CHAPTER IV. CASE STUDY#1: UNITED NATIONS TELEVISION
“For most people, the United Nations, now with 192
member countries, is a large, untidy organization which often disappoints and
is rarely heard of when it succeeds. Only a few now remember that The United
Nations came into being in 1942 just after Pearl Harbor. It was the brainchild
of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Winston S. Churchill and described
the alliance that was then fighting for its life against Hitler and his Axis
allies.”
Sir Brian Urquhart[1]
IV.1.
Introduction
This is the first of two case studies of Institutional Documentary Production. For
the purposes of this dissertation, we shall define Institutional Documentary
as Documentary produced for a client. In both of the first two case
studies, the clients were entities working under the umbrella of the
international organization known as The United Nations.
The two United Nations production entities selected for study here
are:
2. The MONUSCO Video Unit 2007-2012
(www.YouTube.com/MONUSCO
IV.2.
Aims
Both entities share superficially similar goals, in that
both were trying to generate what they consider to be positive images of the
United Nations and United Nations activities. However, these case studies will
show that these two entities differ significantly in terms of origin, mandate,
communications philosophy and styles of documentary production and
distribution. In addition, these case studies will show why
the fact that both United Nations Television and The MONUSCO Video Unit and are run by the United Nations, with its
unique institutional philosophy and management style, is significant.
The author believes that an appreciation of the unique institutional
philosophy and management style of the United Nations is essential for any
evaluation of the UN’s efforts in strategic communication; for the specific
purposes of this dissertation, the author believes these case studies will show
that the United Nations has always had difficulty creating effective
contemporary documentary product, and is now having difficulty adjusting to the
demands and challenges of New Media.
IV.3. Method
The primary method I
shall employ to explore the nature of creative decision-making at UNTV and The MONUSCO
Video Unit will be
the analytic structure created by German cinema scholar Thomas Elsaesser for
examining the production process of industrial films by dividing it up into “the three
A’s: Auftrag ( commissioner); Anlass ( reason); Adressat ( use).”[2]
To illustrate and
compare the evolution of UNTV documentary styles, I shall employ the Kristin Thompson model for Text Analysis
of
selected documentary productions from the United Nations entities being studied.[3] Finally, to help place the Analysis of the evolution of UNTV documentary style in a
historical context, I shall provide a basic chronology of UNTV production from the past
four decades. To begin, let us start with an overview of the origins of the United
Nations Department of Public Information.
IV.4. The United Nations Department of Public
Information[4]
When President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and
Prime Minister Winston Churchill created the first United Nations to organize
the Allied war effort in 1942, one of the first actions taken by the new
organization was to create a United Nations Information Organization in
New York. The primary task of the UNIO was to promotion of the Allied
effort in the United States through dissemination of what was euphemistically
called public information; and this public information included
propaganda films like Grierson’s Churchill’s Island. [5]
When the United Nations as we know it
today was created in 1946, all United Nations television and media production were
under the supervision of the United Nations Department of Public Information,
which, as the name implies, was mandated with providing the general public with
information about the United Nations and United Nations activities. However, in this context , it is
important to remember that the 1946 UN Charter never specified how UN
DPI was supposed to implement its mandate. Media philosophy and
communications strategies were not mentioned. One result of this omission has
been a constant internal debate between media professionals and political
officers regarding UN media
philosophy.
For example, many
media professionals in UN Public
Information have had a journalistic background, and would like to see their
task as keeping the world informed about what the United Nations is doing in
their name. However, since all media
professionals working for the UN Department of Public Information have
the generic title of Information Officer,
they also soon learn that providing the general public with positive information
about a given organization is not the same as news coverage of that organization. Indeed, one of the first
instructions given to any UN Information Officer is to emphasize “solutions,
and not problems.
While it might be technically
accurate to say that the job of a UN Public Information Officer is to make propaganda
for the UN, the pejorative connotations of the term propaganda are
still strong in the Western world, so most UN managers avoid it altogether.
Instead, many follow the old war time tradition of saying that “while the
enemy does propaganda, we do public information.”
Today, many UN managers prefer to equate
the professional function of a UN
Information Officer with that of a Corporate
Public Relations Officer. As shall be seen, this internal debate regarding
the mandate of the UN Department of Public Information has continued until the
present day. However, as is customary within the United Nations, the formal
discussion has been limited to the highest levels between the decision makers
in senior management; those actually responsible for media production, like the
Chiefs of United Nations Television have been consistently left out of
the discussion of strategic communications goals and strategies.
IV.5. The Grierson Model for Documentary
After a decade developing his unique style of
documentary as a producer promoting the British Empire with the British Empire
Marketing Board Film Unit, and, later, with the British General
Post Office Film Unit, Grierson was invited by the government of Canada to set up the National
Film Board in October of 1938. By this time, the Grierson style of documentary was
well established.
Among other things, Grierson prized
production efficiency over the poetic aesthetics of documentary; as soon as he
realized location shooting was both time-consuming and expensive, he encouraged
his team to make compilation films using old footage whenever possible in the
tradition of Soviet documentarian Esther Shub. More controversially, even when it
was technically possible , Grierson discouraged location sound recording of
individuals telling their own stories, preferring to use omniscient narrators
recorded in the studio in what Grierson called Direct Action Narration. Not all of his team had agreed with this approach; one of the most significant dissenters was
Grierson’s own sister Ruby Grierson, who was quoted as telling her brother,” The trouble
with you is that you look at things as though they were in goldfish bowl…I’m
going to break your goldfish bowl…”
Ruby Grierson then
proceeded to make the powerful documentary Housing Problems (1935)[6] with only the voices of
the subjects telling their own individual stories after she directed them: “Now tell the bastards
exactly what it’s like to live in slums…”[7]
When Grierson moved to Canada in 1938,
by all accounts, the Canadian government offered Grierson creative freedom and
generous economic resources, and Grierson responded by importing many members
of his talented UK team to work with him at the NFB. When World War II started in 1939, Grierson was appointed Minister of
the Wartime Information Board by Canadian Prime Minister William MacKenzie King, with the primary mandate
of producing documentary films to promote the Allied War Effort.
As
a result, during World War II, Grierson’s Direct Action Narration became
the international standard in the film industry. The reasons were more
practical than aesthetic. Prior to the advent of television in the 1950’s,
documentaries like Grierson’s were usually part of the Newsreels projected
in cinemas before entertainment features. Technical conditions were primitive,
and sound and picture quality was often poor; as a result, while a film’s audio
track might possess acoustic subtleties in the mixing studio, such subtleties
usually disappeared by the time the film was projected in a theatre. As a
result, rather than risk an incoherent or muddled soundtrack, Grierson’s
solution was to have a single, dominant speaker conveying all important
information to the audience. To illustrate, here is an Analysis of one
of Grierson’s Canadian National Film Board productions for the World
War II propaganda effort: Director
Stuart Legg’s 1941 documentary Churchill’s Island.
IV.5.1. Analysis of Churchill’s
Island (1941)
Featuring a stirring wall-to-wall
narration by Canadian actor Lorne Greene, Churchill’s Island is also perhaps one of
the best examples of the Grierson Direct Action Narration. From the start of the
film, the very real threat of a German invasion conveys a powerful sense of
urgency. We see newsreel footage of ordinary English civilians from all walks of life
preparing to defend their country against the Germans we see preparing to
attack them. Greene’s omniscient and rousing third person narration holds the
21:30 minute film together. Greene, who later became a television star on the
popular American television Western series Bonanza, had a rich baritone voice (nick-named by colleagues The Voice of
Doom),
making him an ideal narrator for an unapologetic wartime propaganda film like
this one. The contrast between Greene’s full-throated narration and the cool, calm
voices of the English civilians chatting on the frontlines as they prepare for
battle is effective, and helps offset the somewhat heavy-handed symphonic score
used throughout to emphasize Greene’s key lines.
The film also engages us emotionally by
contrasting the informal, friendly banter of the English civilians with one of
Hitler’s speeches and shots of the German military machine. The film ends with
an unexpected pay-off: a cameo
appearance by Prime Minister Winston Churchill himself as he tours England’s
frontline defenses with his customary smile and charm.
Commentary: Directed by
long-time Grierson protégé Stuart Legg, Churchill’s Island won the 1942 Academy
Award for Best Documentary Short Subject, and was shown in 800 theatres around
Canada for 6 months, and was then distributed for the duration of the war to libraries, schools, churches and factories
around Canada on the 16mm distribution network set up by Grierson and the NFB.6
Today, there is general agreement that
Churchill’s Island is one of Grierson’s most successful wartime documentaries.
Produced when the outcome of the war was still in doubt, the film employs basic
dramatic devices to get the motion picture spectator to care about the fate of
the English civilians we see. Since the primary target was the North American
audience, with the goal of getting the United States to support the British war
effort, this film achieved its apparent goals.
IV.5.2.
The Grierson Legacy
As mentioned in Chapter 2, when
Grierson resigned from the Canadian Film Board in 1946, he had grand plans for
several post World War II projects in the United States, including a position
as the first United Nations Assistant
Secretary General for Public Information[8].
He was preparing for this assignment in
London when he learned his visa to the United States had suddenly been revoked
by J. Edgar Hoover, Director of the American Federal Bureau of Investigation,
in response to the Gouzhenko espionage scandal in which Grierson’s
secretary’s name had been mentioned. As mentioned in Chapter 1, Grierson fully
cooperated with the subsequent Canadian investigation, and was never formally
accused of any misconduct. However, the undeclared Cold War had already begun,
and guilt by association was enough to destroy a career – even one as
illustrious as Grierson’s had been. Understandably desperate, Grierson took a
job as UNESCO Director of Mass
Communications and Public Information in Paris, France, where his inability
to speak the official language of French was a decided handicap.
Undaunted, Grierson then attempted to
spread his vision of documentary throughout the British Commonwealth countries
of India, Australia, and other countries in the Anglophonic developing world. Today,
the Grierson influence can still be found in former colonies of the United
Kingdom such as India and other Commonwealth countries, as well as in Francophone
Africa and the United Nations. As was the case during World War II, the reasons
are practical rather than aesthetic. For government administrators and other
bureaucrats, the direct address narration facilitates institutional
control of message, enabling them to show their bosses they are parroting the
party line. Unfortunately, since many of these same administrators appear to
have little or no awareness of modern media techniques, this phenomenon can
become self-perpetuating, resulting in the continuous production of mediocre
material of interest to few other than the VIPS being depicted.
Today,
most documentarians see the Grierson direct address narration as both
patronizing and antiquated, and a style to be avoided, if at all possible; indeed,
between professional colleagues, direct action narration is sometimes referred
to disparagingly as The Voice of God. In spite of this industry trend, United
Nations Television remained wedded to the Grierson Direct Action
narrative technique in television documentaries well into the new Millennium.
IV.6. United
Nations Television
As mentioned previously, American president
Franklin Delano Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill created the
first version of the United Nations in early 1942, with the goal of unifying
the allied war effort against Hitler and the Axis power. What with the profound initial
influence of John Grierson, United Nations Television might have been
expected to become an institutional clone of Canada’s National Film Board.
However, there were significant major differences from the start. For
example, UNTV has a mandate to document the many meetings and events at
the UN Secretariat in New York for both broadcast media outlets and the
historical record. Given the many meetings of the UN General Assembly and the
UN Security Council, and related events, this task today consumes much of UNTV’s
resources for broadcast media. Today, UN Web TV has a mandate to
document official activities at the UN Secretariat for posterity and to inform
the world about United Nations activities in the 8 official languages.
Otherwise, while UNTV
initially emulated the National Film Board in terms of style and production
methods, UNTV never had the
capacity to create anything like the independent 16 mm distribution networks
like John Grierson did in Canada during World War II with the NFB.9
Instead, United Nations film distribution was initially farmed out to regional United Nations Information
Centers, which often had little or no incentive to promote local interest,
and with lamentably predictable results. As a result, what with the rapid
growth of commercial television in the years immediately after World War II,
the first UNTV documentaries were seldom seen in critical donor
countries like the United States or Western Europe. Since the United Nations
bureaucracy has consistently tried to measure communications success in terms
of quantity rather than quality, UNTV documentaries were given away in
developing countries, which had a lack of programming.
There is another significant quality
that makes UNTV unique in institutional documentary production. Today,
the UN consists of 193 member states – all of whom are potential clients. While
UN member states are not supposed to directly interfere in UNTV productions,
over the years, both DPI and UNTV senior managers have learned to
anticipate any potential problems with an extensive program of self-censorship,
with the ultimate goal of avoiding controversy.
Thorold Dickinson, a respected British
feature film director who ran an early incarnation of UNTV from 1956-60, had this to say about the UNTV production
process:” If the United Nations dares to
comment, it cannot avoid some measure of controversy. This it dare not do. Only
the converted layman can break this circle of ineffectuality. And he must have
the courage to be unpopular and the courage to persist...”10
In addition to these political obstacles,
the production and distribution of UNTV products have been hampered by a labyrinth of
official and unofficial bureaucratic rules and, as shall be seen, this
institutional resistance to change has made it difficult for UNTV
managers to keep pace with the fast-changing world of contemporary media both
stylistically and technically.
The
following chronologies, based primarily on interviews with former writers,
directors, producers and Chiefs of UNTV,
offers insights into the evolution
of both the style and content of UNTV
production in the years from
1975-2017.
IV.7. United
Nations Television, 1975-88
Background
From 1975- 1988, the author worked as a
freelance writer/director for UNTV, which was then called Radio/Visual
Services; to avoid confusion, we shall hereafter refer to Radio/Visual
Services as UNTV. In these years, the Canadian National Film
Board connection was evident, with RVS Director Marcel Martin, Production
Manager Francois Seguillon, and Distribution Head Daphne
Brooke-Landis all being veterans of the NFB. As producers, RVS employed
Edward Magruder Jones from the American company CBS News, Gilbert Lauzun
from the French L’ORTF, and had a production staff of four American
directors and two Indians. Editors and production staff were not UN staff, but
all worked for an American sub-contractor named Eichwald.
In 1975, the primary task for the UNTV
team of directors and producers was the Man Builds, Man Destroys series
- a series of 30-minute documentaries on different environmental issues
identified at the 1972 UN Conference on the Human Environment in
Stockholm. Production usually involved weeks of costly travel by the team of
director, cameraman, soundman and equipment to several different countries, and
then months of leisurely post-production in 16 mm. There were rarely any hard
deadlines or broadcast production schedules, for the simple reason that most of
the productions were never seen in primetime evening viewing hours on commercial
broadcast television. Instead, they were broadcast in morning hours, when there
was little commercial demand for airtime, and otherwise they fell into the
category of educational films, which meant they were shown in
educational institutions and on local educational television channels.
The critical variable for these
productions was script approval. Scripts were written in English and revised
many times, with a focus on the words of the narration, with visuals being
secondary. Since the years of 1975 -88 were
during the Cold War, both DPI and UNTV employed staff members
whose primary function was to anticipate superpower sensitivities on any given
subject, and any subject that the superpowers could not agree on was generally
taboo. In practice, this meant that major events such as the Korean War could
not be mentioned at all.
Stylistically, all these films featured
Grierson Direct Address narration, so once the written text was vetted
and approved, language versions could be made in the official UN languages of
English, French, Spanish and Arabic. One of the limitations of this approach is
that, if directors wanted to have the subjects of the film speak for
themselves, or use any voice other than that the narrator, these voices would
have to be dubbed, since subtitles were discouraged. As a result, most of the UNTV
documentaries from this period had few voices other than that of the
omniscient narrator who was, by default, the official voice of the United
Nations.
The following Analysis of a
documentary in the Man Builds, Man Destroys series – Nor Any Drop to
Drink – serves as a stylistic illustration of a typical UNTV production
at that time:
IV.7.1 Analysis: Nor Any Drop to
Drink (1975) 9
As mentioned, this documentary was part
of what the UN Audiovisual Library called “a major UN series of 30
films dealing with our global environment and what man is doing to it,” produced
by UNTV for American educational distribution after the UN
Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm in 1972. Americans Peter
Hollander and Joe O’ Brien served as Executive Producer and Producer/Director,
respectively. Representatives for the New York State Education
Department Bureau of Mass Communications served as consultants, and handled
all primary distribution to educational television networks.
The first thing we see is the logo for the
UN Environmental Campaign, along with the title MAN BUILDS, MAN
DESTROYS, and we hear what sounds like a snippet from American composer
Aaron Copeland’s Fanfare for the Common Man. Then we hear the voice of
the narrator, Ed King, informing us in omniscient third person that this film
is part of: A series of programs about this planet, and what man is doing to
it…
King’s American voice is bland, almost
insipid, and the delivery conversational, almost deadpan. There is no sense of urgency or commitment to
the subject matter.
We cut to a helicopter shot of
Mexico City; with languid guitar music in the background, and we hear King
continue: …Man is by nature a friend and foe of the environment… In Mexico
City, the roll of a rubber ball points
to a problem that man has created in his search for drinking
water…You get what you pay for – an old axiom
that is still true today,,,
With the same languid guitar music in
the background, we then cut to Africa, and see Africans building a water
pipeline. King continues: … On the West Coast of Africa in Ghana, you get
two things: pipes that bring pure water to villages for the first time, and,
second, a water bill at the end of each month…
For the next 27 minutes, the film
continues in this fashion, haphazardly juxtaposing scenes from around the world
linked only by the same wall-to-wall monotone narration by King. There are no
dramatic conflicts, and, above all, there is no sense of urgency. For example,
while the narrator mentions the problem of pollution, we never see any of the
potentially disastrous consequences of pollution. Instead, we see pretty
pictures of flowing water, and hear the narrator telling us that water is
important, and that we all need it.
At around 5:00, the film leaves Africa
and we visit Southern California. For the first time, we hear individuals
talking about their own water problems. However, at 6:41, before their stories
can get interesting, narrator Ed King returns, backed by some television game
show music, and to tells us about a Rand Corporation project to bring icebergs
to Southern California as a source of fresh water.
At about 10:00, the narrator begins to
talk about another California project – transforming ocean water into drinking
water… Mr. King abruptly takes us back to describe water in Ghana, which
apparently has a plentiful supply of fresh water but needs pipes to create a
delivery system.
The film then transports us back to
Mexico City, and we hear from a few Mexican officials about Mexico City’s
serious water problems, which sound potentially interesting, but before we can
get involved, the narrator returns to suddenly whisks us off to the American
city of New Orleans, apparently for the sole reason of showing us the
Mississippi River.
At 25:07, to the tune of the same
languid guitar music as we heard in the beginning, Ed King calmly but somewhat
alarmingly concludes: …We are fast approaching a place in time where there
may be plenty of water – but nary a drop to drink…
The film ends with a long shot of
sunlight shimmering over an attractive, presumably unpolluted body of water.
