Here is a guide to analysing TV programmes.
You can add or omit certain points.
Your investigation is to be posted in the commentaries.
Pls, prove whatever you say by fact, i.e. be ethical.
1. What is the name of the programme?
2. What channel runs it?
3. Who is the host?
4. See if they follow the principles of the code
Seek Truth and Report It
·
Is the accuracy of information tested from all sources
and care is exercised to avoid inadvertent error?
·
Are sources of information identified or are they
anonymous?
·
Do headlines, news teases and promotional material,
photos, video, audio, graphics, sound bites and quotations adequately represent
the content or do they oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context?
·
Is there any evidence of plagiarism? If there is,
specify.
·
Is there analysis and commentary in the programme? Are
they labeled? Do they adequately represent fact or context?
·
Is compassion for those who may be affected adversely
by news coverage shown?
·
Is the host sensitive when seeking or using interviews
or photographs of those affected by tragedy or grief?
·
Is the right of private people to control information about
themselves recognized?
·
Are conflicts of interest avoided?
·
Is there any
evidence that there is some kind of special treatment, shun secondary employment
or political involvement?
·
Are advertisers denied favored treatment?
Be
Accountable
·
Is news coverage clarified and explained?
·
Is dialogue with the public over journalistic conduct
invited?
Is the public encouraged to voice grievances against the news media?
Is the public encouraged to voice grievances against the news media?
5. Is the
programme ethical? What makes you think so?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI’ve chosen a documentary film Leonid Mlechin’s “Arab spring ” which is run by the channel TV C(Ц) headed by Alexandr Ponomarev. The program is about events which involved many countries of the Near East and the South Africa – the Arab Revolution. The author tries to find out the reasons of such fast spreading phenomenon and its longevity. As a whole, I don’t like this program and one of the reasons for it is a great deal of examples of breach of the journalism ethics.
ReplyDelete-Tell the truth and report it. Sometimes accuracy of information aroused suspicion, for instance when the author was telling about armed insurrection in Syria, I saw the flag of Libya in the crowd of rebels on video. Another example when Mlechin was telling about discontent of locals in Syria, I just saw displeased people giving interview, bur can’t hear them as it was silence video, so I can’t judge whether their annoyance had been caused by rebellion or not. As it is a documentary film, there were many chronicle material without not regard to their provider. I don’t know, probably the channel really posses this information… Nevertheless all statements were in quotation marks with reference to their authors. There were references to some Arabic channel when they were showing all recent reportages in Arabic countries. I don’t like the way Mlechin told about Islam, making it equal to Islamizes.
-Minimize Harm. There was no interview in this film (its greatest disadvantage which I’ll discuss later in the last principle), so it is impossible to judge about observance of this aspect of the Journalism ethics. However there were some pieces of videos displaying people affected with grief and I think without their permission.
-Act independently. I found out some evidence of political evolvement. I saw few mentions about influence of the USA and the West on the development of the situation in these countries, as well as about political and economical components. The author made an emphasis on the religion, simply ignoring the more important factors. Sometimes I caught myself at idea that the main aim of the program is to represent all Muslims as fanatical fools whose acting were supported only by their cruel nature (smells like promotion of nationalism ). Nevertheless the author improved at the end of the film, representing the UAE as an ideal Islamic progressive country.
-Be Accountable. There was no interview in this program and it made it less interesting and informative. As result I consider the program as incapable of giving the complete picture of the situation. I don’t regard the film as documentary one(as it was announced) because of the absence of interview. Each journalist should establish contact between the locals and himself to feel the event deeply. As result there is a doubt about competence of this program.
So, probably the program is not as bad as I’ve described and I think a person whose aim is not to find the examples of observance or breach of journalism ethics may like it. However it hardly may be called ethical one.
An interesting choice and a good job but your piece is somewhat repetative.
Deletethe language also leaves much to be desired ...
Slips:
... Leonid Mlechin’s “Arab spring ”, a documentary film ...
As A result ...
