TAPESCRIPT for Exercise 1b

Carol: Did you watch the news last night?

Peter: I never watch the news.

Carol: You never watch it? Don’t you feel you might just be missing out on a few things?

Peter: I didn’t say I’m not aware of it. I said I never watch it. And I don’t. I can’t stand the way
the news is portrayed on TV.

Carol: Why on earth not? It’s usually pretty comprehensive and the visual element actually gets
to people. It makes them sit up and realise what’s going on around them.

Peter: But it’s that that puts me off. It’s too manipulative. Show one picture and it gets all the
emotions going.

Carol: But isn’t that a good thing? To get the emotions going? To make people react?

Peter: Now if we’re being persuaded to feel a certain way by being shown a particular picture or
piece of film, rather than by being given hard facts.

Carol: But surely that’s the point. It makes it all real to people rather than just giving them some
story of events that are happening far, far away from their own lives.

Peter: Look, we’re not necessarily talking about what’s happening on the other side of the world
– it could be in our own town. But even so – the other side of the world, isn’t that even more
dangerous? We trust what we’re shown on TV because we have no real idea of what life is like
over there or what is really happening, so footage of a riot or starving children either enrages us
or stimulates our sympathy by appealing directly to our emotions. We don’t weigh the pros and
cons of the situation, and, as we all know, pictures don’t necessarily give a balanced view – they
can be quite misleading.

Carol: I’m sorry; I think you’re completely wrong. Pictures are used to engage our sympathy or
anger quite rightly. It stirs people from the complacency of their lives and the comfort of their
armchairs and makes them think, ‘Oh dear! – maybe life isn’t quite all sweetness and light for
other people.’ Whatever the rights and wrongs, it makes people think and if it disturbs them for
just one moment, then something’s been achieved.

Peter: But what is it that’s been achieved? People have been stirred, touched if you like, for a
moment. But in what way? Are they ready to race down to the bank to support a cause which is
maybe, maybe I say, much less important than another crisis happening somewhere else, which
doesn’t get the same visual reporting for various reasons – political or otherwise?

1
Carol: Oh, don’t get so het up! I take your point but you’ve got to admit that there’s no real
alternative these days. After all, we can be manipulated everywhere.

Peter: Exactly! Give me a newspaper any day!

Carol: Oh? No pictures in newspapers? You don’t think newspapers are trying to shape our
opinions with every word they write? That’s their main business.

Peter: But at least we can be selective – we can choose which ones to read. And they don’t force
opinions on us in quality papers, The Times for example, like they do on TV.

Carol: Look, you talk about film being powerful but so is the written word, as you well know!
It’s permanent – you can read it, and re-read it – so it can be really insidious.

Peter: True, but the power of the visual image is much stronger, and more immediate, and I’m
not talking about the black and white photos in a newspaper.

Carol: But with writing you create your own pictures, which I’m sure many would agree can be
just as powerful, if not more so!

Peter: Well, I think we’ll just have to agree to differ. So back to your first question – what was
on the news last night?