Network 7: The Yoof Takeover

*NOTE – This was reuploaded due to previous corrupt video

For my final year project I have chosen to produce a documentary on an early ‘yoof tv’ show called ‘Network 7’. The main objectives I aimed for were to document a milestone British youth television show that had previously been under documented, and to throw forward the importance of such an influential show and ask the now television giants who came from the show what they think about the state of youth television today. I went on the principle of learning about the future by looking at the past.

Where did the idea come from?

I have been asked all the way through creating this piece why I know and care about a show that came and went before I was even around, and was only aired for 2 years. Some asked in positive interest – such as Eric Harwood – and others, such as Jane Hewland, in pure confusion.

The idea stemmed from discussions with my lecturer Chris Horrie who pointed out that my work on WinchXtra last semester was very similar to the show, and told us all about it. The interest would have stopped there if the topic didn’t carry on surfacing – I noticed that Network 7 had been credited for the styling of many shows, and when lending a hand to my classmate Tate when she interviewed director Peter Lydon, he had brought up that he worked on the show. From that moment on, I wanted to delve deeper into what this apparently widely influential show was about. I discussed the idea with Chris, and he was very supportive and enthusiastic about it.

How did I get my research and contacts?

I don’t think I quite understood what a mammoth task this whole documentary was going to be, or even the types of people I was going to have to get through to get anywhere at all. It wasn’t a simple case of having to Google the show and it would all be there for me – definitely not. Information on the show was very much limited, so getting a grasp of any aspect of the show felt like a struggle. Therefore, I had to get my research whilst interviewing, which isn’t necessarily ideal.

The search for interviewees initiated in December of last year, and I started off by going through the names I could vaguely find on online databases, however it was difficult to find any contact details because they were either 1) too big of a name to just have their email address online, or 2) nowhere to be found as Network 7 was the height of their career. I believe I only achieved around a 20% success rate through this route. I got in contact with Janet Street Porter, Jane Hewland, Charlie Parsons, Sebastian Scott, Matt Forrest, Sankha Guha, Jaswinder Bancil, and a few other names, but was only successful with Matt Forrest, and semi-successful with Jane Hewland. All others either responded that they were too busy with their own deadlines – very understandable in this industry – or just didn’t reply at all.

Jane Hewland was incredibly interesting to get in contact with. She helped me with 90% of my research and understanding of the show, which I cannot fault the rawness of the source as she had a large hand in creating the show, and was therefore more than ideal to talk to. I met up with Jane in Canary Wharf, where Network 7 was filmed in Limehouse Studios. What a dream! She had the authoritative aura around her that I imagined her to have, even after all those years since the show. She was happy to answer my research questions off camera, and that was an incredible boost to my overall understanding.

Matt, on the other hand, responded to me telling me he was more than happy to meet up and do the interview. It was an incredible experience as he was the first interviewee and supplied me with incredible information. I met him at the Groucho Club in Soho, which was incredible in itself, and went on to film in a studio nearby that he had previously worked in.

As mentioned previously, I had met Peter Lydon prior to this project, and so I got back in contact with him to ask if he would like to meet up and talk to me about my project. Not only did I get fantastic footage in return, he also gave me the contact details for Damian Wayling, the graphics designer, Eric Harwood, one of the journalists, and Sankha Guha, another journalist and on screen talent. I felt like I hit the jackpot! I was able to get interviews with Damian and Sankha, but was only able to meet up for a chat in London with Eric, as he didn’t have enough time to do the interview at such late notice – three weeks before my deadline.

The formatting of the documentary itself

There was a lot of questions surrounding how I should format the documentary. My original intent was for it to be a talking heads documentary, however, due to individuals I made contact with showing a lack of interest in being on camera, I had to think of ways to boost the content. Fortunately, because I had two more interviews within the last couple of weeks of my deadline, I was able to return to my original idea of a talking heads documentary.

I consciously decided not to put myself into the documentary as I feel it would have taken away from the legitimacy of the piece. Why should I insert myself into the video when I have people who were actually there to explain and talk about it? I believe I would have been taking up valuable time with flashing my face on screen every so often, and it would have turned into quantity over quality.

The interviewees themselves progress through the different topics naturally in the documentary, and I feel this was an effective method to allow my documentary to take on. When thinking of voice over scripts or potential pieces to cameras, I felt it was forced and exactly what I dislike about TV – the forcing of fake personalities where it’s not needed. I would have encountered the same problem Network 7 did when reaching the end of the second series – it would have been cheap entertainment over valuable insight. I feel it would have been the easy way out, almost, and would have come across as me patching up holes. Why fix something that isn’t broken?

