truth is a contest ground ? [EDIT]

‘Truth is a contested ground’

The media is one of the most powerful and influential institutions in modern day society, with its ability to actively construct representations of certain truths that ultimately shape and mould our perceptions on certain events. The extent to which I agree to the notion that ‘truth is a contested ground’ is that I believe the many representations that flood the minds of those in society form, in a sense a kaleidoscope view of an event with different mediums and versions of truth collectively completing the puzzle of truth from which we are open to interpret. However, such pieces of the jigsaw puzzle, being of differing textual forms and upholding specific agendas all simultaneously compete in a race to fulfil their desire for the validation of their versions of truth. Consequently, it comes to a point where the distinct line between fact and fiction begins to blur, with the assistance of the hands of those in power colouring an event with a specific agenda. This is explored and satirised in Rob Sitch et al’s Frontline episodes ‘The Siege’ and ‘We Ain’t Got Dames’, Sian Prior’s SMH article ‘Give me knowledge instead of all these bits’ and the 1994 film ‘The Paper’ by Ron Howard. You could clarify this slightly by previewing the specific issues you are going to argue, but it is otherwise an excellent intro as it establishes a sophisticated understanding of the issue.

The driving force behind the actions of the media is one that results in the compromise of the media’s upholding of public responsibility and public safety reflecting the unscrupulous behaviour involved in achieving such validity. That being, the desire for ratings. This is highlighted in the episode ‘The Siege’, which gives the audience an insight into the processes that occur behind the facades we constantly face each day. The active manipulation of news is emphasised with the use of the conventions of the fly on the wall camera documentary technique in the series to create a feeling that this fabrication of ‘truth’ is indeed a truth in itself that is actively withheld from the public domain.

Brooke’s interview with Mrs Forbes satirises the unethical approach toward innocent individuals created by this ultimate desire for ratings.Be clearer Brooke is attempting to secure exclusivity for her self and her station The use of irony see in the line “this isn’t to protect us, it’s to protect YOU” – Brooke accompanied by the blank and non empathetic facial expression of the Frontline team suggests the value of the interview as being no more than a visual commodity for a story with significant potential commercial gain. The use of close-up shots and the cuts back and forth between Brooke’s face and that of Mrs Forbes, enables us to observe the process of spectacularising (Asking Mrs Forbes to cry again) an event to feed into the desire for ratings and the gaining of profits that may result from it.

The juxtaposition of the facial expressions further emphasises the price that the media is willing to pay, that being the emotional and psychological wellbeing of society, to achieve their main objective. Finish this point off better

The fact that such an institution has such immense amount of power, being in a position in which they hold society’s trust that truth will be conveyed, allows for their ability to actively construct news whilst feeding into pre-existing expectations and perceptions of society. This is clearly seen in The Siege’s opening scene where Brian enters the office yelling “siege, siege, siege”. Suggests that the team have an implicit understanding of what will follow. Its all well rehearsed. This process of active construction that occurs in the dark and gloomily portrayed editing room is suggestive of the mysterious and unknown processes that occur within these depths. Sian Prior states in her SMH article title? ‘Give me knowledge instead of all these bits’ the power of the media with the aid of medium allows for the easy fabrication of allegation as fact. As the author plucks a statistic out of the air and puts it on paper, her comment “you probably believed me simply because it was printed” highlights the media’s capability to ‘create’ news. Thus, with the power and the means to create news, in the service of the media’s desire for ratings is a key influential factor driving the media to further compete for the validation or ownershipof the contested ground, truth.

The active suppression of certain events and information by the ‘elite’ is another factor involved in the control of information and the types of truth that we receive. In blunt terms the contested ground of truth can be overtly regulated by those in power. This is one of the more serious issues confronting any democracy in which the media asserts its position as a source of truth. Again, in Sian Prior’s article, her use of a recipe structure allows for the conveying of the concept of active construction “they take human experience, mix it with awe inspiring imagination and create an emotional journey” in an attempt to embed their version of truth into our minds and perceptions. In the episode ‘We Ain’t Got Dames’ the clear ‘spin’ that is placed on the sweatshop story, transforming it into a fashion “puff piece” complete with the use of stereotypical images of fashion shows the clear avoidance of potentially controversial issues. The hierarchical system that exists within the structure of the Frontline team is not as evident in this episode as some others, but however, there always seems to be a glass ceiling under which the team must remain. The characterisation of the main characters and their conduct when Mr Caville or someone from “upstairs” is mentioned, is immediately juxtaposed to their otherwise unscrupulous behaviour is indicative of the control that the elite have on what can or cannot be portrayed. This can be seen in the interview processes involving the Prime Minister’s media minders resulting in the transforming of the interview into a trivial token. Or “puff piece” From this, we can see that the active suppression and control that the elite have on the release of information is one that limits the types of truths which can be contested.