Commentary: While
the narrator of Nor Any Drop to Drink, Ed King, has a pleasant voice with good
diction that might work for corporate promotions of pharmaceuticals designed to
enhance sleep, Mr. King’s voice lacks the sense of urgency or drama required to
engage an audience on an important environmental issue like drinking water.
Since we hear his voice from beginning to end for almost 29 minutes, this is a
factor. More important, however, since one of the premises of this dissertation
is that successful documentary requires strong narrative content, the absence
of any discernible narrative structure is a critical flaw in Nor Any Drop to
Drink. Finally, the fact that this documentary was produced in an anachronistic
documentary style more than three decades after Churchill’s Island raises
questions about the creative management of UNTV at that time. While the
Grierson Direct Action Narrative style might have worked for American motion
picture audiences used to watching newsreels in motion picture theatres during
World War II, thirty years later the style seems dated and anachronistic.
IV.7.2. Comparison of Churchill’s
Island and Nor Any Drop to Drink
Let us now compare these two
institutional documentaries using some standard questions for evaluating
documentary to provide a structure for the comparison:
· The
first is: what is at stake? In the case of the World War II film Churchill’s
Island, it is clear from the first minute or so that it is the future of
England – and, by extension, the English people – that is at stake. In the case
of Nor Any Drop to Drink, what is at stake is not clear at all. The film
never shows the consequences of severe water problems, like droughts,
starvation and disease. As a result, Nor Any Drop to Drink lacks any
sense of urgency. In short, this documentary lacks a coherent dramatic narrative.
· A
second basic question is: Why should we care? In the case of Churchill’s
Island, the film introduces us to sympathetic English civilians, and
juxtaposes them with the German soldiers preparing to invade England. This is
an old trick used by Alfred Hitchcock and others – show appealing, innocent
people, threatened by a menacing external force – and the spectator will
generally sympathize with the people being menaced – provided they are
appealing and innocent enough, and the external threat is ominous enough. In Nor Any Drop to Drink, however, there are no innocent civilians to
identify with, nor are any menacing external forces shown. If the film showed
the destructive effects of contaminated water emanating from, say, the
slaughterhouses run by a multinational corporation on, say, the children of a
community, and then showed the citizens of the community uniting to protect
their children, there would be a potentially engaging story to follow. The
bottom line, however, is that there must be a good reason to care.
· Finally,
there is the basic question of the Narrator’s Voice. Most documentary
producers know that the quality of a narrator’s voice can make or break a film.
If the voice lacks appeal, most spectators will quickly turn off, regardless of
the quality of the narration being read. On the other hand, if the spectator
likes the narrator’s voice, the spectator may forgive deficiencies in the
script or the film itself. In short, a well-trained actor’s voice with the
appropriate timbre for the project is an invaluable commodity – and finding the
right voice for a narration can be as important as casting the right person in
the lead role. As previously noted, Lorne Greene, narrator of Churchill’s
Island, had a voice of such legendary quality that it earned the industry
nickname of The Voice of Doom, and he was an inspired choice for Churchill’s
Island.
IV.7.3. Analysis of UNTV Productions from 1975-88
To examine the
creative decision-making process at UNTV at that time more closely, let
us apply Thomas Elsaesser’s analytic model for industrial film production to
the production of the United Nations Thirtieth Anniversary film, To Be
Thirty ( 1975), the official film for International Year of the Refugee, Footnotes to a War ( 1980) and the
official film for International year of Shelter for the Homeless, Shelter
for the Homeless ( 1988).
IV.7.4. Production Analysis :To Be
Thirty
Commissioner
(Auftrag):
In 1975, the author was offered his first assignment for UNTV
in 1975 as co-writer/director with the late Steve Whitehouse of the United
Nations 30th Anniversary film To Be Thirty. With North
American youth as the target audience, our assignmen t was to create a short
film (c. 13 minutes) on how the United Nations had changed along with the rest
of the world since the end of World War II. At first, it seemed like a great
opportunity. However, while the UN Film Library turned out to a treasure trove
of rare historic footage from around the world, Steve and I soon discovered
that, thanks to the afore-mentioned Cold War politics, the film was a political
minefield.
1976 was the 30th
Anniversary of the 1946 founding of the United Nations, and then UN
Secretary General Kurt Waldheim had decided that the UN should produce a
film to commemorate the event; he then ordered Genichi Akatani, Director of
Public Information, to get UNTV to produce a short documentary that
would show how the UN had changed in the 30 years since its official creation
in 1946. This was not an unusual request; UNTV had produced many
documentaries to commemorate important dates in UN history in the past.
What was unusual, however, was the
specific instruction that a North American youth audience be the primary
target audience for the film. Akatani passed the assignment on to Director
of Radio/Visual Services, Marcel Martin, who then assembled a production
team, consisting of Senior Producers Gilbert Lauzun and Edward
Magruder Jones. Together, they decided to entrust the project to two young
newcomers – author Ted Folke as freelance writer/director and co-writer
Steve Whitehouse, who worked for ECOSOC -The UN Council on Economic and
Social Affairs – with veteran in-house editor David Sherman
ostensibly in charge of the two young externals. Since UNTV productions
at that time were almost exclusively produced in-house by one of the writer/directors
on permanent contract with UNTV, this was a major departure from
standard UNTV practice; unlike most American corporations and
advertising agencies, UNTV never sought competitive bids from commercial
production houses for projects.
The fact that the production of To
Be Thirty had no budget for travel outside New York might have been a reason
for the lack of interest from permanent staff members accustomed to leisurely international
travel on their documentary productions. From the start, To Be Thirty
was officially designed to be a compilation film using archival material
from the extensive in-house UN Film Library, which had material from
around the world dating back to 1946. As a result, any live shooting for the
production was to be limited to the New York City.
Reason (Anlass): The goal of the production, as
expressed by UNSG Kurt Waldheim, was to explain the changing role of
the United Nations in the world to a North American youth audience. As
previously noted, the targeting of a specific audience was unusual for UNTV.
However, given the climate of overt hostility towards the
United Nations in New York in 1975 as evidenced by negative press and even by a
few bomb threats against the UN Secretariat itself, this focus on the North
American youth audience made some sense. However, even if UNTV succeeded in
producing a documentary that would appeal to the intended audience, the big
question was how that intended audience would be reached, since UNTV documentaries
were rarely shown on American broadcast television. Chief of Distribution
Daphne Brooke-Landis was content to use the existing method of
distribution; prints of the finished film would be sent to UN Information
Centers around the world, to be distributed locally to nearby countries.
Use (Addressat): Since
this is an analysis of the UNTV creative process in 1975, a brief
chronicle of the journey from the original assignment to the final product might
be relevant
here. This will be a reflexive first-person chronicle,
written from the perspective of the writer/director, who is also the
author of this dissertation:
When producers Gilbert Lauzun and Edward
Magruder Jones first met with us in the spring of 1975, they told us we were
going to make a compilation film of 13 minutes with a third person Voice-of-God
narration in the classic institutional John Grierson tradition; Steve
Whitehouse, who had had news broadcast experience in his native New Zealand and
Hong Kong, would be the narrator.
To freshen up the stock footage we got from
the UN library, we were asked to shoot new images of the UN Secretariat There was no mention of a schedule, with the
understood assumption being that the film had to be completed and approved well
before the 30th anniversary of the United Nations in 1976.They then
gave us a shopping list of important historical events to cram into the 13
minute film, and the meeting was over.
As soon as Steve
and I had a chance to review this shopping list, we knew we had a big problem
of content. For example, while many events were on the list, major events like
the Korean and Vietnam Wars were completely off-limits, which made it all but
impossible to deliver a linear historical narrative of the past 30 years with
any credibility. And, of course, there was the old problem of style – both
Steve and I knew we would not be winning any young North American hearts and
minds by boring them to death.
After a weekend
of brain storming, we came up with the following solution to the content
problem: start with the one historic event everyone could agree on – the
Peoples Republic of China acceptance as a member of the United Nations.
Otherwise, we decided to ignore the shopping list altogether. As far as style
was concerned, Steve and I both wanted to abandon the anachronistic UN
Griersonian Direct Address narration and instead create an impressionistic,
stream-of-conscious narration that dealt with emotional realities, rather than
historical facts.
This narration
would be delivered by a fictitious UN employee who was a real person with
thoughts, concerns and doubts about the world and the role of the United
Nations in that world; we realized that while we couldn’t be honest about real
events, we could be honest about feelings, hopes and concerns. To make our hero
someone whom the audience could relate to, we decided to show him driving his
motorcycle to work in New York City on his birthday in a depressed state due to
his personal 30- year old crisis. We also carefully avoided any mention of the
United Nations for the first few minutes, since we knew that many in our
intended youth audience would tune out if they suspected it was a UN production.
In short, our goal was to make a film that
looked and sounded completely different from anything the UN had ever made.
Given the intended target audience, we knew music would be a critical
ingredient. I contacted an old friend who worked with the popular English group
Pink Floyd and was thrilled they unexpectedly gave us the rights to their hit
record Dark Side of the Moon for free. At that time, Dark Side of the Moon was
reportedly the best-selling album in the history of the music industry, so
suddenly we had a spectacular contemporary soundtrack with the best-selling
recording in recent history– and cool visual music that was a radical departure
from the soporific classical music favored by some of our more experienced
staff colleagues.
To compliment this spectacular
soundtrack, we knew we needed some powerful visuals, so we searched for ways to
make our protagonist’s New York commute visually interesting. When we
discovered we could get a new Bell Jet helicopter with pilot for free from the
New York City Mayor’s office to provide aerial coverage of our protagonist’s
commute, we started making a storyboard with Ivan Stoynov, the best
cinematographer in UNTV. Ivan, who had learned his craft at Italy’s famed
Centro Sperimentale gave a quality visual look to all the new footage we shot
in New York. Most of the shots show our hero riding towards us in New York City
traffic, and were shot with long lenses from the rear of a station wagon with
deflated tires; the biggest challenge was finding enough pavement without
potholes to ensure smooth shots, so our hero’s route from Brooklyn to the
United Nations was a triumph of artistic license over geography. Ivan also
found a way to make all the helicopter shots smooth and dream-like by shooting
in slow motion, so that footage surpassed our wildest expectations.
Thanks to strong creative support from our
boss Marcel Martin, our producer Gilbert Lauzun, and the entire team, the
pre-production period and the two weeks of shooting in New York went smoothly.
While we were shooting, editor David Sherman was in the selecting the best
shots from past productions in the UN Film Library, and the film began to take
shape. David was a brilliant editor well versed in the contents of the UN Film
Library, and, thanks to Steve’s keen knowledge of the United Nations, we
managed to avoid stepping on many of the political landmines in our path.
For example, in 1975, relations between
the USSR and China were tense; Steve
knew the Russians would be unhappy that we had chosen to highlight China’s 1972
entry to the UN, so he arranged with some resident Soviet friends to get some
rare footage of a World War II victory celebration in Red Square that had
special significance for Russian viewers, and a potential problem was averted.
When it was finished. the film was well
received by all our resident political experts, as well as by all our UN
bosses, including UN Secretary General Kurt Waldheim. and released with only a
few minor changes. To Be Thirty was a dramatic departure from conventional UNTV
institutional fare and proceeded to win many prizes, eventually becoming the
most popular UN film ever, being shown around the world in over 15 different
languages. Ironically, our only real problems proved to be internal. Some of
our more senior UNTV colleagues who were not involved in the production did not
seem to like the film; it took some time for me to understand that Steve and I
had committed the unforgivable sin of making them look bad in the eyes of our
ultimate employers – the United Nations General Assembly, who naturally
wondered why UNTV was not making more films like To Be Thirty..
An old adage in creative work and
sports is “never break up a winning team” and successful teams are usually kept
together and nurtured. However, such was not the case at UNTV; despite our
success, Steve and I were never asked to work together again. Nonetheless, we worked
together on some projects outside the UN, and remained good friends until his
death in 2018.
IV.7.5. Analysis: To Be Thirty12
The opening shot
of To Be Thirty is a low angle shot of a motorcycle in the foreground
parked on a New York City street. It is a sunny spring day, and we hear the
diegetic sound of kids playing off-camera. A young man in a business suit walks
towards us carrying a briefcase and a full-face motorcycle helmet. He is out of
focus as he approaches from across the street, and we get only a glimpse of his
face as he gets on the motorcycle. As he puts on his helmet and inserts his key
in the ignition, we see only that he is a handsome Caucasian male of about 30.
We cut to a
close-up of the kick starter as he starts the engine, and we suddenly hear the
dramatic opening of Pink Floyd’s song Us and Them. We then see a
series of shots of our protagonist as he rides towards us, accompanied by Us
and Them. All of the shots are taken with a long lens, tracking backwards
as he rides from Brooklyn to Manhattan. When he crosses the Brooklyn Bridge, we
see him as he enters the frame from the left and exits frame right.
We next see him
on the busy streets of downtown Manhattan – this time in close-up. The camera
is still tracking backwards with him. At 1:13, he starts an internal monologue
and, from the sound of his voice, he seems troubled: …30 years old… What a
way to start a birthday- there must be more to turning 30 than going to
work!... I can’t say I feel so different – though I suppose people are going to
see me as being different… As if I knew where I was at, and where I was
going…which is absurd, because I don’t know any better than the next person…
As he says “which
is absurd”, we cut to a long shot from a helicopter as our protagonist
rides up the East River Drive towards the United Nations, which comes into
frame at 1:38 as our protagonist says: …Like when I say where I work – at the
United Nations – I’m expected to know where the world is at and where the world
is going…
As the UN Secretariat fills the frame,
our protagonist disappears, and the music builds to a crescendo as the
helicopter-mounted camera takes a 360degree shot of the iconic UN building
while we see the Main Title: To Be Thirty is superimposed. We next see
our protagonist riding into past an idyllic flowing fountain in the UN
Courtyard and then heading into the UN Garage. At 2:18, his Voice-Over
continues: … I do know one thing: the world’s got a lot of problems… And
after a few years here, I’ve given up thinking the UN is selling any easy
answers…
We
see UN staff from behind passing through the revolving doors to the main
building, and
at 2:31, our protagonist, now on foot, follows them into the
building with his helmet in his hand:
…So, where does that leave the UN? After all, it was one of
my parents’ generation’s most cherished hopes…Is that all it’s turned out to be
– a string of hopes?
We
see a huge pendulum in the visitor’s lobby, surrounded by visitors. He
continues: … Yet, it’s amazing how many visitors still come here. To look
around, to wonder. And now the UN is over 30, and it looks like we are both in
the same boat… People are going to be looking over our shoulders, expecting a
lot. As they did when the UN was founded…
At 3:00, we
cross-fade to a black-and-white Second World War victory celebration in London
– a line of soldiers and civilians doing a popular dance called The Lambeth
Walk. Our motorcyclist speaks: …Peace was a precious thing then –
especially for those who had fought for it. And they set up the UN in the hope
that peace would be preserved…
We cut to a black-and-white World War II
victory celebration in Red Square in Moscow to Russian music, and we see joyous
civilians celebrating with soldiers with fireworks in the background. At 3:30,
we make a hard cut to color footage of tanks advancing into the frame from the
Egyptian-Israeli War. We hear our protagonist continue: …But the conflicts
still go on…
For the next
10 minutes, the film shows some of the major problems confronting the planet–
natural disasters, famine, disease, and the environment – and describes how the
UN is trying to cope with them. The film does not attempt to paint a rosy
picture; quite to the contrary, it tells us the world is facing some formidable
challenges, and that the UN only can serve as a vehicle for confronting some of
these challenges when the countries of the world agree to do something. Towards
the end, we see shots of the earth from outer space, and our protagonist leaves
us with this sobering thought: …A small and finite planet – but its all we
have…A far from perfect world – only too accurately reflected in a far from
perfect United Nations… We’re all here now – because nothing else has worked…
The film ends
with a tracking shot of the flags of the world waving in a stiff New York
breeze, followed by a long, slow helicopter shot moving in on the UN
Secretariat from the North, accompanied by the Pink Floyd song Eclipse.
As the helicopter circles the building, we see the closing credits.
Commentary: By
all accounts, To Be Thirty was a big hit with audiences around the world. The
film was reportedly translated into 15 different languages, and won prestigious
awards, including a The Vatican Special Prize for Films Dealing with Economic
and Social Affairs. Perhaps equally important, there were no controversies
caused by the film, and it remained in circulation for well over a decade.
However, the question of whether or not it reached a North American youth
audience with the desired message is more difficult to answer.
In 1976,
broadcast media in the United States was dominated by large commercial
television networks who, safe to say, did not find documentaries commercial,
and therefore did not show them. There were few alternatives; cable television
was in its infancy, and CNN was not founded until 1980. At that time, UNTV was
devoting most of its capacity to producing the environmental series titled Man
Builds, Man Destroys, which was only shown in the mornings on commercial
stations like WABC in New York, and distributed to universities and other
educational outlets.
The natural
alternative was PBS, the Public Broadcasting Service, a non-commercial public
broadcaster which did produce and broadcast documentaries on social and
political issues; however, by the mid 1970’s. the United Nations had reportedly
become so controversial in the United States that all UNTV productions had been
banned from PBS broadcast as “propaganda.”
Unlike most
large corporations, the United Nations Department of Public Information never
invested in marketing studies in an attempt to determine the success or failure
of a given public information campaign or production. In 1976, the only metric
used to measure the success of any UNTV production was the number of prints
ordered from the UN Information Centers located around the world. Since
promotion by these UN Information Centers was rarely ever coordinated, or even
encouraged by UNDPI in New York, except on an ad hoc basis, it is difficult to
determine the success or failure of any UNTV production. As a result, while an
international demand was documented though print orders, there is no way to
ascertain or even guess the size of the North American audience for To Be
Thirty. However, what with the number of language versions produced (an
estimated 15 language versions), and the longevity of the film in the UN
Catalogue (more than 10 years), along with word-of-mouth, it seems safe to
conclude that To Be Thirty was a success for UNTV .13
The author
believes the relative success of the film can be attributed to three factors:
· An
engaging impressionistic style, thanks to a credible first-person narrative
· Unusually
honest content, talking about UN failures as well as successes
· An
internationally popular soundtrack performed by world famous band Pink Floyd
Despite this
apparent success, however, the film did not seem to have much of an impact on
UNTV product for the next few years. The films produced by
UNTV continued to employ third person, omniscient male Voice-of-God narrations
featuring one of several favorite narrators.
Likewise, even though there were many excellent musical
recordings by prominent artists who probably would have been happy to allow
their music to be used free-of-charge, most of the producers continued to use
the same music as previous productions. It was not until my next UNTV
assignment four years later that I discovered how entrenched the resistance to
change was at UNTV.
