Facts, fiction and coding

When we turn on the TV, we immediately decode what sort of program we are watching. If we watch “Paradise Hotel”, we expect a reality show and everything we associate with the genre. We expect drama, fighting, sex, betrayal and so forth. If we turn on the News, we expect to be fed with factual information about the happenings in the world. If we see a film, we also have certain expectations. When we see a romance film, we expect love. When we see an action film, we expect a fast pace and violence. When we see a horror film, we expect to be scared and so forth. We call these genre expectations.
Within the world of media/literature, we deal with two major categories, facts and fiction. Facts tell us something about events and situations, which have already happened; facts therefor have an obligation to reality. Facts involve factual information, which can be subsequently checked for accuracy. However, fiction is made up where neither the people nor the events have root in the real world. Fiction therefore has no obligation to be factually correct and we cannot subsequently check for accuracy.
When we watch films, TV programs or read texts, a sort of contract of understanding occurs. The contract is defined as agreements where the sender, in accordance with the receiver, agree on whether the film/text is fact or fiction. To make sure the receiver and sender are in accord, we use fact and fiction coding to decipher/ sort out fact from fiction and vice versa. The codes have the function of making the invisible signals more visible, in order to help us understand the subject better. In modern day media, it is very hard to figure out when a subject is fact or fiction, because the genres are more often mixed than separated. However, when we look at coding, we look at the list below:

Fact and fiction coding Fact | Fiction | The information is credible | Building suspense with a clear and visible climax | The information is reliable | Usage of actors/actresses | The information is summarized with sub-conclusions (delkonklusioner) | Recordings are staged | Time and place stick to facts in the real world | Settings are artificially constructed | The people in the text/media are real people and not actors/actresses | A free and casual relationship with time and place | Devices such as the rhetorical, word choice ect are neutral and unimpressive as to make it objective | Devices such as Ethos, pathos, logos | Own opinion is left out | Music | Voice overs /a agent explaining the facts and only the facts | Artificial lighting | | Symbols (in form of pictures ect) | | Voice overs /a agent explaining the facts and only the facts will break with the fiction coding |

Documentary as a genre:
While the news programs deal with the short versions of events, which have happened across the world, the documentary genre dives into specific areas. The genre is known for taking its time and investigating subjects no matter their importance. It does not have to be a current issue in society here and now. It can also be historical documentaries, documentaries about death row inmates in the U.S, climate change and so forth. Each documentary has its own angle and perspective within a particular area, meaning that you will rarely find two documentaries that say the same thing or have the same angle. Since this genre can investigate a variety of issues, it has been divided into sub-genres to make the contract between sender and receiver clearer. Within this genre, we find four major categories: * Portrait documentaries focus on one person’s life and identity. This documentary genre often deals with a person in crisis, actors, actresses, politicians, royalty ect.

* Sociological documentaries focus on groups of people and subcultures in our society. This subgenre often have focus on groups of people or people, who we do not immediately relate to or go by their everyday lives, unnoticed by our society.

* Institutional documentaries focus on the part of society, which are often closed to the public such as prisons, psychiatric hospitals and the police.

* Case oriented documentaries are a sub-genre, which focus on subjects such as economy, law, ethics, politics, climate change and so forth. This genre goes in-depth and is very revealing in its findings. The genre often takes up sensitive subjects and points to where society is flawed and needs work.

Yet when we sit down and watch documentaries, we often face a narrator of some sort. The purpose of the narrator is to set the style and voice of the documentary. Yet we do not find only one kind of narrator. Here we also have four kinds of narrators. * Authoritative narrator: This type of narrator is an omniscient narrator, meaning the ALL KNOWING GOD. The narrator can jump in time, place and from person to person. The goal of this type of narrator is to guide the viewer through the documentary to get a better understanding of the information, which is presented, in the piece of work. We often see this type of narrator in critical and revealing journalism such as case oriented documentaries. This narrator’s job is to line up the facts so that the documentary will appear logical, matter-of-fact, convincing, and in full correspondence with fact coding.

* Observing narrator: This type of narrator does not involve voice-over or interviews. The viewer is presented with the raw version of the people and the environment of the documentary. There are no music or sound effects used. We often see the kind of narrator, when we ourselves film our surroundings such as birthdays, concerts, parties and so forth.

* Interactive narrator: This narrator is up close and personal with the viewer. It is often the organizer of the documentary, who takes on this role. Viewers often find this kind of narrator provocative, aggressive and self-promoting. The narrator interacts with the viewer, lets the narrator’s own opinion shine through or tells it directly, while making sure the viewer understands why and how the documentary was made. Michael Moor and Morten Spieglehaur (Operation X) are two of the most famous narrators within this narrating style.

* Poetic narrator: This narrator is often shown through symbolism and associative use of sound and picture. We often find this type of narrator more interested in creating a mood and emotions than dealing with fact and argumentation. It is the narrating style that likes to mix fact and fiction, and therefor the most tricky narrator to deal with when trying to find out whether the documentary is fact or fiction.