The continuous race for the validation of various representations of truth does not however, come without consequences. That being, the cocooned nature of the media and hence the suppression of ethics and morals that arises leading to the unscrupulous behaviour of this super power. Ron Howard’s film ‘The Paper’ is also a satirical text that gives us an insight into the fast paced and unfriendly world of journalism. The frenetic editing of scenes especially the one involving the altercation is a key scene and a perfect exemplar of the influence of this race for the validation of contested truth on human behaviour. We see the breaking down of all the boundaries of manners, respect, courtesy and public responsibility as these individuals seek to run whichever version most suited to their agenda. The disregard for the reputation of others is evident as Alice, the frontrunner of The Sun paper says “we only have to be right for a day” shows the blurring of the line between fact and fiction. The sudden halt in non diagetic sound and the closeup reaction shot of the protagonist Henry, the moral still point of the newspaper, displaying his shock stricken face emphasises the unrighteousness of her actions and that unethical mindset. These two polarised extremities are continuously maintained and juxtaposed in the Frontline episodes with the images of the persona’s on-screen personalities appearing in the mise en scene parallel to the true reality.

This blurring of fact, allegation, fiction and ultimately reality and imagination causes us to question the extent to which these contested truths have come to affect our expectations of news as a source of factual knowledge. We as the receiver seem to decreasingly question or highlight certain inconsistencies to the attention of the media but rather increasingly and willingly accept what we are told. This danger involved in the hierarchy that does exist suggests that those of higher power or authority in fact have more control over society than we originally think.

Therefore, as we can see, through the composer’s use of cinematic and literary techniques, the dangers involved in the quest for the validation of truth are highlighted. The upholding of specific agendas all competing for acknowledgement and commercial gain, as we can see, have immense influence on the perceptions of which society holds. Thus, it is this competitive race for validation that defines truth as indeed being a contested ground.

Despite my occasional comments re detail this is a good response in the time frame. Your understanding of the broader issues in well expressed and the argument is generally well carried. Without wanting to second guess the marker who dealt with this module, I’m sure you would have been somewhere in the A range.

‘Truth is a contest ground’

The media is one of the most powerful and influential institutions in modern day society with its ability to actively construct representations of certain truths that ultimately shape and mould our perceptions on certain events. The extent to which I agree to the notion that ‘truth is a contested ground’ is that I believe the many representations that flood the minds of those in society form, in a sense, a kaleidoscope view of an event, with different mediums and versions of truth collectively completing the puzzle of truth from which we are open to interpret. However, such pieces of the jigsaw puzzle, being of differing textual forms and upholding specific agendas all simultaneously compete in a race to fulfil their desire for the validation of their versions of truth. Consequently, it comes to a point where the distinct line between fact and fiction begin to blur, with the assistance of the hands of those in power colouring an event with a specific agenda. This is explored and satirised in Rob Sitch et al’s Frontline episodes The Siege and We Ain’t Got Dames, the SMH article ‘Give me knowledge instead of all these bits’ by Sian Prior and the 1994 film ‘The Paper’ by Ron Howard.

The driving force behind the actions of the media is one that results in the compromise of the media’s upholding of public responsibility and public safety reflecting the unscrupulous behaviour involved in achieving such validity. The being, the desire for ratings. This is highlighted in the episode The Siege, which gives the audience an insight into the processes that occur behind the facades we constantly face each day. The active manipulation of news is emphasised with the use of the fly on the wall camera technique to create a feeling that this fabrication of ‘truth’ is indeed a truth in itself, that is actively withheld from the public domain. As we follow this team’s quest for ratings whilst armed with several ‘versions’ of truth, we see the ethical boundaries that are broken down as the attention has been drawn toward certain pin points. This is exemplified in Brooke’s interview with Mrs Forbes which satirises the unethical approach that is adopted toward innocent individuals and has resulted from this thirst for ratings. The use of irony seen in the lines ‘this isn’t to protect us, its to protect YOU’ – Brooke that accompanied with the blank and non – empathetic facial expressions of the Frontline team suggests the value of the interview as being no more than a casual commodity for a story with significant commercial potential.

