Branding Images : White Saviorism and Shock Appeals by BBC Three

Julianne

Lindner

Branding Images

WHITE SAVIORISM AND SHOCK APPEALS BY BBC Three

ComDev Master – 1 year 15 credits HT 2020

S

UMMARY

This research has focused on the representation of foreign cultures in four BBC documentaries. To be more precise, it looked into how public documentaries portray foreign cultures, specifically within a frame of development aid and white saviourism when watching documentaries by BBC Three, a channel which is centred towards a young audience. Previous research on white saviourism and shock appeals analysed movies, documentaries and aid campaigns. Barely any have so far researched representation of minorities, foreign cultures and aid topics in public documentaries. BBC Three is additionally focused only on a young audience and blends tv with social media engagement. This is an interesting angle as youth will be the next policy makers and as they are starting to create their worldview. The research is based upon a visual and textual analysis, following Hall’s encoding/decoding model. It showed that all four documentaries (2016-2018) misrepresent their “subjects” by focusing more on the presenter’s perspective, e.g. concentrating on their emotional responses, asking loaded questions, giving their opinions and solutions. All four documentaries also presented a simplified local situation through Scott’s shock appeals and a bad-good guy perspective (where the presenters address the local government and stand up for the helpless subjects). One can therefore state that youth learn about foreign cultures through the eyes of a “North” girl/boy next door presenter basing upon a white saviourism perspective. The research additionally related the findings to Goodman’s theory on iCare capitalism, the emphasis on creating a brand and self-value out of caring for others so that other’s suffering is turned into a theatre play. This is also visible through BBC Three’s and the presenters’ social media presence. This research opens the discussion and defines a need to research the responsibilities of public channels and the impact on youth when developing opinions, views and stereotypes.

Keywords: White Saviourism - Documentary - Shock Appeals - Misrepresentation - BBC

T

ABLE OF CONTENT

I

NTRODUCTION

In 2017 musician Ed Sheeran travelled to Liberia to raise awareness on children living on the street. It was part of Comic Relief, an annual event to raise money for thirteen British aid organisations (e.g. Oxfam, Save the Children and Action Aid). However good the intentions, criticism developed quickly towards Sheeran’s video, receiving even the award of “most offensive” campaign. The award was handed out by the Radi-Aid awards, a contest organized by SAIH (Norwegian Students and Academics International Assistance Fund) to challenge aid organisations to move away from stereotyping people living in poverty (McVeigh, 2017). Ed Sheeran received the award as he offered to pay for a hotel for some of the street children. By doing so, the idea was given that he was the only one to help them, portraying him as a so-called white saviour. Comic Relief, which is broadcasted by the BBC, had also received criticism on two other videos that same year and promised improvement. However, in 2019 criticism against Comic Relief was expressed again when BBC documentary maker Stacey Dooley on her trip to Uganda was targeted. Dooley posted a photo of herself together with a Ugandan child on her Instagram. The caption read “OBSESSSSSSSSSSED <3”1. Labour MP David Lammy reacted to her photo, saying “The world does not need any more white saviours” (McGrath, 2019), additionally the photo went viral under the hashtag white saviourism.

These events and an earlier analysis I did of Dooley’s BBC Three documentary Gypsy Kids taken from Home, telling a very black/white story of saviours and bad guys, triggered a surprise and interest within me. It made me wonder what role a public channel, such as the BBC, has in representing other cultures. Do media not have the function to inform the public with reliable, accurate and impartial news (WRR, 2005, p.67)? Especially a public channel, whose function it is to educate citizens and provide them with in-depth impartial information. Looking at BBC’s editorial guidelines, it clearly says it aims towards “achieving due impartiality in all its output” and takes “responsibility to protect the vulnerable, especially young people, and to avoid unjustifiable offence”. Further it works towards “achieving due accuracy in all its output” (BBC, 2019). But how much is this the case for the work produced and broadcasted by the BBC? To gain a better understanding, I will focus on several BBC Three documentaries and how they portray issues such as poverty, inequality and violence. Special attention be giving to the concept of white saviourism.

