Both the videos you have watched, Esther and World in Action, are concerned with travellers. What differences and similarities are there between the techniques each programme uses and what effects do those techniques create?

The effect of this difference in that in World in Action the travellers had a chance to say to the cameras what they think and believe what they really are without getting discriminated for it, while on Esther they cannot speak what they believe to the audience around them without being interrupted.

The location was another big difference between the two programmes. Esther is in a studio and is very under control if anything goes out of hand while filming. As it is only a daytime chat show it could easily be broadcasted on radio stations as there isn’t anything that you need to see.

World in Action is varied a lot where the documentary is filmed i.e. on roads festivals and in their homes which they travel around in.

The difference of this is that World in Action is not under control, everything happened as it came, know one could predict what was going to be said or done next.

This gave me the impression that World in Action seemed to be very realistic and is what life is really like for travellers on the road, just trying to find a suitable place to stay for a few nights but then getting forced to move on all the time.

The way the music was used brought out another difference Esther seemed to be very jazzy, happy, and cheerful and gives you the feeling that someone is there to listen to you and give you advice. The music for World in Action is very serious and sounds as if it is very powerful and dramatic; the harshness of the instruments tells me this.

A further difference was voice over/presenter at the beginning. World in Action was a faceless voice and was very serious deep toned which was trustworthy and reliable. It gives you the impression that everything he says is true. The presenter Esther on the programme titled Esther came across a soft, friendly, caring voice I also think the fact that the presenter of the show is female helps as it gives you the impression that she is there to listen to what you have to say.

Another difference between the two programmes is the timing/purpose and audience. Esther had an audience that were mainly retired people or house wives as it is daytime television which reduces the size of the audience that are viewing it. Therefore World in Action has a completely different audience viewing the documentary of all different age groups as it is prime time TV. It is shown straight after soaps so they can guarantee that a numerous amount of people would be watching it.

The effect of this is that they try to show everyone the same programme (World in Action) at a time that the majority of people would be watching television so that our society get a one and only view on how travellers live, this is one in which I see the media is trying to choose our thoughts and feelings on the subject of travellers.

In conclusion I thought that World in Action was the most interesting programme out of the two that I saw.

I found the most effective to be World in Action as it showed the truth about them, what they go through and what conditions they live in.

The assignment has shown me that travellers are really just looking for freedom and peace and they do go through a lot just to get that pleasure that they’ve been fighting for, but people protest against their choices and disrupt their innocence.