Task 1A - Analysis of Ethical & Legal Issues in Documentary/News Report

Task 1A – Analysis of Ethical & Legal Issues in Documentary/News Report

The documentary I will be talking about is lawful killing: Mark Duggan and the news report I will be talking about is disabled people on wheelchairs complaining about lack of sitting spaces because mums with prams are taking up the spaces. I will explore the ethical and legal issues about the documentary and TV news report and also compare them.

Ethical Issues

Accuracy: In the documentary ‘Lawful Killing: Mark Duggan’ they had to be accurate all the time because there were parts based in the court and during court you have to swear an oath, in other words not lie. This means telling the truth which is being accurate also. With the news report they would have to be very accurate with their facts and statistics. They would have interviewed and spoke to many people about the wheelchair space situation. Such as speaking to pregnant women who use disabled wheelchair access for their prams, the news reporters would have also spoke to disabled people who use bus for transport. By gathering all of that information they then would produce accurate figures, stats and facts. In the documentary they would have done lots of research such as getting dates, times, locations and places right. The audience would vaguely know facts such as dates and locations, so if these things are wrong it would question the viewers and make them not believe the documentary. In TV news reports and documentaries, they also must make sure to get the quotes correct, word for word. For example in the news report, the reporter said “ Mum’s with babies on public transport feel they are more important than disabled people that use public transport” Before the reporter making such a huge statement he would have had to do lots of research, questionnaires, survey and speak to those profiles to gather relevant information to make that statement.

Balance: For the Mark Duggan documentary they had to be balanced and fair by talking to both sides and hearing each side out. If they were to just focus on one side of the story it wouldn’t be fair to the other side as they wouldn’t get a say. There was a scene in the middle of the documentary where 3 people each spoke equally to the audience, these 3 people were a policeman, one of the witnesses and a family member. Likewise with news report they always got to keep everything balanced. For example there was a report on the lack of availability of wheelchair access due to mums with prams using up that space. So the news reporter had to interview both sides and hear them out equally. In this case the interviewer would have a conversation with mums with prams and also disabled people too. One of the mums with prams said “It isn’t unfair, because that is the only place where us mums can actually place our prams”. The way in which news showed balance was by letting both sides give their thoughts.

In the documentary Lawful Killing: Mark Duggan and TV news report they are not allowed to favour just one side. This is known as impartiality, which is pretty similar to bias and balance, it is not favouring one side so in the documentary, the jury couldn’t favour one side more than the other. For example they couldn’t favour the Police more than Mark Duggan’s family that would be wrong and unfair. With news reports they also can not favour one side more than the other. For example in this case if the reporter had his own personal feelings and favoured the mums with prams more than the disabled peoples this could lots of conflicts and might result in lots of disabled people being angry at him.

Objectivity subjectivity:

I do not feel there was any subjectivity within the documentary because the film maker was not connected to the killing at all in anyway shape or form. If the director/film maker had and any personal feelings towards the issue or was connected to the killing then it would make the whole documentary one sided and not fair because the film maker could shadow the documentary to the way they want it to be shown. The ethnicity of the director could potentially have impacted the way the documentary has been shown. Another way they could involve subjectivity in the documentary is by asking personal/irrelevant questions to the interviewee. With the news report it is 100% reliable and would never have subjectivity within it. People trust and believe news because the news reporters do their own research and actually go out and find out the information.  The word news means real accurate facts/information therefore it would be nearly impossible for them to make it subjectivity.

Opinion: Out of all the ethical elements I would say Opinion is one of the most used element because everyone has their own personal opinion that needs to be heard. For the Lawful Killing: Mark Duggan, nearly everyone had their own opinion that had to be heard as it was portrayed on such a fatal topic. For example the police men that were actually involved in the incident had their opinions which they stated. The family also had their own opinions on the matter, also a few witnesses’ had their own opinions on the matter too.  In the documentary, in one scene the family of mark Duggan’s family expressed their opinions of the police. One member said “The police are racist f*cking pricks!” This is their own view on the subject which is an opinion. With the news report about the disabled peoples lack of space for wheelchair access had their opinions, likewise with the mums on the prams too. In the TV News report, the disabled people also gave their own opinions many times. For instance at the start of the report, a disabled person said “Most mums that use the wheelchair access which is meant for disabled people are very ignorant and selfish” This person gave their own thoughts on the situation which is their own opinion.