OBJECTIVE AND RESEARCH QUESTION

To gain an understanding of how a public channel represents other cultures, the research question in focus is:

“How do four BBC Three documentaries capture and present foreign cultures and peoples, within a frame of development aid and white saviourism, through its visuals, sounds and text?”

Here we consider how BBC Three, through its documentaries, captures and presents foreign cultures and documentaries instead of focusing on the audience’s interpretation thereof. A visual and textual analysis will be supported by a literature research on representation, white saviourism and influencers.

Previous literature has indicated a relevance of looking into how cultures are being represented. A representation is a construction where some aspects of a culture are highlighted whereas others are concealed (Huang, 2015, p.336). It a choice, deliberate or not, which elements are chosen to be portrayed, which characteristics are to be represented. This choice will affect (Hooks, 1992, p.5) how social, but also political, power is defined. It alters “how other people look at you and how you look at yourself”. It is therefore of importance to understand how stories are being told. How BBC Three, through its documentaries, influences how British youth look at foreign cultures and peoples.

The choice to focus on BBC Three, and not on documentaries produced by other BBC channels, is due to its focus on 16-34-year olds. This rather young audience is growing up to be the next policy makers, the next one to embark on travels and potential voluntourism, the next one to study, work and create their own worldviews. Additionally, the channel is online only, blending social media and television easily. Like Michael Waugh (2017) argues the age group of 16-34-year olds “are never outside…the digital realm” (p.234). They grew up with the internet and use social media as part of their daily life. Their offline and online lives blend easily into one. Internet, social media and television, become important parts of their lives, and will impact how they see the world. That said, other age groups are no less relevant. But to limit the scope of the research, it would be interesting and relevant to look at an age group which

blends offline and online lives so easily. BBC is chosen as it is a public channel with a rather large budget of £5.2 million annually, plus an additional £1.3 million of selling their productions abroad (BBC, 2021). It is also perceived as a giant internationally as well as a world leader across public and private media. Just to mention that services, across the BBC channels and BBC News, reach globally more than 468 million people a week, an increasing amount (BBC, 2020). But also e.g. politicians in France refer to the BBC as a model of public service broadcasting, the Austrian public channel is based on the BBC model, and its tv shows and drama series are bought by others such as Netflix and HBO (The Guardian, 2020). Lastly, a report by UNESCO described the BBC as the most famous public service broadcaster in the world (Banerjee & Seneviratne, 2005, p.47).

METHODOLOGY

The focus of this research are four selected documentaries. The documentaries, presented by Livvy Haydock, Ben Zand, Sofie Morgan and Stacey Dooley, will be both visually and textually analysed (see methodology chapter why these documentaries were selected). This means attention is paid to words used, surroundings, voice-over, angles, sounds up to even clothes. For this it is important to note that documentaries, and movies in general, are subjective constructions of reality. Rough material that is being shot is usually three up to ten times longer than the final product. Scenes are selected and cut, others thrown away. By editing, the producer can alter meanings or approach the same material in different ways (Romic, 2018). To support the visual & textual analysis of the documentaries, the research uses secondary material. This includes promotion materials, social media channels of both BBC Three as the documentary makers themselves. This puts the documentaries into a wider perspective and enables the researcher to relate it to the branding process of BBC Three. Attention is paid to visual aids and comments in particular. The chapter on methodology will provide more information on choices made within this research.

PREVIOUS RESEARCH

Different research has explored how movies, documentaries, and in general development aid campaigns, represent minorities, other cultures and

immigrants. A large share of this literature focuses on movies. Take for example work done by Cammarota (2011), Asif & Saenz (2017), Ash (2015), Murphy & Harris (2018), Hughley (2010) and Stoddard & Marcus (2006). E.g. Ash (2015) focuses on how the movie Blindside portrays the story of an Afro American boy who is lifted out of poverty by a model white family whereas the real story whereupon the movie is based is not as black/white. Stoddard & Marcus (2006) look specifically into what students learn from the movies they watched in American history class. They researched which movies were screened in class and how these portrayed Afro Americans. All the research indicated what Cammarota (2011, p. 243) perfectly describes as “White saviors represented in

popular media overshadow the fact that people of color are part of and, most importantly, make history”. Many movies create images loaded with a sense of

inferiority and victimization which are being kept alive by constant repetition (Cammarota, 2011, .250). Most of this research is, however, focused on Hollywood movies and how, often, it portrays relations within the United States of America (White – Afro Americans).

