Journoblog.com

Kim Longinotto makes documentaries, and has been since 1976. I hate to use such a cliche as “hard-hitting”, but they hit hard. I’ll try to avoid turning this post into a review, as there are countless other reviews out there already. The point of this post is to show how just how useful documentary techniques can be to anyone who hopes for a future in video journalism.

While the heads that haven’t already  rolled in the newspaper industry struggle to stay above water, Kim’s films are being shown in theatres and winning awards.  Many  journalism courses place a great deal of focus on video journalism, and one or two of Kim’s films would provide something of a masterclass.

One of the distinguishing stylistic traits of Kim’s work is the absence of narration. In most of her work there is no voiceover, and  even captions are used only when absolutely necessary. You have to work out what’s going on because no one is telling you; this makes the viewer feel more engaged. As she says herself: “People who don’t like my films, don’t like them because they’re not told what to think”.

Watch these two clips from her 2009 film Rough Aunties. If you’ve never heard of the film, then be aware that they can be difficult to watch. But they are especially difficult to watch for the reasons given above- you are undistracted and engaged, you are there with the people you are about to see. Also be aware that this is what makes the film so very powerful, and for anyone who ever complains about lack of resources, this opening scene was done in with one camera in one room and with one short explanatory caption which doesn’t appear until four hard minutes have passed.

In this next clip, you will see how silence can be used so effectively. Very few words are said for the first 30 seconds. From the first moment you know something terrible has happened, but it is not until the one-minute mark that you find out what has happened, and the story unfolds from there. Again, no voiceover and no captions.

Yes, in a news report this would be impossible as you only have a couple of minutes to present all the facts, but emotion is as important as information: a good news report will both teach you something and make you feel something. Voiceover and interview provide the information, but the moment that no one is talking to the viewer, that’s when emotions start to flow. Michael Buerk’s famous 1984 report on the famine in Ethiopia is exemplary. The viewer is actually educated by newsreader Julia Somerville before Michael’s piece begins. She tells the viewer where the famine is taking place and the causes of it and the number of people suffering as a result. All of the facts and figures are delivered within 43 seconds. The next seven minutes of footage includes just one short interview, Michael only describes what he is seeing, and he is silent as much as he speaks. This is a key factor in creating reports like this- sometimes knowing what to say means knowing when to say nothing.

Another thing to notice is that Buerke’s face is not seen once, he is not seen or heard during the interview, it is all voiceover. Somehow, the sight of a news reporter adds a dose of unreality to a piece. It offers the viewer a break from their painful viewing. Most reporters want nothing more than to have their face on television, but the reason this report is so powerful is that it gives no respite; for the full seven minutes you are watching nothing but the suffering of people, many of them children.

How hard it must be to stand behind a camera and silently watch crowds of people starving and suffering looking for opportunities to get close-ups of the faces of children, covered in flies. Does this mean that you have to be cold and ruthless to be successful in this field of journalism?

When filming The Day I Will Never Forget, a documentary examining the practice of female genital mutilation in Kenya, Kim Longinotto had to watch as a young girl had a razor blade taken to her body. It may seem callous that she could do this, but the doctor who was trying to stop the practice told her that her presence would mean that the procedure would be less severe.

Kim told journalist Lou Bolch: “When we were actually filming and the little girl was holding my leg… I felt full of pain and full of sadness and I just wanted to save her.” (link below)

The fact is that there are things that should be brought to the attention of the world, and shocking pictures of famine, cruelty and natural disaster are often the only way to make large numbers of people pay attention or take action. Kim Longinotto, Michael Beurke and others show that sometimes you need to take a utilitarian view and understand that your role of simply reporting can be far more effective than trying to intervene.

Longinotto’s films have done a great deal to raise awareness of issues such as female circumcision, education of troubled children, Iranian divorce procedure, child abuse and more. Buerk’s report sparked international outrage and a massive relief effort that set the blueprint for aid and fundraising ever since.

So in this age of a troubled news industry, could the methods employed by Kim Longinotto and other documentary makers represent a way forward? We have seen that one of the most famous and effective television news reports in history used the techniques discussed, adjusted for the audience due to time constraints, of course.

