Hey, i was just wondering if anyone could give me an opinion on my Frontline essay, and perhaps some hints how i can make it better, because i need a fair bit of help. I usually am incoherent and stuff. I've attempted linking sentences. Ideas?
Thankyou peoples.
“The ‘truth’ can be presented and misrepresented depending on who is telling it.”
How does this statement and the Frontline series, question who has the authority to make statements of truth in our society?
If by ‘truth’ we mean an accurate, totally unbiased, comprehensive and objectively presented version of events, then we will rarely find the ‘truth’ within the subjectively presented stories in the media. Frontline satirises current affairs shows’ ability to tell truth, as it questions their motives, depicting them as driven by ratings and commercial interests at the expense of the integrity and truth. Evidently, the depiction of the misrepresentation of truth through the Frontline series, leads us to question those who have authority to make such statements of ‘truth’ – as we see them as interested only in personal and commercial interests – through Frontline’s use of documentary style techniques in the portrayal of ‘Frontline’, the current affairs show. Although Frontline depicts the dichotomy between the ‘truth’ and what is really presented, we must remember that it is in itself a representation. Evidently, it presents an accurate image of the techniques used by Current Affairs and the Media such as noddies, sensationalisation and misrepresentation of stories – presenting them as socially irresponsible – thus leading us to question their authority. Through such representations we therefore see the ways in which ‘truth’ is dependant upon who is telling it.
Frontline creates a documentary-feel though the use of short sharp scenes and the use of the hand held camera, providing us with a unique opportunity to explore more than one process of composing and representation. We witness the hypocrisy, manipulation and deception that are both displayed in the interactions of the characters as well as the construction of the stories.
Through Frontline’s use of story-within-story technique, we are able to view a fictional representation of a current affairs show, ‘Frontline’. ‘Frontline’ is, and therefore many Current Affairs shows are, depicted as being ratings driven, and concerned with commercial interests over the integrity or truth. In almost every episode, ratings are of great importance which affects the presentation of the ‘truth’. The episode ‘Add Sex and Stir’ conveys how unscrupulous editing achieves a ‘leso’s’ story that is far more attention seeking than the truthful ‘unfair dismissal’. “Sport rates, sex rates, put them together and its dynamite!” Through the rephrasing of the question: “how many girls on the team had it in for you?” to “How many girls on the team are lesbians”, along with the emotional language and the re-enactment dictate the message communicated. This dichotomy between the truth and what is presented is re-enforced through Frontline’s portrayal of Brooke’s lack of journalistic abilities, in that she only reported half of the story. This emphasises how ratings can be of more importance to Current Affairs shows, than presenting the ‘truth’ to the public. The importance of ‘ratings’ to the show is also communicated through the extent that they will go to get ‘vision’ as visual images affect how people respond to the news – re-enforcing Brian’s repetitive statement of “Good vision, good vision, good vision” in ‘Playing The Ego Card’. Frontline depicts the ‘Frontline’ team as socially irresponsible, using underhanded tactics and questions their reliability and credibility. In ‘The Siege’ we see them breach exclusion zones, exaggerate danger through the use of Marty wearing the flak jacket and crouching, and the use of language such as ‘line of fire’ when he is really 5km away – to gain the viewers interests, therefore better ratings. ‘Playing The Ego Card’ also emphasises the use of vision as they use the story ‘Misuse of Government Funds’ as that is what they had the best ‘vision’ for. In both episodes we see their post-story celebrations, reading out the ratings and drinking champagne, leading us to question their motives and reliability. Commercial interests are also another crucial deciding factor when Brian is deciding what stories to air, depicted in ‘This Night of Nights’. As telecom is a major sponsor of the show, they are forced to drop the story about telecom tapping into phones, and instead, revert to endorsing them. “So we go from attacking them to endorsing them.” This same notion of commercial interests is also portrayed in the cartoon ‘Doonsburry’ which was presented on Media Watch. It portrays a radio conversation with Rupert Murdoch, the owner of Fox News and News Limited, emphasising how the representation of the truth is affected by your political bias – as Fox News is subjectively slanted toward Bush Government.