IV.7.6. Production Analysis: FOOTNOTES TO A WAR14
Commissioner (Auftrag): The
United Nations has many different agencies, but none of them has the production
capacity of UNTV.As a result, if an agency had a film to produce, the
agency would approach UNTV like a client, and offer to fund travel and
other expenses if UNTV would provide a team and produce a film on the
subject in question from concept through to final cut.The UN agency would
provide research, expertise and location assistance, and the UNTV team
would shoot on location and then do the post-production at UNTV in the basement
of the UN Secretariat in New York, with the UN agency representatives serving
as consultants.
In 1980, The
United Nations Refugee Agency, perhaps better known by the acronym UNHCR,
came to UNTV a request for a documentary on refugee resettlement for
International Year of the Refugee. At that time, tens of thousands of
refugees from Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam had fled from their homes and were
living in temporary camps in Thailand waiting for UNHCR to process their
cases and either find them new homes as political refugees in other countries
or send them somewhere else as economic migrants. UNHCR wanted a film
showing how some refugees had been re-settled in Canada and Germany.
UNTV accepted
the project, and gave the assignment to a director with a family background in
Italian cinema named Simone diBagno. A true cinephile who, no matter how
humdrum the assignment, always wanted to create true cinema art, Simone was
often mocked by his more pedestrian colleagues in UNTV, especially when his
lofty aspirations had gotten him into trouble on the editing table.
Reason (Anlass): UNHCR
wanted to produce a film which would promote understanding
of how people become refugees, and explain the difference between a refugee and
an economic immigrant. They also wanted to increase receptivity towards
refugees in potential host countries like Germany and Canada, and International
Year of the Refugee provided a pretext for making such a film. To do this,
they sent Simone and his team to the refugee camps in Thailand and then helped
him find a Cambodian woman to follow to her new home in Canada, and a Cambodian
girl to follow to her new home in Germany. While this might seem
like a straight forward story, there were major political obstacles. For
example, Simone was expressly forbidden from mentioning the conflicts these
people were fleeing from, as well as the names of any of the countries
involved. In short, he could not explain why these people had left their homes
and families to live in decrepit refugee camps in Thailand, and this inability
to provide basic facts made telling the story in traditional documentary
fashion difficult, if not completely impossible. Simone found himself painted into a
corner, and my old producer from To Be Thirty, Gilbert Lauzun, suggested
bringing me in a script doctor to figure out a way to tell the story. Simone
agreed, and I joined the team with editor Mark Robbins in the spring of
1980.
Use (Addressat):
Again, a brief chronicle of the journey from the original assignment to the
final product seems relevant here. This will be a reflexive first-person
chronicle, written from the perspective of the writer, who is also the
author of this dissertation:
I took a look at the material with Simone and editor Mark Robbins,
and, with the lessons from To Be Thirty still fresh in my mind, I wondered if
we should instead try to recreate the emotional experience of being a refugee
by having a refugee tell us the entire story from his or her first-person
perspective. In that way, we could re-create the emotional reality of being a
refugee while avoiding the specifics of how these individuals shown became
refugees, which seemed impossible without mentioning Laos, Cambodia or Vietnam.
Simone agreed. The first challenge was
finding someone who could tell the story; after a lengthy search, Mark found
visuals of a Laotian medic named Lin Piao who had been working in the refugee
camps of Thailand for several years, and was still waiting with his family for
his case to be processed. In short, like most of the other refugees, he was in
a state of limbo. While his situation suited the narrative we wanted to tell,
this put us at odds with our two senior producers, who clearly wanted images of
the refugees Simone had followed to Germany and Canada – in short, a happy
ending. We, on the other hand, felt
strongly that this was not a feel-good kind of story – after all, even though
we could not show or mention it, millions of people had been killed. As a result, we were adamant about returning
to Lin Piao in the Thai camp at the end, and reminding the audience he was
still there – along with most of the other refugees. To enable Lin Piao to tell the stories of
those who were resettled, we decided that, as a medic, he could credibly have
met the other principles, and could therefore tell their stories.
This bit of dramatic license technically made
the film a docudrama rather than a documentary, but Simone, Mark and I felt
that this was the best solution to a difficult problem. Unfortunately, our
American executive producer Peter Hollander clearly felt this was a terrible
solution, and the dispute went on for weeks. Finally, Peter gave up, shouting,”
If this film is going to work, it will have to be the best narration written in
the history of the UN!”
Peter didn’t know I was married to an
Ethiopian refugee at the time, and that I had effectively been doing research
day and night for months. It took us a while to find a good Asian narrator who
spoke excellent English with the appropriate accent and inflection, but we
eventually did find one named Lu Yu in Hong Kong.
IV.7.8. Analysis: Footnotes to a War
The
film opens with a long shot of cloud-shrouded mountain in central Thailand. We
hear rolling thunder, and the camera tilts down through the clouds until we
finally see a refugee camp at the bottom of the mountain. When the camera
stops, we hear a loud thunderclap, and then see the main title in News Gothic
Bold: Footnotes to a War
We
see the heavy rains of the monsoon falling on the destitute inhabitants of a
rural Thai village, and we hear the narrator, Lin Piao: …For our ancestors,
the monsoon was a blessing from the heavens… For us in the refugee camps of
Thailand, the monsoon is a plague. A plague with a harvest of misery and
disease…
We
see the patients of a crowded and primitive medical ward in the refugee camp.
Lin Piao continues: …Each day we reap few fruits of the monsoon. Malaria.
Dysentery. Encephalitis. And for some- death…
We see an Asian
medic walking towards us through the patients. We hear him say: …My name is
Lin Piao. I was once a soldier trained to fight. Now I am a medic, trained to
heal…
With
the identity of the narrator established, we are then introduced to the major
activity of the refugees: waiting, and hoping to be selected for resettlement
and a new life in some far away country. Lin Piao speaks softly, with an Asian
inflection, but his words reveal mixed feelings.
He has already spent a few years in the camp, and he is
happy that at least his family is intact, and that they are safe and have
enough to eat. Then he says: …Even a full belly cannot satisfy the hunger
for a home and a country to call one’s own…
He
starts to reminisce about some of those who have been resettled – a little girl
who ended up in Germany with her family, and a woman who ended up in Canada. In
both cases, in spite of the generosity of their hosts, we can see the cultural
transition is difficult for the children, and painful for the adults.At the
end, we return to the camps, where Lin Piao is checking up on a new wave of
arrivals. As we see him working, he comments: …Those seeking some golden
opportunities may be disappointed… But anything would be better than remaining
here as footnotes to a war…
We
pull back from the rain swept camp into a long shot. Then a crawl tells us how
many refugees have been resettled, and how many are still living in the camps
in Thailand.
Commentary: Footnotes to A War
was the first UNTV film to ever win an American Film Festival Blue
Ribbon, and was very much appreciated by our clients at UNHCR, as
well as by UN leaders such as the late former Secretary General Kofi Annan, who
personally selected the film for screening at the Venice Film Festival ,
and told us it was his favorite UN film. Our boss Marcel Martin, also let us
know he liked the film. Unfortunately, his feelings were apparently not shared
by our American colleagues at UNTV. The reasons for this antipathy have
always been something of a mystery.
In terms of
content, we had carefully followed the guidelines given, and avoided mentioning
Vietnam, Cambodia or Laos. In terms of form, however, we chose to make one of
our subjects the narrator, in the hope of making a more honest film. This
docudrama format allowed us to circumvent some of the political restrictions
imposed by the UN, and made the films more engaging by injecting emotional
realities that the spectator could identify with. In addition, the docudrama
format made the films generic, and gave them a much longer shelf life than a
traditional documentary format would have.11 In retrospect, after a recent long discussion
with editor Mark Robbins, I can only conclude that these American colleagues
found our search for new narrative techniques and formats threatening because
we successfully showed new narrative techniques they had been unwilling to
consider themselves.
I realize now that without the active support
of Radio Visual Services Director Marcel Martin, we would probably have
never been able to make the film at all. Thanks to his background with the Canadian
Film Board, Marcel seemed to have a better understanding than our American
colleagues of what we were trying to do, and the value of his support became
apparent in our next production after he had left the UN.
IV.7.9. Production Analysis: Shelter
for the Homeless
Commissioner (Auftrag):
My next production as Simone’s screenwriter was less successful; in retrospect,
however, it serves as a textbook example of much that was wrong with UNTV
production at the time – both in terms of form and content. The assignment was
to make the official documentary for the United Nations Year of Shelter for the
Homeless, with the UN agency Habitat for Humanity as the official client. There
were problems from the beginning.
Among other
things, the political climate had changed significantly. 1988 was the last year
of the Ronald Reagan presidency in the United States, and it was no secret
that, unlike President Jimmy Carter before him, President Reagan had little use
for the UN. Indeed, unlike any previous American administration, the Reagan
administration had adopted a far more pro-active approach towards the agencies
of the UN – including the Department of Public Information. While we normally
expected this kind of interference from the Russians, we surprised to find it
coming from their Cold War adversaries, the Americans.
Reason (Anlass): As was the case with all UNTV films,
our instructions were to emphasize solutions rather than problems, and we did
our best to find a typical UNTV approach that would satisfy all parties. In
keeping with the traditionally acceptable UNTV formula of showing examples from
both the developing and developed world, Simone shot in Rio de Janeiro, Sri
Lanka, and New York City, with an emphasis throughout on solutions, rather than
identifying possible causes.
We had also planned to shoot sequences
of homeless people in New York, but when Simone returned from production in
Brazil, we learned from Senior Producer Peter Hollander that no images
of American homeless would be allowed in the film at all. Simone and I were shocked;
in 1988, due to rampant real estate speculation, there were homeless people
openly sleeping on the streets of New York, so the problem was hardly
invisible. In addition, Simone had been planning to film former American
President Jimmy Carter working with Habitat for Humanity in the Bronx to
refurbish slums, so we felt we had already shown sensitivity to the American
sensibilities. When we got no support at all from Yasushi Akashi, the new Director
of the Department of Public Information. we realized we were on our own.
Use ( Addressat):
While we were ready to compromise in traditional UN fashion, neither Simone nor
I were ready to promote the myth that homelessness existed
as a problem only in the developing
world. Since we also all agreed that this blatant political interference was a
flagrant violation of the UN Charter, I decided to leak the dispute to the
press. To do so, I had to go on the record with my name in a New York
newspaper. When Mr. Akashi denied my charges of censorship, we thought that we
had lost the war. However, the tide shifted miraculously the following day when
the American ambassador to the UN confirmed to a New York Times reporter
that he had given UN DPI instructions “not to show American homeless
unless we emphasized that in America the homeless have freedom of choice…”
The American Ambassador’s statement
implying that homeless Americans were homeless by choice generated a lot of American
media attention , and, thanks to the subsequent political scandal, Shelter For the Homeless got more far
media attention than it cinematically deserved, and it actually won prizes at
the Karlovy Vary Festival, as well as an award from something called the
Pyongyang Film Festival in North Korea. My personal award for my act of
whistle-blowing was to become persona non grata at UNTV for more than a decade.
I didn’t mind, since I was well aware that I had broken UN rules.
IV.7.10. Analysis: Shelter for the Homeless15
This 27-minute documentary opens with
a scenic montage of a glorious sunrise over Rio de Janeiro’s Guanabara Bay. As
the sun rises, we see the iconic profile of Corcovado Mountain in the warm red
light, and then a deserted Copacabana Beach Boardwalk. An idyllic synthesized
musical score fades in behind the touristic postcard images. We cut then to
people still sleeping on a street in Ipanema, one of Rio de Janeiro’s most
upscale districts. As we see a mother sleeping with her baby. Narrator Norman Rose
begins to speak: …You can see them everywhere…For some people, they
are invisible- outcasts to be shunned. For others, they are tragedies – victims
of social injustice...
In close-up, we see one
of our protagonists sleeping on a piece of cardboard– Carmelito, a boy about 10
years old. Rose continues: …But whatever one’s point of view, the plight of the
millions of homeless people around the world is an undeniable fact of life…
The synthesized musical
score turns ominous as we pull back to a medium shot as Carmelito wakes up and
washes his face in a bucket of water in front of a grocery story. The narrator
continues as we see Carmelito begin his day’s work – helping motorists park
their cars. Rose says: …Carmelito is one of the millions of children who
live, sleep and work in the streets of Latin America…He spends his days helping
people park their cars in Ipanema – one of Rio de Janeiro’s most exclusive
neighborhoods.On a good day, Carmelito will make enough to eat – if he is
lucky…
We see a motorist handing
Carmelito a few bills…
The film continues in this style,
showing us glimpses of the life of Dona Maria, an older woman living in a shack
in Paovonzinho, a shantytown on the hills above Copacabana Beach. We see the
white sands and the blue waters of Copacabana Beach down below.
Norman Rose says: …Dona Maria
has the best view in Rio – but she pays a different price. In the 30 years she
has lived here illegally, Dona Maria has had to do without water, electricity,
or sanitary facilities. She shares her tiny one room shack with 14 members of
her family, and spends her days baby-sitting for her 6 grandchildren while the
rest of her family is out looking for work… Both Dona Maria and Carmelito are
homeless – victims of inadequate shelter…
We see
Dona Maria with her grandchildren, talking about her life. The film then shows how the city of Rio is
trying to improve the lives of people in Paovonzinho in different ways – by building a tram to provide transportation
up the steep slopes, and, perhaps most important, by giving the residents land
tenure, and making them legal owners of their properties so they have some
security and can get credit at financial institutions.
Turning to the problem of street
children like Carmelito, the film then shows how street children are rounded up
and sent to detention centers with other street children outside the city. While
Norman Rose does not say it explicitly, the film clearly implies that these
detention centers could become the unintended training grounds for a violent
new generation of Brazilian youth, and that there are no easy solutions for the
problems of urban homeless.
At 14:18, the film then moves to Sri
Lanka, to tell a story of rural homelessness in the developing world with the
story of a poor farmer who wants to build a house large enough for his extended
family. A government program provides him with the basic tools, and he does the
rest.
Throughout,
the narrator continues to drive the story, with only a few token comments by
the subjects or any of those trying to help them. We are never engaged in their
lives, because we never have a chance to get to know any of them. Norman Rose’s
narration does not help. While he had a rich baritone voice famous in New York
commercial circles as the original Voice of God, his delivery is authoritative, omniscient and patronizing.
In short, Norman Rose’s narration in this
film is almost a parody of the Voice of God; while Mr. Rose, like Lorne Greene in Churchill’s
Island, had an
excellent voice, there is no sense of urgency in Shelter for the Homeless. Since there is nothing of
importance is at stake, there is no conflict or drama which might unify the
film.
Commentary: For me, the film was both a political
and an aesthetic failure. A fundamental rule of documentary is to present the
viewer with accurate content, and Shelter for the Homeless failed to do this.
All documentaries should be seen in their social and political context, and,
for anyone who had lived in New York City during the presidency of Ronald
Reagan, the notion that homelessness was a problem only in developing countries
was a cruel joke.
In the 1980’s,
there seemed to be homeless people living on the streets in all the cities of
America, and the reasons were clear to anyone who had been paying attention:
mental hospitals were throwing their patients onto the streets, and real estate
speculation had led to an astronomic rise in rents. This was the story we were
not allowed to tell at all.
The second failure was aesthetic; more than
half a century after John Grierson had started making documentaries with Direct
Action narration, and more than two decades after Direct Action narration had
become an anachronism in the industry, we had not only made a documentary with
a major factual misrepresentation, but a documentary dominated by a patronizing
Voice of God narration.
Simone and I had hoped we could convince our
producers that, like Footnotes to a War, the film required a creative approach
to be credible for the intended audience, but this time we had no champions.
Marcel Martin had left UNTV, and his successor Georges LeClerc did not want to
get involved; as noted previously, the political climate had changed
significantly during the 8 years of the Reagan presidency. This complete lack
of support from our UNTV producers and senior managers caused me to lose
respect for their professional integrity…
IV.7.11. United Nations Television and
the National Film Board
As previously noted, United Nations
Television was created in the wake of World War II after John
Grierson created The National Film Board of Canada. Initially, the films
being produced by both institutions were understandably similar in both form
and content; many of the first UNTV directors had been trained under
Grierson at the NFB, and there were close ties between the two
institutions. However, whatever the initial similarities, the policies and
mandate of the NFB underwent profound changes in the turbulent 1960’s,
as Canadian media scholar Zoe Druick explains:
For
the NFB, the most important policy shift in the 1960’s was organized under the
banner of Challenges for Change and Societe Nouvelle. The new program, which
was developed in tandem with the new social policies, was based on the argument
that participation in media projects could empower disenfranchised groups and
that media representation might bring about improved political representation.
In 1967, the NFB submitted a proposal for ‘a program of film activities in the
area of poverty and change…16
In practice, this meant developing
styles and formats which would give a voice to the intended disenfranchised
groups, which included indigenous peoples, and women; in the following decades,
The Challenges for Change program radically transformed both the form
and content of CFB documentary production, and kept the CFB in
the vanguard of international institutional documentary production. By the
1980’s, these changes had become part of the CFB institutional mandate.
Zoe Druick elaborates:
Years ago, the NFB not only led but was
almost alone in the service of specialized audiences…The challenge of the
eighties is simply this: to discover new ways of reflecting the cultural
maturity of our country using the new communications technologies so that the
Board may continue to render a service to the nation as a whole by its traditional
means of serving separately and specially, the individual parts…17
By comparison, UNTV remained
mired in a World War II media philosophy and aesthetic.
IV.1.8. United Nations
Television, 1988-2008
IV. 8.1. Background
The end of the
Cold War had a profound effect on the United Nations. Suddenly the old political mine fields
vanished, and there was a renewed sense of hope and optimism. Since the primary mandate of the United
Nations had been to prevent World War III, now many felt it was time to
broaden the scope of UN activities and find new ways to improve the
quality of life for the people of the world. However, at UNTV, the mood
was less euphoric. 1988, the Reagan administration had ordered massive budget
cuts, which meant the termination of several veteran directors, and
significantly less funds for production.
In addition, there
were technical challenges in both production and distribution to deal with.
Analog video technology had improved, and 16 mm technology was gradually being
phased out in professional documentary production around the world. Likewise,
the educational market for long form documentaries, so UNTV was forced
to find new formats suitable for broadcast on the new phenomenon of Cable
Television, or risk becoming completely irrelevant.
Georges Leclerc,
Director of Radio/Visual Services from 1986-1993, attempted to solve
this problem by eliminating the costly Man Builds, Man Destroys series,
and instead creating the UN In Action
series – in an early version with producer Claire Taplin, and later with Steve
Whitehouse, who became Chief, UNTV in 1997 until his retirement in 2008.
Radically different in both form and content from its predecessors, The UN
In Action series allowed UNTV to produce corporate news stories on
UN-related subjects with guaranteed international distribution through CNN,
which had just become the first international satellite broadcaster.
In a 2017 interview,
Steve Whitehouse described the origins of UN in Action:
…As far as
regular output was concerned, we realized we had to adopt a new philosophy.
Rather than trying to find a market/slots for 30-minute and 60-minute
documentaries -especially when many broadcasters now wanted a series of 13 or
26 shows within their own national news programs, which are always among the
highest rating programs in all countries. That was the origin of UN in Action...
