Kate Adie�s job isn�t at risk. During this project I�ve developed a healthy respect for all the people who do this as a living and I�ll probably never think about the news in quite the same way again. Considering they do reports like this every day and ours took months isn�t exactly something for the CV, so please don�t tell anyone.
So, to the finished product, it finished me months ago. Some problems with the final outcome can be traced back to a misunderstanding of the nature of the piece. We thought that we didn�t have to introduce the topic in the piece, because that would be done by the newsreader. However, once the product had been completed with this in mind, we discovered that actually our piece had to be self-standing. Rather than starting it all again and proceeding along pretty much the same lines, we decided to salvage what we could. Discussions took place and we decided the best way to proceed would be to dub a re-written voice over at the start, over the existing one. This is always a dodgy process with a vast potential for disaster. It didn�t turn out that badly but there�s an area where the product fails on a technical basis.
The first glitch of the outcome is that there�s evidence of the preceding voice over before the new one. Editing out this old voice by dubbing over it with a third version, we thought, was far too risky. Similar voice problems occurred at the other end of the voice over as, at one point, the end of the previous voice over could clearly be heard. Disaster! Again we considered re-recording the voice over to plaster these gaps but then, if we didn�t do it right, we could have had 3 voice-overs. Kind of an echo effect at the start and end. We decided to avoid this possibility at all costs and put up with the bit at the start, although, now I that think about it, we could�ve just done what we did at the end. We improved the ending by totally erasing all sound for the duration of the previous voice over. The unfortunate effect of this is that O�Malley is talking but we can�t hear him. It�s very strange and totally undesirable.
Another possible approach would have been to eliminate the slightly mumbled question in the middle of the O�Malley segment. We could have just used the answer to it and achieved smoothness by plastering the gap with a cutaway or a noddy. There is also a gap in time before the question is asked time that could have been used more effectively, considering the compact nature of the piece. I feel that perhaps the O�Malley section goes on for marginally too long and the question is a key reason for this. Perhaps it wouldn�t be wise cutting out the question altogether as evidence is a key issue in any case of this nature and, as O�Malley doesn�t answer it positively, then perhaps it�s worth including. If we were super media students, not just average, then we could have re-dubbed a more succinct version of the question over the cutaway. Perhaps it would be wise to cover up evidence of my interviewing, as I need to work on this area quite dramatically.
Some of the camerawork isn�t that smooth. This could possibly be accounted for by the fact that we were used to more staged and planned activities rather than capturing the moment. I suppose, coming from more of a media than journalism background, I would�ve struggled doing this as well as Ben, the cameraman for the first session. It�s mainly the hand held shots of her escaping and the solicitor�s statement that jerky camera movement becomes more apparent, which is understandable. We obviously had to use what we had as we couldn�t really ask the solicitor to read the statement again in better lighting conditions and I doubt Miss Brooks would return for the benefit of the cameras. Such instantaneous issues do not apply to the piece to camera or the interview of O�Malley, as we had time to set everything up. The exterior shots of the College were under no such constraints so there�s no excuses for the jerky camera movement at the start of the first shot.
Another technical consideration that we didn�t consider that much was the levels of the sound. There is a huge gap between the levels of the dubbed voice over parts and the natural sound, the voice over being much louder and clearer. This is an issue we will have to pay more attention to next time. Apart from these technical considerations I feel the voice links with the images fairly well. The images of the driver and Annette Brooks tie in with the commentary in such a way that the audience knows their identity and relevance to the story. Essential to the coherence of the outcome is the brief link to the solicitor, who looks strangely like a lecturer I know. This link is brief and to the point. A brief explanation that Mrs Brooks denies any wrongdoing through her solicitor. Another aspect that is nice is the fact that the voice continues over the image of the solicitor when he�s talking. As soon as the voice over is over, we can hear the solicitor in a smooth and unflawed moment. The levels spoil it, again. This is similar to how the first voice over was before it had to be replaced on the grounds of coherence and this overlap period was what remains with no sound.
Overall I think the product makes sense. It may be hard for us to tell from a neutral perspective as we�ve grappled with it for some time, but I think that everything�s explained and that both sides of the story are evenly represented. This is summed up in the piece to camera at the end that outlines the position of both camps. I happen to like the final piece and think it�s short and succinct. I think I like the alternative version better than the one included in the final piece. The selected one is one where I actually fluffed my lines as the original script ended with �sordid acts of sex and illegal trafficking or an aggrieved former employee spitting revenge?� I think revenge was better than hate, and we did have an actually have a usable take of me saying it, which I enthused about but was outvoted by everyone else because it was slightly longer. The alternative version also had me signing off at the end, this would have rounded the product off more and stopped it from stopping fairly abruptly. The others� concerns about time were justified though. In an ideal world we might�ve cut out or re-recorded my dicey question and used the spare time available to complete the operation with the better piece to camera, but in an ideal world there probably wouldn�t be any stories.