I think it is quite possible that, as the internet continues to take bigger slices of the journalism pie, some reporters will shift away from making two-minute pieces for the news and start making feature-length pieces for cinema and television. Long-running issues such as natural disasters, wars and industrial action lend themselves to the creation of such films, and as television reporters are having to expand their skill-set to accommodate reducing staff numbers (a reporter will often be carrying out the roles of camera operator, sound technician and editor as well), they are better suited to this kind of film-making than ever before.

I urge everyone to watch this excellent interview with Lou Bolch for insight into Kim Longinotto’s work and clips from several of her films.

In the late 1800s, the two most powerful men in the newspaper industry were Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst. The USA was the cultural and commercial centre of the world, and it was through newspapers that Americans watched their country flourish.

New York City was the gateway to this New World; a seething, tumultuous melting pot where people of wealth and poverty, of hundreds of different and languages and cultures, having poured in from the docks, were crammed into the town.

Pulitzer and Hearst simplified the language in their papers and added more pictures, so that they could be read by the foreigners and the uneducated. Tactics such as these saw their sales rise to unprecedented numbers; Pulitzer’s New York World reaching seeing circulation figures of around 360,000. Most of these papers were distributed by ‘newsies’.

We’ve all seen newsies, depicted in movies and cartoons as charming, cheeky kids in waistcoats and flat caps standing on street corners yelling “Extra! Extra!” But these depictions are the result, some say, of a deliberate effort of the newspapers of the time to glamourise and sugar-coat the lives of the children who distributed their product.

The truth was the newsies were desperately poor, often homeless and starving. They were not employees of the newspapers, they simply bought the papers by the bundle, 100 papers for 50 cents, and sold them on the streets for a tiny profit. The newspapers would not buy back unsold copies, so while a slow news day might mean a reduced profit for them, it meant missed meals for the newsies.

Read the rest of this entry »

Journalism students at the University Of Winchester are incredibly fortunate in that they are lectured by several esteemed journalists. Among these is Angus Scott. Here are some of Angus’ top tips for putting together a TV news package. Next time you watch the news, remember this guide and see how closely the professionals stick to it.

Make your words complement your pictures. Don’t just say what you see, you’re not a sports commentator. Your words must add to the image. For example, describing the events that led up to the image the audience sees onscreen.

Use sound to create an overall picture and give “colour” to the piece. Sound is a tool to be used like any other. Birdsong, office sounds, and traffic noise all add atmosphere and should not usually be avoided. You didn’t go to all the trouble of getting good pictures from a tough location only to have it sound like it was recorded in a studio, did you?

As for packaging, use your best shots first, don’t save them until last. You want to draw the viewer in. It’s no good trying to get them interested when they’re already bored. If you watch the news, you’ll notice that the explosions, the politician covered in eggs, the whale in the Thames are all at the beginning of the piece.

Be conversational. Just how conversational depends on the target audience, but you still need avoid sounding like you’re reading an Ikea instruction manual.

Speak in the present tense. The great thing about TV news is that it’s pretty instant, and it should feel that way. Newspapers, on the other hand, are almost always yesterday’s news (something that happens on Monday will not be published on Tuesday) and so are normally written in the past tense.

TV: The President leaves the White house, surrounded by Secret Service agents.

Newspaper: The President left the White House surrounded by Secret Service agents.

Follow a narrative thread. Delivering the news is still telling a story, so make sure is has a beginning, middle and end.

The End.

High, Low and Mass Culture

A critical discussion by Andrew Giddings

The purpose of this essay is to critically discuss whether it is possible to distinguish between ‘high culture or art’ and ‘popular media’ (It must be noted that words such as ‘media’ and ‘culture’ and ‘art’ sometimes have interchangeable meanings between some of the reference materials used). The way in which to do this is to discuss whether the categories themselves can be clearly defined. If so, can they be defined as individuals or only as part of a whole? Could one exist without the other, or is each category defined by that which it is not? Various statements and theories will be analysed and held against each other in an attempt to reach an agreement. Once the criteria for each category become clear, the lines draw themselves. If agreeing criteria proves impossible, then it is only reasonable to conclude that it is also impossible to clearly categorise a medium.

