"Michael K. Kuentz" <[log in to unmask]> writes:

>   I don't believe that we as journalists or documentarians need to persuade

> anyone into believing anything

and

> Then I want to

> post produce it (edit if you will) in a manner that tells a story and

> provides the viewer with the sense of what has transpired

 

The problem is that the "sense" is from your own viewpoint, and so you

almost inevitably do persuade people of your own views. Actually in a

medium with diverse inputs this isn't a problem as viewers (and readers)

tend to select services (papers and TV channels) that best refect their

own views.

 

Persuasion doesn't have to be heavy handed or blatant, in the UK one of

the most effective bits of reporting was on the famine in Ethiopia in the

80's. The voiceover was clear, and calm, terribly so, and this added to the

effect of the aweful pictures. I guess this is rather British, and might

not have worked anywhere else. I suppose the keyword is "understated".

 

Tim.