Studio Production: 'An Idiots Guide to Politics' Programme Evaluation

What's the Programme About?

Recently aired on BBC 3, the programme An Idiots Guide to Politics is about how little young people vote, making this programme very relatable to our politics VT. Therefore, I've decided to watch the programme and evaluate some of it's filming techniques (particularly focusing on the camera) as well as to gain a better insight for when we film our politics script. Below are some of the points which I covered from the programme:

Begins by portraying the dispute between those who vote and don't.

Presenter Jolyon Rubinstein

The programme begins and throughout creates this opposition between young people who don't vote to those who don't. This was initially shown by contrasting the voting from the Scottish dictation which contrasted against those who don't vote in Westminster, who say that the parliament is full of 'lies'. This immediately sets up the debate for the programme. In terms of our VT, we too could try to create intentions of the debate by following this idea of those who vote and don't vote, however this may be difficult as we only have 2 minutes for our VT.

As well as this, the end of the episode shows young people (whom the programme is targeting) who are inspired by politics and want to become MP/priminister themselves. This helps to keep the programme biased and offers a perspective completely parallel to what the programme is aiming at.

Iconic footage which sets up this debate: Is the show Biased?

'Fire Retardant' prank, saying that politics 'pants are on fire'

Of course, footage of people protesting is shown throughout the programme - ranging from the London Riots to the Remembrance day protest. This may make the programme seem as if it's biased and against politics in general. As well as this, we frequently see evidence of the presenter trying to get interviews with MPs and highlighting the idea that MP's are 'liars'.

As well as this, the show also has some entertaining pranks which too are against politics. For example, the show mentions how David Cameron 'lied' about firefighters by saying that the front force wont be cut down, when it did. This led to two firefighters and the presenter to pull a prank and evacuate a building and try to make those in the labour party to wear 'fire retardant' pants, to be metaphorical for the saying 'liar liar pants on fire'. This programme therefore could also be used for my dissertation proposal as I am aiming to talk about how documentaries mediate and put opinion into the audiences mind.

Use of Interviews

Of course, interviews are a brilliant way of creating an effective documentary. However for this programme, they were chosen carefully which in a way fuels this 'against' opinion of politics which can be argued to be shown in the show. Nonetheless, the programme has interviews with:
     - Interviews with the NUS president/vice president: This is to go against Nick Clegg's lie about
       lowering tuition fees
     - The people effected themselves. The firefighters, students.
     - Celebrities: The end of the programme revolves around Russel Brand and his strong views as to
       why he and other people don't vote (people often are inspired by celebrities, meaning this helps
       to fuel an idea)
     - Attempted interviews, such as one with Nigel Farage. This too mediates this against opinion of
       politics as it shows that they aren't interested in a debate and trying to make things right.

Targeted for BBC 3

Fire retardant prank

For a documentary about politics, you can argue that this is very focused on the channel that it is aired on - BBC 3. This is a similar portrayal for which are studio is aiming for as they have a similar target audience. Nonetheless, the use of a young presenter remains relevant for the channel and the
programme itself.

Plus, the programme frequently shows these 'pranks' perhaps to keep the idea of politics interesting (considering it is about young people who don't vote, and this programme is based on young people so would be complex to keep them interested). This idea must be used for our VT - despite being two minutes we need some entertaining aspects which help to keep the audience constantly engaged and prepared for the upcoming debate.

How Can this Help for our Show's Politics Section?

After watching the programme I've gained a better understanding of politics in general plus some ideas which can be incorporated into not just the VT, but for the debate itself. Below are some points of conversation which could be used for the debate, arguing for why young people don't vote:

     - Young people don't vote because they can't be promised anything. This could discuss about Nick
       Clegg's pledge of lowering tuition fees which never happened
     - Cameron not promising about firefighters, how the liberal democratics were funded 2.4 million
       where the money was from an investment fraud, etc.
     - How Nick Clegg signed a pledge to cut tuition fees however it never happened, leading to  
       London riots

Furthermore, the VT must remain entertaining however have some level of maturity so that the audience whom may have no interest in politics like those shown in the programme will remain interested. This could include interactive content perhaps or try to follow the same entertaining value of the 'pranks' shown. Plus, if the VT has a presenter, we must make sure that the presenter too is very entertaining and interesting like Jolyon Rubinstein.

Despite this, I may consider using this documentary for my dissertation proposal as it is a great example of mediation!

The Wallace statue, impersonating Ed Milliband