The content of the newspaper article is mainly about Harold Shipman’s court trial, whereas the TV documentary focuses on each of his victims, and how he carried out his murders.
Paragraph 2
The words in the newspaper article are very negative of Dr Shipman. The words in the article are used to make Shipman look like a monster, with a sick twisted mind.
“…was yesterday convicted of
murdering 15 elderly female
patients, and may have killed
dozens more…”
By saying ‘dozens’, it doesn’t give an exact figure, leaving the reader thinking that he murdered a larger amount of people than the actual figure that was given to the newspaper, making him seem even more evil. Both the TV documentary and the newspaper article contain words that try to influence the audiences views on Shipman. The newspaper only quotes the parts of the trial that shows people saying negative things about Shipman and his practice.
“Each of your victims was your patient
and you killed each and every one of them
by a calculated and cold blooded perversion
of your medical skills.”
This quote was taken from the trial. Judge Justice Forbes probably said more, but this sentence really summarises his sheer wickedness.
“Yours was not a healing touch.
None of them knew that it
brought them death, which was
disguised as the caring attention
of a caring doctor.”
This quotation from the trial is about how Shipman used his power over his patients to his advantage. He played god, he could control life and death, and he meddled in this.
The way he meddled with life and death is also expressed in the title of the TV documentary, ‘The Man Who Played God’. The police think that this is what drove him to commit all these atrocities, the almighty power that he had over his patients. If someone was looking through the TV guide, and came upon ‘The Man Who Played God’, it would make them interested, and make them want to watch it, and after they have, it would be clear why it was named that.
In the documentary, there is a recording of Harold Shipman talking into a tape recorder for a police interview; his voice is that of an educated man, a voice of a normal 54-year-old man, nothing in his voice would show that he was ‘Britain’s most prolific serial killer’. His voice is not unlike the narrators, a formal voice, someone who sounds trustworthy. If you heard the two voices, you would not be able to tell which was the serial killer. I think this gives off a hidden message, that however nice people may seem on the outside, or however educated they are, it doesn’t mean they are good people.
Paragraph 3
The TV documentary uses different presentational devices to show their information. To show some of the murder scenes and scenarios they producers of the show have used black and white reconstructions. These are very affective, as the footage is done in a way where the video is not smooth, its jumpy, and it doesn’t show all of Shipman’s face. The actors in the reconstructions don’t talk, the only sounds in the footage, are the dramatic music that is played throughput the whole documentary and the voice of the narrator. Also in the documentary are interviews with members of the police, asking them about what was going on during the case, and why they didn’t do anything the first time he was investigated. The use of interviews is good, as they show the viewer other people’s opinions and thoughts on Shipman and his doings. This reassures the audience that what the judge ruled was right, and what the documentary is saying about him is accurate.
Paragraph 4
The tone of the television show is very serious. Throughout the show there is no humour at all. This was because the theme of the documentary was death, it would have been wrong to have included jokes, or any other kind of humour.
The documentary included an interview with a policeman that was involved in the 1st investigation of Shipman. Somebody from the TV show was interrogating him over why he had not acted quicker when he had found suspicious evidence when investigating Shipman. The police officer says that he knows nothing of this case, but the interviewer continued to interrogate him, asking him the same question over again. In the end the police officer walks away from the interviewer as he is seems to be very annoyed, but is acting suspiciously. This is a very serious, and tense moment in the documentary. If the officer had acted sooner, maybe not so many people would have been killed. Maybe this is why the officer denied knowing anything of the previous Shipman investigation, and why he left the interview, he felt guilty.
Throughout the documentary, different pieces of music are played. The music is used to add to the mood. The use of music in the reconstructions is very effective; it gives off an eerie feeling. The music is slow, with lots of low noted being played. If the music were fast, with lots of high-pitched notes, this would give off a bright and happy feeling. The producer of the program didn’t want the audience left feeling happy, he wanted them to feel hate towards Shipman, and helped this by using the type of music he did.
Throughout the documentary, there are a lot of disapproving comments made towards Shipman, by people who knew him previous to his conviction. The tone of voice used by these people is a mixture of bitterness, resent, and shock, that the previously well-trusted family doctor could have been found guilty for such atrocities. Not once during the television documentary, was any good aspect of the doctor talked about, or even mentioned.
The newspapers purpose was to mainly inform us of the Harold Shipman Court trial. They write a lot of quotes from the trial, many of which give negative views of Shipman and his practice. The tone of the newspaper is very serious. This is down to the type of newspaper. It is a broadsheet; this means it is stereotypically aimed at the more business type person, or maybe the older generation.
As well as informing us of the Shipman trial, the program is also used to inform the public of the power that their GP has. Shipman’s victims thought that they could trust their doctor, when he came to visit them, as far as they knew he was coming round to heal them. How were they supposed to know what Shipman’s real intention was? How do any of us know what the doctor is actually prescribing to us?
“…barrier of trust that
surrounds a doctor.”
This quote sums up how his patients were totally oblivious to his wrongdoings. Your GP is supposedly someone who you should be able to trust, someone who you can talk to about your physical and mental health. Your health is in his hands, and if he is out to hurt you, then what chance do you have?
Paragraph 5
The two different pieces of media that I am comparing in this essay are intended for different audiences. The newspaper article was in ‘The Guardian’ newspaper. ‘The Guardian’ is a broadsheet paper; this means it will only cover certain types of stories, making it appeal to a smaller group of people. It only covers stories that appeal to the businessman, older people, or generally, the ‘upper class. This means that only this type of people will read the article. Papers such as ‘The Sun’ and ‘The Mirror’ are what’s known as tabloid papers, these type of papers cover a much wider range of stories, from celebrity sex scandals, up to stories about the serious things that are going on around the world. Tabloid papers sell a lot more papers that broadsheets, this is because they appeal to a much wider audience. They are even printed abroad for the English people on holiday.
The ‘Panorama’ documentary was on television, and was shown after 9 o’clock. 9 o’clock is what’s known as the watershed in this country, this means that programs shown after this time may not be suitable for younger viewers. The show on shipman certainly wasn’t, it was intended for the eyes of children. The ‘Panorama’ documentary series is quite a popular show. When there has been a big new story that is all over the media, ‘Panorama’ will sometimes cover the story. Television documentaries don’t usually appeal to teens, or young adults, they are seen as boring.
I think that the television documentary will have got quite a lot more viewers than the newspaper article will have had readers. I think this because watching television is much more popular than reading the newspaper, and reading ‘The Guardian’ newspaper, or just tabloid papers in general, is even less popular.
Conclusion
After reading through both ‘The Guardian’ newspaper article, and the ‘Panorama’ television documentary, I have come to the conclusion that the television documentary is much more effective. It included a much wider range of information, and showed coverage of the case right from when Shipman allegedly started killing off his patients. The information that it presents is presented in a very informative and effective way. It uses reconstructions of how Shipman is thought to have murdered his victims. There are also interviews with the family members of the deceased, and with friends and colleagues of Shipman. The voiceover in the program provides all the important information; he provides all the information in the newspaper article and more. I think what let the article down, is that it concentrated mainly on the final trial of Shipman. It didn’t include much useful information about the murders. Even if the article was written by writers for ‘The Sun’ and was featured in that paper though, I still think that the television show would have been more effective. Television appeals to a huge audience of people, it’s a part of people’s lives. Newspapers such as ‘The Guardian’ are becoming a thing of the past, and are being wiped out by tabloids, magazines, television, and the Internet.