Night of Nights and Playing the Ego Card

Frontline

This Night of Nights

MAIN THEME: the active suppression or promotion of versions of the truth being played off each other

1. Marty’s attitude to the Street Aid story outside the press conference shows a momentary ethical insight to the situation in much contrast to that which the Frontline team usually uphold. He appears resigned to the fact that he has to let a good story slip, along with the other journalist from the tabloid paper “The Truth”, the shot shows 2 hard working, cynical ‘journos’ having the ability to place ethics before a story if it is a matter of real importance.

2. As Brian says “We, as the media, have a duty to report what we learn, not sit back and decide what people should or shouldn’t know” to Marty concerning the airing of the Street Aid story, is an example of dramatic irony. It is so because we as the audience know that such a principle or ‘duty’ has been disregarded in many past instances and those to come by the Frontline team. We as the audience are able to recognise the irony behind the statement and placed in a privileged position, one step ahead of the characters to foreshadow the events to come.

3. The suppression of the Telecom story brings to mind the episode “smaller Fish to Fry” as we again see the selectivity of stories and the ACTIVE SUPPRESSION that occurs at the hands of the “elite” or higher power controlling the flow of certain information into the public domain that may be detrimental to these authoritative powers. The Telecom story, researched and written by Emma, initially revealed the tapping of customer phone lines. However, as Brian was informed by ‘upstairs’ that such a story would antagonise one of the biggest network sponsors, the story is turned into a puff piece with a positive endorsement of Telecom. Much of which reflects the underlying points of what occurred in “Smaller Fish to Fry”.

4. The main theme further brought to light with the handling of Mike’s DUI story. Contrary to Brian’s statement in (2), we as the audience see, in the final scene Brian’s attempts to keep the news “strictly in-house”, for the sake of the show’s reputation. Bruce, the journalist from “The Truth” however, reveals that he has knowledge of the DUI incident and we immediately see Brian pulling out his chequebook. This action of bribery demonstrates clearly the extent of the corruption of the industry.

5. Two instances where journalists are bought and sold in this episode can be seen in

6. Number of key issues also dealt with throughout the episode

Playing the Ego Card

MAIN THEME: mythologizing and myth making and the impact this has on reporting or responding to the news

1. Brian, in opening scene highlights the main determinants of a “good story”

- “it’s gotta have 3 things good vision, good vision and good vision” for a story to be worth running

- the issue of the hierarchy that exists in the media

- “what’s vision without a reporter?” Brian plays upon the concept of visual imperative and shows the media’s ability to talk they’re way out of situations. Also that the presenter becomes PART of the news. The EMBEDDING of reporters within news

- “big sticks that go boom! Boom!” shows the play on pre-existing ideas of war

2. Reference of the active construction of images by Emma and Brian is emphasised to show the significance of image over substance especially seen in “pub brawl in Manly is better than a massacre of millions if you’ve got the pictures”
3. The conflict between image and substance interferes with telling the truth is a main issue. Images, as seen in FL seems to subvert the deeper more important societal issues often transforming and reconstructing a story into a more light-on puff piece…
4. Like other episodes, the mise en scene composition sees the portrayal of the on air, constructed personalities of the characters depicting smart, well educated and a trustworthy source of information constantly juxtaposing the actions, dialogue and behaviour of the FL team
5. The scenes with Mike in Bouganville involving rebels shows the direct “creation” of news and the visual imperative of a story. I.e. the big sticks that go boom boom! In order to create a greater dramatic impact on the audience and raise the ratings of the show. Emphasizing and satirising the making of news by such current affairs programs and how media reportage is compromised at the expense of truth. It also highlights the unethical behaviour of media involved in the race for higher ratings playing on their audience’s willingness to succumb to their stories to mould their future expectations and perceptions according to the programs own needs.
6. When the story is uncovered, the 2 main concerns that preoccupy the FL team are

- the ratings to be gained from such front page news

- the egotistical approach of the team in deceiving others to gain the credit themselves

The Media

Frontline Ideas

We live in media-saturated societies…media production is now one of the largest &most lucrative industrial sectors in the global economy…media saturation is not a ‘good’ thing, credited with ‘fabulous’ powers to change people & have been blamed for contributing to most social ills.

