I thought that this week's WINOL News bulletin was quite good.
One of the best features of the bulletin was the story about the London demonstration against education and public sector cuts, I thought the camera shots were good however when the reporter Tom was talking, the sound pick-up wasn't that good and his voice ended up sounding quite tinny. There may be a legal issue concerning permission to film people. Could the shots used be classed as GVs?
I was surprised to see an interview with Chris Huhne in WINOL, to get a cabinet minister from the party (supposedly) helping to run the country was remarkable for a student news bulletin.
I felt that the sports coverage was better than last week (mainly becuase there was no Ice Hockey!), however only highlights of one football match were shown (however, there is a WINOL Sportsweek programme, where a lot of football is covered). The reverse camera angles in the football match were good, especially the first goal. This shot was better than some shown on Match of the Day.
There were a couple of issues surrounding permission that I spotted: Did they get permission to film everyone in the Graduation piece? Did they get permission to film the two people standing behind Louis in his story?
Overall, a good bulletin.
TB 2011
I don't think you need to put too much worry having members of the public in shot.
ReplyDeleteFor example, in Tom's report you can argue implied consent. The fact that they are thier protesting, they know that it's likely they could be filmed.
Eg- You wouldn't turn up to a protest with someone you don't want to be caugh with.
The same can be said for the graduation piece, and possibly louis' story to an extent.
I don't know if i'd call the interview with Chris Huhne 'remarkable'. The reporters work hard to get the stories and interviews, and it just goes to show how we're not just a student bulletin, we're a professional news report for the local area.
But it's good to see you're questioning possble legal problems, and again a good review of the bulletin.
I don't know if you were aware, but we originally planned a live chat between Tom and George(presenter), but because of issues with hearing Tom when we went live, we decided to use Tom's report earlier on the scene instead.
Ok, I understand the implied consent thing, thanks.
ReplyDeleteI didn't know about the live chat, it's a shame it didn't go ahead because it would have been very good.
Yeah. In the live recording of the bulletin we did have the full live chat, but because of the poor sound, we decided to replace it in the broadcasted version with the pre-recorded piece.
ReplyDelete