Negative Experiences in Television Programming: a View from the Other Side
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Negative Experiences in Television Programming: A View from the Other Side Suzie Thomas, Published in Archaeologies 12(3): 243-263 (2016). ABSTRACT: Many professional archaeologists will engage with television. There seems to be little guidance—other than trial and error and personal communications—for navigating interactions with media production companies. Here, through a series of informal questions and answers, I present some issues with which one might be confronted in such engagements. I base my discussions on personal experience, literature and conversations with experienced colleagues. A key point is that media production companies’ agendas and priorities often differ from those of archaeologists. While the article draws on experiences from Europe and North America, it has relevance for archaeologists working with television everywhere. KEY WORDS: Media, Ethics, Television programming, Archaeology Introduction There is every possibility that if you are working as an archaeologist (or in an archaeology-related profession), whether for a government agency, university, charity, private company or as a freelancer, a representative of what might broadly be described as the ‘media industry’ may approach you at some point. Such representatives may be people from media production companies looking to develop television, radio, and, increasingly, Internet channel programming. For many of us, this might only happen a few times in our careers, and for all of us that get approached, there is a first time. Often, that ‘first time’ is because a producer or researcher wants particular information and may have spotted your name in a publication, on the Internet or because you have been recommended by a colleague. It was owing to my interest in issues around archaeology and metal detecting, that I was recommended in 2013 as a contact to ClearStory Productions, in what was my first (and so far last) encounter with television programme production. Many archaeologists now know ClearStory as the producers of the infamous ‘Nazi War Diggers’, originally commissioned and then cancelled by the National Geographic Channel in 2014 after strong opposition from the international archaeological community and others. The programme was later renamed ‘Battlefield Recovery’ and screened in Poland and the UK in 2015 and 2016. Many in the heritage sector consider the programme objectionable on both scientific and ethical grounds, and in both 2014 and 2016 the programme attracted significant attention on social media. Among other things, critics questioned the appropriateness of handling human remains on camera (Hardy 2016; Brockman 2016a, 2016b), as well as potentially very serious health and safety risks posed by the possibility of encountering unexploded ordnance (Brockman 2016a, 2016b). I have written elsewhere about my horrified reaction to the programme when its marketing first appeared, the ethical challenges concerning my role as a pre-production consultee, and the proliferation of all kinds of ‘experts’ vying for the media’s attention (Thomas 2015a). It is not my intention to revisit that discussion fully again here. However, the experience itself and the process of writing the article and taking part in debate afterwards (see Moshenska 2015; Ewen 2015; Flatman 2015; Holtorf 2015; Thomas 2015b) led me to talk about the issues around media engagement with various colleagues. These colleagues work in the USA, where in recent times attempts have made been to work more closely with broadcasting networks to try and improve ‘archaeologically problematic’ programming, in my native UK, and in my current country of residence Finland, where there seems to be a recent increase in proposals for television shows featuring metal detectorists. While participating in these discussions, it struck me that despite recurring instances in the literature of archaeologists discussing their relationship with the media (for example Clack and Brittain 2007; Fagan and Rose 2003; The SAA Archaeological Record 2015), there is still very little practical advice for individual archaeologists being approached by production companies (notwithstanding such as DeCicco 1988— focusing more on how archaeologists can develop their own public relations rather than on consultative roles). Too often, it is left to personal judgement concerning whether to agree to consult or otherwise advise, let alone participate in a programme designed for broadcast, a decision made more difficult in cases where one has only limited or no previous experience of such encounters, or is working in an environment where peer advice may not be forthcoming or available. We are also often told, through various codes of professional standards, as well as through an increasing collective awareness within our discipline about the importance of public engagement and education, that we have a duty to engage with the wider public. Should this engagement not include offering advice when asked by those in society who have a real possibility to influence many people, such as television programme makers? Even ‘open’ forms of communication such as blogs, Facebook and Twitter, arguably reach only a small fraction of people compared to television programming (Altschul 2015, 4). After careful consideration and inspired by a suggestion from a close, trusted colleague, it seemed timely, and perhaps on a personal level for me, important, to write this article, intended for early career archaeologists and other colleagues who may be facing difficult decisions regarding media production company interactions. In the following sections, I diverge from what might be considered a ‘typical’ format for academic writing and frame my perspectives—from my own experiences but also from discussions with peers—in the form largely of questions and answers. Some of these answers are, inevitably, framed around my personal understanding and are often reflexive in tone. Many suggestions and observations are more general, and also reflect the experiences of others with whom I have spoken, and who have offered comments and insights that I have worked into this piece (see also the Acknowledgements). In this way, I hope to address at least some of the possible issues that may help people in a similar position to the one in which I found myself. This discussion includes points to consider before deciding whether to work with a production company, but also addresses some of the anxiety you might experience, should the outcome not correlate with your expectations. We should always remember that the objectives and goals of media production companies are almost certainly going to be different to those of archaeologists and heritage professionals. This point is not to suggest that media production companies intentionally sabotage an archaeologist’s ‘good intentions’, but it is important to remember that your own expectations of what makes a successful media output may be at variance with those of the production company personnel. You can never fully predict exactly when a bad, even damaging, outcome from a correspondence or collaboration will occur. However, you can (and should!) learn from your own experiences and the experiences of others. Things to Consider Before Agreeing to Consult, Give Advice or Otherwise Participate in a Media Project The first stage in any interaction is the initial contact—usually by email or occasionally by telephone or via social media. The production team with whom I spoke were very courteous, enthusiastic and (of course) very complimentary about me and my research. I was also flattered that a colleague, someone I knew and respected, had thought of recommending me to them. It was exciting to be asked to do something like this. Because they proposed to work with metal detectorists, and that was an area where I have undertaken specific research, it felt like an opportunity to make a positive impact, giving advice on one of my areas of knowledge. It also seemed to me from our conversations that the company really was trying to approach their chosen subject in a responsible way by contacting not only me, but other archaeologists too. Talking to a production company, and asking for further information, does not mean that you have actually advised them, nor does it obligate you to give them advice. Just because you have offered information and advice at this or any point also does not mean they are obligated to take that advice. A company could also use the fact that they have spoken to you to encourage others to work with them. With these considerations in mind, here are some questions to consider, and areas to try to obtain more information about, before making a decision whether or not to follow up on an initial approach from the media. What is the Project Really About? Sometimes your contact may be vague about what they are planning. This could be because they are still at an early stage of the process, and are not yet sure of the direction that it will take. Cynics could speculate that they may also sometimes try to phrase their ideas in a way that sounds less controversial than it is, if they suspect that what they want to do might not gain approval from professional archaeologists (connected to this: as non-specialists they may not realize that there are ethical or other types of problems connected with what they want to do). How Much More Can I Find Out? The moment someone approaches you, start to take notes, including the date, time and who you are talking to. Ask many questions and ask to see information that they have. Make sure you have the name of the production company who you are talking to. Press for more information if they only tell you that they are making a programme for a particular broadcasting network (such as Channel 4, National Geographic Channel or who-ever). The network is just the distributor’s publisher, whereas the production company themselves are the ones making the programme. End the first telephone conversation with a request for them to email you with a précis of what you have been talking about.