‘Mass media’ has been defined in many ways. Strinati suggests that “mass culture is produced by mass production industrial techniques and is marketed for profit to a mass public of consumers.” (Strinati, 1995, p. 10), rather than for the sake of art or expression. This definition covers two criteria; the motives behind the production and the target audience. But using motive as a defining characteristic presents a problem. In modern times, very few things are produced if profit is not to be made. And not only produced, but reproduced. Symphony orchestras play the ‘high culture’ music of classical composers to houses packed with people who each paid a fee. That fee is determined by a simple calculation that ensures that the income gained from ticket sales will exceed the cost of the production. If demand for tickets is not high enough, the show is cancelled. If CD sales are too low, production ceases. Does this mean that Chopin and Beethoven are ‘mass media’? If not, then why not? When they produced their works, they certainly did not do so for free. Nor did Shakespeare and nor did Mozart. In addition, it is impossible to explore the motives of all creators of media; the fact that profit is generated does not prove that profit is the driving force behind the production. This kind of speculation is not enough to make an airtight distinction. It is best to work only with the second part of Strinati’s definition: the consumer.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Journalism students were very lucky today. We were given a special opportunity to spend several hours with Nigel Hodge, a specialist in DNA profiling, blood pattern analysis and crime scene investigation. And he has a great sense of humour.

What is forensic science?

The word “forensic’ comes from the latin ‘forum’, or ‘court’. In other words, forensic science is the use of science in a court of law.

Until around 20 years ago, all forensic science in Britain was carried out by the Home Office. This meant that the forensic experts were always working on behalf of the prosecution, leading to several miscarriages of justice. Today, all forensic science is privatised, and so the duty of the scientists is no longer to the prosecution or defence, but simply to deliver facts to the court. However, these private companies are now competing for police contracts, so there is the possibility of corruption in order to win those contracts.

Nigel is very wary of anything which may influence him: “I never, ever meet with clients or defendants. I don’t even want to see photographs of them”, he explains, “I’m not concerned with whether they are guilty or innocent… our job is to evaluate scientific evidence.”

What is the job like?

It’s definitely not like CSI. For one thing, says Nigel, not everyone in forensics is gorgeous. There are many, many unattractive foresics scientists who are excellent at their jobs. Next, crime scenes aren’t always investigated using torches. In real life they normally just turn the lights on. Also, the 15 second montage in which the paperwork is done should actually take up most of the show. A large amount of forensic science consists of reading and writing reports. TV programmes are almost always about catching the culprit, but “DNA profiling is not just there to catch the bad guys, it’s there to exonerate the innocent.”

As Nigel already described, it’s important that a forensic scientist remains detached from everything but the facts. But in addition to avoiding bias, for the sake of his or her own health a scientist must try not to become emotional. Even so, we’re all human and and it would be almost impossible to feel nothing when dealing with some cases. “Images of violent deaths can stay with you,” says Nigel but he feels that often the saddest thing is the conditions under which some of the victims lived. He describes some of the rooms in which bodies are found; filthy, full of broken furniture and with blood squirted up the walls from syringes.

When giving evidence on court, it is important that an expert speaks in terms that can be understood by judge, jury and legal teams. Problems can arise when these people do not understand the evidence presented, and this situation is more common that you might think.

How is the field developing?

DNA profiling was first used in the case of Colin Pitchfork in 1987, but it is constantly being updated and revised. One example of a new technique is ‘Low Copy DNA Profiling’, gaining evidence from tiny amounts of material. Another is YSTR Profiling, which can be used to detect a Y chromosome and so is useful for working with male DNA. This is not that useful for matching with an individual, but can be very good for eliminating suspects.

But Nigel asserts that, “The most important thing in forensics is not technology, it’s asking the right questions”

Thanks to wear patterns, shoe prints are as unique as fingerprints. But wear patterns can change over time and people can wear other people’s shoes.

It is a chilly spring morning, and some of the key players in the Conservative effort to retain their Devizes seat are gathering at a country house near Marlborough. The constituency covers an expanse of rural Wiltshire and includes the market towns of Devizes and Marlborough, along with dozens of small towns and villages. It has been a Conservative stronghold since 1924, and the last MP, Michael Ancram, has recently decided to stand down from his unassailable position after 18 years. Today, the Tories will continue their efforts to fill his empty seat with Claire Perry .

The meeting place is the home of the Constituency Chairman, Ken Carter. At 8:30am he is joined by Terry Ralph, a long-time supporter, and James Earle, Claire’s aide. James is a cheerful 23-year-old who worked for the MoD after reading Middle Eastern Languages at Oxford. Later, he turned down a job in the City in order to work with Claire,  putting around 70 hours per week into the campaign.

