-
Finished your HSC? Check out our University Discussion, Non-School forums or help out next year's HSC students! -
YOU can help the next generation of students in the community! Share your trial papers and notes on our Notes & Resources page
Frontline (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter poowee
- Start date
Gregor Samsa
That Guy
The main focus is supposed to be on the representation and manipulation of truth.
-How is 'truth' manipulated in Frontline?
-What 'truths' are conveyed by the series, and how?
-Why is this manipulation depicted as such?
With multiple examples.
Remember, the unit is 'Telling The Truth', rather than Frontline. Frontline is merely the central text (Unless you're doing another text for it.)
-How is 'truth' manipulated in Frontline?
-What 'truths' are conveyed by the series, and how?
-Why is this manipulation depicted as such?
With multiple examples.
Remember, the unit is 'Telling The Truth', rather than Frontline. Frontline is merely the central text (Unless you're doing another text for it.)
timmii
sporadic attendee
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2002
- Messages
- 928
Hehe i loooved frontline, watching it was my "breaktime" last year 
Anyway...rather than watching episodes as discrete, separate entities, try to find some recurring themes and structure your notes that way, and under each train of thought also put in some examples from your related material (remember you do need to refer to other stuff!)
For instance, the idea that the "truth" is manipulated by those who have power is shown in "smaller fish to fry" - when mike is told to lay off the story because the bank implicated is a network sponor, also in "this night of nights" where Telecom is buying them off not to show the negative aspects of the company etc etc...
Each frontline episode has 3 subplots, group the focus of each subplot under one (usually more!) headings and work from there, so that if any aspect of truth is asked u'll have a ready made "argument" in your notes somewhere (and hopefully by then, also in your head!)
Anyway...rather than watching episodes as discrete, separate entities, try to find some recurring themes and structure your notes that way, and under each train of thought also put in some examples from your related material (remember you do need to refer to other stuff!)
For instance, the idea that the "truth" is manipulated by those who have power is shown in "smaller fish to fry" - when mike is told to lay off the story because the bank implicated is a network sponor, also in "this night of nights" where Telecom is buying them off not to show the negative aspects of the company etc etc...
Each frontline episode has 3 subplots, group the focus of each subplot under one (usually more!) headings and work from there, so that if any aspect of truth is asked u'll have a ready made "argument" in your notes somewhere (and hopefully by then, also in your head!)
Leanne
Member
u make it sound as though you have to be really familar with all the episodes...not just a couple......IS there a limit as to how many episodes you mention?
timmii
sporadic attendee
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2002
- Messages
- 928
Well I personally loved the tapes, and watched them a few times for fun since my friends also did. it was never a conscious thing for me of having to "learn" the episodes, i could quote etc just coz i found them funny.
Nevertheless i recommend you do know all of them well enough to be able to discuss them. Not because u'd be asked to specifically refer to an episode but because each episode does have different ideas in it/reiterate and support ideas in the others. You can of course choose to focus on only 3 and just be able to manipulate the ideas in them sufficiently well.
There are 2 ways of structuring your Frontline responses (I found):
1 - introduction, para on first episode u're using, para on 2nd episode u're using (3rd etc...depends on ur timing), para on related material piece 1, para on related material piece 2, conclusion.
I found this way made sure you got down wat u wanted to say, and is good if you don't know the material really well.
However I realised i got much better marks when i used this way:
2: introduction (expounding 2-3themes that relate to your question, name the episodes u'll use/related material)
para on first theme (integrating all relevant parts from various episodes/related material)
para on 2nd/3rd themes (ditto)
Conclusion - bringing it all together.
If you studied and wrote your notes the way i suggested above, where you break the episodes into 'themes', its really easy to do the second essay construct. When i read over the essays from the first way that i did it, and compared it to the second method, the second way helped me make a much more cogent, convincing and fluid argument, and i really recommend it.