ON THE whole ...
there WAS a lot of factual material with no refeence to its sources ...
The worst thing is the use of articles, which are simply omitted in most cases!
An Analysis of a TV Program
ReplyDelete1. Program: Pust Govoryat (23.08.2012)
2. Host Channel: Pervy Kanal
3. The Host: Andrey Malachov
4. This program was focused on the story about a woman (mother of 8 children) who killed her two adopted daughters and then kidnapped a child to show him to the Guardianship and Custodianship Agency instead of her murdered one.
Seek Truth and report it. From this point, I think that the program used identified sources of information (criminal case files and materials on the basis of testimonial evidence). So, I can say that the headline, promotional materials, photos, video, audio and quotations adequately represented the content. Analysis and commentaries which were based on the criminal case files adequately represented the facts, but discussion between the audience and the guests of the program consisted mostly of speculations not reflecting the real case.
Minimize Harm. I think that the host and the redactors of the program didn’t try to minimize harm because it contained materials which could possibly have a bad influence on children’s minds (videos and photos of split bodies). Besides, the program transmitted at the time when even little children could watch it. What’s shocking is that kids were also among the audience and guests in the studio of Andrey Malachov’s TV show.
Act Independently. During the program the host tried to avoid conflicts of interest, but by the end, when it was revealed that ‘mother’-killer was an atheist, he said that the key factor of all the problems is the lack of faith in God. So, I think it sounded insulting for those people who do not believe in God, but still are not such persons as the heroine of Pust Govoryat.
Be Accountable. At first the coverage was clarified and explained, but during the discussion everyone tried to outcry each other making it difficult to understand what was going on, because several people spoke simultaneously. The host, in his turn, didn’t always stop that at necessary time. All that created an impression of a “theater”.
5. All in all, I think that mostly the programs like Pust Govoryat are not ethical. They do not try to help their heroes, solve the problems or find solutions. All they do just make a kind of sensation, invite some guests to discuss it, at the same time invading other people’s private lives, and end with no-where. In that case I may call them “tabloids on the screen”. I cannot understand the purpose of it all. I think it is better trying to solve the problems by doings than by mere talking and gossipping.
Excellent!
DeleteSlips
... EDITORS of the programme ...
but still THERE are not such PEOPLE as the heroine of Pust Govoryat...
didn’t always stop that IN DUE time
... it is better TO TRY ...
1. Programme - "Pust Govoryat!"
ReplyDelete2. Channel - Pervi Channel
3. The host - Andrey Malakhov
4. A multimillion-dollar divorce of people's poet of Russia Ilya Reznik and his wife Munira became the topic of conversation. The ex-wife, said that Ilya Reznik has robbed her and left without means of subsistence. According to the woman, she has no roof over his head, no registration, no work.
Seek Truth and Report It
Sometimes you watch the program and do not understand, who everyboby are talking about, as there is one person and two totally different opinions, though everybody knows that the truth is one. For example, one says Munira is a decent woman; while the other affirmes Munira hasn't cared of her ex-husband, though he perfectly knows the woman, that she is a well-wishing. Then headlines, promotional materials, photos and video are adequately represented. There is only one monemt which isn't represented to the audience. I men securities. The host and guests only voiced the whole sum of money that has to be transfered to the woman, but the rest audience haven't seen that paper. Maybe it's only a fiction to protect Ilya Reznik. Besides, there are not adequate answers to the host's questions, everybody just go around.
Minimize Harm
Whe somebody becomes one's point for discussion, no good will come out of it (as I know, after this program Ilya Reznik had a heart attack).
Act Independently
It seems to me that all this program is something like "performance", where no one chooses their words. Moreover, the guests always abuse each other, like: "Lybov Uspenskaya is a drug addict."
Be Accountable
At the beginning of the discussion everything was clear, everyone spoke for himself, but later the guests began interrupting each other. And Malakhov didn't care about it, as sometimes he did the same. All that was like the booth, where everyone wanted to be heard.
