NOW,THIS! Blog Post #11: Second Leaders Debate – https://www.mediafactory.org.au/lachlan-phillips/2019/06/07/nowthis-blog-post-11-second-leaders-debate/

NOW,THIS! Blog Post #12: Week 11 Prototype Filming Reflection – https://www.mediafactory.org.au/lachlan-phillips/2019/06/07/nowthis-blog-post-12-week-11-prototype-filming-reflection/

NOW,THIS! Blog Post #13: Final Prototype Reflection – https://www.mediafactory.org.au/lachlan-phillips/2019/06/07/nowthis-blog-post-13-final-prototype-reflection/

NOW,THIS! Blog Post #14: A Reflection on the Semester – https://www.mediafactory.org.au/lachlan-phillips/2019/06/07/nowthis-blog-post-14-a-reflection-on-the-semester/

Now, That! The semester is over & it is finally time to reflect on the course and what I have learned from it. Originally I believed that this course to have a strong emphasis on politics and fake news in regards to the President,Trump who made the term, fake news, so popular in the first place (and in some cases that did end up being true).

However, throughout the numerous nuances of fake news we learnt about, during the many hours we spent within the studio creating random debates and arguments and throughout my time trying to relearn how to best adapt to the position and task I was given within the studio, I can wholeheartedly say that I had a great time.

Learning about fake news and how it has become so prevalent was an interesting choice for a course and I was glad I was able to be a part of it. I learnt a lot about how fake news or just how news in general has had an effect on politics and the political sphere all over the world, how it is seemingly conveyed in a more practical and thoughtful manner through the use of satire, and the processes of how fact checks are chosen and then claimed.

I also got to relive my first experience within the studio again. It was like being back within the Diploma of screen and media. However, it was much better being newly refurbished and knowing a lot about each position as this made it much easier to take charge of any role that was assigned to me.

Again, I can honestly say I had a great time. I would like to thank Ruth for taking on this studio and for dealing with all of us. Also, it was a positive way to finish off my Bachelor of Communications (Media).

Goodbye RMIT.

At the end of week 11’s Friday prototype tapings, our group came together to discuss a variety of changes that needed to be made in order to meet the time requirements. As the groups that went the previous week had quite a hard time staying within the bounds of their dedicated time slots. Our group was planned to go first which would mean we didn’t have to be out quite as quickly. However, it would be unfair to go over time and risk setting other groups within our class further behind the already tight schedule.

We decided we would implement graphics and EVS footage after filming. We also decided to do a really long take in order to hone in on parts of the script that needed work or at least multiple takes to get sounding right.

Finally, we asked if it was possible to gather both versions of the footage with the green screen assets implemented and without so the group could edit it  in case there was anything else that needed to be added to the prototype.

At the time of writing this blog post, I have not seen the final edited version. I am happy with my contribution to the prototype having made all the graphics and specifically edited pieces of EVS footage which I was able to complete independently and submit to the group as promised.

It truly is a shame as I had put a lot of effort into being efficient, maintaining class attendance and producing things that were needed from me at my end to make sure I contributed evenly to the production of the final product. Hopefully the fully edited product will be submitted ASAP!

During this weeks studio session we were finally able to film our prototype and gather footage that we have planned to edit at a later date. It was a seemingly daunting task as during the previous week it had taken 5 hours to produce 2 prototypes and this week our class had to manage to produce 3 within the allotted time.

Therefore, I arrived as early as I could! I was anxious to get to work setting up the space to mirror that of the studio floor plan I had created. This involved getting the high rises from the back where all the props are kept and gathering sandbags to keep it stable. I also removed the black background to allow the green screen to be put into position.

Once that was completed our camera crew for the day then began to arrive and I relocated myself to the position of vision switcher to help our group’s director, Alex, make sure all the camera angles we wanted were present and accounted for.

We did have some issues with the green screen initially as we couldn’t remove the background noise and whilst recording, Roie’s (our talent) microphone began to produce some very unpleasant noises during filming. However, these issues were quickly resolved by Ruth and the studio techs.

Overall, the filming for the prototype was a successful one. Roie was a good choice of talent and everyone else in the studio was both understanding, professional and most importantly patient.

I believe we had learnt a lot from the previous week as we watched the groups deal with time management issues and we were eager to keep the speed of the production as fast as possible in order to allow for the other groups to go ahead and complete their own prototypes.

In a past class we watched the first Leaders’ Debate of 2019 that was hosted by 7 NEWS Australia as a way of understanding how not to run a studio. Although the content and information was clear, the presentation of the debate was not. There were many issues including a timer that seemingly didn’t matter & a set of rules that were not enforced. The stools were inappropriate seating and were also placed awkwardly for a debate between two politicians that are set to possibly take over and run a country. The audience hardly participated during the debate… It almost seemed as though they were prompted to clap during appropriate times.

Finally it almost seemed as though there was bias being shown by the presenters towards Scott Morrison as they often began questions by singing his praises before a question. They did not offer Bill Shorten the same favoritism. They also seemingly made Bill Shorten unaware that he didn’t need to speak directly to the camera during the argumentative parts of the the debate and essentially made him look like a fool for being unaware when it wasn’t properly explained to him before the debate.

However, this week we were able to view the second Leaders’ Debate for this year that was held by Sky News and the Courier Mail and thankfully the candidates were   standing this time and the whole broadcast demonstrated how to properly run a debate. It included audience participation (it was obvious the people asking questions were predetermined but it added a more personal connection between the candidates and the undecided voters within the room), no timer allowed a more natural length of time to present their parties values and beliefs, better production quality, with special attention being paid to both candidates as they were the focus target of at least two or three cameras that would pan with them as they moved.