Bias: Bias is being one sided or favouring one side more than the other.  To some extent, I would say the documentary was biased because they focused more on the police than the actual family. I feel like the viewers would have wanted to hear more of the family’s side rather than the police. After the documentary many people actually ranted on social media about the Lawful Killing of Mark Duggan. Lots of people even tweeted on twitter, one person said “The documentary wasn’t shown right. The filmmaker showed it in their own way which isn’t right. It was basically just 90 minutes of the police chatting bollocks” It wasn’t just this one person that felt this way, thousands and thousands of other people also felt this way as there were so many tweets about this matter. This just shows and justifies how bias this documentary actually is. For the news report a few disabled people thought the report was biased and made them feel “in the wrong” some disabled people said. So some would actually say the report was a bit biased in some way, whereas others would say it was not bias at all. It depends on the angle you look at the report on. As well as bias being an ethical issue, bias is also a legal issue. This is because when it comes to legal elements you cannot be one sided or just listen to one side of the story. Especially when you’re in court you definitely cannot be one sided.  The TV news report was not biased because they interviewed the mums with the baby prams and also the disabled people. They interviewed them both equally and asked the same questions to both sides.

Contract with viewer: Viewers would like to take something from that documentary, in most cases they would want to gather the truth from it. If they can’t get this from the documentary this would obviously upset them as they are not getting the truth. Which again could cause conflict and rage. As a viewer watching a TV news report I except they would generally want to gather the truth from the report and its reliability.

 In documentaries before they start, they often display some kind of contract/pact for example they may state that the documentary is based on real facts therefor everything in the documentary is factual and is real.  This is what was in the opening sequence of Lawful Killing: Mark Duggan “The event is fictionally real and is what happened, the people in this documentary are acting out what happened, they were not involved in the incident”. This is very typical in documentaries as the filmmakers/producers are obliged to make a pact with the viewers, sort of an agreement with the viewers basically saying that everything in the documentary are based on real facts and true events etc. I feel like if every single documentary didn’t do this then the viewers wouldn’t believe what happens in the documentary nor would they watch it. As well as that, it also gives them reassurance in to believing the documentary. When it comes to news report it is a bit different because they don’t really show/say a disclaimer before the report. This doesn’t stop people from watching TV News report because although they don’t exclaim that what they are saying is true or based on real events, people still watch news because they know it’s coming from top experts that are working in that field. As well as news coming from top experts, news reporters also tend to bring in eye-witnesses most of time. The eye-witnesses have seen whatever it is happen, therefor it is automatically 100% reliable and real because they have seen it with their own naked eyes. Those are the ways they deliver the information/reports to the viewers which is real and true without actually disputing a disclaimer contract. Although documentaries and TV news reports are different because one visually shows a contract in the opening sequence and the other doesn’t show a contract at all, they share one similarity. This is they are both telling the truth, just in different ways and forms.

 Legal Issues

As well as a documentary having Ethical elements, most times it would also have legal issues such as representation, access, privacy and bias.

Representation: In the documentary Lawful Killing: Mark Duggan, the way in which people were represented was in an unfair way. This was because they made out that the Police were the innocent guys when in fact they really wasn’t. The film producer could have made both sides represented both equally and fairly.  The police in the documentary were represented as the good guys as if they did a good cause. Some viewers disagree in which the police were represented. TV news reporters are often represented in an intelligent way because they are experts in that field. So people will believe them no matter what they say

Access: With any TV shows / Documentaries, the programme makers may have to negotiate and sign contracts and release forms relating to who, when and where they can film. Likewise with TV news reporter they would also need to sign contracts too. For the TV News report they would have to plan their interview properly in order for their interview to be successful. In this case, they would have planned questions to ask the disabled people and also questions to ask the mums with baby prams. One of the questions they asked were “Why do you feel you mums need to use the wheelchair spaces more than the disabled people?” As you can see this type of question is more informal and made the answer more into a conversation rather than an actual interview. The documentary is more technical and more formal, I would say because they had many detailed and well in-depth interviews. Pre questions would have been written down for the documentary to be asked in the interview which makes this an arranged interview. The sort of questions they asked in this documentary were “What did you exactly see when Mark Duggan died?” the interviewer would ask this directly to the interviewee.

Privacy: There are quite a few regulations when it comes to documentaries and TV news reports. Contracts and rules must be stuck to in order to protect participants in documentary and programme and films. For example people under the age of 16 will need their parent/guardian to sign a parental consent form. In some cases where people under the age of 16 need to be recorded, the film director/producer would have to often negotiate with his/her parents. Certain places/objects/images would also need to be signed for as someone may own them as it could be their property and may not want it to be involved in the documentary or TV news report. In one scene of the documentary where an interview was taking place, a person was giving a statement witness but the filmmaker had them blacked and censored out in order to protect this person’s identity and safety. They also wrote their name as “Anonymous” that way none of the viewers can know that person’s name, this keeps the witness safe.  Sometimes the interviewers that would interview people for their safety would also have their identity not shown. This also keeps them safe, for example if it was a well-known/liked person being interviewed and the interviewer asked harsh questions this could upset some viewers. Making them angry at this interviewer.