5. This programme is certainly not ethical one, as no one ethic principle was followed. I chose this programme to show that such a nonsense is transmitted on the central channels. Ilya Resnik's divorce isn't a front-page news. Programmes like "Pust Govoryat" shouldn't care about such events, as only court can deliver a judgement.
NTV channel runs the program „Chreyvzchainoe Proishestvie” in which different presenters talk about events in Russia.
ReplyDeleteAs for the testing the information from all sources, I can say that they usually mention the sources: sometimes they’re the ordinary people(video from mobile phones for example), or the respected people such as law enforcement authorities. I think the program always try to avoid inadvertent error. I couldn’t see any evidence of plagiarize; the correspondences make their own reports. The presenters or the reporters always give analysis and commentaries in the programmes to make them more clearly for people.
As for minimizing harm I mentioned that some videos and photos may affect people. For example, the photo of a killed girl or video in which the prostitutions were arrested. Of course it may harm their parents and friends, it’s not ethical. And in such situation the right of private people to control information about themselves don’t recognize. But in some cases the faces of people are not visible, it’s plus.
I couldn’t find any evidence of political involvement or special treatment, they just tell about what happens in Russia in social sphere, not political one. I don’t think that crimes maybe are invited it’s not such kind of programs. I believe the correspondences act independently.
As for accountably, the news coverage is clarified and explained for me, I have no questions after explanations and evidences of this or that event. I believe that the dialogues are not invited, it seems realistic, but I’m not sure.
To sum up, I can say that this particular program is quite ethical except photos and videos which may harm some people. However, the reporters should do their best to make the program more ethical.
The program called “BBC World News” .It is broadcast by the channel Euronews and includes face-to-face interviews with leading figures in the news, interviews with thinkers, innovators and opinion leaders and a heated debate between a guest and public.
ReplyDeleteThis program goes hand-by-hand with journalism ethics and keeps up the following rules:
Seek Truth and Report It. All sources of information are identified and proved by quotations, telephone calls and interviews .So, I can say that the headline, promotional materials, photos, video, audio etc adequately represented the content. There is no evidence of plagiarism because there’re direct references to sources. Analysis and commentaries are based on facts ,context and include . discussion between the audience and the guests of the program. So this program gives us different opinions about this or that point.
Minimize Harm
I can’t say that BBC news tried to avoid conflicts. For example, Innocence of Muslims is an anti-Islam video where Muhammad depicted as a womanizer, a homosexual and religious fake. That resulted in deaths of Americans.I guess information should be filtered very attentively.
Act Independently. The previous example makes me think that there is a kind of special treatment or political involvement because professional and ethic journalist are sensitive when using such material with deals with religious values.
Be Accountable
The News coverage clarified and explained. There are facts, consequences, analysis and various opinions. We can see the link with public with the help pf interviews.
To sum up, I guess that program is almost ethical because it follows the code of ethics. However, there are some mistakes which should be correct (I mean selection of information and political influence)
1. Program: K Barieru!
ReplyDelete2. Channel: Rossiya 1
3. The Host: Vladimir Solovyov
4. In this program different people discussed the question: would it be useful to return the death penalty?
Seek Truth and Report It. As this program is a kind of talk show , the so-called news are reported by the host. The main goal of this program is to discuss a theme , which becomes urgent after occurrence of certain events.Thus I guess that some details are missed because the main focus is on the discussion itself , not on the news.We don't know the source of information , and have no video or photo proof of this news , but at the same time people who take part in this program are usually high officials or public figures who would not say something if they do not know it for sure.
Minimize Harm. I do not think that this program may harm somebody exept for it's participants , because when opponents are actively debated, they do not stand on ceremony in expressions, and for example yesterday a well known lawyer Henry Reznik repeatedly called the host of the program Vladimir Solovyov a boor, I suppose it certainly hurt his feelings.
Act Independently.During the program the host tried to avoid conflicts of interest , but in this paragraph I would like to mention some other facts. As we know this program is strongly connected with politics.And I think it was broadcasted for the one reason : to divert public attention from more serious problems.
