. They might make a statement at the beginning of the report. I can understand that making a statement during the report might disturb the flow.