So no, there is no limit to how many episodes u can mention, but make sure that whatever u do use is relevant, supports ur purpose and u can speak well about it - don't use things for the sake of it and don't waste your time either. Quality is far superior to quantity!
Nevertheless i recommend you do know all of them well enough to be able to discuss them. Not because u'd be asked to specifically refer to an episode but because each episode does have different ideas in it/reiterate and support ideas in the others. You can of course choose to focus on only 3 and just be able to manipulate the ideas in them sufficiently well.
There are 2 ways of structuring your Frontline responses (I found):
1 - introduction, para on first episode u're using, para on 2nd episode u're using (3rd etc...depends on ur timing), para on related material piece 1, para on related material piece 2, conclusion.
I found this way made sure you got down wat u wanted to say, and is good if you don't know the material really well.
However I realised i got much better marks when i used this way:
2: introduction (expounding 2-3themes that relate to your question, name the episodes u'll use/related material)
para on first theme (integrating all relevant parts from various episodes/related material)
para on 2nd/3rd themes (ditto)
Conclusion - bringing it all together.
If you studied and wrote your notes the way i suggested above, where you break the episodes into 'themes', its really easy to do the second essay construct. When i read over the essays from the first way that i did it, and compared it to the second method, the second way helped me make a much more cogent, convincing and fluid argument, and i really recommend it.
So no, there is no limit to how many episodes u can mention, but make sure that whatever u do use is relevant, supports ur purpose and u can speak well about it - don't use things for the sake of it and don't waste your time either. Quality is far superior to quantity!
I was told that one thing that was essential when studying frontline was that you need to refer to the 'truth' Rob Sitch et al is telling; that is 'working dog productions' truth, and then the manifested truth of Frontline (the show within the show that is) - i know thats probably dead obvious but i tended to focus almost wholey on the missrepresentation of truth by Frontline rather than the truth expressed by Rob Sitch et al in 'Frontline' and it costed me.
yes, yes i can.
* Rob Sitch's version of truth is projected to an audience through his television program 'Frontline' He is conveying to his audience something HE believes is the truth - this truth being that the media is constantly manipulating the real truth for ratings, personal gain etc etc.
* The second layer is the truth created by the media ie. Frontline team, Mike Moore, Brooke Vandenberg, Brian etc. This is where you'd talk about the fallacy created through for example, inserting interview questions never asked of the interviewee (Add Sex and Stir), Creating a false idea of danger, eg. Flank Jacket, crouching down in 'The Seige' and reinactments such as the changeroom reinactment in Add Sex and Stir.
um yeah i hope thats clearer for you. im not to good at explaining things.
Well they can always specify a certain episode, so knowing them all relatively well would be ideal but I'd say 2-3. Like timmii mentioned, some episodes would be more suited towards certain questions. Also that some episodes can be linked by their same/similar themes. Like Smaller Fish to Fry and This Nights of Nights - how power/influential friends/sponsors have the ability to control, suppress or manufacture truth. Frontline's ironic role as the moral watchdog yet they suppress the major bank scam and illegal Telecom bugging.
Last edited:
really, i didnt know they could do that.
But i agree u should know them all well, cause they could give you a question thats more geared to a certain one. for example the question could be more about truth in interpersonal relationships, so 'Add sex and stir' or 'this night of nights' may be more appropriate than say, 'The siege'
timmii
sporadic attendee
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2002
- Messages
- 928
Gillybean is right - In order to really demonstrate your understanding of "telling the truth" it would be good to start off by explaining what "frontline" is and differentiating it from the show within the show.
Explain that they too are manipulating the truth, presenting one perspective of current affairs journalism. Talk about how verisimilitude is established with grainy footage, a handheld camera and seemingly behind-the-scenes, exclusive insight into the personal lives, conversations and stories behind the show broadcast each night. The format of a "documentary" of a current affairs program also adds integrity to the perspectives being depicted since it makes it seemmore real and plausible than if the team were to merely just *tell* you what's wrong with current affairs programs.