“Far from being fair and balanced the network places ideology ahead of everything, including the truth.”
Frontline asks us to question those with the authority to present the ‘truth’ by depicting them as manipulative, childish, lacking journalistic skills, and using underhanded tactics to attract viewers. ‘The Siege’ clearly depicts their underhanded tactics when they are trying to find a ‘professional’ opinion, only to be able to find a ‘mature aged student’, deciding to use him because he has a beard, and putting him in front of the bookcase to give the illusion of knowledge. This is deceptive and emphasises how statistics and ‘professional’ opinions can be just as deceiving as a news-reporter telling you the same thing. ‘Frontline’ would also have us believe that they are a caring, professional team that are fighting as crusaders for social justice. This is shown through their advertisement in ‘We ‘Aint Got Dames’ and through their stories about the ‘shoddy repair man’ and the ‘dry cleaners that will clean you out’ from ‘Smaller Fish to Fry’. The advertisement uses visual images and music to portray Mike as a caring man who helps out around the office, which will walk down the street and pick up a teddy bear for a small child, presenting him as a ‘family man’. The image of him in front of a sunset saying “I love my work, but you’ve gotta take time out to smell the roses” is deceiving, as Frontline portrays him as the office fool, who isn’t even told when meetings are on. The stories in the episode ‘Smaller Fish to Fry’ would have you believe there is a socially significant relationship between small businesses and crime, yet Frontline exposes them, through the use of ‘Media Watch’, as only going after the ‘small fish’, the easy targets. This inclusion of ‘Media Watch’ also adds to the credibility of Frontline itself, linking itself with shows that are fighting to find the ‘hidden truth’. This sensationalisation of a story communicates the ways in which truth will be overlooked or become nothing more than the ‘idea’ behind the story.
The article “History Buff with a Future’ from the Sydney Morning Herald is indicative of how easily people are manipulated by the media and its broad allegations. This is done through the use of language to imply more than there really is:
“Note how I have given the thing a hefty shove by judicious use of the descriptives embattled, angrily, damaging and widely. And reports instead of rumours, which is much stronger.”
This emphasises the power in suggestion and connotation which is seen in many of the Frontline episodes. For example in ‘The Siege’ we ascertain how important language and props can be. The use of lines like “from the Line of Fire”, “Heavily armed”, “A Rambo situation”, along with the fact that Marty wears a Flak jacket and crouches during the report to ‘give the impression that he’s in danger’. Frontline, using the documentary-style viewpoint allows us to see these discrepancies – showing that they are really 5km from the house, and Marty’s comment that “It’s dark. Who’s going to know?” This manipulation of image is also present in ‘We ‘Aint Got Dames’ where Mike’s ‘sweatshop’ story, which is bland but truthful, is manipulated through editing to become a fashion story. This complete manipulation of the truth really asks us to question those who tell such ‘truths’, as in this case, there was no truth in the story whatsoever, except for a few images of the women in sweatshops. An article in The Sydney Morning Herald titled “Looking for the Medium of Most Truth” by David Hockney emphasises this saying the camera is lying like never before, after the reconstructions and hoaxes depicting shots of American and British soldiers mistreating Iraqi prisoners. Hockney says
“There is no reason why you should believe anything anymore in a photograph than you do in a painting… What the camera mainly does these days, is lie.”
These claims are as true as they could be and we needn’t look any further than our own Media. The Sunday Telegraph had an article titled “Lady Sonia at 71” with 75% of the article depicting photographs of what appears to be a 25 year old. It is actually Lady Sonia, the 71 year old woman with “… a little help, with digital touch ups, and air-brushing of the photographs… make up, a styling wig and her own enduring natural beauty.” Yet there is nothing natural about these photographs emphasising Hockney’s point which has been depicted in Frontline. If image is so easily manipulated, we must wonder then, how much of the truth is manipulated. Evidently, if the truth is being manipulated, aren’t we as an audience also being manipulated by these journalists or News and Current Affairs presenters? We must thoroughly question these people’s authority within our society, to determine our truths. Frontline helps us as it satirises and parodies such Current Affairs shows, but unfortunately, doesn’t leave us much hope receiving the ‘truth’ from some such shows.