The Media as Definers of Social Reality

- As the societies & the world we live in grow more complex, the range of information that we ‘need’ also increases… if we wish to function as informed & competent citizens… then we need to know about evens happening in geographically distant places… things that are outside the scope of personal experiences.

- Media delivers events we do not witness personally & that happen in places which we have no access

- In this capacity they bring us two types of information: 1) events outside our own society 2) information about our own society, e.g. important issues arise, debated & solved, include social & political institutions such as Parliament, law courts, urban ghettos etc.

How reliable & accurate is the information that the media deliver to us? If we base our attitudes & action in the world on information derived from media, how predictable & successful would these be?

Two views to the question

1) Of journalists & media: media is a ‘window on the world’ it’s not possible for media to tell us everything that is going on. Media space & time are limited so only so much information can be carried. Limited carrying capacity means that some element of selectivity is inevitable. A significant number of facts & perspectives are left out then a central condition of an adequate democratic media – that of ‘meaningful diversity’ is not achieved.

2) Fractured glass: selectivity means that media can control & shape the knowledge & understanding that we, their audience, develop about the world.

Two arguments:

1) information is a direct reflection of world or of social reality

2) media account of reality is selective one… constitutes a distortion & misrepresentation of significant events & issues in the world

Media power as selectivity

- do not provide a reliable & accurate guide to the range of important events in the social & political world

- it thus controls the information that is available to media audiences & so has the potential to shape or to set limits to their social knowledge & to images that they can construct of the world in which they live.

- Can encourage one to take a particular position, use of camera shots convey different kinds of attitudes. e.g. ‘tight’ reproduce the kind of closeness, medium-long: objective in that the camera adopts the spectator’s perspective on events, e.g. ‘cultural neutrality’ at a visual level.

- Specific example: the conflict between Palestinians & Israelis, on Israeli TV coverage, there are very few ‘close ups’ or ‘zoom-ins’ since use of close up conveyed impression of order, of respect, of control

- Thus, the ‘realism’ of television is deceptive, not ‘raw’ reality that unfolds before our eyes, but a mediated & selected vision of it… bias & selectivity are not accidental features of media, but inevitable features of the language we use to describe the world…. Notion of ‘framing’

Framing

- Media do not simply select events to cover; they also offer interpretative frameworks through which these are to be understood. Frames are the ‘persistent patterns of cognition, interpretation, & presentation, of selection, emphasis, & exclusion…enable audiences to locate, perceive, identify & label.’

Essay 3

The truth can be seen as a commodity that is bought, sold and traded through different production mediums to represent a particular meaning. In many texts, composers illustrate that the absolute truth does exist and that its objectivity can be found while in others, we are given the impression that the truth is entirely subjective because of the way the media have packaged and marketed it. The truth is often valued by the way it is perceived by the media as they have much influence on what is conveyed in terms of meaning and our understanding of the world.

In the Frontline series produced by Rob Stitch et al, we are introduced to the hypocrisies that exist within the media and the way the integrity of the truth can be lost through the exposure of different ways of composing and representation. The ‘show within a show’ perceives the media and their representation of the truth through three different perspectives. FRONTLINE as the satirical series is an immaculate frame exposing media imperatives from an outside perspective while behind the scenes, the ‘office’ mimics a real news room of Frontline as a “Current Affairs” show within the series.

In The Siege, the team at Frontline get hold of an exclusive interview with the gunman holding his four children hostage that would be beneficial to their public status. During the interview, Mike ends the conversation just as the gunman begins to tell him that ‘no one listens’. The exclusive broadcast edits out the ‘no one listens’ part and demonstrates to the audience of Frontline, how the truth becomes largely irrelevant and that the media may not care at all. The mistreatment of journalistic ethics becomes obvious as the series emphasises the consequences of moral irresponsibility. Journalists should reach the purist form of truth possible and offer a balanced account on an event however through the series, is it seen that the media trade the absolute truth for a number of motives.