Finally there were not multiple hosts but one that seemed quite unbiased and would ask an appropriate question if he deemed the need for such things to be answered. It was a much more rounded and professionally run debate than 7 NEWS Australia’s take on how to run a debate and I believe was able to catch both candidates in a much better and stronger light which is what a news station should present when televising an event, that being the debate, between two very powerful figures within Australian politics.

NOW,THIS! Blog Post #6: Engaging, Persuading, and Entertaining Citizens: Mediatization and the Australian Political Public Sphere – https://www.mediafactory.org.au/lachlan-phillips/2019/05/03/nowthis-blog-post-6-engaging-persuading-and-entertaining-citizens-mediatization-and-the-australian-political-public-sphere/

NOW,THIS! Blog Post #7: The Satirical Perspective – https://www.mediafactory.org.au/lachlan-phillips/2019/05/03/nowthis-blog-post-7-the-satirical-perspective/

NOW,THIS! Blog Post #8: Managing a TV studio – https://www.mediafactory.org.au/lachlan-phillips/2019/05/03/nowthis-blog-post-8-managing-a-tv-studio/

NOW,THIS! Blog Post #9: A Reflection on Feedback – https://www.mediafactory.org.au/lachlan-phillips/2019/05/03/nowthis-blog-post-9-a-reflection-on-feedback/

NOW,THIS! Blog Post #10: The Proposal Document – https://www.mediafactory.org.au/lachlan-phillips/2019/05/03/nowthis-blog-post-10-the-proposal-document/

Gender Pay Gap Proposal Document – https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Mk5rSLQW22kKauszbaqRsNzlHcnJ3bhRtZ1TQ2nkumc/edit?usp=sharing

Initially, our prototype was planned to be similar to Stephen Colbert’s stand up at the beginning of his late night talk show in which one person talks directly to the camera. Whilst also using graphics and other modern media in a similar fashion to how MTV presents its short news segments that can be found online. There were talks of incorporating a game show element via vox pops that would appear at the beginning or throughout the prototype.

However, when reflecting on the feedback that was given during the pitching session we have been given a variety of new ideas and avenues to explore that we are taking into serious consideration for our new iteration of our prototype.

This includes the use of archival footage. A website suggested to us was Archive.org that provides quality and public archival footage that could be used to great effect for situations that require small segments of footage playing next to the host to push points forward. The use of a timeline that would show the development or always present gap between gender and pay.

To discussing new topics surrounding this issue such as the mental load or roles that Mothers often take within the household as well as the generational effect that has on our society. Finally, (and something I had honestly not put to much thought into) what gender would the host be? Should we use a male or a female actor or actress to present this information? What would be the goal of using a specific gender to display the information as opposed to the other?

Reflecting on the feedback and notes we have received as a group during the pitch session has been very enlightening. There is a lot more to think about and it has offered us a very different take on what our final prototype could be.

As part of our second assignment we were tasked with producing a series of short live-to-tape productions in class in the form of a panel/talk discussion. This task was undertaken in small groups and gave everyone a chance to perform at least two different crew roles within the groups productions. For instance, I was a camera operator in group 3 and vision switcher in group 4 (I did also perform as talent for another group as a game show contestant on Get Facted).

With camera being a relatively simple role my main focus was on how I could best perform the role of vision switcher for my other group. Therefore it was imperative that I knew a lot about the questions that the host would ask before the beginning of the production. This was so I could vision switch to the host to best view him questioning his guests and then vision switch to whoever was answering his questions appropriately.

I believe I did alright as vision switcher. I was thrown off initially as I slow faded to the host by accident at the very start of the show, as opposed to hard cutting. I then also had issues with camera operators continually moving their shots. Making switching to their focus annoying as I was forced to wait before cutting in for closer shots of the host/guests.

I would have loved to fix my mistakes that I identified, however, our group was unable to do a second run of our panel/talk discussion due to the time it took for the other groups to set up and produce their shows. So we were left with only our practice run being counted as our final run.

It was unfortunate but it put into perspective how much really goes into running a production and hopefully it taught everyone a valuable lesson in being proactive and reactive to situations that arise when producing a live-to-tape production.

After reading this weeks article written by Sophia McLennan, Satire as Public Pedagogy, We then discussed as a class the purpose of satire and how it is used effectively in a non-negative manner to convey political news.

“… whereas news – television’s privileged discourse on public life – most often posits politics as something to learn, satire not only offers meaningful political critiques but also encourages viewers to play with politics, to examine it, test it, and question it rather than simple consume it as information or “truth” from authoritative sources.” (Gray, Jones & Thompson, 2009)

Satire exposes things to ridicule about politicians or practices. It verbally attacks and passes judgement giving personal opinions out and asking their audience to consider their opinions. This in turn requires a shared comprehension or understanding between the satirist and their audience.

However, due to the humorous nature of what often occurs on programs that use satire it is not inherently negative and can be seen as a joke or something to not be taken too seriously. Which is something that more serious news networks cannot inject into their own programming as they aim to remain impartial and instead only provide informative information (I believe this is true within Australia’s news media) (as opposed to the blatant bias that news coverage in the US may often demonstrate).

Overall, it was an interesting lesson and gave a lot of insight to someone like myself that has never watched political satire television such as The Daily Show as well as The Colbert Report or the plethora of other shows that aim to follow this format. It also explained to me why it is often from these shows that people obtain their knowledge about politics.