Steve described the new production strategy in the
field as “speedy and efficient “news-style shooting with the end products being
3-4 minutes in length to conform to the needs of news programs and all were
shot in the field. The UN in Action programs were then produced in all
the UN official languages and, thanks to the new distribution through CNN
World Report, their
combined audiences were hundreds of millions of actual viewers in scores of
countries.
Regarding
editorial philosophy, Steve commented:
…As far as I was concerned, the editorial
philosophy was clear and elemental: we had an absolute responsibility to the public
to show what the UN and its agencies were doing with the tax payers’ money, and
we had stories to tell stories the audiences could not get from any other
source...
The UN in Action programs dealt with
topics such as population issues, peacekeeping, environmental stories, and
humanitarian relief, and Steve dismissed any suggestion that UNTV was subjected to
political pressures when he was Chief, UNTV:
…In my time we experienced virtually no
editorial interference from the UN hierarchy. They just let us get on with it.
We were not trying to compete editorially with independent news organization;
we specialized in stories they were not covering. Over a span of more than
1,000 items over the years, I can count the times we had any editorial problems
on the fingers of one hand...
IV.8.2. Analysis: Brazil: The Ethanol Revolution18
The UN in Action programs were generally
short (c. 5 minute) documentary reportages on a UN Agency activity somewhere in
the world, and were shot on location with an emphasis on how the UN Agency
activity benefitted the local population. Here
is an example from June, 2008, titled Brazil: The Ethanol Revolution;
the reportage tells about how the bio-fuel, ethanol, is generating a revolution
in renewable energy that could help reduce the world's thirst for oil, but is
also adversely affecting the lives of the sugar cane cutters in the process. The
reportage opens with a sequence of documentary shots of a Brazilian
agricultural worker cutting sugar cane. An Anglophone news narrator sets the
scene by just stating facts:…49 year-old Severino de Andrade works for Moema
Mills, a large agribusiness company in Sao Paulo State in southeastern
Brazil. From sugarcane, the company
makes ethanol gasoline as a substitute for gasoline in Brazil. This is helping
to reduce the harmful pollution which is changing the world’s climate. But
despite his work, Severino and several hundreds of thousands of others may end
up losing their jobs. Ironically, due to the success of their industry…
We then see Severino. He
speaks Portuguese, with his voice
overdubbed into English by another voice speaking Brazilian accented English:… I’m
getting old and I don’t have an alternative. I hope to be able to find work
elsewhere…
We see a Brazilian
scientist working in a laboratory, and the Anglophone narrator introduces him:…
Tadeo Andrade is a director at the country’s leading scientific and
development center…
We see Tadeo Andrade speaking directly to the camera, his
voice overdubbed into English by the
voice with Brazilian accented English: …No other country has so much
technology related to sugar cane: producing different plant varieties, growing,
cutting for exporting, and all industrial processes related to sugar and
alcohol production…
We see long shots of sugarcane being processed. The
Anglophone narrator explains: …During the 1970’s, the Brazilian economy was
hard hit the global oil embargo, and rising prices. The country’s military
government launched a national program to reduce the country’s dependency on
foreign oil. It encouraged the production of ethanol plants, offering low
interest loans to sugar companies, and subsidies to keep the price of sugar
low…
We see shots of cars on Brazilian streets, and a motorist
filling his gas tank. The Anglophone narrator continues:…The automobile
industry responded quickly, and now widespread ethanol use has made Brazil a
global leader in cutting down carbon emissions and oil imports at the same
time…
We see a sequence of shots of machinery at a sugar mill
making ethanol. The Anglophone narrator explains: Increases in demand for
alternative fuel and an urgent need to address environmental concerns are
fueling an international demand for Brazilian biofuels. During the first 6
months of 2007, the country’s ethanol exports shot up by 70 %...
We see machines harvesting sugar cane being operated by
three workers. The narrator says: …This is the future of the industry. 50 %
of the harvest at Moema Mills is now mechanized. The three workers who operate
these machines can replace 60 cane cutters…
We see a cane cutter commenting on the situation in
Portuguese, overdubbed into English:
…The mechanization process
is here to stay. Its worrying to us. But we cane cutters are human machines. We
are the beginning of the entire process…
We see a sequences of sugar cane field waste being
systematically burned. The Anglophone narrator explains: …Traditionally,
manual harvesting of sugar cane is aided by burning, which clears the plants’
serrated leaves and tops. The burning is carefully controlled… But this was not
always the case. Fires themselves create pollution, and uncontrolled blazes
have led to the destruction of forests and wildlife…State legislatures have set
a deadline for stopping this practice, and by the year 2014, burning fields
will no longer be permitted, and almost all of Sao Paulo’s sugar cane
plantations will shift from manual to mechanized harvesting. This means cane
cutters will no longer be needed…
We see a group of cane cutters working. The Anglophone
narrator continues:…There are no guarantees that jobs will be found for each
cutter. But there is awareness that large scale unemployment could lead to
social chaos. Ricardo Brito Perreira is Moema Mills director…
We see a middle-aged Brazilian man with a sport jacker and
a hard hat. As he speaks to us, his voice is overdubbed into English, by
another voice speaking Brazilian accented English:
…We need social stability,
and we need to create employment. The cutters will be absorbed in our future
expansion. This is our responsibility – it’s not only up to the government and
the unions. We have to do our part…
In a long shot, we see one of the new
harvesting machines at work. Our Anglophone narrator concludes: …Brazil aims
to double its current production of ethanol in 10 years. Many believe that the
conversion of ethanol into a tradable commodity worldwide is crucial for
lifting the developing world out of poverty. To balance environmental concerns
and the redeployment of hundreds of thousands of cane cutters will be a major
challenge for Brazilian society...
We cross fade to the UN in Action logo as the
Anglophone narrator tells us over some low-key jazz music: This report was
prepared by Chaim Litewski for the United Nations…
Commentary: Brazil: The Ethanol Revolution follows a standard international documentary
news format for cable television. The off-screen narrator sets the scenes,
introduces the characters, and keeps things moving at a brisk pace. Meanwhile,
the characters introduced each have their own voices, and they all have a
chance to comment on the action, and their roles in it. In less than 5 minutes,
this short documentary conveys maximum content, and introduces the viewers to a
subject they presumably know little about – ethanol. In addition, the absence
of any direct promotion for the United Nations adds to credibility, while the narrative
content is honest enough about the potential problems of mass unemployment
caused by automation to give this short an edge, further adding to credibility.
In the author’s opinion, Brazil:
The Ethanol Revolution represents a harmony of interesting narrative
content with a form appropriate for the international global audience for the
intended cable television distribution vehicle of CNN World Report, which
normally showed several different stories produced by local production entities
from around the world a in two-hour program. This flow of short
documentary news stories produced in a variety of styles provides an ideal
context for the UNTV message.
IV.8.3.
Production Economics
The differences in the economics of producing as
well as distributing the UN in Action series and previous UNTV series like Man
Builds, Man Destroys were considerable. A half hour documentary like Nor Any
Drop to Drink necessitated
out-of-pocket expenses such as costly international travel for both research
and production trips for the director and his three or four-man crew (plus
equipment) to several different countries, in addition to the in-house expense
of months of post-production with UNTV full-time staff.
A typical 5-
minute UN in Action story was far cheaper to produce, since they generally
involved travel to a single country to cover a story about a UN agency activity in
that country, and travel expenses were reimbursed by UN
Agencies, The
team was usually two – director and cameraperson with a sound engineer hired
locally. Stories were shot on Betacam cassettes, so there no boxes of film cans
to ship, as well. In short, the
collaboration between UNTV and CNN World Report was a happy marriage.
According to Steve Whitehouse:
…UN in Action was well underway by the time CNN
World Report started. We were one of the three organizations that contributed
to the very first show. We made it a point of honor to contribute to every
single show from that time onwards. Eventually there were, I think, up to 80
countries participating in CNN World Report. Its audience, although significant
and prestigious, was smaller than the audience for the actual UN in Actions.
Our excellent relationship with CNN kept us up the mark production-wise and we
won a number of awards at their annual conferences...
In
retrospect, one might say that the successful collaboration with CNN World
Report was a high point for UNTV. The UN in Action programs
were broadcast to millions of viewers around the world as regular features of CNN
World Report. UNTV was able to project positive images of the UN and
UN activities in credible, regular new items in more than 130 countries
worldwide, at minimal cost to the institution of the United Nations.
IV.9. United Nations Television,
2009-2017
IV.9.1. Background
Chaim Litewski from Brazil, after working as a producer for UNTV
from 1990 to 2008, succeeded Steve Whitehouse as Chief, UNTV, in
2008. In a 2019 interview, Chaim described his initial role at UNTV
and his first assignments:
I was directly involved in publicizing
the changes taking place inside and outside the organization. I produced
widespread TV coverage in the areas of peacekeeping, humanitarian emergencies
and human rights, promoting these issues through the production of long and
short format videos, for distribution to worldwide broadcasters.
At first, Chaim continued the
production schedule created by Steve Whitehouse, with the primary target for
news being CNN World Report, a weekly 2-hour show that included
contributions from The UN in Action series and other 150 global
broadcasters. The UN in Action
series helped to usher in what became known as developmental news. According
to Chaim, these pieces had a long-shelf life and could be used as fillers or
complement coverage.
Chaim described the format for the UN
in Action programs as a character-based story-telling style,
following a narrative formula consisting of problem-intervention-solution, and
invariably told the story from the perspective of the beneficiary. These short features – produced in the
Organization’s six official languages – were then sent to UNTV’s broadcasting
partners worldwide, free-of-charge, on a monthly-basis, firstly via tape, and
later on via digital transfer. While his first years were positive ones, Chaim
said things changed dramatically after the Rwanda genocide:
…I happened to be in Rwanda during the genocide and this remains a
significant trauma
in my life - both my parents were holocaust survivors. The war in the
former Yugoslavia
and
the failure in Somalia were subsequent low points, and the institution never
really
recovered
from these massive failures… Ever since, the UN has been going through a
tremendous identity crisis…18
When Chaim became Chief of UNTV in
late 2008, he was committed to increase production by aiming at various target
audiences – facilitated by the emergence of social media- and through
institutional and broadcasting dissemination making sure that features were cut
to various lengths and distributed through various outlets. UNTV 21st
Century was Chaim’s major contribution to
the UNTV repertoire. Unlike UN in Action, UNTV 21st
Century was a professionally finished, digitally produced, magazine style
show of c. 30 minutes with an internationally known presenter named Daljit
Dhaliwal who presented each of several 10-minute feature stories from around
the world. The program was the UNTV flagship, a signature program which
was shown regularly for about a decade in more than 80 different countries.
IV.9.2. Analysis: UNTV
21STCentury Kinshasa’s Witch Children 19
This magazine style program opens with eye-catching, dynamic
graphics and dramatic music featuring the title of UNTV 21st
Century written in the fonts of languages from around the world. At 0:28,
we hear the voice of the presenter – Daljit Dhaliwal, a news professional well
known to Anglophone television audiences: …Coming up on 21st
century…in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, a strange and cruel ritual…
We
see a Congolese boy undergoing an exorcism in a Kimbanguist temple in Kinshasa,
and we see an exorcist pouring burning candle wax on his head. We hear the
exorcist in voice-over:
…Sorcerers have
cast a spell on this boy, so we have to sprinkle candle wax on him to
neutralize these
spells…
We see Congolese boys playing football on the
streets of Kinshasa, and we hear Daljit Dhaliwal again:
…The lives of
tens of thousands of children are in danger…
We
see the logo of the program again, and then we cut to a scene from Buenos Aires,
where we see President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner leaving a bus. Daljit
Dhaliwal continues:
…In Argentina, the
poor girl and the president…
We see a little
Argentinian girl writing a letter, and we hear her words in voice-over: …Dear
Madam President, I want you to clean the river. The city is full of diseases,
and it stinks!
We
see piles of garbage and then we see the little girl visiting President
Kirchner. Daljit Dhaliwal gives the title of the episode:
…Going
straight to the top…
We
then see the UNTV 21ST Century logo, and go straight to a
scene from the third story to be covered – Palestinians demonstrating against
Israeli troops somewhere on the West Bank.
Daljit Dhaliwal introduces this episode with this thumbnail
description:
… Years of
conflict in the occupied Palestinian territories, and the struggle to feed the
most
vulnerable… Women fight back – with
inspiring results…
We
see female Palestinian women feeding children. We then cut to the UNTV 21st
Century logo, and the main musical theme. Then, at 1:37, we dissolve to
Daljit Dhaliwal in the studio. She addresses the camera:
… Hello, and
welcome to 21st Century. I am Daljit Dhaliwal… Children in the
Democratic
Republic
of the Congo, the DRC, have had their share of dangers. The country’s civil war
has killed
millions of people, and left the nation traumatized, and families struggling in
poverty… But in
recent years, DRC’s children are facing a new threat: children are being
cast out of their homes and forced to undergo
dangerous rituals – all in the name of
superstition...
Behind
her, we see a big screen with images of an exorcism in progress. We then cut
straight into the scene, and see a Kimbanguist priest leading the exorcism of a
small boy. The presenter sets the scene:
…This small boy needs help – or so he’s
been told. The adults around him argue that they are
acting for his own
protection – and for his family. They say he is a witch – possessed by evil
spirits…
We
see a priestess sprinkling hot candle wax on the boy’s head and we hear the
chanting from the congregation of the church in the background. The mood is
reminiscent of a voodoo ceremony from a Hollywood film, only this is real. We
see the priest leading the ceremony. He explains to us what he is doing in the
Congolese language of Lingala, and we hear a translation in voice-over:
…This child was
bewitched by evil spirits. Someone gave him biscuits which transformed
themselves into human
flesh. We are going to take out this human flesh…
As
we watch the terrified boy, Daljit Dhaliwal, in voice-over, sets the scene:
…This is an
exorcism…Pastor Guy St. Pierre says that some mysterious stranger gave the boy
the biscuits in the night, and now, candles, incantation and water are
necessary to remove the evil spirits…
The
priest shows a white substance he claims to have pulled from the boy’s stomach.
He claims they are human bones. We see the priest relaxing outside the temple
as he says:
…It’s a
struggle between the evil spirits and the servants of God. Witchcraft is a
disease we
can cure…
We
cut to a long shot of a Kinshasa street, and then to a group of kids playing in
the street.
Daljit Dhaliwal gives the big picture:
…Every week in Kinshasa, capital of the DRC, pastors like
St. Pierre perform cruel and sometimes dangerous rituals like this, and they
have many prey to pick from…In Kinshasa alone, there are now 20,000 children
have been thrown onto the streets by their own families, who are convinced they
are dangerous sorcerers…”
We see Judith Lavoie of MONUSCO Child
Protection as she explains:
…Children can become the scapegoats for all the problems
that a family faces…
We
then meet Moisie, a former witch kid who has survived and now has created an
NGO dedicated to helping witch kids on the street. He introduces us to the
lives of different witch kids living on the harsh streets of Kinshasa, a big
city with a population of 10 million, and what they must do to survive when
their families refuse to take them back. Some become prostitutes, and some
start sniffing glue. What is clear is that once these kids branded as witches
by a priest, their lives are ruined. Meanwhile, the priests grow rich on the
costly exorcisms.
Kinshasa’s
Witch Children runs for about 10 minutes, as do each of the next two
stories. All of the stories are told in the same fashion, with the presenter
introducing the subject and the main characters, and interjecting factual
information to provide context. Otherwise, the characters speak for themselves,
and their words are translated with voice-overs. The program is an excellent
example of the power of showing, rather than telling, engaging stories about
real people. It allows the viewer to draw his or her own conclusions, without
didactic guidelines.
Commentary:
UNTV 21st Century was a highly polished and fast-moving digital
video magazine style show with of high production quality from the opening
graphics through to the closing credits. Daljit Dhaliwal gives the program
immediate audience credibility, and the producers were thus able to tell
lively, engaging stories from around the world about real people who tell their
own stories in their own words.
Many of these
stories, like Kinshasa’s Witch Children, were given to UNTV by the video units
of UN Peacekeeping missions, so they did not require travel by UNTV staff. UNTV
21st Century was well received by broadcasters around the world, and
was distributed in c. 80 countries by the time Chaim retired. Just as was the
case with UN in Action, UN agencies would see the program and ask UNTV to cover
their activities, and many were willing to cover whatever travel costs were
needed.
In sum, UNTV 21St
Century was a highly successful program for the United Nations which provides
dramatic narrative content about UN -related activities in a dynamic
contemporary digital magazine style form. From presenter Daljit Dhaliwal to the
graphics and editing, the production value is first class; audiences around the
world generally respond to well presented narrative content, and it is no
surprise to learn the program was seen in 80 different countries.
IV.9.3. New Media
When asked
about the attitude of his UN supervisors and managers towards New Media,
and if they understood how it has been changing the global media landscape,
Chaim felt that, with the notable exception of UNIFEED, a satellite
based service which provides clips of UN activities from New York and UN
Peacekeeping missions from around the world, UNTV has been slow to
understand the possibilities and potential offered by New Media:
…First, I need to say that I myself was
not prepared for the major changes ushered in by digital technology. But I soon
realized that this was an irreversible move. We, at UNTV, kept in close touch
with international broadcasters and were fairly-well informed about the digital
revolution going on. For most established media companies, the transition
analog - digital was very traumatic but it was here to stay. The UN typically
chose to ignore this revolution…
Chaim placed the blame for this
inability to adjust to New Media on the UN leadership. For example, the
radical changes occurring in the broadcast industry took over one decade to be
absorbed by the leadership of UNDPI.
He commented:
It took literally years before I was
able to convince my superiors of the crucially vital role played by UN Webcast
as a direct, no filter/mediation communication tool directly addressing the
general public, and thus, bypassing traditional (and non-traditional) media…The
communication leadership at the UN took years to understand that the traditional
media triumvirate (Radio/TV/Press) was in its way out.
In short, Chaim felt that the United
Nations was unprepared for the urgent task of finding new ways to communicate
utilizing new digital tools for the purpose of telling its own story to the
world. And likewise, when the transition analog - digital finally did take
place - as a direct consequence of the implementation of the Secretariat's
Capital Master Plan, the $1.876 billion
renovation of the UN complex –he felt many poor decisions were made.
For example, Chaim was
critical of what became of the extraordinary UN Film Library, which was
moved from the basement of the UN Secretariat to a remote location in
New Jersey:
…A case in point are the technically low
standards used for keeping digital audio-visual legacy archive. The quality of
what is to be preserved for posterity is well below what is to be expected and
it’s doubtful whether the historical material currently being recorded will
last for long. During my tenure at the UN, I never perceived an institutional
care for its extraordinary audio-visual archive – there were never enough
resources (human/technical/financial) to manage such an important collection…
During his almost three
decades with UNTV, he lamented that the archive was never seen as an
asset, or something to be proud of. Rather, it was seen as a costly and
unglamorous source for headaches of senior communication managers.
