the mid semester critique:

This week’s class was very much focussed on the conception of our idea for the final assignment. I think what was interesting about this class was being able to listen to everyone’s ideas and trying to imagine how we were going to stitch all of them together to create a cohesive 30 minute comedy news program.

I think it’s worth considering having the show structured loosely on how breakfast TV shows ( or even celebrity talk shows like The Ellen Show ) get structured- having a main desk with main hosts but then moving the camera around to different sections of the studio where there are other corresspondants present to convey other news topics. If you look at The Ellen Show for instance, she often has a sit down set up where most of her interviews take place but brings the audience to the bigger side of the studio where she has her games segment or where all the musicians perform when they come on the show. That area is also where she does her introductory monologue. Having the opportunity to utilise the bigger studio space at RMIT, it would be best if we maximise and structure our show with that big studio space in mind.

With regards to the content of the show, we’ve got a few sports related topics that could be spoken about together and I think it’s worth creating a segment entirely about sports.

Early Afternoon has been, to everyone’s credit, a great success. As we wrap up the semester, it’s important to reflect on the process, the successes, the limitations, the ‘could-be-better’s and of course the concept. ( is it a comedy news programme? )

Following up on my comments about week 11’s taping, I’m quite pleased to see that Anhar managed to channel her personality as well as exaggerate it for the weather segment. I think her delivery was amazing, and it did bring a sense of comedy to a segment that had heavy content. That blending of comedy through her performance as well as information being conveyed through the ‘weather’ news report is exactly the kind of merging of boundaries/binaries that comedy news is popular for. As discussed in week 1, that blending of binaries between information/entertainment, news/comedy is exactly what Early Afternoon was, in my opinion.

I’ve mentioned that Early Afternoon did not have the satirical element to it before, but I think I didn’t give everyone the credit that they/we deserve and found myself comparing a student driven production to a professional comedy news programme. To be fair, we did not have the multitude of experience to draw from like the professionals do, and I believe I was being too critical of our show for that. Comedy news is satire, and satire is public pedagogy ( Mclennan S 2011 ) Despite not having an audience present in either of our tapings I think it’s safe to say that yes, I did learn about politics and city council neglect and vaccinations and a good deal about the discourse in sports- all of which makes me critically analyse information related to those topics when it pops up on my newsfeed. Albeit more through the research, writing and creating process as compared to the 30 mins of condensed, taped information. Surely, I am considered a member of the public- so in that sense, yes, Early Afternoon did act as public pedagogy. Nobody realises the amount of research, of writing and re-writing that goes into the scripts. Being a producer, I was very involved in overseeing those processes and it truly makes me appreciate shows like The Daily Show and Last Week Tonight, even mainstream news shows ( as I’m sure their research processes are quite mirrored to ours ). It’s amazing how much information you take in just in the research process alone, nevermind the forming of a script.

I thoroughly enjoyed producing Early Afternoon with the class, however at times I felt it quite hard to communicate with everyone as it felt like we were split between first years and second years. I think if we had the chance to recreate the studio again, with the same people, I would work on my communication with everyone more. Ironically, one of the most interesting and fun times I’ve had with everyone was when we were filming the intro sequence outside of building 9. Here are some exclusive behind the scenes clips and pictures I’ve collected over the past 4 weeks.

I’ve worked on a live TV production and now a comedy news production and while Early Afternoon lacked the ‘chaotic calmness’ a live TV set would, it did have more information and depth packed into it. Being a producer on set proved to be more challenging than I had anticipated as there was a lot of micro-managing that had to be done but I thrive in a fast paced environment and I think despite feeling uncomfortable to have a chat with the first years, they listen to what I have to say and I listen to them too and we managed to pull it off!