Not only are the ‘Frontline’ team presented as deceptive, but they are also depicted as socially irresponsible through their actions in many of the episodes. In ‘The Siege’ for example, not only do they break the exclusion zone, but they also make contact with the gunman on the phone, keeping him on the line for as long as possible. The telephone lines are then kept locked up to stop other networks making similar contact, but this also stops negotiators endangering the hostages. ‘This Night of Nights’ also depicts them as being socially irresponsible through their actions in accordance with the Charity which had asked for a ‘voluntary’ media ban because it could ruin the charity. Brian justifies his decision to ignore the media ban with the analogy of the ‘poisoned water supply’ and the ironic statement “We as the media have a duty to report what we learn; not just sit back and decide what people should and should not know.” which is exactly what they are doing, emphasised with the ‘drink driving’ case at the end, where they wish the story not to leak into the media because it could be ‘bad for Mike’s reputation’. What happened to the duty to report? Mike is also depicted as having a lack of authority and the ‘office idiot’. In ‘Playing the Ego Card’ Mike’s stupidity is emphasised through the way he is easily manipulated, his short term memory about Mary’s top drawer and the ‘Walkley Award’, The pathetic footage from Bougainville, and they way he is easily influenced and his ego raised through publicity. This leads us to question their ability to present to truth to us their incompetence is depicted throughout Frontline, evidently question those with authority.
We can ascertain that truth is dependant upon who is telling it through Frontline’s depiction of current affairs showing being driven by ratings and commercial interest, for example, a story, such as the telecom story in ‘This Night of Nights’, will not be presented, rather endorse the company if money is involved, leading to a misrepresentation of the truth to the public. We are also led to question those with the authority to make such statements of ‘truth’ through Frontline’s portrayal of their incompetence, poor journalistic skills and their socially irresponsible behaviour. In an examination of the ‘truths’ behind the ‘truth’, we can grow in an understanding of the techniques and trickery used to deceive us in the media, such as the use of language, noddies, visuals, music and connotations. Therefore, we must be aware as viewers of the media, that the ‘truth’ is dependant upon who is telling it and their vested interests.
Thankyou peoples.
“The ‘truth’ can be presented and misrepresented depending on who is telling it.”
How does this statement and the Frontline series, question who has the authority to make statements of truth in our society?
If by ‘truth’ we mean an accurate, totally unbiased, comprehensive and objectively presented version of events, then we will rarely find the ‘truth’ within the subjectively presented stories in the media. Frontline satirises current affairs shows’ ability to tell truth, as it questions their motives, depicting them as driven by ratings and commercial interests at the expense of the integrity and truth. Evidently, the depiction of the misrepresentation of truth through the Frontline series, leads us to question those who have authority to make such statements of ‘truth’ – as we see them as interested only in personal and commercial interests – through Frontline’s use of documentary style techniques in the portrayal of ‘Frontline’, the current affairs show. Although Frontline depicts the dichotomy between the ‘truth’ and what is really presented, we must remember that it is in itself a representation. Evidently, it presents an accurate image of the techniques used by Current Affairs and the Media such as noddies, sensationalisation and misrepresentation of stories – presenting them as socially irresponsible – thus leading us to question their authority. Through such representations we therefore see the ways in which ‘truth’ is dependant upon who is telling it.
Frontline creates a documentary-feel though the use of short sharp scenes and the use of the hand held camera, providing us with a unique opportunity to explore more than one process of composing and representation. We witness the hypocrisy, manipulation and deception that are both displayed in the interactions of the characters as well as the construction of the stories.