A different strand of literature focuses on how documentaries represent different peoples, minorities or foreign cultures. Examples of such research are Huang (2015), Cornwall (2016) and Alia & Bull (2005). Huang discusses how newly female immigrants in Taiwan are portrayed in several documentaries. Cornwell researched how Indian sexworkers were represented in a VICE documentary. In their book, Alia and Bull discuss how minorities generally are presented in the media. They argue that all documentaries present a subject reality as the viewer only witnesses the issue or culture through the eyes of the documentary maker. Additionally, they highlight the mistakes documentaries make in mislabelling places and people or simple factual details. This leaves the audience misinformed (Alia & Bull, 2005, p.34). This strand of literature is much smaller, and up to now no research is done into documentaries made by public channels. It does indicate the importance of doing similar research, especially within the public sphere – as there is a danger of stereotyping and victimization when audiences are misinformed.

A third, and last, relevant strand of literature focuses on the influence of television on the audience. Whereas the previous two strands did a visual and textual analysis of movies and documentaries, this strand researched the effects of television on its audience. Research done by e.g. Strass & Vogel (2018), Lee, etc. (2009) and Gerbner, etc. (2002) show that “If the depictions in

the media are stereotypical and the individual has limited information to counter these messages” its leads to generalization, and eventually “to biases, prejudice and discrimination against social groups” (Strass & Vogel, 2018,

& Ibanez-Sanchez (2018) show in their research that social media can impact behaviour. They claim that celebrities on Instagram have an influence on the purchasing behaviour of girls. Concluding, this literature type shows the relevance of visually and textually analysing popular movies, television series, documentaries and social media.

The topic of white saviourism is touched in many ways within the literature. It is e.g. reflected in literature on voluntourism, fund raising, social media and photography. For this research, the focus was placed on white saviourism and how cultures are portrayed in media representations. A concept of white saviourism will follow in the theoretical chapter.

DISPOSITION

This report is structured into five distinct chapters. In chapter two explores the concept of white saviourism and theories on representation, followed by chapter three in which the methodology behind this research is presented as well as gives relevant background. Chapter five presents the overall findings. And finally, chapter six contains the conclusion. At the end, the report contains all references.

T

HEORETICAL

F

RAMEWORK

To provide the research with a theoretical framework, this paragraph will discuss the concepts of representation, white saviourism and shock appeals in more detail by looking into previous academic literature. This framework will be used when analysing the findings, so that a deeper understanding can be reached. The above three concepts were selected based on their relevance in previous research.

REPRESENTATION

Representation is a crucial concept within a textual and visual analysis. As already indicated in the introduction, representation is a “construction”. This means that certain aspects are highlighted whereas others are ignored. It is a choice, deliberate or not, which elements are chosen to be portrayed, which characteristics are to be represented (Hooks, 1992, p.5). This deliberate or not-deliberate choice is made by the one making the representation and often, within development work and/or documentaries, these representations are not made by the subjects themselves. As Bandyopadhyay (2019, p.328) argues it is often the global north defining, representing and theorizing about the “other”. Representation and power are therefore strongly interlinked. Northern documentaries or movie makers tell a story about the global south using their words, their choice in editing, their view on what is right and wrong, or even more so their view of what is good and bad. There is additionally a tendency to simplify stories to make them more approachable and engaging for a broader audience (Stoddard & Marcus, 2006, p.28). Therefore, is important to keep in mind while analysing the research’s findings that documentaries always present subjective realities deriving from the maker’s point of view. This even though documentaries are often seen as a more objective, factual form of media (compared to tv and movie) (Alia &Bull, 2005, p.35).