As an overall, I was quite hesitant to take on The News Is A Joke as I felt it was almost a requirement to be funny all the time but alas my passion for TV production trumped my hesitation and I’m so glad it did. I never used to watch comedy news programmes and this was a huge step out of the comfort zone. My biggest takeaway from this studio is that I find myself having counterarguments and critically analysing mainstream news stories when I catch it on TV or on my newsfeed. I find myself going ‘ Is that really true or is this propaganda?’ most of the time. Initially, I felt like the biased perspective comedy news provided felt more like propaganda than the objective perspective that mainstream news offered. However, being exposed to all different types of comedy news shows and presenters ( Samantha B, John Oliver, Colbert, Stewart ) I now recognise that the exaggeration, the bias-ness is almost necessary (and possibly one of the most effective ways to put your point across ) We are quite possibly moving into a new era of technology, the baby boomers are retired and the millennials are taking over. We no longer want to be told this is what we should believe in, this is how you should react to the news. We want to form our own opinions of the news, we want transparency and real talk. Perhaps 10 years from now, mainstream news will become comedy news- it’s probably one of the only news programme types that people actually listen to anyway ( ie, the John Oliver effect ).

References:

McLennan S, 2011, America According to Colbert, Palgrave, Macmillan pg 71-95

The production:

Production progress up ’till this point has been rather slow in my opinion. I would have loved to see drafts of scripts to be able to work with in the studios that day however it being week 8, I do understand the pressure and stresses everyone is under. Thankfully, the Bendigo segment has been more or less completed and others were able to work on their script while the rest of the crew used Bendigo as a run through to familiarised themselves with the equipment. I personally found it quite hard to feel productive during the Thursday class because I felt like we could’ve accomplished more than what we actually did however nothing good comes out of fixating on the what ifs. We did manage to come up with a set look, as well as decide on the colour scheme of the show ( Orange, blue and white to reflect on the Early Afternoon concept ), we managed a run through of the sports segment which I was happy with considering Callum whipped a draft script up within that 2/3 hour time frame + Zac had a chance to be on the camera aside from

The show in itself is still in the skeletal stages and I don’t think we will start to see it come together until after week 10. I am looking forward to rehearsals as I feel like that would be the prime time for mistakes and I look forward to perfecting our production from those mistakes- as bad as that sounds.. sort of?

A random reflection:

This week during my usual social media ponder, I chanced upon a behind-the-scenes clip of a single camera, single shot scene which is quite frankly, very impressive

It’s interesting to reflect on how much pre-production goes into a single shot as well as how the same could be said about TV production ( or even just any type of media production, really )  I found myself being reminded of this SNL behind the scenes video that we were shown in class last semester

I always thought these set changes looked more like a choreographed dance rather than just a simple set change because if you think about it, every single person in the crew had to be counting to the beat/countdown, while doing a specific action. Then again, nothing about a set change is simple, especially on live TV.

Set changes require meticulous planning and lots of practice to be able to pull off smoothly. When set changing a live TV production, you’ve got that added pressure because obviously, everyone is watching. It’s also important to note that people enjoy when things go wrong on live TV, which has become one the appeal of it as well.

While Early Afternoon did not require any set changes per se, we did have to think about how we would incorporate Ryan into the transitions between correspondence which required us to double up on the use of our current set ( having him on the corner of the set, and adjusting the camera angles to ensure that Ryan remains unseen ). While this adjustment of camera angles and planning was not extreme as the ones I’ve mentioned before, post production in Early Afternoon would require some finesse. In a sense that everything would have to be properly timed and cut and able to flow together nicely when edited- considering all segments were taped independent of each other.

Despite all the work and effort we would have to do before Early Afternoon is complete, I believe we are more than capable of pulling it off considering how well we’ve gone so far.

While I did think we could improve in performance, which I have mentioned in my week 11 reflection, you really can’t ask for much for a (mostly first time) student production.

This week we began taping our segments, starting with the bigger ones like vegans vs. vaccines, bendigo and the sports segments.

While I am pleased we managed to produce a comedy news programme fairly successfully, I think its important to reflect on whether or not our comedy news programme evoked the critical thought processes that satirical comedy news programmes are notorious for doing. Short answer: Maybe.

It’s hard to evaluate our successes in that front considering we had no actual audiences outside of the class, that showed up to watch the taping and could give us some feedback or comments. ( in hindsight, it couldve been due to lack of planning in that area and also bad timing considering it was the end of semester and people might have been rushing assignments etc)However, I personally feel that the show lacked the finesse in delivery that could’ve helped to increase the satirical element of it all.