I also toyed with the idea of putting in vox pops of young adults reacting to Network 7 footage, or telling me where they get their news from. However, I decided not to put any of those elements into my piece as it didn’t fit with the idea of talking heads, and it would have taken away from the overall story each interviewee told collectively. The idea came from Charlie Brooker’s Screenwipe where he touched on yoof tv.

That could be another direction I could go in towards the end of my documentary, but not something I would want to start off with. Perhaps I am being too humble, but I don’t feel I have enough of a legitimate presence to attempt the satirical criticism Charlie Brooker can. There is only so much personality can do, and I wasn’t prepared to put this whole project into jeopardy just because I wanted to be a ‘lens licker’.

In terms of the graphics, I decided to just feature each interviewees name in the plain way the show itself did. I could have put an ‘info bar’ to further imitate the show, but that would have perhaps been too far in creating parody.

Main issues I dealt with

I was unsure at first as to what angle I was really taking, but after deciding what format I should create my documentary in, it somewhat fell into place. The more people I got to interview, the clearer it became. This was an issue in itself – getting people who were on the show to respond and be interested enough to give their input. Of course I received requests for fees and such, which made the future of my project a little hazy, but thankfully not everyone had money on their mind.

Copyright, getting the footage, and knowing how to use it was an issue, but thankfully Channel 4 and Jane Hewland were both happy with me using the footage, and Channel 4 supplied me with a DVD of one of the episodes. I feel I have used the footage under fair dealing, and that the copyright holders are happy with my use of the film and sound.

How successful really was my project, and what else could I have done?

I feel that my piece has been very successful, and I feel happy with the interviews and footage I got. If I could have gotten Jane Hewland on screen, that would have made this whole piece’s quality jump up several notches

I feel I fulfilled my objectives well in that I have documented this small chunk of TV history gold, which has never been done before, and that there was an interesting throw forward from Sankha, Matt, and Peter which then pumps the piece with relevance.

The audience I was aiming for was those who watched Network 7, and those interested in the history of television – not necessarily a certain age, but more a niche market. My piece was aimed successfully at them, more so as I didn’t feature myself in my piece as previously stated.

Showreel 2015

Magazine Assignments

CONFESSIONAL INTERVIEW**

I have made a double page spread using Adobe InDesign, trying to copy the layout of real life story magazines in the most tasteful way.

**NOTE: Please download PDF (top right), open it in adobe reader/acrobat, and select View > Page Display > Two Page View

Sixpence seeked asylum in the UK after being told he couldn’t return to Zimbabwe after running into trouble with the government. He told me about his struggles and how he needs to return to Zimbabwe after 9 years of not seeing his wife, despite the threat of his murder.

EDITOR INTERVIEW

I interviewed Mustafa Khalili, the multimedia editor for The Guardian. I composed the profile interview as closely as I could to how The Guardian styles theirs.

INNOVATION ARTICLE

FiveThirtyEight is an online analytics magazine, created by Nate Silver who created an algorithm to predict election results, and has done so successfully for the US elections. He is now tackling the UK elections, so I looked in to how this recent innovative form of data journalism could break out over here.

Media Law Year 3 – Defamation and Libel

defamation definition

If you use material that TENDS TO do the following, then it is defamatory:

• expose the person to hatred, ridicule, or contempt
• cause the person to be shunned and avoided
• lower person’s reputation
• belittle the person in their business, trade, office or profession

Unintentional/second hand types of defamation:

• Juxtaposition – putting two unrelated things together that could imply a connection. Wallpaper shots, picture libel.
• Inference – secondary meaning, reading between the lines. Inferring something without saying it straight.
• Innuendo – a statement that can be seen as defamatory by people with special knowledge. For example, ‘I saw __ standing on the corner of Sleep Street’. You wouldn’t think anything of it unless you understood what was being referred to.

Why would the media be reluctant to fight defamation actions?

• Difficult proving the truth of the statement
• Huge damages could be awarded if trial lost
• Generally huge legal costs come with the case
• Better to settle out of court

libel – what is it?

Publication + Defamation + Identification = Libel

**Slander is the spoken version of this – it must be published to be libel, as shown in the simple equation above.

Defences against libel

There have been updates in the Defamation Act 2013 that help us in defending ourselves against libel.