After a run-through of the day’s tight schedule, it is time to set off to meet the rest of the team. James travels in his car, while Ken and Terry take the Battlebus, a shiny, gunmetal grey Land Rover Defender. “Vote Perry” posters adorn the windows, and the roof is crowned with a PA system, a donation from Mr. Ancram.

It is now 9:30am, and the warm lounge of the Bear Hotel in Devizes finds itself host to a Tory gathering. Ken, James and Terry are joined by Deputy Chairman Ann Merrett, Paula Winchcombe, a councillor and former mayor, and Councillor Sue Evans. They chat about the campaign and discuss the BBC’s coverage of David Cameron. Today is market day, and the busy town centre can be seen through the window, crowded with people wrapped tightly in coats but enjoying the sun while they browse the stalls. Claire Perry enters with a white smile. She is over six feet tall and wears a white knee-length coat with a floral design along with a green scarf, loose dark trousers and blue suede slip-on shoes. She greets everyone before firmly placing a copy of the Gazette and Herald open on the table. The article introducing the main candidates lays out Lib Dem plans for the community, but speaks only about Claire’s home life. She says that she’ll be back shortly, and walks to the newspaper’s office to have a word with the editor. Read the rest of this entry »

Imagine you’re woken up early one morning by a knock on your door. On opening the door, you are greeted with the sight of a few policemen who arrest you on suspicion of raping and murdering children.

You have a bit of a panic, of course, but then manage to calm yourself down a bit. We have a good justice system- it’ll all be straightened out soon enough, then you can go home.

Within 24 hours you’ve been charged; the police feel they have enough evidence against you to build a case in court. The panic rises again. A team of people are going to stand in court and try to convince a jury and judge to imprison you for something you didn’t do. But we have a good justice system- it’ll all get straightened out soon enough,  then you can go home.

A harrowing trial comes to an end. It’s been a painful and confusing time. But we have a good justice system- it’ll all get straightened out soon enough,  then you can go home.

The jury delivers its verdict. Guilty. You are now, legally, a molester and killer of children. The judge sentences you to life, serving no less that 15 years.

You’ve been in prison for several years. Your appeals have failed, and now you have a difficult choice to make. You can be out in 15 years, but only if you admit guilt. Eventually you will be free, but you will forever bear the labels of MURDERER and CHILD RAPIST. Could you accept that trade-off? If you always maintain your innocence, you’ll never be considered ready to rejoin society. The only way you’ll leave prison is in a box.

This nightmare isn’t as rare as you might like to think. As you read this, there are people in jail who face similar decisions. But of those who maintain their innocence, which ones are telling the truth? And do they have any hope?

To these last two questions, the Innocence Network tries to provide an answer. When all else fails, someone in this situation can contact the Innocence Network. If it is decided that the application is suitable, the case will be passed on to an Innocence Project- a team of Law or Journalism students who will, usually over a period of years, attempt to find out the truth. The goal of an Innocence Project is not to get everyone out of prison. Sometimes the truth strengthen the case against them and ensure that they remain where they belong. Sometimes it will result in the release of an innocent person.

Unfortunately, our legal system is not infallible. A single weak link in the chain; an incompetent defence, a weak jury, a corrupt police force or just plain bad luck, can land someone in jail who shouldn’t be there. That person can appeal, but they are already legally guilty. They can turn to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), but that organisation simply checks that the verdict was fair and sound in law, not in fact.

This difference between legal guilt and factual guilt is an important issue. If convicted of killing someone, you are a murderer. It doesn’t matter if you actually did it or not, you are a murderer by law, and anyone can call you a murderer for the rest of your life and beyond. Most organisations work on this basis. Factual innocence isn’t a consideration in the face of legal guilt. The only real exceptions to this are the Police (sometimes), and the Innocence Network.

Every now and then, we’ll hear or read about a handbag or telephone priced so highly that we wonder who in the world would be silly enough buy one. But perhaps it is better to stop and think before mocking those who do blow their cash on luxury items- you may be just as nuts are they are.

The term ‘luxury item’ can describe anything which costs more than normal people would usually pay for such a thing. Some examples are very well known, having achieved a high degree of brand awareness: BMW cars, Bang & Olufsen sound systems and Rolex watches, for example. Other brands, either by choice or through appealing only to a niche market, are more obscure.

Read the rest of this entry »