12 Dec Alessia Sasso Critical Explication Essay
ALESSIA SASSO CRITICAL EXPLICATION ESSAY
The live show I am going to write about and analyse is the radio show broadcasted on the 18/10/2019.
My main role was being a producer, this means I was overall in charge of the whole show; had to choose stories that the reporters would suggest to me, giving the amount of time each story had, choosing the top story for the radio show, giving my reporters a running order and I would check on them every once in a while to know how they were doing and if they needed any help.
I chose this programme because I was in charge and I felt it raised a number of interesting issues. The key areas I am going to focus are: my role as a producer, the story selection and one of the radio segments produced on the show.
The show itself had some ups and downs, but as a producer I think the programme turned out to be quite decent. The main target audience I kept in my mind when making stories selections are university students, as the show was mainly aimed for individuals between the age of 18 to 25.
We had a morning editorial meeting on the day which we then agreed that the radio show was going to be 15 minutes, when making the story selection, I also gave the reporters a time slot for each story which added up to around 12 minutes, this to give enough time for opening, closing and bulletins.
As we are having the meeting in the morning and we the show went live at 3pm, the reporters have enough time to go out and make a package from the assigned story.
The stories I chose with the help of the managing editor were: “Extinction Rebellion blocking Oxford Circus”, “30 cases of mumps-immunity levels have decreased”, “banning out of hours emails” and “the ‘Sugar Babes’ back together” and the only story that did not make it to the show was “Disabled students dropping out of universities for the lack of facilities”.
When choosing the stories, I kept in mind how difficult it would be for the reporters to make a package out of it and if in some cases it was even possible. For example, I knew that the story about banning out of hours email was going to be a good, interesting and easy issue to talk about in a radio show and to make a radio package out of it, this because it is something that many individuals relate and have an opinion about it.
As a producer I thought that segment of the show was very interesting because most students nowadays have work and can relate to such story and I was very keen into keeping the story and very proud of how it turned out, but on the other hand, I should have been more careful when choosing the only story that did not make into the show. Because it regards such a personal subject the reporters struggled in getting interviews and addressing the matter in a soft and non-judgemental way.
As a producer it is my responsibility to make sure that the show must go on and so when the reporters informed me the story was unsuccessful, I had to make a quick decision in were I should have invested those precious minutes.
I then decided to give more time the “Sugar Babes” back to together story, because it was a soft, entertainment story I previously made the decision to have a studio discussion about it, (that was originally only 1 minute and 30 seconds but turned out to be over 3 minutes) this because I thought it was a nice way to end the show.
As a producer, I was aware I made a mistake in choosing the wrong story for the reporters, but I was really proud on how smooth and nice the studio conversation turned out! This because both of the presenters made their research and it sounded good and on point. I was also right in thinking it was a nice way to end the show this because ending the show in a lighter note just makes the whole show smoother and nicer for the listener.
One editorial issue was that on the show the presenters were reading the scripts, and, in the introduction, they introduced a story that did not make it to the show.
From my point of view this showed an almost lack of interest in the scripts, I should have been more careful and paid more attention when I was going through it. In the future I will try my best to double check everything.
Being a producer also gave me many stressful times, for example when two reporters were struggling into getting one of the stories done really frustrated me, as the story was asking students their opinion about vaccination, I didn’t think it was a difficult story and also because as I already lost one story I did not wanted to lose another one.
I tried to help the reporters by calling them many times and giving suggestions, but they seemed to have given up on the story. This was very stressful because I wanted the show to be great, I made the drastic decision to send out my assistant and the managing editor and it turned out that they have made a very informative package with the little time they had.
As responsible journalist we always try to include every valid point of view and make the work balanced. This was not made with the “30 cases of mumps-immunity levels have decreased” audio segment. The package was very biased towards getting the vaccination, and out of the four students that spoke they all had a similar idea. Although, personally I may think the second opinion it’s wrong, it’s important to show both side of the story as the audience may not agree with only one opinion.
Although I did not produce the package, I have a feeling I can learn from it and try not to make the same mistake in the future package I am going to make.
Overall, the main lesson learned was the importance of taking suggestions, making sure to always be available and open minded in solving problems. Furthermore, not to be biased in anything that you do as people want to listen different opinion on one matter.
