If Albert Camus is correct that, “Fiction is the lie through which we tell the truth.” Then what does that say about Non-Fiction?
Is Non-Fiction, the truth through which we tell lies?
When we watch a work of fiction, a film or TV show, we intuitively know that what we’re witnessing is set within a lie. It’s not really happening, it’s make believe, which is why we’re so enamored when a show feels authentic and we can escape within a created world that feels real, yet we know is not. Whatever happens off camera is irrelevant to that experience.
On the other hand, we expect Non-Fiction media to tell the truth because it’s supposed to be real and hopefully live. It’s supposed to be what is actually happening if it’s the news, a documentary, a sports contest, a game show, Reality TV, a podcast etc. The problem is that, that presumption is a near impossibility. Unlike fiction, in non-fiction what happens off camera is just as important to the story of what’s happening on screen.
Yet, non-fiction is still beholden to the same visual grammar as fiction or “scripted” but it has different standards when it comes to space, time, and information in how we perceive it. My goal here is to try and teach you to be a more a conscious viewer, to recognize when and why things are done to intentionally or unintentionally manipulate you, and why podcasts are growing despite still having the limitations for visual truth as broadcast news.
I want to teach you how to read between the lines with your eyes to find truth through the lies between your ears.
WHAT WE SEE IS ALL WE SEE - News Channels should be dull
I love C-Span because it’s boring as hell. Remember how we talked about different types of camera work in Part 1? It’s because C-Span often uses VOYEURISTIC camera work and natural unedited sound.
Usually it’s just a locked off camera, a wide shot that doesn’t move giving us straight facts on screen when necessary. It invites you to have opinion because it’s not going to give you one. That’s as close we ever get to unbiased news.
With that said, it’s not perfect. That wide shot and others doesn’t cover EVERYTHING that’s going on. The private backroom conversations we’re not seeing or hearing that are about to shape what we see and hear on screen.
On the other hand, 24 hour news station like CNN, FOX, MSNBC etc use a wide array of angles and even camera movement to visually inform and persuade the viewers subconscious. They’re actively telling you where to look which informs you what to think. Think of how these shows open?
Take a look at Fox & Friends graphic below:
What does this opening inform us? This show is going to be bright way to get your day started (light shades of yellow, orange and blue and an image of a cup of coffee to start your day) and then we travel back through the graphic (the frame is giving the illusion of tracking back towards the viewer, meaning it’s revealing information, a NARRATIVE camera) and we’re shown an American flag (Hey this show is patriotic), then big buildings of NYC with more American flags (This is where the show is). Note that the angle of the building shot is low and looking up, telling the audience how powerful this place is and of course the American flags mean it’s a patriotic, a beacon of our countries might.
Combine all of this to that upbeat music and in just 10 seconds they’ve already set a mood and told you who they are as a show and what they want you to believe it represents.
Now let’s look at a CBS “Special Report.”
Notice that they’re graphic moves around and the music gives you a sense of importance as the movement suggests they get facts from this way and that way. The colors, red, black, and white give a strong and serious tone (Black and white = just the facts, Red= seriousness, blood, an error).
Then we cut in with sad music to show a death and instead of a close up, we get the 3 broadcasters in a wide shot to show their sincerity instead of a close up of the person talking. There’s even a gentle push in on a crane to bring you into the room. Everything about this is telling you how to feel and trying to convince you its sincere and important, which is a lie.
While all studio shows feature the same basic coverage of Wide Shots and Close Ups (mixed usually with a single crane shot for opening of the show and special segments), this is not a voyeuristic camera even though they’re usually locked off. It can’t be because the subjects know we’re there. The camera is an active audience member, the “4th wall” at home. Instead this coverage is an example of a TRACKING and NARRATIVE camera work.
The tracking should be obvious when we’re being shown someone talking, but the narrative element is when a studio show cuts to someone not talking. That’s when we’re being told to look at someone or something intentionally by a Director or Producer. They do this to break things up, to show the impact of whoever’s talking, sometimes to hide an edit or a mistake.
As in part 1, it comes down to always asking the 3 big questions:
Where is the camera?
Why is it there?
What type of lens does it have?
Never stop thinking about that and about why you’re being shown something the way it’s being presented.