…We truly loved the UN
film archives. But for years the UN leadership tried to rid itself of both,
audio-visual and textual archives, thanks to the incredible short-sightedness
of those responsible for these areas. I imagine that the situation remains the
same today. This is heartbreaking as the UN possesses one of the most
extraordinary and vital audio-visual archives worldwide. Its precious holdings
– telling the world history from the end of the Second World War to our days –
will probably rot away, just like the institution itself, in the coming years…
Speaking from personal
experience as a producer who enjoyed using the UNTV Film Library in the UN Secretariat sub-basement during the
1970’s and 80’s hunting for historical material from around the world, I found
the re-location of the UNTV to an
inaccessible location in New Jersey to be a fundamental mistake. Part of the UNTV
mandate has always been encouraging production of documentaries about the
United Nations and United Nations-related activities around the world, and easy
access to free historical material greatly facilitated such production. However, now one has to make a special
request to the current librarian to order such material from New Jersey for
viewing, and one has to pay for each request in advance. In the past, one of the capable UNTV Film
librarians could make a recommendation, which could save both time and
money. That service sadly no longer exists.
At present, Chaim also felt strongly
that the United Nations is still uncertain as what it wants to be. He noted
that while the United Nations remains a place where head of states like to
meet, the lack of a defined role is unsustainable for the survival of the UN in
the near future, and this identity crisis does not bode well for humankind’s
future. Internally, Chaim believes this philosophical turmoil even affected
senior managerial decisions made regarding the UN transition from analog to
digital, noting that the UN took a long time to embrace these changes – and
that, when it did, the organization chose the wrong technical parameters.
In 2016, this crisis became more acute
with the election of Donald J. Trump as President of the UN’s largest donor
nation and host country – the United States. Unlike his predecessor, Barack
Obama, who was president from 2008-2016, President Trump made no secret of his
disdain for the United Nations, and had promised major budget cuts from the US
contribution to the United Nations.
After almost thirty years
as both a UNTV producer and UNTV Chief, Chaim Litewski
retired in late 2017 to work on his own projects, one of which will be
described in Chapter VI. There has long been talk of major changes in UNDPI,
but, according to Chaim, even though he was by the most experienced
broadcast media professional in UNDPI, he was never consulted for his
views or suggestions regarding any of these changes.
IV.10. Conclusions
On 9 August ,2017, UN
Secretary General Antonio Guterres appointed Alison Smale of England to be
the new UN Undersecretary General for Public Information. UNSG Smale had
a long and distinguished career as a journalist and within a year, UNDPI was
suddenly rebranded as the UN Global Communications Division, or UNGCD.
In an organization already rife with acronyms, the result was
organizational chaos both inside and outside the organization, since the
strategy behind the change was never shared with the staff. There was no run-up
to prepare potential clients or consumers for the change.
Likewise, around the same
time, under new management, UNTV was suddenly rebranded as UN Web TV
and UN Video, and the production of the highly UNTV 21st
Century series was cut altogether. While the new UNTV management
announced it would continue production of the UN in Action series,
producers were advised they would be expected to find funding for travel and
find distribution for what programs they were able to produce themselves. It
seems the new UNTV management, which lacked UN and other broadcast
experience, was unaware of the correlation between UNTV 21st
Century coverage of UN Agency activities and UN Agency willingness to
finance travel for production. As a result, what with the budget cuts
encouraged by the Trump administration, suddenly UNTV had little money
for travel budgets, and production was limited to coverage of activities at the
UN Secretariat in New York for UN Web-TV.
While the post -2017 activities of UNTV lie
outside the scope of this case study, the author has heard of reports of
related problems and decisions from a number of UNTV producers, both
past and present. For example, the new target audience is apparently now a
youth audience, which apparently justifies the current focus on what is
called social media; while this new development is curious, the accompanying
elimination of product with narrative content is disturbing, since that
means elimination of documentary in all of its many manifestations.
While apparently the
alleged short attention span of the intended youth audience is being
used as justification for the elimination of narrative content, the
author believes that narrative content is essential to successfully
communicate any message – regardless of the age of the intended
audience. For the past 70 years, the primary challenge for UNTV has been
to make UN activities both relevant and interesting to an international
audience through the production of narrative content like The UN in
Action and UNTV 21STCentury.
Thanks to the efforts of Senior
Managers like Marcel Martin and Georges LeClere, and UNTV Chiefs
like Steve Whitehouse and Chaim Litewski, UNTV and UNDPI became
established and widely recognized brands in broadcast media around the world. In
contrast, in 2019, the author knows no one outside the UN who has ever heard of
The United Nations Global Communications Division, and the new acronym
is already something of a joke within the UN. The rebranding of UNTV has
been equally problematic. According to Chaim, the plans for the new UNTV were
to cease production of narrative documentary content altogether when he left in
2018, and instead produce only raw, unedited coverage of UN meetings and events
in the UN Secretariat to be distributed through UN Web TV.
This change in production
philosophy collides directly with the current documentary boom among all
audiences mentioned in the introduction. While the reason for this recent surge
of audience interest in documentary remains to be scientifically determined,
pundits and professionals seem to agree that there is an audience demand for
the authenticity only documentary can provide.
Be that as it may, the
future of documentary in any form at United Nations Television seems to
be, at best, uncertain. UNSG Smale abruptly left her post in September, 2019,
with an informal internal consensus that her brief tenure was somewhat less
than successful. However, it remains to be seen whether her capable successor
Melissa Fleming will be able to do with what is left of the old Department
of Public Information, not to mention UNTV. In a recent interview
with the author, Chaim expressed his concerns. For example, Chaim is not
convinced by the official explanation that the previous UN Strategic
Communications strategy of producing narrative content in partnership with
commercial broadcast entities like CNN can somehow by replaced by global
campaigns on what the new UNGCD calls social media. Chaim feels
that the UNGCD brain trust does not seem to realize why it is so
difficult for the UN to produce material that will attract attention on any
social media platform; he thinks one solution might be just to make shorter versions
of narrative content in lengths suitable for social media, but as noted, the current UNGCD brain trust has never
asked him for his input.
As
previously noted, as a fellow media professional and former UN Video Unit
Chief, the author shares many of Chaim’s concerns. Among other things, the
author strongly believes in the value of
narrative content in the form of both short and long form documentary
for framing any message and making it palatable to the intended audience, and
the possibility that all UNTV resources will now be solely devoted to
covering the many interminable meetings at the UN Secretariat is a
depressing thought. While the author can certainly conceive of interest from
broadcasters in a speech by a famous international statesman, or some important
announcement by a head of state, such events are few and far between.
Meanwhile,
out in the real world, the growth of New Media continues at a rapid pace
while the United Nations remains bogged down in an autocratic managerial
structure which is antithetical to some of the structural changes being created
by New Media according to media scholars like Professor Henry Jenkins,
who believes we are now part of what he calls Convergence Culture. 20
In 2020, the United Nations is still internally operating like a
World War II era organization or corporation. For example, in much of the
corporate world today, there is a growing awareness that staff evaluation of
supervisors in so-called 360 degree assessments can be a useful way to
improve managerial performance through staff feedback.21 In the United Nations, however, performance
assessments are still almost universally 180 degree assessments –
meaning staff are only evaluated by their first supervisors, with additional
comments possible from the first supervisor’s supervisor.22 While there are valid arguments for both
approaches, the limitations in the 180-degree assessment should be
evident – particularly if one is managing a creative team endeavor such as
producing television documentaries in what is now recognized as The Age of
New Media. 23
For
the past 70 years, the challenge for UNTV has been to make UN activities
both relevant and interesting to an international audience through the
production of narrative content like The UN in Action and UNTV 21st
Century. Thanks to the efforts of UNTV Chiefs like Steve Whitehouse
and Chaim Litewski, UNTV and UNDPI have become established and
widely recognized brands in broadcast media around the world.
In
sad contrast, in 2020, the author knows of no one outside the UN who has ever
heard of United Nations Communications Division, though he has noted that
the new acronym is already something of a joke within the UN.
Appendix A: Notes
[1]
Plesch, Dan (America, Hitler and the
UN) IB Taurus& Co. Ltd. London, 2015 From Foreword by Sir
Brian Urquhart
2 Elsaesser, Thomas, “Die Stadt von
morgen: Filme zum Bauen und Wohnen”, in Klaus Kreimeir, Antje Ehmann and
Jeanpaul Goergen (eds.), Gesichte des dokumentarischen Films in
Deutschland.Band 2: Weimarer Republik 1918-33, Stuttgart, Reclam, 2005,
pp.381-409
3 Thompson, Kristin ( Storytelling in Film
and Television) Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts and
London, 2003.pp 9-34
4In 2019, the United
Nations Department of Public Information was rebranded as the UN Global
Communications Department. To avoid confusion, in this dissertation, I
shall refer to the United Nations Department of Public Information by
the old acronym of UNDPI.
5 Plesch, ibid,
p. 168
6 Link to Housing Problems (1935),
https://youtu.be/KqL2dtHp8Cc
7 Nelson, Joyce (The Colonized Eye-
Rethinking the Grierson Legend) Between the Lines, Toronto,1988, p.71
8 Nelson, ibid.
p.159
9 Druick, Zoe
(Projecting Canada- Government Policy and
Documentary Film at the National Film Board, Montreal, McGill University
Press, 2007
10 Richards, Jeffrey, (Thorold Dickinson: The Man and His Films.) Croom Helm, London, 1986, pp 174-75
11For
Nor Any Drop to Drink, please click on this link: https://www.unmultimedia.org/avlibrary/asset/2413/2413854
Also, please click on this link for a portrait of producer
Joe O’Brien:
12 Please
click on this link for To Be Thirty:
13 One night
when Steve and I were working on one of the countless rewrites of the script
for To Be Thirty, he had this creative epiphany: “When I started working with United Nations
Television, I was thrilled by the challenge of trying to show the people of the
world what the United Nations was doing in their name. I soon realized that it
was going to be even more difficult than I had imagined, and eventually I
secretly began to suspect our bosses wanted us to make the worst films in the
world, because then nobody would watch them, and there wouldn’t be any
problems…
14 Please click on this link for Footnotes
to a War:
15 Please
click on this link for Shelter for The Homeless:
16 National
Film Board Annual Report, 1979-80, From
Druick, ibid, p. 163
Please click here for UN IN ACTION (UNMAS, 2011)
18 Please
click here for My Road to Rwanda (2018)
19Please click
here for link to UNTV 21st Century (2012)
20Jenkins, Henry ( Convergence Culture – Where Old and New
Media Collide) New York University Press, New York and London, 2006. P.
21 https://www.thebalancecareers.com/360-degree-feedback-information-1917537
22https://www.traininghand.com/methods-performance-appraisal/
23 My own
production philosophy was developed as a directing student at Sweden’s Dramatiska
Institutet, where, in keeping with the Social Democratic concept of medbestämmande
rätt, we directors had to get input from all members of our team before
making any major decisions. This approach requires time to build a consensus,
but, once a consensus has been reached, the entire team is ready for action.
The UN approach is the American corporate management style – the manager makes
a quick decision, but then has to figure out how to do it.
|
 |
Appendix B: Articles
         In Projecting the UN Through New Media, Is Quality at Stake? September 9, 2019 by Ted Folke In the Congo, celebrating the International Day of Women’s Rights, 2019. The author of this essay, who led the video unit for the UN mission in the country for nearly five years, warns against the UN forgoing original media programming for social media content. MICHAEL ALI/MONUSCO. In 2012, after almost five years as chief of the video unit in the United Nations peacekeeping mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, I reached the compulsory UN retirement age of 62 and had to leave. I loved my work, but after four decades working in film and television production on five continents for the organization, I finally had time to contemplate the extraordinary evolution of media technology in my lifetime — the digital revolution — and to explore how these changes were affecting UN strategic communications at UNTV, the video portal, in New York. What I found was disturbing. Thanks to digital technology, both consumers and producers now have many options to produce and disseminate news and other information around the world. For example, when I started working for Monusco (as the UN peacekeeping mission in the Congo is called), my first task was to create a video magazine to win over Congolese hearts and minds and explain why thousands of UN peacekeepers were installed in their country. The result, “MONUSCO Realities,” was viewed weekly by approximately 30 million Congolese on the country’s major TV networks and ran without problem for four years. Our secret? With the support of an enlightened director in the Monusco Department of Public Information, Kevin S. Kennedy, we abandoned the patronizing traditional UN voice-of-God format for a lively mix of peacekeeping mission news and features about real people, shot around the country and told on-camera by our exclusively Congolese presenters and reporters from the popular UN-run Radio Okapi in the Congo. After I left the UN, I decided to make some sense of the wide-ranging developments in my field by writing a dissertation for the Center for Languages and Literature at the University of Lund in Sweden, including case studies of UNTV and the Monusco video unit. In the process, I learned that both UNTV and the former UN Department of Public Information — renamed the Department of Global Communications — have been undergoing major transformations in recent years. As a concerned former UN staff member, I would like to share some of my findings to the continuing discussion of UN strategic communications. First, I was surprised to learn from former UNTV staff members that UNTV had ceased production of its flagship program, “21st Century.” A spinoff from BBC’s “21st Century,” the UNTV version featured a world-class presenter, Daljit Dhaliwal, who won many awards and enjoyed global distribution for a decade. I also learned that UNTV has stopped production of the popular “UN Year in Review,” a highlight reel of international events significant in the work of the UN. All that is left of UNTV’s original programming is its most successful broadcast program in UN history — the “UN in Action” series — which presents vignettes of UN work around the world and has been the face of the organization globally for almost two decades. The production arm of UNTV tasked with creating new episodes of “UN in Action” and material for new UN social media platforms is called UN Video. However, since UN Video reportedly has a limited budget for travel, program producers must often secure funding for travel and arrange distribution for individual programs as well as produce quality narrative content acceptable to the UN. |
|
Speaking
from personal experience, I believe this is a lot to ask of any producer; one
can only hope that senior managers at the UN can find viable partnerships for
funding just as their predecessors managed to do in the past. If they cannot,
UN Video will have difficulty producing original quality programming. By default, unfortunately, UNTV’s primary role now seems to be offering raw coverage of UN meetings distributed on UN Web TV. While live coverage of UN activities in the UN Secretariat, Security Council and many other UN forums certainly has historical and archival value, such coverage alone has a limited promotional impact. In simple communications terms, UN meetings are not interesting to the average viewer unless they are part of a story. An example is the film on the UN’s 30th anniversary, which I made with a former UNTV chief, Steve Whitehouse. His job was to provide the UN content, while my job was to provide a narrative to make that content intriguing and emotionally engaging. The result, “To Be 30,” has been translated into more than 15 languages and won many prizes and is one of the most popular films in UN history. Alison Smale, the head of the UN Department of Global Communications until her recent retirement, confirmed in an email interview that UN Video had ceased production of “21st Century” but would continue production for the popular “UN in Action” series in the UN’s six official languages. Smale did not answer questions, however, about the number of programs produced, plans for distribution or effects of budgetary constraints on the series other than to say, “Like many organizations today, we face challenges in obtaining resources to carry out our mandates and we seek dynamic partnerships both within the UN family and externally to create opportunities to produce and share our content.” As a result, key questions remain unanswered about the future of original programming by the UN, which has successfully promoted the organization’s brand since the UN was founded in 1945. “UN in Action” is but one example of what is possible; as the creator of “UN in Action,” Georges Leclere, director of UN Radio and Visual Services from 1986 to 1993, told me that in a recent interview, thanks to a partnership with “CNN World Report,” the “UN in Action” series was shown regularly in as many as 135 countries. This global distribution facilitated procurement of funding for travel from UN agencies for subsequent UNTV chiefs like Steve Whitehouse and Chaim Litewski, who shot stories on locations around the world for “21st Century,” “UN in Action” and other original productions. In response to other questions about the changes in programming, Smale said, “The role of the Department of Global Communications (DGC) is to share the United Nations story with the world, in multiple languages and formats so that people everywhere have a better understanding of the UN’s work and values.” As technologies evolve, Smale added, “DGC is adapting too, updating our formats, platforms and distribution channels and partners so we can reach larger audiences and make a greater impact. Increasingly we are making virtual reality films, for example, and more mobile- friendly content.” One can only hope that the Department of Global Communications can continue to carry on the distinguished tradition started by the UN Department of Public Information after the end of World War II. At that time, the founding nations believed that the UN was obligated to show the citizens of the world what the UN was doing in their name, and that task was given to the Department of Public Information. It responded with the production of quality content in different media in the official UN languages. Today, seven decades later, the basic task remains fundamentally the same, but the digital revolution has made it possible to cheaply produce and distribute high-quality programming telling the UN story and promoting the UN message. It would be a shame if the UN were to miss this historic opportunity to connect and engage with the populations it serves. |
From the Congo to the UN: ‘Hear the Cries of Women and Girls’ by Julienne Lusenge December 31, 2015
Unprepared and Unprotected: UN Peacekeepers’ Lives Must Be Saved by James Cunliffe January 9, 2018
Violence Against Women Worsens by the Day in the Congo by Justine Masika Bihamba July 26, 2018
Don’t Miss a Story:
Subscribe to PassBlue
Sign up to get the smartest news on the UN by email, joining readers across the globe.
Enter your email here First name (optional) Last name (optional)
SIGN UP NOW
We respect your privacy and take protecting it seriously
When Is an Attack on UN Peacekeepers a War Crime and When Is It
Not? by Mona Ali Khalil November 30, 2018
WORLDVIEWS
AlisonSmale,Monusco,UNDepartmentofGlobalCommunications,UNsocialmedia,UNVideo,UNWebTV,UNTV
AlisonSmale,Monusco,UNDepartmentofGlobalCommunications,UNsocialmedia,UNVideo,UNWebTV,UNTV
·
Russia Is Busy as Security Council President,
but Putin Is Staying Home
·
My Year in Africa: Why This Brazilian Woman
Peacekeeper Wants to Return
Leave a Comment
Appendix C:
Interviews and Correspondence with Principals
1.Georges Leclere:
Dear Ted,
Thank you for your questions! A very
enjoyable trip to Memory Lane!
Some questions can be answered simply
with few words. You will find my answer in blue within your text.
Other questions have to be nuanced and
need additional research. I will guide you during our next phone call.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ted Folke <tedfolke@gmail.com>
To: Georges Leclere <georges@lgma.tv>; Georges Leclere <Leclere44@aol.com>
Cc: Lars Gustaf Andersson <lars_gustaf.andersson@litt.lu.se>
Sent: Tue, Mar 17, 2020 6:15 pm
Subject: Questions for Ted's Dissertation Interview
From: Ted Folke <tedfolke@gmail.com>
To: Georges Leclere <georges@lgma.tv>; Georges Leclere <Leclere44@aol.com>
Cc: Lars Gustaf Andersson <lars_gustaf.andersson@litt.lu.se>
Sent: Tue, Mar 17, 2020 6:15 pm
Subject: Questions for Ted's Dissertation Interview
Dear George,
I very much appreciate your taking the time to do this
interview. Your input is invaluable!