• Serious harm – A statement is not defamatory unless its publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the reputation.
• It’s true and I can prove it – formerly ‘justification’. The statement needs to be ‘substantially true’.
• Honest opinion –  formerly ‘fair comment’, based on facts which existed at the time, no malice.
• Public interest – if it is of value to the public to know.
• Website – If it’s published on a website it cannot be shown who directly published it.
• Absolute privilege – Court reports, as long as they’re FAIR, ACCURATE, AND CONTEMPORANEOUS.
• Qualified privilege – Council meetings, public meetings, police statements, press conferences.
• Single publication rule – limitation of one year to bring an action from first publication.
• Bane and antidote – if the whole context of the article changed the meaning.

You have NO defence if you haven’t: checked your facts, referred up, put yourself in the person’s shoes, bothered to wait for lawyer’s opinion.

cases

McAlpine vs BBC – Newsnight broadcast a report on child abuse and Mc Alpine was wrongly identified online. Sally Bercow tweeted ‘Why is Lord McAlpine trending. *innocent face*.’, wrongly linking him to the sex abuse claims – INNUENDO.

Chris Jefferies – Eight newspapers paid substantial libel damages. He was arrested on suspicion of Joana Yeates’s murder, and the papers published defamatory articles with allegations against him.

McLibel – 10 year case on a pamphlet made by environmental activists critical of McDonalds. However, it came to light that they should have been protected by Article 10 (freedom of expression), they were then awarded money.

Sun – Four journalists from the Sun have been acquitted over allegations of payments for tips and assistance on army stories.

Media Law Year 3 – Reporting Elections

Our duty as reporters is in sharper focus by our audience – they make choices on our information we provide.

DANGERS FOR JOURNALISTS:

• False statements about candidates
  • Criminal offence to publish a false statement about the personal character or cnoduct of an election candidate. An offence to report they’ve withdrawn when they haven’t. Defamatory statements.
• Maintaining impartiality
  • Absolute requirement – in BBC and Ofcom codes. Equal time and weight in script to candidates and arguments of the major parties. Provide balance over days or weeks. If you interview one party, you must also carry the voice of the other two. Make sure profiles are similar, if you run a series of them (you must).
• Reporting opinion polls or exit polls
  • It’s an offence to publish before close of polls any information about how the votes have gone.
  • Reports on the day of the polls kept to the weather, size of turnout, and factual reporting of when leading party figures may or may not have voted. The NHS or immigration, must not be reported for fear of influencing the ballot.

PHIL WOOLAS

First time in 99 years an election court has removed an MP from his seat following breaches of electoral law.

The Election Court consister of 2 High Court judges, rules he had misled voters by claiming his LibDam opponent had ‘wooed’ islamic extremists. Judges decided Woolas knew this to be untrue.

• Parties will need to be much more careful with their documents
• The wording of how journalists report candidates claims and counter claims is likely to be scrutinized much more closely
• Maintaining accurate notes is vital as evidence
• Remember in the heat of battle politicians often find it convenient to ‘blame the media’ for distorting something they regret saying.

Media Law Year 3 – Regulation

Why do conduct codes matter?

• will our behaviour damage our reputation?
• what practices are legitimate, and what’s not?
• We must nurture a relationship of trust with our audience, but we have our ‘brand’ to consider, codes reassure audience.

Independent Press Standards Organisation:

• tougher than PCC
• mediation between complaint and publisher
• low cost
• requirement for apologies and corrections
• fines up to 1mil

IPSO is made up of editors and people outside the industry – PCC wasn’t feared and didn’t enforce anything – e.g. they didn’t do anything about the phone hackings. The fact newspaper has been given a second chance to self regulate is ridiculous – how can one nonstatutory power have more authority than another?

Ofcom

• Absolute requirement for ‘due accuracy and due impartiality’
• Doesn’t include BBC completely
• Statutory powers – this is why broadcast is more successful

The BBC have its own guidelines and handles its own complaints about bias and inaccuracy. It’s the benchmark of good practice.

CASES Of course, the Leveson inquiry. Rita Ora’s revealing clothing generated many complaints – decency.

Media Law Year 3 – Copyright

Copyright protects intellectual property – the product of skill, creativity, labour, or time. The breach of copyright is making beneficial use of someone else’s intellectual work without permission. Claimants can sue for damages and loss of earnings.