Through Frontline’s use of story-within-story technique, we are able to view a fictional representation of a current affairs show, ‘Frontline’. ‘Frontline’ is, and therefore many Current Affairs shows are, depicted as being ratings driven, and concerned with commercial interests over the integrity or truth. In almost every episode, ratings are of great importance which affects the presentation of the ‘truth’. The episode ‘Add Sex and Stir’ conveys how unscrupulous editing achieves a ‘leso’s’ story that is far more attention seeking than the truthful ‘unfair dismissal’. “Sport rates, sex rates, put them together and its dynamite!” Through the rephrasing of the question: “how many girls on the team had it in for you?” to “How many girls on the team are lesbians”, along with the emotional language and the re-enactment dictate the message communicated. This dichotomy between the truth and what is presented is re-enforced through Frontline’s portrayal of Brooke’s lack of journalistic abilities, in that she only reported half of the story. This emphasises how ratings can be of more importance to Current Affairs shows, than presenting the ‘truth’ to the public. The importance of ‘ratings’ to the show is also communicated through the extent that they will go to get ‘vision’ as visual images affect how people respond to the news – re-enforcing Brian’s repetitive statement of “Good vision, good vision, good vision” in ‘Playing The Ego Card’. Frontline depicts the ‘Frontline’ team as socially irresponsible, using underhanded tactics and questions their reliability and credibility. In ‘The Siege’ we see them breach exclusion zones, exaggerate danger through the use of Marty wearing the flak jacket and crouching, and the use of language such as ‘line of fire’ when he is really 5km away – to gain the viewers interests, therefore better ratings. ‘Playing The Ego Card’ also emphasises the use of vision as they use the story ‘Misuse of Government Funds’ as that is what they had the best ‘vision’ for. In both episodes we see their post-story celebrations, reading out the ratings and drinking champagne, leading us to question their motives and reliability. Commercial interests are also another crucial deciding factor when Brian is deciding what stories to air, depicted in ‘This Night of Nights’. As telecom is a major sponsor of the show, they are forced to drop the story about telecom tapping into phones, and instead, revert to endorsing them. “So we go from attacking them to endorsing them.” This same notion of commercial interests is also portrayed in the cartoon ‘Doonsburry’ which was presented on Media Watch. It portrays a radio conversation with Rupert Murdoch, the owner of Fox News and News Limited, emphasising how the representation of the truth is affected by your political bias – as Fox News is subjectively slanted toward Bush Government.
“Far from being fair and balanced the network places ideology ahead of everything, including the truth.”
Frontline asks us to question those with the authority to present the ‘truth’ by depicting them as manipulative, childish, lacking journalistic skills, and using underhanded tactics to attract viewers. ‘The Siege’ clearly depicts their underhanded tactics when they are trying to find a ‘professional’ opinion, only to be able to find a ‘mature aged student’, deciding to use him because he has a beard, and putting him in front of the bookcase to give the illusion of knowledge. This is deceptive and emphasises how statistics and ‘professional’ opinions can be just as deceiving as a news-reporter telling you the same thing. ‘Frontline’ would also have us believe that they are a caring, professional team that are fighting as crusaders for social justice. This is shown through their advertisement in ‘We ‘Aint Got Dames’ and through their stories about the ‘shoddy repair man’ and the ‘dry cleaners that will clean you out’ from ‘Smaller Fish to Fry’. The advertisement uses visual images and music to portray Mike as a caring man who helps out around the office, which will walk down the street and pick up a teddy bear for a small child, presenting him as a ‘family man’. The image of him in front of a sunset saying “I love my work, but you’ve gotta take time out to smell the roses” is deceiving, as Frontline portrays him as the office fool, who isn’t even told when meetings are on. The stories in the episode ‘Smaller Fish to Fry’ would have you believe there is a socially significant relationship between small businesses and crime, yet Frontline exposes them, through the use of ‘Media Watch’, as only going after the ‘small fish’, the easy targets. This inclusion of ‘Media Watch’ also adds to the credibility of Frontline itself, linking itself with shows that are fighting to find the ‘hidden truth’. This sensationalisation of a story communicates the ways in which truth will be overlooked or become nothing more than the ‘idea’ behind the story.
The article “History Buff with a Future’ from the Sydney Morning Herald is indicative of how easily people are manipulated by the media and its broad allegations. This is done through the use of language to imply more than there really is:
“Note how I have given the thing a hefty shove by judicious use of the descriptives embattled, angrily, damaging and widely. And reports instead of rumours, which is much stronger.”