While live footage becomes a necessity ethics and any concern for the gunman or his children are discarded. The exclusivity is carried on from the site of danger, where Marty exaggerates the need for props and suggests that crouching in front of a police vehicle whilst wearing a flak jacket appears more dangerous. As viewers, we see how manipulative vision can be in portraying the entire truth because Marty doesn’t inform viewers he is reporting from five kilometres away. Instead, the severity of the situation is heightened during his live crossover with Mike who implies danger by using phrases such as ‘Rambo situation’ and ‘keep safe’. The episode makes us realise that the truth is often lost through sensationalism in an industry obsessed with vision where misrepresentations can lead to a one sided ‘truth’.

Contrastingly, a black and white cartoon published in The Sydney Morning Herald in February 2005, suggested that an objective truth does exist. However, where the truth is located and how it is perceived is entirely dependent on the individual’s perspective. From an outside perspective, the cartoon is humorous because the exaggerated caricatures of John Howard, Alexander Downer and Philip Ruddock who are seen as high authorities in the world of politics, are struggling with a harmless looking snake. Unlike Frontline, the message is subtle as the illustrator draws us to challenge the truth and question those who “make the decision and wield the power”

In the cartoon, Philip Ruddock is in a posture where he is about to stab an ‘X’ mark on the snake which symbolises the ‘spot’ where the truth may be found. His struggle to hit the spot implies that the truth is unmanageable. “The battle continues” caption is also used to emphasise the struggle in obtaining an objective and final truth and stresses that although an objective truth exists, it can be found but through much research and time. The contrasted ideas of truth and lies are juxtaposed through representations of the politicians. In the cartoon they are seen as struggling however in reality, they have much control over the truth. Ultimately, understanding of the truth relates back to how individuals perceive information exposed by the media and our awareness of the power they hold to fabricate the truth.

Two news articles published earlier this year discussed the latest of profits and losses of Kerry Packer’s PBL. Though both articles were from different sources - one from News Corp’s Daily Telegraph (Rupert Murdoch) and the other from The SMH (John Fairfax Holdings Ltd), they both reported on the same issue but clearly demonstrating different perspectives. The study of these opposing articles emphasises that the ‘truth’ is in fact a commodity and through its packaging, the media can reflect subjective or objective perspectives.

The Daily Telegraph report presented a more subjective view and ensured readers that channel nine was in real threat as “Competition in the TV market has intensified, with NINE slipping behind seven in the first ratings period of 2005”. Persuasive words such as ‘rejuvenated’, ‘intensified’, ‘hefty’ and ‘depressing’ are common throughout the article conveying a pessimistic tone. The negativity in vocabulary colours the representation of the article leaving a one sided ‘truth’. In the SMH article however, a more objective perspective is conveyed of Packer’s half yearly result where profits were discussed with reference to changing statistics and supported by quotes from Packer and other members of the company. The Daily Telegraph attempts to lure viewers with the headline ‘Packer profit defies TV war’ while The SMH gets straight to the point with ‘PBL profit up on strong economy’. Both corporations are considered as Packer’s rivals in the media industry and may well be reflecting subjective perspectives. The question raised is which article is less fabricated to portray the most truth and how effective is this packaging in appealing to the audience?

In We Ain’t Got Dames, the Frontline team become aware of their lacking female audience and prepare a promo to enhance Mike’s credibility. Slow movement, gentle gestures and voiceovers along with editing techniques dramatise Mike’s caring and affectionate personality in the promo. Long shots are used to establish the background and context to give viewers a glimpse into his ‘normal life’ outside the studio where he is seen helping others. The promo creates a sense of reassurance that female viewers are supposed to feel when they turn to him for the current affairs. Behind the scenes, the promotion juxtaposes Mike’s real personality with his TV personality. When Mike suggests his sweatshop report, his face is hardly seen in this shot as his story is being overlooked. Brian is seated in the middle and above two women as they search for articles in women’s magazines. Low shot angles point to Brian as the subject and emphasise his authority in making final choices. Even though Mike’s report reflects true journalistic traits, it is edited into a ‘fashion article’ that is more likely to interest women.