Here are my questions:
1) What was your professional background before you
started to work for UNTV?
About 13 years of
French News TV reporter, then producer. Extensive international coverage. One
point was very important, I interviewed Jimmy Carter and Leonid Brejnev while
they were heads of State. That added points to my resume.
2) Did you replace Marcel Martin as Director of RVS? If so, what
was your exact title,
and which year did you start?
Correct. I had the
very same title as Marcel who was instrumental in introducing me to the
Secretary General Javier Perez de Cuellar and Under secretary General Yasushi
Akachi, head of DPI. I met them both before applying to the position.
I was the Director of
the Radio & Visual Services Division, a D2 function.
3) When you arrived, how many producers did RVS have working
in-house, and what were they doing? Were they still doing the " Man
Builds, Man Destroys' series?
You have to
distinguish the News Producers under Martin Bunnel, the Documentary Producers
under Peter Hollender then Elspeth McDougall and the Radio Producers under Erik
Walters. For your purpose, I would say a dozen producers were permanents. This
number should be verified, probably with OHRM.
I never heard of the
show you mentioned. It was probably produced way before my arrival or produced
by a UN Agency like UNDP. Just a guess.
4) If so, how many 30 minute programs were they producing
each year, and what kind of distribution did they have? If I remember
correctly, they were a co-production with the New York State Department of
Education, Where were they shown, and who saw them? Did they have any international
distribution? If so, what?
When I arrived at the
UNDPI - RVSD, Marcel Martin told me that I was needed for my TV background
because most of the video productions non-news, (Like SC and GA coverage), were
destined to the UNICs, (UN Information Centers) around the world. And the head
of each UNIC was placing all RVSD production to local Broadcasters. Many of the
videos were produced as an "illustration" of UN major observations,
like the year of Refugees, the year of Water, etc... and as such, mandated by
the General Assembly guided by the Committee on Information.
Again, I never heard
of the coproduction with the NYS DOE.
Please note that
about 3 years after I started, DPI separated the production division and the
distribution division. I was not anymore in charge of Distribution. But ... the
Head of the distribution usually had a limited direct knowledge of the
television and radio world and he was intensely relying on the UNICs. My
personal excellent relations with the Director in charge of Distribution were
instrumental in the success of some programs.
5) What were the origins of the UN In Action series? How did you
decide to go in that direction?
UN in Action was my
invention. It was mandated by NOBODY. No boss, no committee no General Assembly.
I by-passed everybody, just using 2 elements: I had some producers not fully
occupied and frustrated because they wanted to do more and I had a deep
knowledge of the way News Editions of major TV Networks around the world were
functioning.
Also, after one year,
I knew exactly what RVSD was capable of with its limited resources. And ... I
had many personal relations with many heads of information of UN Agencies, a
considerable source of hard news videos.
So I imagined a
program, short enough to be absorbed by any News Bulletin in the world, close
enough to hard news and WITH NO INTERVIEWS, just few seconds sound bytes that
did NOT need a translation and a voice over to be broadcast. That was my rule:
3 minutes max, no talking head of more than 10 seconds, hard news story of the
work of the UN SYSTEM.
Remember that at that
time, most of the DPI news productions were talking heads. meaning a very short
life span.
Under the supervision
of Elspeth McDougall, the video producer Claire Taplin edited the very first UN
in Action around mid-september 1987. And sent to the UNICs as a test. Some
UNICs loved it already as easy to place. But the chance of my life was that a
guy named Stuart Loory, from CNN created the International News Hour where the
stories were produced by local journalists signing the show themselves.
Well, we got together
with Stu and we proposed UN in Action. He loved it and ran it, if I remember
well, the first week of October 1987.
And since that day,
UN in Action was in every single CNN International Hour, at least when I was in
charge.
Of course, nobody
criticized me for not following the slow UN procedures as the visibility the UN
gained by being weekly on CNN with major actions in the field was single to
none! Very rapidly UN in Action was produced in all 6 UN official languages and
soon, we were broadcast in 135 countries.
6) When did you start producing UN In Action, and how did you
distribute the programs?
See above. CNN, UNICs
and direct relations of our distribution division did all the work.
7) What role did Steve Whitehouse play in their production?
When Steve joined UN
in Action, his journalistic sense allowed UN in Action to be ready on time to
be hard news. From Elections in Nicaragua to drought in Ethiopia or
Earthquakes, wars, famines, etc... all stories were either edited with unique
footage provided by FAO, UNICEF, WB, UNESCO, etc... before anyone saw it or in
places where only the UN could access, or shot on location by Steve and his
team, very often guided by Elspeth from HQ. UN in Action was definitely a news
item for broadcasters most of the time.
8) How did the end of the Cold War affect UNTV?
Long story. Let's
talk on the phone
9).When did RVS become UNTV?
RVSD was a division.
UNTV was part of it.
Then Information Products
Division was also a Division with UNTV part of it. When François Guiliani
replaced me and called the Division Media Division, UNTV was also part of it.
10) When did you leave the UN, and who succeeded you?
I left DPI end of
January 1993. But I had some independent missions with Kofi Annan, then USG of
DPKO, like Somalia, covering UN activities like a trip of the then SG Boutros
Boutros Galli in Baidoa and Mogadishiu that I took with Steve Whitehouse and
Jimmy Bu.
My successor was
François Giuliani, former spokesperson of Perez De Cuellar and Kurt Waldeim.
François left for the Metropolitan Opera and I became Executive Director of the
International Emmy Awards in New York.
11) UN In Action is perhaps the most successful series ever
produced by the UN. Do you have any opinions as to why it was so successful?
Yes!!!!! See above!
12) Do you any any thoughts you would like to add?
Yes, one major point.
The UN is NOT a
broadcaster. NOT a TV station.
The UN is an
international organization that generate news, lots of news!
The UN is not very
different than Microsoft, Apple, IBM or the Bank of America.
The UN needs 2 major
attitudes:
1) Fully understand
how News operations work
2) Learn how to find
the most suitable actions or "products" it generate and make them
accessible to the News Organizations
With the rapidly
changing nature of these News Operation, the UN needs to be constantly studying
how to best access them.
I guess that because
I was using this mentality in my work, DPI added Press, then Publications and
even email, in 1988! to my duties.
But I was and still
is, a TV guy. It's time for me to pass the baton to runners faster than
me!
Tell them!!
Many thanks!
Best,
2. Steve Whitehouse #1
In some ways this is better
But it seems you have not actually read what I wrote because you have retained a number of factual errors in your text. Such as the history of UN in Action.
You seem to be determined to start with the assumption that UNTV is a failure, crippled by political interference.
Given that the production side of UNTV had (and has) an annual budget less than the New Jersey Nightly news on PBS, another view might be that to have produced so much and reached such a large audience in a constrained political and budgetary environment is a considerable achievement.
This whole political control thing is a red herring. UNTV is not trying to be a mini NBC or BBC. And to say that live or edited syndication of important Security Council meetings or press conferences is not news is ridiculous.
Of course it requires considerable ingenuity to navigate in an environment like the UN. But it is done.
This whole political thing can be wildly exaggerated. Take the example of World Chronicle, nearly 1,000 Meet the Press type format shows over nearly 30 years.
The reporters (most from major news organisations) were entirely free to ask UN officials and other international guests whatever they wanted to.
No hint of political control. An ingenious solution to making TV in the DPI context.
S
But it seems you have not actually read what I wrote because you have retained a number of factual errors in your text. Such as the history of UN in Action.
You seem to be determined to start with the assumption that UNTV is a failure, crippled by political interference.
Given that the production side of UNTV had (and has) an annual budget less than the New Jersey Nightly news on PBS, another view might be that to have produced so much and reached such a large audience in a constrained political and budgetary environment is a considerable achievement.
This whole political control thing is a red herring. UNTV is not trying to be a mini NBC or BBC. And to say that live or edited syndication of important Security Council meetings or press conferences is not news is ridiculous.
Of course it requires considerable ingenuity to navigate in an environment like the UN. But it is done.
This whole political thing can be wildly exaggerated. Take the example of World Chronicle, nearly 1,000 Meet the Press type format shows over nearly 30 years.
The reporters (most from major news organisations) were entirely free to ask UN officials and other international guests whatever they wanted to.
No hint of political control. An ingenious solution to making TV in the DPI context.
S
Steve Whitehouse #2:
|
Tue,
Jul 28, 2015, 4:40 AM
|
 |
||
|
||||
Ted,
It is factually incorrect, as I pointed out, to say UN in Action was created for CNN World Report. UN in Action predated CNN World Report. And, as I wrote in the reply you do not seem to have properly read or incorporated into your text below, the CNN WR contributions were a slightly cut down version of UN in Action items which were not 10 minutes in length but 3 to 4 minutes. The length was chosen to the items would fit comfortably inside local and national news programmes.
Kevin Kennedy is a good guy but is not an authority on "corporate videos" or much else in the TV area. I get the impression you have the wrong idea about the items and you should really go and look at samples of UN in Actions over the years.
Rather than writing off all relatively recent documentaries as failures, you should cite the obvious big successes such as the the two documentaries about the work of the UN Special inspectors in Iraq after the first Gulf War. The more recent UN TV magazine series 21st Century, made up of longer cuts of UN in Actions, was/is regularly broadcast on the BBC World Service Television.
It is perfectly clear that UNTV's output often fitted the definition of "news" whether defined by Swedish Professors or not. Get another Swedish Professor who knows what he/she is talking about is my advice.
Many reputable broadcasters are financed by Governments so the often advanced argument that the UN pays for UNTV which is therefore less legitimate in some way or is not news or is uniquely inhibited by political considerations does not stand up. Until recently, for example, the much lauded BBC World Service Radio was directly funded by the British Foreign Office.
I think you are making things difficult for yourself by barking up the wrong tree.
S
It is factually incorrect, as I pointed out, to say UN in Action was created for CNN World Report. UN in Action predated CNN World Report. And, as I wrote in the reply you do not seem to have properly read or incorporated into your text below, the CNN WR contributions were a slightly cut down version of UN in Action items which were not 10 minutes in length but 3 to 4 minutes. The length was chosen to the items would fit comfortably inside local and national news programmes.
Kevin Kennedy is a good guy but is not an authority on "corporate videos" or much else in the TV area. I get the impression you have the wrong idea about the items and you should really go and look at samples of UN in Actions over the years.
Rather than writing off all relatively recent documentaries as failures, you should cite the obvious big successes such as the the two documentaries about the work of the UN Special inspectors in Iraq after the first Gulf War. The more recent UN TV magazine series 21st Century, made up of longer cuts of UN in Actions, was/is regularly broadcast on the BBC World Service Television.
It is perfectly clear that UNTV's output often fitted the definition of "news" whether defined by Swedish Professors or not. Get another Swedish Professor who knows what he/she is talking about is my advice.
Many reputable broadcasters are financed by Governments so the often advanced argument that the UN pays for UNTV which is therefore less legitimate in some way or is not news or is uniquely inhibited by political considerations does not stand up. Until recently, for example, the much lauded BBC World Service Radio was directly funded by the British Foreign Office.
I think you are making things difficult for yourself by barking up the wrong tree.
S
Steve Whitehouse #3:
|
Tue,
Oct 31, 2017, 12:31 PM
|
 |
||
|
||||
Ted,
Well, I don't know much about Grierson's role with DPI, if indeed
he had one.
His Wikipedia entry doesn't mention DPI as such but although it
touches on his reputation as a lefty.
"During WW II, Grierson was a consultant to prime
minister William Lyon Mackenzie King as
a minister of the Wartime Information Board. He
concentrated on documentary film production in New York after resigning this
post following the war. In 1945 Grierson was dismissed from his post as
Commissioner of the NFB after allegations of communist sympathy regarding
several of the films the Board had produced during the war. Following his
dismissal, and that of three of his coworkers, Grierson returned to Scotland.
From 1946 to 1948 he was the director of mass communications
at UNESCO, and from 1948 to 1950 he was
controller of films at Britain's Central Office of Information.
During the 1950s he worked at Southall Studios in West London."
 |
John
Grierson CBE (26 April 1898 – 19 February 1972) was a pioneering Scottish
documentary maker, often considered the father of British and Canadian
documentary film.
|
Here's a bit more from another biography:
"In June 1937 Grierson resigned from
the GPO and formed Film Centre, an advisory and
co-ordinating body for the documentary film movement. It was this kind of
supervisory capacity that characterised Grierson's role and
influence on factual film, with him also acting as production advisor to Films
of Scotland, and, throughout the war, serving as Film Commissioner at
the National Film Board of Canada.
After a brief and fairly fruitless period in New York, Grierson returned
to the UK in 1946. In February 1948 he was appointed to the Films Division of
the Central Office of Information. Over the next two years he
attempted to re-establish a major programme of government documentary
production, but was repeatedly frustrated by political opposition and public
sector spending cuts provoked by the post-war economic crisis. In the
1950s, Grierson acted as joint head of Group 3,
the production arm of the National Film Finance Corporation, spent
several years in independent television, before finishing his career teaching
at a Canadian university."
 |
Producer,
Director, Executive. John Grierson was born on 26 April 1898 at Deanston,
Perthshire, Scotland. After serving on minesweepers during World War 1, he
...
|
There is a Grierson Trust which might be helpful. Here's their website:
Here's a reference to a book (on sale at Amazon) that might help
too.
|
Buy
John Grierson: A Documentary Biography First Edition by Forsyth Hardy (ISBN:
9780571103317) from Amazon's Book Store. Everyday low prices and free
delivery on eligible orders.
|
The creation of the NZ National Film Unit and the setting up of a
Government film organisation in Australia were influenced by Grierson's
example, I think.
Maybe Elspeth knows something more. Who knows.
Good luck!
A piece of land a house to come -- Swedish log cabin for Bua?
Sauna and a dash into the Hudson, perhaps?
Atmosphere in UK very bad, what with Brexit and everything.
Cheers,
Steve
Steve Whitehouse #4:
Ted,
Basically I don't think you can't conflate DPKO Peacekeeping television initiatives with UNTV. They are really very different -- it is a case of apples and oranges.
I am not sure you can call your thesis United Nations Cinema when your one big success story is a radio programme.
Even within the different peacekeeping operation there has been a wide variety of approaches, legal relationships with the host governments (very important if you want access to transmission), resources etc. Some UN PKOs had (and have) more staff and resources for (often very inadequate) visual outputs, often seen by very few people, than UNTV had resources in New York.
I am not sure what Ingrid Lehmann had to say about all of this. She had a rather chequered career with the UN actually.
On careers, yes, Dave Smith did have conflicts with the UN Congo information people. But the fact remains he was the prime mover in creating Okapi and initiating and sustaining the relationship with Hirondelle. I don't think you can avoid talking to him. He also knows a lot about UN Radio in New York.
On UNTV in New York (and Geneva for that matter), the prime purpose is, and remains, to cover activities at Headquarters and maintain a high technical and editorial standard to meet the requirements of national and international broadcasters. In this task it is very well respected by its clients. It also maintains an important video library. Since I left a lot of the output has gone digital as one can see from the UN.ORG website which is a success story in its own right.
Finished productions and news items are essentially an adjunct to the coverage responsibility and historically has usefully employed any spare technical capacity because the demand for raw coverage varies considerably and seasonally.
Yes, earlier UN film and television output was modeled on National Film Boards such as the Canadian Film Board. In those days documentaries on international subjects were far and few between so there was a bit of market for UN output. How many stand the test of time is another matter. I was told Thorold Dickinson basically blew the whole unit's budget with over ambitious productions. Someone who knows a bit about the earlier output is Richard Sydenham, currently living in the UK retired at richard.sydenham@gmail.com.
You are right to say that things had to change as television equipment became portable and film faded from the scene. The key piece of technology was the Sony Betacams, initially in analogue and then in digital forms. Of course now you can get video off your smart phone!
Even so, there were documentary successes in the new era especially when UNTV had privileged access to a story. "Hide and Seek in Iraq", for example, about the search for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, was probably the most successful internationally distributed current affairs television documentary of its year. It was broadcast in one form or another by scores of developed country TV networks from US PBS to the BBC, Swedish TV etc. etc. Well worth a look.
As far as regular output was concerned, a new philosophy was adopted. Rather than trying to find a market/slots for 30-minute and 60-minute documentaries (especially when many broadcasters now wanted a series of 13 or 26 shows to fill out their schedules), we figured it was better to create a product which broadcasters would use within their own national news programmes, which are always among the highest rating programmes in all countries. That was the origin of UN in Action. Drawing on my own experience working in international news syndication, they were consciously modeled on the style of mainstream international news organisations such as Visnews (later Reuters TV) etc. Shooting in the field was made much speedier and efficient drawing on news approaches rather than the leisurely Film Board type schedules. The items were not 10 minutes in length, they were 3 to 4 minutes long to conform to the needs of news programmes and were all shot in the field. They were produced in all the UN official languages and their combined audiences were hundreds of millions of actual viewers in scores of countries. Hardly a failure. Dig some out, well worth a look.
As far as I was concerned, the editorial philosophy was clear and elemental: we had an absolute responsibility to the public to show what the UN and its agencies were doing with the tax payers money; and we had stories to tell stories the audiences could not get from any other source.
More recently, UNTV has re-edited the UN in Actions to make a half hour magazine programme, generally made up of three items, which is distributed separately.
I would not call UN in Action corporate videos. They essentially dealt with emerging topics such as population issues, peacekeeping, environmental stories, humanitarian relief etc. Mainstream news organisations were just not dealing with these subjects and so we had a ready market. We were something of a pioneer in this respect. Now environmental subjects etc. are routinely covered by national news organisations: that was not the case when UN in Action started.
In my time we experienced virtually no editorial interference from the UN hierarchy. They just let us get on with it. We were not trying to compete editorially with independent news organisation; we specialized in stories they were not covering. Over a span of more than 1,000 items over the years, I can count the times we had any editorial problems on the fingers of one hand.
So UN in Action was well underway by the time CNN World Report started. We were one of the three organisations that contributed to the very first show. We made it a point of honour to contribute to every single show from that time onwards. Eventually there were, I think, up to 80 countries participating in CNN World Report. Its audience, although significant and prestigious, was smaller than the audience for the actual UN in Actions. Our excellent relationship with CNN kept us up the mark production-wise and we won a number of awards at their annual conferences.
UN Radio is an entirely different story!
Anyway, the above are some thoughts. I think you are far too negative about what UNTV has done over the years so I hope this will help you put things in perspective.