I feel that the segment that managed to deliver that satirical element well out of all the segments we taped was the sports one. The character of each of the sports correspondents ( Zac being the proper one and Julian the bogan laid back one ) reminded me of how Colbert would deliver his interviews, which ultimately became one of the key aspects of the show that boosted it’s success. He would often personify this character and conduct his interviews in a ” deadpan, matter of fact tone” (pg 92 sophie mcclennen ) then continuously switch between voices and sometimes even imitate. While the surface value of his performance is meant to evoke laughter from the audience, it also ( almost as a domino effect ) causes the laughing audience to stop and ponder ” wait, why do i find this funny?” and therein lies it’s satirical value. While Colbert did not have a partner anchor neither could he have that friendly ‘ocker banter’ with someone else, that personification of contrasting characters between Zac and Julian managed to do what Colbert did by himself. Having that power-balance between the two anchors on the sports segment could also be a reflective of the different types of sports fans you see in real life- which i quite enjoyed. One really snobby know it all and one really lad-ish dopey one. So I think the sports segment not only managed to deliver a perfectly good comedy news story but also add into it the satirical element through the deliver and performance of the two anchors.

If that same personification and passion in delivery could be recreated amongst all our hosts, then perhaps we could be on the cusp of creating a solid comedy news programme. I think what separated Bendigo and Vegans vs Vaccines from the Sports segment was that it felt like they were regular news anchors delivering the daily news segment to everyone, it felt like a monologue. I had almost wished that the presenters could exaggerate themselves a little bit more and be alright to scream and shout and cuss like John Oliver because then I would feel like they were rubbing the message into my face and I reckon that’s acceptable for a comedy news programme thats trying to convey an important message.

The reading:

I found this week’s reading very interesting- while I understood the logic behind how a satirical news television programme had a more successful impact on changing perceptions of viewers, I can’t help but laugh at the irony of it. It’s funny how when presented with a statement, we’re always expected to present both sides of the argument so that we can make a more objective conclusion/opinion about the aforementioned statement. For instance, when we write essays, often the ones which score well are the ones which can provide a balanced argument. In some cases, essays that are extremely biased also get a good mark but that’s only if the writer can provide an extremely solid idiot-proof argument with all the references in the world. So it’s just a bit odd to me that we almost reject the mainstream news angle on climate change because it’s too ‘objective’, and we ‘accept’ ( or perhaps react more positively is a better phrasing ) to the news angle that is meant to portray a very biased point of view. However I do understand the reasons why satirical news might be more successful than mainstream. Firstly, it’s hard to ignore the fact that satirical news programmes hit a wider target range than a mainstream television news programme would. For instance, how many millennials do you know that would religiously switch on the 7pm news? Whereas how many would go out of their way to watch an episode of Last Week Tonight? ( It’s also important to note that millennials make up a big percentage of the population, in the U.S it’s approx 30% of the voting age population ) So in a sense one of the reasons why satirical news programmes are more successful is because they not only reach audiences who are already interested in say, climate change, but also audiences who have no opinion on it or aren’t exceptionally interested in it. If you really think about it, between satirical news and mainstream news, satirical news has the slight advantage because it not only markets itself as news but also as entertainment and therefore their target audience range is much wider and that increases their level of influence on the population. Mainstream news, although provides ( or tries to ) provide an objective standpoint on current affairs around the world, it sometimes requires a level of education, literacy and interest to religiously watch it and understand it- in that sense, it is quite disadvantaged when compared to it’s counterpart.

The class:

This week’s class was quite focussed on pre-production of the final project in terms of getting things started. Working collaboratively with the entire class is much different than working collaboratively with just two people. While the general decision making process went quite smoothly I felt like the insistence to not adapt the Bendigo segment to the whole show was a little bit rigid. I think it’s important to note that the final project requires us to piece together seemingly unrelated topics therefore there has to space for flexibility within each of the topics in the show, otherwise things might seem incoherent and disorganised.