The episode raises the idea that regardless of the changing position of women in society, they are still being perceived in a certain way and that the ‘truth’ will be marketed in a way that will keep women in that patriarchal frame of mind. It stereotypes women as idiotic and easily manipulated in the sense that they will act upon what they perceive from the media. The series aims to exploit the incentives behind Current Affairs and attempts to show why they have progressively moved away from ‘highlighting the news’ to ‘infotainment’. Also, because the truth is a commodity, the media will keep colouring it in such a way that it will be of more appeal rather than informative.

Similarly, In Add sex and Stir, the truth is again being sensationalised to boost ratings and portray the idea that females are still marginalised in society. Brian rejects a story on women’s sport because it is ‘the natural enemy of ratings’ but approves of an edited version, that Brooke turns into a scandal based on a team of lesbians.

A re-enactment further shows the audience the lengths to which journalists go to produce an appealing story. The ‘behind closed doors’ scene shows three young flirtatious girls with towels wrapped around their bodies with added misty effects through soft focused shots. The girls are portrayed as sultry and sexy as opposed to the ‘butch’ coach who is more solid, older and unattractive. The contrasting images are accentuated with ‘predatory’ sound effects and close-up shots of the coaches eyes focused on the girls’ legs. The selective representation and uses of the ‘truth’ highlight the power that the media have in portraying a certain perspective.

Similarly, it pulls on ideas from ‘We Aint got Dames’ by reinforcing that social attitudes and patriarchal ways of thinking remain a huge influence of the representation of the truth when it comes to gender. Brian’s motto for an ideal report “sport rates, sex rates, put them together and its dynamite” is discarded as he ironically refuses to allow Brooke to work on a true story of a truly ‘gay’ cricket player as it will ‘destroy his career’. Add sex and stir shows how easily journalists can fabricate the truth through editing and sensationalism at the expense of the absolute truth and those involved in the story.

We observe from the comparison of texts that the truth may be of selected objectivity or subjectivity which is most obvious through the packaging and marketing of the truth as a commodity. Since the truth is hardly ever consistent with every beholder, the media tend to use their authority to manipulate the truth for their own imperatives. Ultimately however, construction of the truth links back to power, authority and who owns it. In most cases, the truth is best defined as an object in the hands of the powerful as they have the control to influence representations and alter the responders understanding of the truth.

Trial ?

‘Truth’ in texts is a concept that is influenced by many factors including the values, beliefs, experiences and context of its composer and responder, and thus it could be said that truth itself is a contest ground. Considering the immense amount that power wielded by the mass media in shaping the way we view events and issues, a minor distortion in the representation of the truth can leave society with a similarly distorted world view, and no way of knowing what ‘truths’ have been left out of a story. The combined pressures of the quest for ratings, the visual imperative and the concerns of those in power mean that the goal of an ‘objective’ truth is often compromised as seen in Rob Sitch et al’s satirical series Frontline, Martin Durkin’s anti-climate change documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle and two articles on the story of Jessica Lynch, a US soldier captured and rescued in Iraq three years ago, whose story has been subsequently changed over time. These texts have all undergone production processes that have changed the final form in which they appear to an audience, and thus it can be seen that any notion of truth, contested or otherwise is swept away by other motives.

The quest for ratings and thus higher advertising revenue is a major concern for commercial media, as it will guarantee a program’s economic viability. This however, can lead to stories being valued as ‘news worthy’ or not based on how highly they will rate, which can cause the deliberate exclusion of important stories that won’t attract a large audience, or an unnecessary amount of emphasis being placed on one aspect of a story. This can be clearly seen in the Frontline episode ‘The Siege’ in which morals go out the window as the crew seek to explore and exploit the siege for the highest ratings. Marty’s contrasting reactions between when he discovers someone has the unman n the phone – “You bastards. You’ve crossed the line” – and when he realises it is his own team – “You beauty”, clearly exemplifies this attitude. Marty is easily able to let go of the moral high ground when it is his own program (an reputation) which will benefit from the higher ratings.

A similar look is taken at the mercenary nature of the commercial media in Jake Easten’s article The World’s Thinnest Book: The Jessica Lynch story (Radou news, Nov 2003). In this article, he describes Lynch’s story as being “fodder for the front pages”, with the alliteration and animalistic connotation of “fodder” emphasising the ruthless exploitation of this girl’s story by the magazines and newspapers alike, as producers and editors realise Jessica’s story will guarantee them higher ratings.