As I say, to try and cover the history and experience of television and film across all the UN family and PK operations is probably too ambitious! Maybe you should stick to the PK operations you know about. There is plenty to discuss about how UN DPKO should carry out its public affairs responsibilities.
Happy to talk about all of this.
Cheers,
Basically I don't think you can't conflate DPKO Peacekeeping television initiatives with UNTV. They are really very different -- it is a case of apples and oranges.
I am not sure you can call your thesis United Nations Cinema when your one big success story is a radio programme.
Even within the different peacekeeping operation there has been a wide variety of approaches, legal relationships with the host governments (very important if you want access to transmission), resources etc. Some UN PKOs had (and have) more staff and resources for (often very inadequate) visual outputs, often seen by very few people, than UNTV had resources in New York.
I am not sure what Ingrid Lehmann had to say about all of this. She had a rather chequered career with the UN actually.
On careers, yes, Dave Smith did have conflicts with the UN Congo information people. But the fact remains he was the prime mover in creating Okapi and initiating and sustaining the relationship with Hirondelle. I don't think you can avoid talking to him. He also knows a lot about UN Radio in New York.
On UNTV in New York (and Geneva for that matter), the prime purpose is, and remains, to cover activities at Headquarters and maintain a high technical and editorial standard to meet the requirements of national and international broadcasters. In this task it is very well respected by its clients. It also maintains an important video library. Since I left a lot of the output has gone digital as one can see from the UN.ORG website which is a success story in its own right.
Finished productions and news items are essentially an adjunct to the coverage responsibility and historically has usefully employed any spare technical capacity because the demand for raw coverage varies considerably and seasonally.
Yes, earlier UN film and television output was modeled on National Film Boards such as the Canadian Film Board. In those days documentaries on international subjects were far and few between so there was a bit of market for UN output. How many stand the test of time is another matter. I was told Thorold Dickinson basically blew the whole unit's budget with over ambitious productions. Someone who knows a bit about the earlier output is Richard Sydenham, currently living in the UK retired at richard.sydenham@gmail.com.
You are right to say that things had to change as television equipment became portable and film faded from the scene. The key piece of technology was the Sony Betacams, initially in analogue and then in digital forms. Of course now you can get video off your smart phone!
Even so, there were documentary successes in the new era especially when UNTV had privileged access to a story. "Hide and Seek in Iraq", for example, about the search for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, was probably the most successful internationally distributed current affairs television documentary of its year. It was broadcast in one form or another by scores of developed country TV networks from US PBS to the BBC, Swedish TV etc. etc. Well worth a look.
As far as regular output was concerned, a new philosophy was adopted. Rather than trying to find a market/slots for 30-minute and 60-minute documentaries (especially when many broadcasters now wanted a series of 13 or 26 shows to fill out their schedules), we figured it was better to create a product which broadcasters would use within their own national news programmes, which are always among the highest rating programmes in all countries. That was the origin of UN in Action. Drawing on my own experience working in international news syndication, they were consciously modeled on the style of mainstream international news organisations such as Visnews (later Reuters TV) etc. Shooting in the field was made much speedier and efficient drawing on news approaches rather than the leisurely Film Board type schedules. The items were not 10 minutes in length, they were 3 to 4 minutes long to conform to the needs of news programmes and were all shot in the field. They were produced in all the UN official languages and their combined audiences were hundreds of millions of actual viewers in scores of countries. Hardly a failure. Dig some out, well worth a look.
As far as I was concerned, the editorial philosophy was clear and elemental: we had an absolute responsibility to the public to show what the UN and its agencies were doing with the tax payers money; and we had stories to tell stories the audiences could not get from any other source.
More recently, UNTV has re-edited the UN in Actions to make a half hour magazine programme, generally made up of three items, which is distributed separately.
I would not call UN in Action corporate videos. They essentially dealt with emerging topics such as population issues, peacekeeping, environmental stories, humanitarian relief etc. Mainstream news organisations were just not dealing with these subjects and so we had a ready market. We were something of a pioneer in this respect. Now environmental subjects etc. are routinely covered by national news organisations: that was not the case when UN in Action started.
In my time we experienced virtually no editorial interference from the UN hierarchy. They just let us get on with it. We were not trying to compete editorially with independent news organisation; we specialized in stories they were not covering. Over a span of more than 1,000 items over the years, I can count the times we had any editorial problems on the fingers of one hand.
So UN in Action was well underway by the time CNN World Report started. We were one of the three organisations that contributed to the very first show. We made it a point of honour to contribute to every single show from that time onwards. Eventually there were, I think, up to 80 countries participating in CNN World Report. Its audience, although significant and prestigious, was smaller than the audience for the actual UN in Actions. Our excellent relationship with CNN kept us up the mark production-wise and we won a number of awards at their annual conferences.
UN Radio is an entirely different story!
Anyway, the above are some thoughts. I think you are far too negative about what UNTV has done over the years so I hope this will help you put things in perspective.
As I say, to try and cover the history and experience of television and film across all the UN family and PK operations is probably too ambitious! Maybe you should stick to the PK operations you know about. There is plenty to discuss about how UN DPKO should carry out its public affairs responsibilities.
Happy to talk about all of this.
Cheers,
3. Chaim Litewski:
DIGITAL
DOCUMENTARY INTERVIEW FOR TED FOLKE’S THESIS
Note:
The following questions are intended to create a profile of digital technology used
by video professionals. The answers will be strictly
confidential,
and will only be used for the writing of this thesis. Please contact me
directly at tedfolke@gmail.com should you have
any questions, Thank you!
1)
Please describe your production background and experience.
Since
my early teens, I had been making short films using a Super-8 camera. I enjoyed
experimenting with different sounds to illustrate/comment parades (religious,
military, political protests), thus changing their perception/meaning. I became
familiar early on with Soviet cinema of the 1920’s, Eisenstein, Pudovkin,
Dovzhenko and Vertov, in particular. Once I watched Bunuel’s “Exterminating
Angel” in 1962, I decided that making films was really what I wanted to do
professionally. I was tremendously impacted by Bunuel’s film and still today it
remains my very favorite film of all times. From early age to my late teens, I
watched films. Sometimes 12 to 15 features a week. There were 3 cinemas in the
Rio suburb where I grew up (Nilopolis), each showing two feature films from
Monday to Wednesday and another two, from Thursday to Sunday. I watched them
all. There were a huge variety of Brazilian, US, Japanese, Eastern and Western
European films shown in the Nilopolis’ cinemas. This, not including the films I
watched on television. From 13 onwards I started attending screenings at Rio’s
art cinemas and museums (which had excellent film programs, festivals, seasons,
as well as lectures and film discussions). I helped creating various
“film-clubs”, showing copies of films in 16mm at community centers and other
places where young people gathered.
After
returning from a long trip to Europe, the Middle East, North, Central and South
America which lasted from 1974 to 1976, I started working as a camera assistant
and junior producer at Rio de Janeiro's Public Television Channel (TV
Educativa). The ongoing military dictatorship, the major economic (oil) crisis
affecting the country and my own desire to experience academic life in Europe
made me decide moving to London, England in mid-1976. I started a BA (Film)
course at the Polytechnic of Central London (Westminster University) focusing my
academic work on conflict and propaganda films (probably because what had been
going on in Brazil as well as the influence of my parents’ personal experiences
during the Second World War). For my graduation thesis, I wrote about a
widespread propaganda campaign organized by the British Ministry of Information
during the war years, named "Arm in Arm Together", which was about
managing publicity regarding the Soviet Union to the British Public during the
British/Soviet war alliance (1941 – 1945). This academic work would eventually
become a film I wrote for Channel Four television (“Arm in Arm Together”). My
MA thesis dealt also with Propaganda and Film, this time about the Ministry of
Information's war propaganda for East Africa. I focused on a film, "Men of
Two Worlds", about an African (Tanganyika) student living In London and
having to return to his native African village in order to fight a witch
doctor. This film was directed by Thorold Dickinson and as a result of
interviewing him, I became familiar with the work he did at the United Nations'
Film Unit during the late 50’s and early 60’s.
In
parallel to my academic work at the Polytechnic, I attended a 3-year British
University Film Studies course and obtained a diploma. Because of attending
various film courses, screenings and other film-related events, I became
familiar with people working at the British Film Institute, where I myself worked
on a free-lance basis. Throughout my years of living in the UK, I was involved
in the production of various independent films, included "Humboldt’s
Travels" (for the British Film Institute's Production Board);
"Commodities" (a six-part series for Channel Four) and many others. I
published articles on various UK film magazines, including Sight and Sound,
Screen, Film and TV World, among others. I also co-organized events at the British
Film Institute's National Film Theater and the Edinburgh Film Festival. I
helped distributing political films from Brazil (the output of film cooperative
“Corcina”) throughout Europe, was involved with the IFA (Independent Film
Makers Association), and the London-based Film and History Group. I also joined
ACTT (the British Film and TV union) as a producer/director.
I
had been free-lancing for Brazil's TV Globo London Bureau as an editor/producer
since the late 70's, and in early 1983 began working full time for them as a
news producer, covering international news and current affairs. In late 1985 I
returned to Brazil through TV Globo. I worked for its operational division, based
in Rio de Janeiro, helping to organize large news coverage operations
domestically and internationally. I also opened a small production company with
recording equipment (3/4 inch) I had brought with me from the UK. We produced
pop-promos, political campaigns (the military had just left power after
governing the country for 21 years), agit-prop video pieces, and covered Brazil
for various foreign TV Channels.
In
April 1987, I left Globo, closed the doors of my production company and moved
to Brazil’s northeast state of Piaui. I had been invited to help setting up a
Public TV and Radio Channel from scratch. We produced a lot with few resources.
I was very much influenced by the debate around notions of “democratizing the
air-waves” and this was an opportunity to put in practice what I had been
thinking regarding media access by organized community groups. The period in
Piaui was a high point in my professional career. The content produced by both
radio and television was extensive and disseminated it locally and further
afield, through exchange mechanisms we helped creating with other public
channels in Brazil. While working in Piaui, I wrote a long piece about the
history of TV production in Brazil and the changes brought about by TV Globo,
for presentation at the British Film Institute’s first international conference
on cinema and television in 1998. The text became a blue print for a Channel
Four film on the history of TV Globo and its owner, Roberto Marinho (“Beyond
Citizen Kane”). I had met Mr. Marinho during my years working at TV Globo and
was in good terms with him.
After
leaving Piaui and returning to Rio, I continued producing for foreign television
channels, volunteered for Lula during the campaign for Brazil’s 1989
presidential elections, the first since the end of the military dictatorship,
and worked for LIESA, the organizers of Rio’s Carnival Parade. We packaged
highlights and live transmission of Rio’s Carnival Parade and sold broadcasting
rights to foreign television stations. But Fernando Collor de Mello was elected
president and, consequently, I decided to leave Brazil again.
In
1990, I received an invitation to work as a TV producer at the United Nations
in New York. I joined the organization at a time of great hope and major
geopolitical changes. The cold war was coming to an end. Several cold
war-related conflicts in Central America, Africa, and Asia were being finally
solved and the UN played a major role creating many new peacekeeping missions
to monitor the transition to peace, generally through organizing democratic
elections. It was also the time of UN-organized conferences (environment,
social development, women, children, etc.). I was directly involved in
publicizing the changes taking place inside and outside the organization. I
produced widespread TV coverage in the areas of peacekeeping, humanitarian
emergencies and human rights, promoting these issues through the production of
long and short format videos, for distribution to worldwide broadcasters. Our
primary target for news was CNN World Report, a weekly 2-hour show that
included contributions from UNTV and other 150 global broadcasters. The films
we produced were also disseminated via the UN in Action series, consisting of 5
monthly short pieces about the work of the UN worldwide. The “UN in Action”
series helped to usher in what has become known as “development news”. These
pieces had a “long-shelf life” and could be used as “fillers” or complement
coverage by TV broadcasters. They invariably told the story from the
perspective of the “beneficiary” (meaning, a “character-based story-telling
style”), following a narrative formula we helped creating, consisting of
“problem-intervention-solution”. These 5
short features – produced in the Organization’s six official languages – were
then sent to UNTV’s broadcasting partners worldwide, free-of-charge, on a
monthly-basis, firstly via tape, later on via digital transfer. The Section
also produced documentaries and current affair interview shows. A lot of the
good will towards the UN ceased to exist after the Rwanda genocide, one of the
organizations’ greatest failures. I happened to be in Rwanda during the
genocide and this remains a significant trauma in my life (please note that
both my parents were holocaust survivors). The war in the former Yugoslavia and
the failure in Somalia were low points. The institution never really recovered
from these massive failures. The Organization was suffering from lack of
funding and there was a noticeable change of perception about the usefulness of
the Organization. The UN was described, once again, as of “no relevance”. From
then to now the UN has been going a tremendous “identity crisis”. The institution
seems uncertain as what it wants to be – although it firmly remains a place
where head of states meet. This undefined role remains, and it is absolutely
unsustainable for the survival of the UN in the near future. The UN certainly
reflects the wishes of their member states (in particular, the five permanent
members of the Security Council), but the Secretariat itself has acquired too
many responsibilities which are not implementable for lack of human/financial
resources as well as lack of political will. The crisis going on at the UN does
not bode well for humankind’s future, as there is nothing else to replace it.
During
my period at the UN the revolutionary change from analog to digital took place.
The UN took a very long time to embrace these changes. And when it did, it
chose the wrong technical parameters. The reasons for this were financial and
poor managerial decision making. I became chief of the UN Television Section in
late 2008. I was committed to increase production by aiming at various target
audiences (made it, in theory, by the emergency of social media), and through institutional
and broadcasting dissemination making sure that features were cut to various
lengths and distributed through various outlets.
I
had been quite successful at raising funds for co-productions related to the UN’s
priority themes (humans rights, environment, empowerment of women), etc. More
than half of the Section’s production budget originated from funds raised outside
the Department of Public Information. The co-production funding came primarily
from other UN agencies, departments and offices.
While
working at the UN, over a period of 15 years (from 1994 to 2009), I researched
and filmed a documentary on the involvement of industrialists in funding
paramilitary groups during Brazil’s military dictatorship. I self-funded this
project. This film (“Citizen Boilesen”), won many film festivals in Brazil and
abroad and helped me re-establishing a bridge with the documentary production
industry in Brazil. After my retirement from the UN in late 2016, I have
continued producing historical documentaries in Brazil. The budgets for these
films came from Brazilian funding sources and mechanisms. Brazil has developed
a sophisticated national audio-visual production infra-structure, but it
remains to be seen whether this structure will last. This is due to political
and financial pressures on ANCINE, Brazil’s national audio-visual policy-making
body. Currently, I have four fully-funded films in different stages of production:
a documentary trilogy for CineBrasilTV, a Brazilian cable channel, and a
feature documentary (produced by Globo Films/GloboNews, ANCINE/FS, SPCINE and
Italy’s Direzione Generale per il Cinema) for cinema distribution. I am a guest
speaker at film events, academic institutions and other such meetings on
UN-related themes. I have curated several exhibitions at museums and galleries
in Europe and North America.
2)
What is your current position, and how would you define your current production
mission?
My
current position - after retiring from the UN - is that of an
"independent" producer/writer/director. I produce history films
utilizing unusual narrative elements (apart from established primary/secondary/tertiary
sources), including fiction films, animation, theater and other
"non-traditional" story-telling elements mixing them with more
traditional elements (governmental documents, expert interviews, photos,
archive audio-visuals, etc.). I am primarily interested depicting unusual
characters and not well-known (but significant) historical events through
broadcasting and digital dissemination. Budgets that pay for these projects
come from Brazilian funding sources. In Brazil is still possible to produce
history films that don't have necessarily to follow traditional narrative
structures of history films (invariably based on the tripod "archive
material", "voice over" and "interviews").
Intellectually, my work focusses on representation of the "historic
fact" through audio-visual narrative formats. Formally, my goal is to
challenge the concept of what a historic film should look like. My
"political production mission" is to resist the rising of fascism in
Brazil and elsewhere through history.
3).
How do you employ digital technology in production?
Primarily
through recording and editing. At the UN I was able to purchase digital cameras
- for producers and assistant producers' usage - and Mac computers containing
the then latest version of Final Cut Pro editing software. I had no saying as
far as big digital broadcast technology purchases (systems, post production
hardware, professional editing equipment. etc.) were concerned. We used the
digital (editing/camera) equipment to produce short, web-target pieces at the
UN headquarters and within the city of New York. During production trips
abroad, UN producers were required to carry a camera (often serving as a second
camera on the shoot - we seldom sent a producer/cameraperson to produce UN stories
by herself/himself), and computers for translating/pre-editing/producing the
occasional news-piece.
In
my current production framework, decisions on cameras and editing software are
really the responsibility of my partners in Brazil. They use 4k cameras to film
and Adobe Premiere and Final Cut Pro to edit video.
But
there is an area that I am feeling the direct impact of digital communication
technology: it Is the work performed during the pre-production stage. There are
no doubts that more readily available archive materials (through uploading
yourself in such platforms like YouTube and the systematic digitalization of
film collections undertaken by the archive companies themselves), and the
digitalization of some official government documents, have significantly
contributed towards a more time-saving and productive pre-production/research
period. This is particularly Important as far as the type of films I produced -
heavily based on archive film materials, press reports, photos, fiction films,
radio, governmental documentation, etc.). Its simpler (but not necessarily
cheaper) to find out what materials are available and where. This is certainly
due to the tremendous advances in digital technology. Furthermore, because of
logistical issues and geographical distances - I am based in New York but my
work partners in Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo - I do a huge amount of work via
Google Docs, Skype and WhatsApp. Every day, me and my work partners exchange
messages, video, and general information via these digital communication
platforms. I find that this work method leads to more time in front of
computer(s) screen(s) Impacts positively on productivity and increases output.
But it also must be noted, working with screens, in my experience, ideas tend
to scatter, there are constant interruptions and deviations from work-goals and
decision-making becomes more diffuse as well.
4).
How do you use digital technology in post-production?
I
have been using more and more animations, graphics and data in my films. This
is consequence of the complex narratives/stories I am trying to tell. Digital
post-production can help the filmmaker to make complex problems and ideas
better understood by hers/his target audience. Digital effects can help
increasing the story's dramatic arch by
juxtaposing/clashing/contradicting/reinforcing opposite views and, thus,
creating narrative tension.
A
digression here on film complexity and the power of the audio-visual to change
pre-established/previously-held views and believes: I am under no illusion that
the films I have made (including the films I produced for the United Nations),
have changed anyone's mind or views about any particular issue. Films tend to
reinforce pre-established views and are not the preferred medium for
disseminating complex information and ideas. The written text is more
appropriate for this purpose. On the other hand, the tendency to simplify
issues that are by nature very complex is a disservice to those who watch a
documentary to learn about the human phenomena and the science of the universe.
These are "by nature" complex ideas. Films should reflect,
creatively, the complexity of the themes they deal with. And that is exactly
when digital technology in post-production can help a great deal. Not to simplify
complex ideas but problematize them.