However, there are ways where incoherence might work. An example would be a local Singaporean film, Talking Cock,  that features satirical skits packaged together as a film- with no real plot or protagonists, the film still manages to entertain and deliver key messages relating to racism and discrimination in Singapore despite it’s chaotic, disorganised structure. [ here is the trailer I found on youtube which might shed more light on the nature of Talking Cock ]

While incoherence might work in some other satirical mediums like film, we are ultimately producing a comedy news tv show and therefore the same might not be said in that respect. Perhaps if we structured our show more like SNL where things are delivered through skits, it might work. But due to the nature of our John Oliver-esque obsession, I feel like the incoherent structure will just fall short.

Two reflective posts:

THE NEWS IS A JOKE/ week 5

THE NEWS IS A JOKE/ week 4

 ‎

Proposal:

THE NEWS IS A JOKE/ the proposal

Gambling in sports sponsorship is honestly such a challenge to craft into comedy. Personally, my biggest struggle with this topic is the fact that I was never an avid follower of AFL/NRL, therefore am unfamiliar with the little details and players or inside jokes that could be useful to turn our topic into a full blown comedy news segment.

The research process itself was fairly simple and I think, was the easiest part of our tasks ahead. Matilda, Rudi and I work well together as we tend to get things done on time and communicate well too. My being away for 2 weeks obviously hindered the process but overall I’d like to think we’ve done well.

I was tasked with the writing of the script for the proposal as we decided it was pretty standalone and I could do it on my own at any time, considering the time difference. I did however come to a road block while writing it mainly because I just found it so hard to find/craft jokes out of what we had. I feel like it’s such a serious topic (gambling in sports sponsorship affecting children and young adults and also detrimental to other aspects of their lives etc) that it’s almost sadistic to laugh at it. But then again, I guess that is the very nature of comedy news. Addressing important topics in comedic way as almost a calling out on it’s flaws – like how Colbert and Stewart holds those accountable through their humour.

We really wanted the show to convey how bad gambling is for youths especially young men in an almost exaggerated humorous way. We tried to incorporate jokes that pointed out the importance by blowing it out of proportion or sometimes even devaluing the importance through sarcasm so people could see the joke. We also think the idea has a social media potential because it the demographic being spoken about are essentially young men who also happen to be a tech-savvy generation.

Since our last submission, we’ve looked at more visual texts like ads and TV commercials as a way of finding material we could work with/make fun of in the actual show- especially with the drafting of the script. I think as a comedy news show it’s important to have a variety of miscellaneous graphics and videos to break the show up. I think our initial research process was fairly thorough and gave us and abundance of factual content to work with. It was also a challenge to put what we research into the context that we wanted it to be received by the audience. I think that’s where the research of more visual texts later on in the process came along.

Click here for link to proposal document

It’s interesting to note that most other professions in the world have a system or a body of authority that regularly evaluates whether it’s practitioners are behaving morally and according to standard while journalism does not, mainly because it had been debated whether or not journalism is  a ‘ profession or a craft’ ( as stated in the reading ). I’ve always personally saw the media and journalists as a given. They are there to objectively inform you of events happening around the world – without influence of any ideologies or political opinion. Of course, the more you look at print media around us, the more you come to realise that the aforementioned is extremely false.

As mentioned in the reading by Kovach and Rosenstial, some of the norms and principles that journalists should follow include 1) that journalism should serve as an ‘independent monitor of power’ and 2) ‘journalism’s first obligation is to the truth’ but it’s interesting to note that many tabloid newspapers often don’t follow these rules. A lot of ‘legitimate’ news coorporations try their best to stray  from aligning themselves with political opinion of ideologies however there are often one or two that end up getting caught out for not following the rules as well even though they are seen as more credible in the public eye than tabloids. Generally, as a rule of thumb, we know to take everything that comes out from tabloid newspapers with a grain of salt. But of course, this knowledge had to be developed overtime as we realised the absurdity in the nature of news stories that some tabloids would cover. Much like how Stewart and Colbert hold journalists’ accountability in how they point out when ‘inconsequential news is blown out of proportion’,  we too ( if not subconciously ) go through similar rules when evaluating news stories and holding them accountable. Perhaps Stewart and Colbert merely reinforced those rules of holding the media accountable, by doing so our subconcious evaluation turned into a conscious one. It’s also interesting to note that many news corporations are afraid of losing their audiences and often post news stories or manipulate news events in the way that we want to receive them- which completely takes the objectivity out of journalism and news media.