The Frontline episode ‘We Ain’t Got Dames’ takes a look at the depths a commercial program is willing to sink to in order to prop up their ratings with the realisation that they are losing female audience members, the crew realise that they have to make themselves appear more friendly and appealing. Brian’s instruction to “make [Mike] look warm and fuzzy” leads to a promo of Mike walking along the beach, picking up a baby’s teddy bear, complete with soppy music, slow motion, and soft focus lighting. The humour of this promo as well as its obvious contrast with Mike’s REAL off air persona (a complete buffoon) shows us that this is a deliberate construction very far from any notion of truth – but it works, as female audience numbers begin to rise by the end of the episode.

It can be seen that the need for high ratings and stories that rate well can lead to the exclusion of more important stories or other angles of a particular story, which are traded away because of this commercial imperative – clearly not serving the public good, and not allowing the public to have any idea of an issue other than what the media presents as ‘the absolute truth’.

The visual imperative is inextricably linked to the need for higher ratings, as new stories with enough ‘vision’ are the ones that attract audiences – however, they are not necessarily stories the audience need to hear. The deliberate exclusion of parts of a story for the sake of the visual can be seen in ‘The Siege’. As the gunman insists – “mate, they won’t listen!” – we are presented with a map of NSW, complete with a moving graphic showing where the gunman is calling from. Ironically, no one is listening – they’re too busy looking at the picture. The danger that can be caused by this need for vision is shown through Marty’s brazen ignorance of the exclusion zone as he flies over in a helicopter t get good shots of where the siege is taking place. Although he is endangering people’s lives, this takes a secondary (subordinate) position to the need for pictures – “we got our shots”.

Martin Durlin’s documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle, an attempt to convince viewers of the fallacy of man-made global warming, displays a similar need for constant visuals. We never see the narrator, but constant footage of whatever he is talking about, flashing onto the screen in 3-second chunks. The documentary is also full of animated cartoons and diagrams, as well as graphs – but some of the graphs are deceptive, only stopping at 1996 and leaving out information that would contradict Durlin’s scientific theories, this leads to a simplified or even incorrect understanding of a very serious issue.

Thus it can be seen that visuals, causing the exclusion of more important stories or the oversimplification of complex issues, leading to a misrepresentation of the truth. “Don’t let the truth get in the way of some good pictures” appears to be the adage, as the media floods us with images in an attempt to present their notions of truth as the one and only truth. As Brian says in ‘Smaller Fish to Fry’, it’s all about “vision, vision, vision!”

The relatively few media barons wield an enormous amount of influence in controlling what we see and hear, and thus how we perceive certain issues and events. However, they are not without their own personal agendas as clearly seen in ‘Smaller Fish to Fry’. In this episode, we witness the active suppression of truth as those in power (Caville, Brian then Mike) attempt to manipulate those beneath them in order to prevent the story of dodgy bank dealings going to air.

Durlin’s documentary also shows us the desires of those in power – in this case, Durlin himself. Although the film presents itself as an objective scientific documentary, its simplistic visuals, selective use of experts and opinions and outright polemic statements – “You are being told LIES” – reveal the film-maker’s desire: to leave viewers without a choice and that climate change is not happening. A scientist who demanded to be dropped from the film, Carl Wunsch, did so because he felt that his interview had been cut to the point where his views were being misrepresented. Durlin’s selective use of experts and comments that only match HIS opinion is a dangerous thing to do in a documentary, a text-type that by its very nature purports to telling the truth and it is exactly this kind of selective editing – what Brian refers to as “major surgery” in ‘We Ain’t Got Dames’ – that is routine at Frontline.

Returning to a further article on Jessica Lynch, Susan Schmidt’s story ‘She was Fighting to the Death’ (Washington Post, May 2003) employs a similarly selective use of sources. Over nine un-named US military officials are quoted in this article, with stirring, colloquial comments such as “she was pretty messed up” and “she wasn’t going to give in”. However, the one Iraqi who is quoted in the article has his view qualified with “but there is no way to evaluate his claim” belying the author’s use of quotes and personnel who will add to the ‘feel-good’ ‘hero’ nature of our story, a soon for the newspaper and for this US military in the midst of a tumultuous war.