Be Accountable.In this program all members who wanted to say a word got this opportunity thus I can say that this principle was respected.
5.To sum it up I'd like to say this program do not answer the ethnical norms , because sometimes it goes beyond the civilized discussion.
1. Programme: 'Pryamoi Efir s Michailom Zelenskim'
ReplyDelete2. Channel: 'Rossiya-1'
3 The host: Michail Zelenski
4. The subject-matter of the story is a young girl suffering from anorexia. She complains of feeling fat, even though it is obvious to everybody that she isn't.
Seek Truth and Report It
It seems to me that the accuracy of information is tested partially. Participants who wish to take part in the program, have to apply in advance. By this application they let certain people to have access to the personal information. The sources of information are identified: the young girl and her boy-friend both suffering from anorexia.
The young girl's personal photos and quotations adequately represent the content. We can see the differences in the weight. So the given material serves as proof. I've found no evidence of plagiarism. But it is worth mentioning the fact that such kind of stories are typical for a large number of countries. We can see a very detailed comment on the problem given by a famous ballet dancer - Inna Ginkevich.
Minimize Harm
The host of the program treats Victoria( the young girl suffering from anorexia) kindly. He does not critiсize her, on the contrary he tries to help the girl by giving her advice on the problem. The guests of the program do the same.
Act Independently
Although this may seem strange but I can say with no doubt that there were no signs of that heated argument. The program 'Pryamoi Efir s Michailom Zelenskim' has a lot in common with 'Pust Govoryat' but in this case, people look more restrained, they do not interrupt each other, that is what I like the most.
Be Accountable.
The news coverage clarified and explained in a great way. I don't think that the dialogues are invited, what is more a lot of ordinary people sitting in the hall could ask questions and share their opinions as well.
In conclusion, I can say that this program can not be called non ethical one. I've tried to highlight different breaches of journalism ethics, but their number is not really considerable.
Thank you, girls!
ReplyDelete1. The name of the program is ‘Poedinok’ or (Single Combat)
ReplyDelete2. Rossia Odin or (Russia One) runs the program
3. The host is Vladimir Solovyov
4. The key point of the program is the rhetorical question: ‘Should we return death penalty?’ There are two participants Mihail Veller and Genri Reznik. The first is the famous writer and the last is the lower.
Seek Truth and Report It
The accuracy of information is tested. The moderator, preparing to the program, analyzes news concerning the headline of the program. Sources of information are identified. They are thoughts of the speakers. The headline of the program is absolutely adequately represented by the context. By the way, sound bites after each round is very suitable for this topic. There are no photos, video or graphics usually in any releases of this program. There is no any evidence of plagiarism in this program. It’s a very respectable program which can’t permit such a trick. There are some analysis and commentary in the program after each round. The honest goes to the room where the arbiter is sitting, hearing both discussants, and making comments on this or that position. They are labeled. It’s a person opinion.
Minimize Harm
Compassion isn’t shown for those, who may be affected adversely by news. The most important thing to the program is to name things what they are. The host is sensitive when he is seeking or using interviews of those affected by tragedy or grief. He is on their way. The right of private people to control information about themselves is recognized. Names aren’t mentioned. Only facts are on the surface, easy to see.
Act Independently
Conflicts of interests aren’t avoided. Both participants are standing on their own positions. So it doesn’t manage to do it. In this program people tell what they want to prove it by facts. Advertisers aren’t mentioned in this program at all.
Be Accountable
All what has been reported is absolutely clarified and explained by the skilful host. The dialogue with the public is invited. There are 3 supporters of each opponent who are asking questions their competitors. Also there is other non-verbal dialog between participants and viewers, sitting in the hall. I’ve never heard that someone has encouraged against this media.
From my point of view the program is ethical. It’s our choice should we see it or not. I think so, because journalists appeal to the facts makes the program ethical. By the way there is no any evidence of plagiarism.