This emphasises the power in suggestion and connotation which is seen in many of the Frontline episodes. For example in ‘The Siege’ we ascertain how important language and props can be. The use of lines like “from the Line of Fire”, “Heavily armed”, “A Rambo situation”, along with the fact that Marty wears a Flak jacket and crouches during the report to ‘give the impression that he’s in danger’. Frontline, using the documentary-style viewpoint allows us to see these discrepancies – showing that they are really 5km from the house, and Marty’s comment that “It’s dark. Who’s going to know?” This manipulation of image is also present in ‘We ‘Aint Got Dames’ where Mike’s ‘sweatshop’ story, which is bland but truthful, is manipulated through editing to become a fashion story. This complete manipulation of the truth really asks us to question those who tell such ‘truths’, as in this case, there was no truth in the story whatsoever, except for a few images of the women in sweatshops. An article in The Sydney Morning Herald titled “Looking for the Medium of Most Truth” by David Hockney emphasises this saying the camera is lying like never before, after the reconstructions and hoaxes depicting shots of American and British soldiers mistreating Iraqi prisoners. Hockney says
“There is no reason why you should believe anything anymore in a photograph than you do in a painting… What the camera mainly does these days, is lie.”
These claims are as true as they could be and we needn’t look any further than our own Media. The Sunday Telegraph had an article titled “Lady Sonia at 71” with 75% of the article depicting photographs of what appears to be a 25 year old. It is actually Lady Sonia, the 71 year old woman with “… a little help, with digital touch ups, and air-brushing of the photographs… make up, a styling wig and her own enduring natural beauty.” Yet there is nothing natural about these photographs emphasising Hockney’s point which has been depicted in Frontline. If image is so easily manipulated, we must wonder then, how much of the truth is manipulated. Evidently, if the truth is being manipulated, aren’t we as an audience also being manipulated by these journalists or News and Current Affairs presenters? We must thoroughly question these people’s authority within our society, to determine our truths. Frontline helps us as it satirises and parodies such Current Affairs shows, but unfortunately, doesn’t leave us much hope receiving the ‘truth’ from some such shows.
Not only are the ‘Frontline’ team presented as deceptive, but they are also depicted as socially irresponsible through their actions in many of the episodes. In ‘The Siege’ for example, not only do they break the exclusion zone, but they also make contact with the gunman on the phone, keeping him on the line for as long as possible. The telephone lines are then kept locked up to stop other networks making similar contact, but this also stops negotiators endangering the hostages. ‘This Night of Nights’ also depicts them as being socially irresponsible through their actions in accordance with the Charity which had asked for a ‘voluntary’ media ban because it could ruin the charity. Brian justifies his decision to ignore the media ban with the analogy of the ‘poisoned water supply’ and the ironic statement “We as the media have a duty to report what we learn; not just sit back and decide what people should and should not know.” which is exactly what they are doing, emphasised with the ‘drink driving’ case at the end, where they wish the story not to leak into the media because it could be ‘bad for Mike’s reputation’. What happened to the duty to report? Mike is also depicted as having a lack of authority and the ‘office idiot’. In ‘Playing the Ego Card’ Mike’s stupidity is emphasised through the way he is easily manipulated, his short term memory about Mary’s top drawer and the ‘Walkley Award’, The pathetic footage from Bougainville, and they way he is easily influenced and his ego raised through publicity. This leads us to question their ability to present to truth to us their incompetence is depicted throughout Frontline, evidently question those with authority.
We can ascertain that truth is dependant upon who is telling it through Frontline’s depiction of current affairs showing being driven by ratings and commercial interest, for example, a story, such as the telecom story in ‘This Night of Nights’, will not be presented, rather endorse the company if money is involved, leading to a misrepresentation of the truth to the public. We are also led to question those with the authority to make such statements of ‘truth’ through Frontline’s portrayal of their incompetence, poor journalistic skills and their socially irresponsible behaviour. In an examination of the ‘truths’ behind the ‘truth’, we can grow in an understanding of the techniques and trickery used to deceive us in the media, such as the use of language, noddies, visuals, music and connotations. Therefore, we must be aware as viewers of the media, that the ‘truth’ is dependant upon who is telling it and their vested interests.