In an increasingly complex society in which the mass media is our primary source of information, it is obvious that influences like ratings, the visual imperative and the desires of those in power have led to the neglect of any aim for the most objective truth possible. The AJA code of ethics states “only substantial advancement of the public good allows dry [AJA] standard to be overridden” but it appears there are standards being ridden over left right and centre under these influences, leading to a truth which is not ‘contested’ but in fact, an entire misrepresentation of reality.

Essay

At its core the series, Frontline, has a serious purpose; to challenge the notion that current affairs programs tell the truth.

How many of us actually believe every word of current affairs programs? I certainly do not. Good morning teachers and students. Truth is subjective, it relies heavily on perception and is therefore divorced from actuality. This reliance of truth on representation means it can be variously modified, interpreted and altered. This is particularly true of the mass media, where the truth has become a casualty of globalization and commercialization. Due to the media’s reliance on ratings and consumerisms, the truth has been commoditised, leaving it variously sensationalized or misrepresented. This concept is explored in the 199X television series Frontline, directed by Rob Sitch et al. It is further elucidated in the article TITLE from SOURCE, DATE. These texts explore and evaluate the ways in which representation affects the validity of meaning.

Rob Sitch’s satirical television series Frontline explores the role of the media in creating the truth. Through a pseudo-documentary style and the show-within-a-show format, Frontline exposes the various factors which colour and change the truth we viewers essentially see. This is done particularly effectively in the episodes The Siege and Add Sex and Stir.

In ‘ The Siege’, the ‘truth’ is misconstrued in order to create a more interesting story. Marty the reporter employs methods such as lighting, props eg. Flak jackets, redolent stances and camera angles to create a false sense of danger. The dramatic irony is evident as the responder is aware that Marty is only trying “to make it look like” he is in danger, when he is actually outside a 5km exclusion zone. Sensationalism is further employed to heighten public interest when anchor Mike Moore comments on a “possible Rambo situation” and “stay safe Marty, live form the line of fire”. This demonstrates how current affairs programs will misrepresent and sensationalise the truth in order to captivate a wider audience.

Dramatic irony is employed when Brooke asks Mrs Forbes to sign the exclusivity for as “other networks are unscrupulous”. Not only does this demonstrate Brookes hypocrisy but the venal methods employed by the media to secure exclusives and therefore ratings.

The episode ‘Add Sex and Stir’, explores the sexist attitudes of the media, exemplified by Brian when he remarks “I’m not having a women’s sports story…it is a natural killer of ratings”. This derogatory view of women is quickly overshadowed when Brian discovers it’s a homosexual story, which can inevitably raise ratings. Brian describes it as “not any sports story, it’s a leso story”, where the word “leso” is deliberately used over “unfair dismissal” to increase audience interest.

The ‘truth’ of current affairs programs is also shown by ‘Add Sex and Stir’ to be the victim of ruthless editing. This is evident when Brooke edits her question without the interviewee’s permission from “Allison, how many of the girls had it in for you?’ to “Allison, how many of the girls were gay?” to which the Allison replied “Most of them”. This not only shows the false compassion of current affairs programs but their willingness to distort the truth simply for ratings. This also shows the lack of journalistic integrity within current affairs programs and their manipulative methods used to tell the ‘truth’.

This lack of journalistic integrity is also explored by ‘Add Sex and Stir’ when the netball captain remarks “You only heard half the story, you beat up the rest…I hope you got your ratings”, showing the ulterior motives of current affairs programs of using part of the whole ‘truth’ and presenting a version that would raise public interest. Rob Sitch et al demonstrates how the market for the truth is highly competitive and as a result, the representation of the truth is made to fit. Composing the truth it seems is easy, but not always popular, therefore the truth is insidiously subverted and manipulated to represent a truth that is deemed to be more popular.

Frontline also employs technology, authoritive people and images to add to its credibility. High definition cameras are used to broadcast whereas a grainy hand held camera is used in the office to show how the pseudo-documentary style current affair programs are all about image. The use of authoritive people such as politician Cheryl Kernot and radio personality Neil Mitchell supplemented by the verisimilitude of image, logos and clips such as Princess Diana in its opening credits all add to Frontline’s credibility. Frontline at heart is entertaining, but it curiously unfolds the misdemeanors of society, where current affair programs are no longer about true news but rather popular news. In the race for popular news, the truth has been a casualty, variously misrepresented and sensationalized.