TIME IS NOT ON OUR SIDE - People trust live and unedited
Time is the most valuable currency in life and “On Air” has literal dollar value that the networks sell to advertisers. Therefore when a news show or any show uses a clip of something, it’s limited to how much it can show it because of time constraints that are both logistical and stylistic choices.
If we think of visual literacy as language, then showing clips to make a point is just paraphrasing. Therefore it’s no longer documenting information, it’s now visually writing an essay that has a word limit.
To do this is a visual omission of a biased perspective, we’re literally being force fed what someone else (A producer or editor) picked out for us. What then is the solution to this if we want unbiased news? To air out the thing entirely? Yes, but who would watch that? How then can we trust news? We can’t. So…what visual format can we trust?
Podcasts are just filmed radio shows like the Howard Stern Show in the 90s and the only difference is that they’re broadcasted online instead of on TV. With that said, they have changed our expectations for news and talk shows for the very simple reason that they transcend time limitations. When you have 30 minutes or an hour, it’s extremely difficult to delve deep into something.
This is why Joe Rogan gained popularity and gained the trust of young men and why podcasts are growing so fast now. He defeated the network standards of time by doing a 3+ hour show which gives enough time to tire someone out from canned answers and they can do whatever they want. Most of these shows don’t have a network to answer to and grew their audiences organically by being different. They could play an interview in full and then demonstrate how it was cut. In other words, they’ve revealed the game while changing the rules.
With that said, Rogan doesn’t make his viewership from people watching or listening to 3+ hour shows, that’s the myth. He did it through youtube clips focusing on one issue. That’s the great irony, it’s still curated just as much as a news program or something else with the illusion of a non-biased visual format, but to spike the algorithm, shorter is always best because people have limited attention spans.
Even more ironically, is that Rogan and others have in turn born YouTube channels like Turning Point and MeidasTouch whom go the complete other way and air extremely biased shows on YouTube and FB and Instagram to support their podcasts. So if Rogan and other podcasts goal was to be an alternative to network TV, to break the falseness of it, they have failed because they believe that transparency and honesty are one in the same. They are not.
People trust stuff that is live because you can’t fake it but really they should only trust stuff that’s played in full unedited. That will never happen though, because time is a human problem and we’re limited by our own attention spans and limited free time.
WHY ARE THEY POSITIONED THERE? - Power comes from angles that give leverage
Have you ever wondered why a talk show host always sits on the right of your screen and a guest on the left? Or even sometimes higher than their guest? Remember blocking, where you put the actor and the significance of where and how we frame them from part 1?
The host being on the right comes from theater where stage right (left side to the actor performing, but right side to the audience watching) is considered the “power” position. It is believed that since we read left to right, our eyes tend to drift right to predict the end. That finality commands respect from our eyes.
Additionally, height plays a major role in our subconscious. A chair and a desk hides height and even weight to an extent, but obviously to have the high ground is to have the power…isn’t that right Anakin?
The way we manipulate height, for example a shrimp like Bill Maher, plays a major role in how we perceive him when he’s interviewing someone. He would look weaker to the audience if Mark Cuban was towering over him (Maher is 5’8” and Cuban is 6’2”), but instead they appear to be the same height when sitting next to each other on Maher’s show.
I also bring up Maher, because on his podcast he sits on the left and the interviewee on the right, which does beg the question, does it even matter? I think it does but am I just conditioned to feel that way? It’s an inexact science, but it’s still something you should consider. These things are not done on accident, they are very purposefully done.
THE ANSWER - Is Non-Fiction, the truth through which we tell lies?
I believe Albert Camus is correct about fiction and that non-fiction often tells lies visually using truth to manipulate the viewer. With that said, I think we ask too much of Non-fiction visual mediums when we as a people don’t get educated in visual literacy. It’s important for non-fiction to be honest but we don’t need it to be fully transparent if we’re educated enough to understand why they present the way that they do.
We can’t see and hear everything all the time. We’re human and we’re not omnipotent. To do so would make us not human, we would need an artificial intelligence to keep up with everything and come to a consensus…which could be amazing, it’s not right no3, but will always beg the question, “Who’s watching the watchmen?”
In part 3, I’ll examine the dangers Artificial Intelligence has already unleashed and the need for robust visual education now before it’s too late.
Clearly the solution to not hearing and seeing everything is to become mentats...just like me. 🤪