Things not protects are: undeveloped ideas, brief slogans, or catchphrases.

Fair dealing – in the interests of reporting current events, lifting is allowed. For example: You can lift quotes from a rival publication/broadcaster – as long as it was in the public’s interest, was attributed, and the usage was ‘fair’ – not complete exploitation.

Fair dealing allows broadcasters to air clips in the case of ‘review and criticism’, or even to feature the dead famous person in a film they were in.

Everything online has copyright, don’t use anything without checking first.

Pictures, however, can’t be used for fair dealings.

CASES: John Darwin, dead canoeist – Mirror published photo of him, BBC and others got permission from the Mirror get use said photo, turns out it wasn’t theirs and they all got sued.

Media Law Year 3 – Qualified Privilege

This is an extension from what we know already in the Defamation and Libel blog.

Qualified Privilege gives us legal protection to report on defamatory statements from public meetings, council hearings, and even conversations with press officers.

ABSOLUTE: Courts – reports must be FAIR, FAST, ACCURATE

QUALIFIED: Public meetings, council hearings, press conference – reports must be FAIR, ACCURATE, WITHOUT MALICE. Also – PUBLIC CONCERN.

There are two levels to Qualified Privilege:

• With explanation and contradiction – public meetings, council meetings, press conference, tribunals, inquiries- basically undocumented public hearings.
• Without explanation and contradiction – writted official documents that can be held accountable.

CASES: Plebgate – because journalists were accusing police of lying, they needed qualified privilege to call them out on it.

Rotherham Council report of child sex abuse was urged to be published by the House of Commons so that journalists could report on it.

Media Law Year 3 – Confidentiality

There is one legal document that concern confidentiality – The 1998 Human Rights Act. Specifically, Article 8 (the right to privacy and family life) and Article 10 (freedom of expression and to give and receive information).

There is a dialemma for journalists – the clash of privacy and the right to give and receive information. Should we risk running the story and getting accused of defamation, or should we ask the subject for comment and risk an injunction?

An injunction is where a person files a legal stop on the sharing of certain information.

There are three areas of concern:

1. revealing state/’official’ secrets
2. revealing commercial secrets
3. revealing personal information that was expected to remain private

Commercial confidentiality – there is a level of expected privacy and confidentiality between employer and employee. Staff won’t do things that would be detrimental to their employer (whistle blowing). However, if there is a concern for public interest, the case must balance out. CASE: Lion Labs v Evans – breathalyzers didn’t work, an employee exposed wrongdoing.

BREACH OF CONFIDENCE

• Info must have ‘quality of confidence’ – not trivial, juicy.
• Circumstances must impose ‘an obligation of confidence’.
• Unauthorised use of info must cause ‘detriment’.

DEFENCES

• Information doesn’t have ‘quality of confidence’
• Already in public domain.
• Public interest to publish.

CASES: Max Mosley v News of the World – In 2008 the paper published a story on the nazi orgies Max Mosley had taken part in, but the High Court rules there was no public interest in knowing this story.

Naomi Campbell v Mirror – In 2004 The Mirror published photos of the model leaving Narcotics Anonymous – breach of confidence, expected privacy.

Magazine – Gonzo

Gonzo is typically classed as factual entertainment. It is presenter-led (don’t try to sell a factual entertainment without it being presenter-led. E.g. Ross Kemp, Louis Theroux), has an element of a quest (there needs to be a journey, narative, reason), and there should be jeopardy (something for them to overcome, revelation as a result).

Shift in form of narration FROM DIGETIC (telling) TO MIMETIC (mimicking, showing) – ‘Seeing’ not ‘Telling’.

You should go beneath the surface to see the situation for what it is – Freudian. What people say is not what they think. Therefore we need to show what they mean rather than say.

Tom Wolfe – fictional was boring, factual was way more interesting. Radical chic. Electric kool aid acid test – he took lsd and wrote down everything he experienced. Detail is absolutely key.

Another example: The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat.

There is an element of honesty and authentic experience, rather than boring objective scientific truth.

It can be described as performance journalism (‘Superize Me’), and is very popular in an age dominated by visual images.

TOM WOLFE’S RULES

The four tools for story telling in this way (The New Journalism) :

1. Scene by Scene construction (with jump cuts or punctuation)
2. Phonetic dialogue / actual speech (‘wild track’)
3. Third Person restricted point of view (no “I” see; used “It is”)
4. Concentration on symbolic “status life” – their lives