5).
How do you distribute? Broadcast? DVD?? Other?
The
films that I have been involved with, throughout my professional career, have
been disseminated mainly by TV broadcasters. Television has been the medium I
have been most closely associated/involved with. Even the theatrical film I am
currently producing will reach eventually cable-television. DVD as a
distribution form is dying. My previous film, "Cidadao Boilesen", had
an "established" French-Brazilian distributor (IMOVISION). I found
that once a film wins a major festival, it becomes much easier to attract the
interest of distributors. "Cidadao Boilesen" had a rather successful
(for Brazilian standards) theatrical run and has been broadcast in 8 different
national TV channels in Brazil. It has been screened several times at CUNY
TV/NY and shown in over 40 major film festivals worldwide.
Since
I funded the production out of pocket and wasn't doing it for profit, I
"encouraged" piracy (there are various pirate versions on YouTube,
some with close to 150 thousand "hits").
As
traditional broadcasting disappears, the question remains: what will replace
it? And how will be longer formats funded? The YouTube model is an obvious
candidate but how to monetarize it? Ditto regarding sending digital files via
the Internet. How can the independent producer afford more costly productions
without institutional backing? This remains the unanswered riddle of
contemporary fiction/documentary production and distribution.
6).
What bandwidths do you have access to?
Bandwidth
Is not something I deal with.
7)
Do you use internet distribution systems? If so, which ones?
I
have not used it in the past. I have heard from friends and colleagues that the
marketplace for documentary distribution via the Internet is still very uneven.
A work in (slow) progress. It seems that video needs to go viral before anyone
can make any money through Internet-based distribution. For celebrity-centered
films, cat-dog related films, and nostalgia-themed productions this approach
seems to work. But for the kind of (historical) films I make I am not sure that
Internet-based distribution is, currently, economically viable. Bear in mind
that most of the films I make are "Brazilian-centered" and their
scope/reach is fairly limited outside the country (apart from festivals and
academic-related events).
8).
Do you feel digital technology has made your material more available?
to the populations you want to reach?
No
doubts that in my particular case this is definitely true. But we must consider
what was the context in which my work was inserted. In the case of my UN work,
I had the "backing" of the institution "United Nations"
which not only produced (paid for) the content but also disseminated it through
its official digital outlets. UN audio-visual narrative products were
disseminated primarily in two ways: directly to broadcasters worldwide (in six
"official" languages) via digital file transfer distribution. And
direct access via the UN's own digital dissemination assets through UN-YouTube,
UN-Webcast, UN-Social Media, UN-Twitter, UN-websites and portals and other
digital platforms. UN-live coverage (especially General Assembly and Security
Council meetings and ceremonies) were also made available live to worldwide broadcasters
as well as the general public, through UN's and external digital platforms. All
materials were made available free-of-charge. Archive materials could be
purchased with a nominal fee covering technical costs and transport.
As
far as the film I produced, "Cidadao Boilesen", its success is
probably related to the fact that the film won various major film festivals and
achieved a certain degree of notoriety in Brazil (and, to a certain extent,
abroad). That probably explains its relative success at the YouTube platform
and other digital sites.
9).
What is the attitude of your superiors towards digital technology?
Do
they understand how it is changing the global media landscape?
First,
I need to say that I myself was not prepared for the major changes ushered in
by digital technology. But I soon realized that this was an irreversible move.
We, at UNTV, kept in close touch with international broadcasters and were
fairly-well informed about the digital revolution going on. For most
established media companies, the transition analog - digital was very traumatic
but it was here to stay. The UN typically chose to ignore this revolution, to
begin with.
At
the leadership level within the UN's Department of Public Information, these
radical changes occurring in the broadcast industry took a real long time (over
one decade) to be absorbed. Making our superiors understand why the UN should
go from analog to digital was a tremendous problem during my days at the United
Nations. To put it in a simpler way, the communication leadership at the UN had
absolutely no clue about, for example, the extraordinary importance of a asset
like "webcast". It took literally years before I was able to convince
my superiors of the crucially vital role played by UN Webcast as a direct, no
filter/mediation communication tool directly addressing the general public, and
thus, bypassing traditional (and non-traditional) media. The communication
leadership at the UN took years to understand that the traditional media
triumvirate (Radio/TV/Press) was in its way out. And that the United Nations
was utterly unprepared for the urgent task of finding new ways to communicate
utilizing new digital tools for the purpose of "telling its own story to
the world". Unfortunately, when the transition analog - digital did take
place - as a direct consequence of the implementation of the Secretariat's
Capital Master Plan, the $1.876 billion renovation of
the UN complex – many poor decisions were made. These determinations were based
on ignorant outside consultants, lack of judgement and common sense and dubious
money saving schemes that has since cost the Organization dearly. A case in
point is the technically low standards used for keeping digital audio-visual
“legacy” archive. The quality of what is to be preserved for posterity is well
below what is to be expected (or accepted by contemporary technical standards)
and its doubtful whether the historical material currently being recorded will
last for long. During my tenure at the UN, I never perceived an institutional
care for its extraordinary audio-visual archive – there were never enough
resources (human/technical/financial) to manage such an important collection.
Solutions were always short-termed. Long termed planning, broad strategies and
logical technical decisions were never implemented (certainly this was the case
while I was working at the institution). The archive was never seen as an
asset, something to be proud of. Rather, it was a costly, unglamorous, a source
for headaches of senior communication managers. What was in fact achieved
during the last three decades in the UN audio-visual is due to the incredible
abnegation and hard work-ethics of those who manned the archives. We truly
loved the UN film archives. But for years the UN leadership tried to rid itself
of both, audio-visual and textual archives, thanks to the incredible
short-sightness of those responsible for these areas. I imagine that the
situation remains the same. This is heartbreaking as the UN possesses one of
the most extraordinary and vital audio-visual archives worldwide. Its precious
holdings – telling the world history from the end of the Second World War to
our days – will probably rot away, just like the institution itself, in the
coming years.
1o).
Do you use New Media to promote or finance your productions? If so,
please
explain.
11).
Finally, what are your own views on the future of digital documentary?
I
am very pessimistic regarding the future of documentary production,
particularly the investigative/historic genre. Production costs, lack of
alternatives for dissemination, indiference and sheer disinterest are the
culprits of the rapid demise of documentaries. This is a global phenomenon.
Currently, most documentary production globally seems to follow two distinct
patterns:
1.
Pop/Nostalgic documentaries, primarily aimed at older viewers (and these are
generally reasonably budgeted films);
2.
Cheaply made, mostly innocuous "let's follow someone and see what
happens" genre.
Documentaries
that depend on serious investigation/research and/or rely on expensive archive
material are fast disappearing. Some national broadcasters in Europe and Public
Channels globally still produce expensive, well-crafted historic documentaries
but they tend to be boring and humorless. They seldom challenge the
dictatorship of format - invariably "voice over/archive/interview".
There will be less and less funds available for documentary films that do not
conform to mainstream narrative styles. I hope I am wrong.
|
|
|
4. Gill Fickling:
|
GILL FICK
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Ted Folke <tedfolke@gmail.com> Date: Sun, Oct 13, 2019 at 6:57 PM Subject: Re: Changes at UNTV To: gill fickling <gillfickling@yahoo.com> Cc: Theodore_Folke <Theodore_Folke@fitnyc.edu>
Hi Gill,
Many thanks for the prompt reply - and thanks for all the
details.
As it happens, I have been a huge fan of Angelique Kidjo for
years, and I congratulate you on getting her involvement. What a pity Senior
Management
didn’t support you, because that was a major coup for the org,
as well as UNTV.
Otherwise, everything you say confirms what I have been
hearing. In my last year as Chief of the MONUSCO Video Unit, I started a
search for replacements for myself and a few others, and I noticed an
unfortunate trend towards recruitment of “ multimedia “ professionals who
knew nothing about production. We had no capacity or mandate to train anyone,
so this was a big problem for me.
As it happens, I was lucky to have succeeded Yasmina Bouziane
as Chief, and she had managed to recruit an outstanding team. For my first 4
years, all went well, but with my own departure imminent in my 5th year, I
started to search for a new Chief. I found one who was interested in the job
- Alban, whom you may have met - but all my recommendations were ignored
after I left.
I have to admit this initially broke my heart, since I loved
our whole team and was proud of the work we did- as well as the mission
itself. By the way, I also had my share of problems with senior managers - I
had 6 in 5 years - and I ended up being OIC/PID myself by default when my
last boss was unceremoniously sacked on Christmas Eve 2011.
In retrospect, I am just thankful I was able to do good work
for 5 years - but I still think it is a sad story. If you have any interest,
I will be happy to share my Mission End Report with all the gory details -
think you might be able to appreciate it more than most. FYI. I have tested
it on my FIT students, so I know it is not too boring!:)
Speaking of my students, I think the UN focus on “ social
media” is misguided - at best . At worst, it is an excuse for hiring a lot of
unqualified people for all the wrong reasons. I have been studying fashion
blogging for the past few years, and the UN is just not equipped to do social
media successfully - except on a limited scale.
Sorry to rant, but am sure you understand my feelings!:)
Many thanks again, and rest assured I shall be discrete!!
Cheers,
Ted
Hi Ted,
You are welcome to any snippets of information I can
offer. Sadly, UNTV has changed beyond all recognition, but largely
so since I left the Organization in June 2017, so a lot of what's gone
on since then is a mystery also to me. Try contacting Francis Mead for
an update since 2017.
First I'll fill you in on a little of the chronology
post-Chaim; when he left I took over temporarily as Chief for 9 months,
until the newly appointed Chief arrived. I only overlapped with her for
(a very unpleasant!) three months and it was after I had left that "21st
Century" was axed. Whilst I was Acting Chief of UNTV, I also
continued to carry out my role as both Executive Producer of "21st
Century" as well as one of the segment-producers.
For at least a couple of years prior to my retirement,
the writing was on the wall that many people wanted "21st
Century" to go. The reasoning seemed to be that most audiences now
have the attention-span of a mosquito and were not interested in long-format
pieces. However, as a small group of us frequently argued, "21st
Century" was shown monthly on some 80 global broadcast stations and
despite data on viewing audiences being extremely limited, we knew that the
programme was reaching global audiences in their millions. The French
version - more on that later - was produced in partnership with TV5 Monde,
the largest Francophone network in the world (currently claims to reach 55
million viewers - I seem to remember the figure was some 25 million when
we partnered with them, but a very respectable outlet for a UN
product). The Chinese version was produced in partnership with a
Chinese network which has since disappeared but that reached an audience also
in the millions. And around the end of 2016, we established
a partnership with a Nigerian network to produce a Nigerian
version. These three language versions were all presenter-led, although
in 2016 (I think) we had to drop Daljit Dhaliwal as presenter of the English
version due to budget restrictions. We updated the "look"
and format of the Engl show to move away from, as you called it in your article,
the "voice of god" approach.
In 2015, (I think - sorry can't remember dates of when
some things happened) I brought Angelique Kidjo on board as the on-screen
presenter of the French version. This was without the support of
the higher management of DPI who did not seem to see the kudos in having such
an international star as our presenter. With the support of TV5 Monde,
who wanted Kidjo as the show-face, and after several months of struggle
internally, I finally got her on contract as the host. At the glitzy
launch in NY, laid on by TV5 Monde to mark the event, the then Director of
Communications did at least have the grace to apologize for not having
supported me in the long fight to bring Kidjo on board only recognizing
the PR-coup for DPI when she saw the importance TV5 Monde placed on our
ongoing partnership. With Kidjo fronting the show, audience
figures particularly across French-speaking Africa increased.
Funding for 21st Century stories has been an increasing
problem. When I started with the unit in 2008, we still had a
production budget and could identify important stories and, within limits, go
and shoot them. The glory days! But as time went on, budgets
became more and more squeezed and the need to raise our own funds became more
acute. By the end of my time at UNTV, most of our "21st
Century" stories were funded by other UN Agencies and partners, with
funds we sought ourselves. DPI management did NOT help in this
process. It was down to us, TV Producers, to find the partners and
funds. We found that the success of 21stC and its global reach,
was a pull for UN partners many of whom saw the advantage in having their
work/name shared with the large global audiences. However, as
producers the need to satisfy financial partners in terms of story content
was often restrictive and curtailed our journalistic integrity for honest
reporting. This sometimes meant compromising content to keep the
"client" happy.
OK, thats some background - now to your questions:
1. The change of the name from DPI to GCD was
happening when I left in the summer of 2017. I do not know who's idea
it was, nor exactly when it came into place, but I know that Dep Director of
News and Media Division, Mita, was very involved in this. (By the way,
yes, please keep any comments/info from me anonymous!!)
2. The increasing focus on social media was
happening while I was still there. In fact, in the months before Chaim
left, I came up with a production strategy for TV section - we were no longer
known as UNTV then but I can't say when exactly that change took place.
This strategy was requested by the Director and Deputy Director of News and
Media Division and was to include the production of shorter social media
pieces with each story. Also our pieces, both long and short format,
needed to now be clearly linked to the specific UN priorities for that year,
as well as to key UN "days" in the calendar. So a 21stC show
for a specific month needed to be linked to, for example, an upcoming UN
Summit on climate change; from the 21stC story, would also be produced a UNIA
feature and within that month, the UN Summit as well as any UN days falling
in that month needed to be highlighted with a 1-2 mins piece for social media
in eight languages (the 6 official plus Portuguese and Kiswahili). The
only way to produce this increased output of stories in the myriad of
languages, was to rely on interns - not an ideal way to maintaining
quality and story integrity (skilled as many of the interns were, they often
lacked knowledge of UN sensibilities as well as technical expertise).
We were turning into a sausage factory - quantity of output was now
overtaking quality.
The switch to focus primarily on social
media took place when Chaims replacement arrived. As you know, she has
no experience in long-format narrative pieces, her background being in social
media so within days of her arrival, the writing was on the wall that
"21stC" would be short-lived. Indeed, it continued for the
duration of Angelique Kidjo's contract for the french version (which was
derived from the Engl version) and then it was cut. I was no longer
there then so don't know how this came about. You may like to contact
Francis Mead for info. He and I fought bitterly for
"21stC" to be continued.
You asked WHY the increased focus on social media.
Many of us felt it was so that boxes could be ticked that, yes, the
department was producing social media as, when this move began, there was
little monitoring of who was watching what went out on social media. It
seemed to be enough to be able to say in high-level meetings that, yes, we
were putting piece out on YouTube - even if only 12 people were viewing them
and most of them were inside the UN. The fact that MILLIONS were seeing
our narrative pieces on broadcast stations around the world, seemed to be
irrelevant in comparison to this new "wonder" called social media!
I'm not sure if I've answered your questions and
if you want a follow-on chat, let me know and we can set it up.
Good luck with the piece and do send me a copy when it's
finished.
best,
Gill
Hi Gill,
I just want you to know how much I
appreciate any information you can offer, since It is certainly
relevant for my dissertation case study of UNTV in the age of New
Media. Thank you!
My problem is simple - I need to
fill in some gaps about what happened after
Chaim left . Previously, I
interviewed Steve, Chaim and Georges Leclerc, and while all three are
different, they all were proud of the success of UN IN ACTION, which Georges
told me was distributed in 135 countries at its peak, and
which thus got the UN message
around the world, and thereforevattracted support from all the agencies who
wanted to be on the show.
When combined with UNTV 21st
Century, which I saw as a prestge showpiece, UNTV was doing a pretty good job
through to when Chaim retired in 2017. For that reason, I was startled to
discover that neither Alison Smale nor any of her colleagues ever talked with
him about his experience of 10 years as chief. Instead, a decision was made
by someone to discontinue UNTV 21st Century, and to appoint as head of UN
Video someone with no broadcast production experience.
According to Chaim, now there is
little production of programs with “narrative content”’ , and
UNTV producers have no money for travel, and are expected to find both
funding and distribution for the productions they are assigned. In all
honesty, I could not believe this when I heard it,but then I heard the same
story from people both inside and outside UNTV.
I tried to speak to the current
head of Video to get some clarity, but she went into CYA mode and called
Alison Smale, who insisted upon giving me written answere to written
questions for my PassBlue article. Now Alison has been replaced by Melissa
Fleming, whom I know through Celine Schmitt, her excellent representative in
the DRC, and who should be a big improvement.
However, I still have big questions
- I see broadcast and social media as branches of the same media tree -
just different forms of distributiion. Why this artficial distinction? Sorry
to go on,but trust you understand what I am trying to say.
So, here are my questions:
1. When was it decided to rebrand
DPI as GCD, and who made this decision?
I first learned of this last year
in a visit to the Secretariat, and I was stunned.
I have learned a bit about branding
in my years as a professor at F.I.T, and this decision baffles me.
2. Who decided UNTV should focus on
“ Social Media” and why? Please note I am an enthusiastic advocate of New
Media, which I see as a compliment to media campaigns in broadcast media.
3. What happened to UNTV 21st
Century?
In closing, anything you can offer
will be invaluable. My goal is to find a logical end to my case study that
shows how UNTV has adjusted to New Media, and I want to emphasize I have no
axes to grind. Indeed, I doubt if my professor at Sweden’s University of Lund
cares about internal UN politics - I I just need to
have an ending that makes some
sense.
If you want this to be off the
record, that is fine with me- just let me know.
Many thanks again,
Cheers,
Ted
|
||||
|
5. Alison Smale:
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Sofia Diarra <sofia.diarra@un.org>
Date: Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 17:56
Subject: Re: Article on UN Video for PassBlue
To: Ted Folke <tedfolke@gmail.com>
CC: Dulcie <passblue1@gmail.com>, Hua Jiang <jiang1@un.org>, Mita Hosali <hosali@un.org>, Jaya Dayal <dayalj@un.org>, Darrin Farrant <farrant@un.org>
Dear Ted,
Thank you for your questions.
Please find the response to your
questions below from Under-Secretary General, Ms. Alison Smale.
If you have any further questions
please send them to her office to the attention of Ms. Jaya Dayal and Mr.
Darrin Farrant copied.
Kind regards.
----------------------------------------------------------------
From Alison Smale,
Under-Secretary-General for Global Communications:
The role of the Department of Global Communications (DGC) is to
share the United Nations story with the world, in multiple languages and
formats so that people everywhere have a better understanding of the UN’s work
and values.
UN Video and UN TV are a key part of those efforts, using
engaging visual content to tell the UN story across its three pillars: peace
& security, human rights, and sustainable development. Most recently we
have created compelling video stories around issues ranging from climate action
to peacekeeping to counter-terrorism to the fight for gender equality.
As technologies evolve, DGC is adapting too, updating our
formats, platforms and distribution channels and partners so we can reach
larger audiences and make a greater impact. Increasingly we are making virtual
reality films, for example, and more mobile-friendly content.
Appendix D: Miscellaneous Documents
No comments:
Post a Comment