The need for a regulation of accountability in the news and media has never been stronger with the rise of more accessible news platforms. We can now access the news through our mobile devices, and from so many more channels that it’s often hard to decipher which stories are true or not. I think as well, we as a generation have been brought up to question everything we see in the media so we probably already are dubious of almost every news story to begin with. Its a shame that some countries don’t give enough support to press councils, who exist essentially for media accountability-  one way we can overcome this is probably to spread awareness and help the public to see the value in truthfulness in news stories.  I think the public has become accustomed to accepting everything that comes out of the news to be true that we don’t stop to question it. I myself have been guilty of it and it’s great to see that news satires are changing how we see the news. Re-evaluation of anything is always healthy.

This week’s we took a brief break from Colbert and Stewart and ventured into fake/comedy news in Australia. While it may seem almost nostalgic and also relatable to most of the class, this is just as new to me as Colbert and Stewart at the start of the semester. Growing up in Singapore, I had a whole different set of cultural texts available to me. However, that’s not to say there aren’t any similarities as while we were discussing the aspects of fake/comedy news in Australia, I found myself relating it back to what I was exposed to in Singapore.

Being quite a conservative and traditional country, there wasn’t much space for fake news to grow. ( not until much recently ) However I do remember  a particular TV series that could almost be from the same level as the likes of Norman Guntson and Newstopia. The Noose, as it was called, was aired on Channel 5 which could be comparable to Australia’s channel 10, often showing local dramas, game shows and the likes. It was coined as a news satire back in the day and I would probably still call it that however it made fun of the mainstream news and presented it in a parodical way rather than something sparking critique and thought amongst audiences. I was pretty young when it first came out, but not young enough to have the jokes fly over my head. It was very ‘ transgressive TV’ as the reading mentioned.

In what the reading described as a ‘mischievous disruption of the real news of the day’, the Noose would often create personalities mocking mainstream correspondants. While the actual news stories were mostly fictional, the personalities that these presenters were based off on were very  much real. Sometimes, however, the fictional news stories on the Noose were exaggerated versions of real stories that came out on mainstream TV.

here’s a snippet of one of the segments, I’d also like to note that the personalities were acted out by comedians, which also helps in painting a picture of what kind of show The Noose was.

The Noose as a programme seems to look like it’s following the rules of a mainstream news show in terms of it’s structure ( news broadcaster sitting on the table in the studio, reporter on the field, interviewing ‘citizens’ ) however I think its transgressive in a sense that it over exaggerates the personalities of each reporter, sometimes giving them extremely silly names like ‘Jacques Ooi’ pronounced as ‘Jack-ass wee’, giving them a stereotypical ”singaporean reporter” accent and often times the things they do say while they are reporting are probably innapropriate for a proper mainstream news channel.

While the fictional characters never really crossed the lines and appeared in any real historical news moments like how Norman Gunston did ( I don’t think the Singapore government would have alllowed it anyway ), the personalities seen in the programme went on past the borders of the show and became a brand in themselves. For example, Barberella started out as one on the reporters on The Noose, mocking upper class chinese girls in Singapore, she was so successful in selling that identity to her audiences that she expanded to make ads for macdonalds and did a whole bunch of other sponsorship videos with other brands. Barberella, the personality, became a brand. Which I think it’s interesting to note, especially the origins of what she was- a parody of a news caster on a news satire programme.

Reflective post: http://www.mediafactory.org.au/nadiah-fadzil/2018/08/03/the-news-is-a-joke-week-3/

A2 Research post 1: http://www.mediafactory.org.au/nadiah-fadzil/2018/08/04/the-news-is-a-joke-a2-research/

A2 Research post 2: http://www.mediafactory.org.au/nadiah-fadzil/2018/08/07/the-news-is-a-joke-a2-research-2/