Re: Katie Piper - The Science of Seeing
Posted: Fri 10 Feb 2012 11:06 pm
Hi All
Interesting discussion.... My parents were once involved in a "documentary" and that changed my perception forever about these programmes. What emerged then that was that there is a universal "plot" for these things which you can see, if you know about it, in any documentary on almost any subject you care to mention.
This includes:
Conflict
Worry
Visiting experts
Time constraints (they just lurve the expression "The pressure is on")
Nervousness
Resolution
Basically, documentaries are dramas involving real people. I think the only real exception to this rule are the BBC documentaries such as Frozen Planet, although even then, some of these elements are still there. I think somewhere around 15 years ago, programme makers decided that viewers would turn off unless a programme had a "story" to follow that approximated soap operas. After that, we saw a sad demise is really informative documentaries.
The problem is, truth is often a casualty and the public really does not get it unless you are an "expert" as you guys are. It may be,for example, that Katie might have needed anti rejection drugs for a possible graft because her corneal damage was heavily vascularised and extended beyond the cornea onto the sclera. KC corneas generally do not have that issue but that is what we CL fitters are always looking out for. However, this was not explained because it was not a programme "targeted" at KC.
The issue with airing a documentary is that it is competing for viewers with a wide range of other "socially" relevant programmes. This leads to a lot of "dumbing down" in relation to scientific fact. Look at the recent documentary on "smart animals". This is actually an incredibly important issue but its sad to say the best info was obtained by listening to the presenter on the sofa on BBC News rather than the actual programme.
So.. to get to the point!! Yes you guys are being harsh on Katie as she has no editorial control over the programme. Direct your ire at the programme makers... The decision to make her travel all over the place was nothing to do with her...it was to do with editing and production in order to make a great story.
It might have been disappointing you guys, but it did make a big impression on "civilians" and any kind of PR for this kind of issue is good PR.
Lynn
Interesting discussion.... My parents were once involved in a "documentary" and that changed my perception forever about these programmes. What emerged then that was that there is a universal "plot" for these things which you can see, if you know about it, in any documentary on almost any subject you care to mention.
This includes:
Conflict
Worry
Visiting experts
Time constraints (they just lurve the expression "The pressure is on")
Nervousness
Resolution
Basically, documentaries are dramas involving real people. I think the only real exception to this rule are the BBC documentaries such as Frozen Planet, although even then, some of these elements are still there. I think somewhere around 15 years ago, programme makers decided that viewers would turn off unless a programme had a "story" to follow that approximated soap operas. After that, we saw a sad demise is really informative documentaries.
The problem is, truth is often a casualty and the public really does not get it unless you are an "expert" as you guys are. It may be,for example, that Katie might have needed anti rejection drugs for a possible graft because her corneal damage was heavily vascularised and extended beyond the cornea onto the sclera. KC corneas generally do not have that issue but that is what we CL fitters are always looking out for. However, this was not explained because it was not a programme "targeted" at KC.
The issue with airing a documentary is that it is competing for viewers with a wide range of other "socially" relevant programmes. This leads to a lot of "dumbing down" in relation to scientific fact. Look at the recent documentary on "smart animals". This is actually an incredibly important issue but its sad to say the best info was obtained by listening to the presenter on the sofa on BBC News rather than the actual programme.
So.. to get to the point!! Yes you guys are being harsh on Katie as she has no editorial control over the programme. Direct your ire at the programme makers... The decision to make her travel all over the place was nothing to do with her...it was to do with editing and production in order to make a great story.
It might have been disappointing you guys, but it did make a big impression on "civilians" and any kind of PR for this kind of issue is good PR.
Lynn