Analysis of Constraints

Evaluation of Production Practice and Management Reflection Through this section of my evaluation, I will look at how professional code and industry has affected my work both positively and negatively. I will do this by looking through these legal aspects that may have affected my documentary:

LEGAL – HEALTH AND SAFETY LEGAL - COPYRIGHT LEGAL - LIBEL LEGAL – DATA PROTECTION LEGAL AND ETHICAL – RACE AND ETHNICITY LEGAL AND ETHICAL - PRIVACY PROJECT SPECIFIC - BUDGET PROJECT SPECIFIC - TECHNOLOGY TV INDUSTRY SPECIFIC – REGULATORY AND SELF REGULATORY: BBC TV INDUSTRY SPECIFIC – REGULATORY AND SELF REGULATORY: OFCOM

Industry and professional codes LEGAL – Health and Safety

How did it affect your product negatively?

Health and Safety did not really affect my product negatively. All filming was done safely without any problems due to being in mostly indoor locations. I did produce risk assessments for each interview which was

How did it affect your product positively?

This did impact my project positively as I was completely aware of any potential risks that there were. For example when I went to Medicinema, to film a charity worker, I realised that I would do some high angle shots on the higher seats of the cinema. I then

helpful as I was aware of the potential risks that I could face. For example when I was doing my interview with Philip Mathew, I found that my risk assessment form generated scenarios which I had previously overlooked but could be very dangerous. It was raining on the day so one of the hazards was the slippery stairs which I realised in good time. These risk assessment forms however did take a lot of time to produce which did on a few occasions limit my filming time but besides this, no further problems.

LEGAL – Copyright

developed ways I could minimise the danger of doing so which helped me especially when it came down to actually doing the filming. I kept the tripod really small to minimise and accidents and walked slowly with the equipment. Here is a link to this specific risk assessment. http://issuu.com/gsheri05/docs/risk_assessment_form_2/1

This affected my work negatively as a lot of my work was Using copyright material however really enhanced my documentary copyright from YouTube and other sources. I did not ask and made my documentary look good. For example all my opening the owners for their permission which would mean that if sequence is archive footage of external sources which worked this was an actual project, each owner has the right to sue really effectively. If I did not have that there, the audience would me for using their work without getting their permission. I not know the direction of the documentary. The music used was a used a lot of music and archive footage from YouTube as huge appeal factor for the audience as shown by the feedback I well as articles from websites like BBC news. Here is the gathered; therefore using the copyrighted material really improved link to my final documentary to see all the copyright my documentary. I also saved a lot of time using other people’s material that I used: material as it would have been time consuming making my own http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVVfYBqyir8 music and articles. The copyright rule now also protects my work which is another advantage of it being used.

LEGAL – Libel

LEGAL – Data Protection

I did not say anything to offend anybody therefore libel This affected my work positively as I was aware that I have to avoid does not impact my work negatively. If I had however offending anyone as I could be in legal trouble. I could have offended someone through my documentary, the BBC portrayed young unemployed people as lazy and even mentioned may refuse to air the video to avoid anyone questioning that but I avoided it to ensure no was took offence, as well as their reputable institution or not watching the video. maintaining my positive light on young people who do make a Young people are portrayed by the media as very negative genuine effort to look for jobs. but I did the opposite to avoid offending anyone as well as showing a different light on this age group.

This did affect my work negatively as during Unit 4, I had This impacted my work positively as I had to show my final contacts to post on my blog the details of my contributors that list as part of my final Unit 4 work. This would give the people would be involved in my documentary such as their names marking my blog a clear idea of the people I used as well as the and contact details which involved their mobile number methods I chose to get in contact with them. If I did not have a and an email address. This would mean if someone was to contact list displaying all the contributors, the markers would not go on my blog, they could easily get the information and have a clear idea of all the people that were involved in my use it. I have done this without the consent of these documentary. people. If this was an actual project, they have the right to sue me. Here is a link of the contacts list I used which displays the contact details of all my contributors: http://issuu.com/gsheri05/docs/contactlist_final/1

