Classifying reports in function of the intermediary

Extract 9 from page 133, ISBN: 978-84-475-3119-6.

Who is the narrator?

We now have a clear topic for a report and an idea of how to focus it. “Now what do we do?”

We have to choose the most appropriate type of narration to explain this particular story. Now we will take a look at the four great reporting styles that I think can be established according to the relative position of the journalist as an intermediary between reality and the viewer.

Discreet Intermediary (The Spanish programmes: 30 Minuts, Línea 900, Informe Semanal (Weekly Report) etc)). Third person narration and the journalist does not appear on the screen. As this is the classic reporting style, much of this book refers to this type.

Declared Intermediary:First person narration, open to subjectivity and modification. The reporter does not hide his participation; he becomes a co-star of the news. (The programmes Beyond 2000, España Directo, 48 Hours, Caiga quien Caiga ... -despite big differences- ). The journalist looks directly at the camera.

Neutral Intermediary: Makes it seem as though there is no intervention from the journalist or that it has been reduced to the minimum. There are two sub-groups:

• “The Watching Eye”. The camera is a curious watcher that doesn’t try to interpret reality, only show it. What is known as the fly-on-the-wall. There have been a few experiments in Spain but the only lasting example was 24HOURS from the French agency CAPA.

• “Shoulder to Shoulder”. This is a story told as much as possible by the protagonist who is selected previously by the journalist who supervises the whole project (for this reason it is not possible to say that there is no intermediary). There are also two versions of this, which we will deal with later.

Discreet Intermediary

A narrator, who tries to be noticed as little as possible, explains the story of a subject in the third person. Here attention is focused on the protagonist, that is to say the subject of the information, and not on the journalist, who never looks into the viewers’ eyes or appears on the screen, not even to ask the questions (there are a few exceptions but then the journalist only speaks to the interviewee).

Within this school there are two tendencies:

Some believe that it is more honest if the interviewee never looks into the camera but at someone who we know is there but who we never see; the journalist who in the end is responsible for making the report. It is a way of suggesting that the message is being manipulated.

Others believe it is better if the interviewee looks at the camera as directly as possible as this is the way to establish the best communication between the sender and the receiver of the message. If the journalist is only a communicative catalyst “Why do we need to know he is there?” Can’t we leave the viewers alone with the subjects?

In some countries like Spain the only people who speak into the camera are the king, the president of the country and other authorities, obviously apart from the TV presenters and actors in ads. It is assumed that looking directly into the viewers’ eyes will exercise a hypnotic quality and so it is only reserved for people established in power.

To appearances, the discreet intermediary in either of these two forms, is the most objective formula for making a report because the journalist does not gain protagonism. But notice one detail, the voice of the interviewer is nearly always cut during editing. We have to admit that in not including the questions we leave a large possibility for manipulation as the answers are out of context and nobody knows the tone or sense in which the question was asked. So, you have to be extremely respectful of the interviewee if the questions are not shown.

The declared Intermediary

The reporter is seen from the beginning. He appears on screen speaking to the protagonists or directly into the camera. He speaks in first person singular, which is very direct, or plural, which is less direct. He should not worry about subjectivity or expressing his opinion or his feelings about a situation or a person.

The storyline can follow the same lines as the investigation process. This way the viewer directly lives the experience of the journalist and shares his doubts and difficulties.

Personally, I think of the three types of report described here, this is the most powerful because it allows you to transmit a lot of information not visible to the camera: heat, odours, humidity, underlying tensions and so on. Above all, it allows you to be sincere with the viewers.

People relate to each other primarily in words so this type of report is “normal”, in that the interviews maintain the dialogue between the guide and the protagonists. There are programmes that abuse the interview method to a point of using the images simply to fill in between dialogues. We have all seen situations in which the relation between the participants seems forced, “Sir, come here please!” so they also appear false.

The key is knowing how to keep a balance. There is nothing wrong with the journalist being the protagonist if it is justified. In this case there is no need to be shy. It is not as if the journalist can take the viewer by the hand and take him round the museum, for example.