Talk about methods of portraying "the truth" used both within "frontline" and 'frontline' - since remember, advanced wants to know *how* meaning is conveyed, not only *what* is conveyed.
Explain that they too are manipulating the truth, presenting one perspective of current affairs journalism. Talk about how verisimilitude is established with grainy footage, a handheld camera and seemingly behind-the-scenes, exclusive insight into the personal lives, conversations and stories behind the show broadcast each night. The format of a "documentary" of a current affairs program also adds integrity to the perspectives being depicted since it makes it seemmore real and plausible than if the team were to merely just *tell* you what's wrong with current affairs programs.
Talk about methods of portraying "the truth" used both within "frontline" and 'frontline' - since remember, advanced wants to know *how* meaning is conveyed, not only *what* is conveyed.
timmii
sporadic attendee
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2002
- Messages
- 928
Supplementary material is just that - it is meant to *supplement* your argument by supporting your points and giving additional examples. Don't get caught in the trap of looking for material that is *similar* to frontline - look for what can best complement your material. Does CNNNN do that? If so, then use it. Otherwise, don't.
Leanne
Member
see thats what i'm having a problem with- do you just pick an article and talk about what techniques are used that make it appear to be the 'truth'?
timmii
sporadic attendee
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2002
- Messages
- 928
It's hard to really give a generic answer to that. So I'll just try to explain the little that i remember doing...
I had an article on the Cheryl Kernot/Gareth Evans affair. I talked about how Cheryl had written a book seeking to promote her version of the "truth" and to create a particular public perception for herself - blaming the media etc for ruining her family life etc, when in fact it was her own adulterous relations. I related it to how "frontline" seeks to perpetuate its own truth, and how there are various segments which show that "truth" is often subjugated at the behest of personality - seeking own personal power and reputation.
I also had a "children overboard" article - which i related to how truth was at the mercy of those who had the power, and there is no single objective truth, but merely several subjective truths - which one is publicised however is determined by power, politics and money....
I also had an artice about how some car company had signed a deal with Wheels magazine so that only its car would be recommended (not only advertised) and so that no other car company's car could appear on the frontcover while a particular new model was being launched. This was just exemplary of the suppression of the "truth" and the distortion/manipulation thereof by backstage powerbrokers for the sake commercial advantage. Wheels has less sales when it doesnt have a ford or holden on the front, and the car company had actually also offered to pay the difference between expected sales (with ford/holden cover) and actual sales...
Hmm i actually had better sources, but i can't remember exactly what they were. I think they were good weekend articles etc that discuss the objective/subjective nature of truth as a definite/indefinite article and how it is used in modern society...
I had an article on the Cheryl Kernot/Gareth Evans affair. I talked about how Cheryl had written a book seeking to promote her version of the "truth" and to create a particular public perception for herself - blaming the media etc for ruining her family life etc, when in fact it was her own adulterous relations. I related it to how "frontline" seeks to perpetuate its own truth, and how there are various segments which show that "truth" is often subjugated at the behest of personality - seeking own personal power and reputation.
I also had a "children overboard" article - which i related to how truth was at the mercy of those who had the power, and there is no single objective truth, but merely several subjective truths - which one is publicised however is determined by power, politics and money....
I also had an artice about how some car company had signed a deal with Wheels magazine so that only its car would be recommended (not only advertised) and so that no other car company's car could appear on the frontcover while a particular new model was being launched. This was just exemplary of the suppression of the "truth" and the distortion/manipulation thereof by backstage powerbrokers for the sake commercial advantage. Wheels has less sales when it doesnt have a ford or holden on the front, and the car company had actually also offered to pay the difference between expected sales (with ford/holden cover) and actual sales...
Hmm i actually had better sources, but i can't remember exactly what they were. I think they were good weekend articles etc that discuss the objective/subjective nature of truth as a definite/indefinite article and how it is used in modern society...