LEGAL AND ETHICAL – Race and Ethnicity

LEGAL AND ETHICAL – Privacy

PROJECT SPECIFIC Budget

In my documentary, I did not focus on one specific race or This really impacted my video in a positive way as I used a range of gender. I used a whole range of people to try and reach different ethnicities and genders as stated by the feedback I got the mainstream audience. If I had only used people of one from my audience. This would mean my documentary is aimed all gender, or one race then the BBC may refrain from ethnicities and genders, and not just aimed at a niche audience. broadcasting my documentary as it does not reach the This way I did not offend anyone by using a biased cast. Here is a mass target market and limits the viewers to a small link to my final documentary to see the range of people that I used: minority of the BBC’s viewers. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVVfYBqyir8

This affected my product negatively as I broke the rule of privacy on several occasions using footage of people that I did not get permission from. For example when I did my time lapse in Central London, I did not ask the people if they wished to be recorded. This was very similar also to the establishing shot that I did going to Adecco where people were walking on the street. If this was a real production, then these people included could have easily sued me, as a result of using them where they have not given permission.

This rule was used positively when I gathered my interviewees and voxpops by contacting them. I rang them or sent an email to them from which I gained full permission before I went on to film these people asking them beforehand whether they would not mind being filmed. I found a few people were camera shy but suggested other people within their topic area for me to ask. Here is a list of my final contact list once again to show all the people that gave me permission to use them in my documentary: http://issuu.com/gsheri05/docs/contactlist_final/1

I started off with a budget of £7500. This did not really This affected my project positively as the budget was only affect my project negatively as I had only spent £5565 of hypothetical which meant that I gathered a good idea of the this including the contingency fund meaning I had a lot left financial costs for a production like mine. Because this was a A-level over in case I needed anything else. I also decided to buy project, I had no budget which meant there was no limit on how all my equipment rather than rent, as I could save money much I should spend on the production. Also I did not have to pay on future productions. With the big budget, I was for copyright fees or equipment fees as this was a school project, comfortable during all stages of production. Here is my meaning all equipment was provided and other people’s material

final budget to prove this:

could be used.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/70918449/Budget

PROJECT SPECIFIC – technology

TV INDUSTRY SPECIFIC – Regulatory and self-regulatory (OFCOM)

This affected my work negatively as if I had a better camera, maybe with HD, the quality of my final video in terms of streaming and sound would have been a lot better. Also, when looking at the editing if I had used Final Cut instead of iMovie, I could have added a lot more enhanced graphics as well as more sound effects as this software has the capability of doing so.

This aspect impacted my project positively as with the equipment I was provided, I easily produced a decent video. I had a camera which used a DV tape. This provided me with reasonable quality footage with good sound. I also used a variable length tripod which helped me produce different angled shots. I also used a MacBook with iMovie which resulted in a very professional looking documentary.

Out of the nine BBC Editorial Guidelines, only two affected I feel that several of the BBC guidelines have affected me positively. my work negatively. Firstly privacy was breached of the Firstly, I have served the public interest as this is an exclusive topic people who were involved, as their details are clearly which has not been looked into much but the public are concerned shown on my blog as this was needed for my A-level work. about. Also in terms of children, a lot of young people under the The second rule was impartiality and diversity of opinion, age of 18 have been used, and were able to express their opinions as I only focused on the positives of young people clearly whilst their physical and emotion wellbeing remained intact whereas we know a lot of young people are lazy and do which followed the guideline positively. not go out looking for jobs but I did not mention this. Also tuition fees were portrayed as negative whereas I did not mention the positives of this move made by the government.

TV INDUSTRY SPECIFIC – Regulatory and self-regulatory (BBC)

I only broke one rule of OFCOM which affected my work negatively. This was the dealing with contributors aspect where I should get the relevant consent of all the interviewees which should be written. I did not really get a written consent which means OFCOM could fault me here.

Probably the one OFCOM rule which most affected my work positively was the use of a reconstruction. I used one to show how a job reply may sound like which I felt really made my video interesting. Here I clearly labelled the clip reconstruction which means I clearly followed OFCOM’s requirements.