Looking at representation, one cannot go further without mentioning Stuart Hall’s theory on encoding and decoding. The cultural theorist created a model on how messages in media are produced, circulated and consumed, both verbally as non-verbally. He argues that videos, photos, text, etc. are not merely static and transparent. The message sent by the producer, aka the encoder, can be interpreted differently by the audience, aka the decoder. By arguing so, the audience is not just a passive recipient of messages. Through their own experiences, they can interpret the message differently from what the producer aimed for. Hall distinguishes three ways an audience can decode media: (1) dominated (fully accepts the message), (2) negotiated (partly accepts

the message and at times modifies it based on own experiences), and (3) oppositional (completely disagrees and gives different interpretation). That said, Hall explains that messages cannot be decoded in any possible way. Society tends to follow and reflect a dominant cultural order, also referred to as “preferred meanings”. This reflects power, practices, social meanings and interest. These preferred meanings are always contested and open to change, according to Hall (Rodrigues, 2017; Shaw, 2017, p. 593-4; Mambrol, 2020, Hall, 2013, p.41-45). The current dominant order is influenced by Orientalism, a term coined by author Edward W. Said. It describes how colonial knowledge was produced and consequently propagated through novels, textbooks, newspapers, films, exhibitions, etc. It became the overpowering system of thinking that enabled a hierarchy and legitimacy for the North to rule and colonise the South. Said thereby challenged the idea of neutrality and universalism that supposedly described Western modernism. Nowadays, Sa’di (2020) argues a mild form of orientalism is still present (p.1-3) which gives insight into the representation of power in the world (Sa’di, 2020, p.11).

WHITE SAVIORISM

To elaborate more on the above theory, orientalism (derived from the colonial time) is still visible through the phenomenon of white saviourism. White saviourism is centred around the idea of the white main character helping the helpless victim (Murphy & Harris, 2018, p.52). This is reflected across media, news and literature. Take for example the white family helping the Afro-American boy in the movie Blindness, or the character of Jake in the movie Avatar who is saving the innocent Na’vi who could not win without him. White saviourism is, however, not limited to movies only. Just remember the example of Ed Sheeran’s visit to Liberia. Though, this type of story line can have a dangerous effect. It renders “people of colour incapable of helping themselves” (Cammarota, 2011, p.244). Repeating images of inferiority and victimization over and over again. Qing describes it even better saying that the non-Western world is looked at “through the lens of levels of ‘development’ or ‘modernity’ (2007, p.275). This world is seen as irrational and weak whereas the north is perceived as modern, rational and strong. Whether it is intended or not. Differently put, it shows a western coloured representation of the non-western world. White saviourism relates to representation as it the North, or western world, that decides, deliberately or not, how the South is being represented. It is their words, choice of editing, view on right/wrong and good/bad, their world view and interpretation that decides how the South’s story is being told as well as the preferred meaning like described by Hall. As this research looks into representation by a public channel from the “North” focusing on documentaries made in the “South”, it is crucial to analyse them from a white saviour perspective.

White saviourism is based upon another concept, Stuart Hall’s white gaze (1996); which describes the way of looking at the exotic other from the high top, assuming a hierarchy where whiteness is on top. This hierarchy is binary: the gazers and the ones being gazed upon (Mostafanezhad, 2013). Or the objects who gaze, the North, versus the subjects, the South. Developing countries are thereby portrayed as poor, weak, ravaged, whereas developed countries are staged as the ones rescuing them. “In essence, white is always right, and West is always best” (Pailey, 2019, p.5). Or as Bandyopadhyay writes “A nobody from America or Europe can go to Africa and become a godlike saviour, or at the very least, have his or her emotional needs satisfied. Under the banner of making a difference (2019, p.331)”. The advocacy campaign and Instagram page No White Savior plays with the phenomenon of white saviourism and the white gaze by providing first-hand experiences, by a mostly Ugandan-led team, about the power dynamics between the westerners and local people (https://www.instagram.com/nowhitesaviors/?hl=en).

SHOCK APPEALS

To finally grasp the full theory on representation, media and development, one needs to look into Martin Scott’s theory on shock appeals. In his book Media and Development (2014), Scott explains in detail how some campaigns focus almost only on the suffering, whilst little to no explanation is given about potential causes or context. Consequently, only a simplified version of reality is presented, one in which complex, longer term and structural causes are lacking. The “aim to provoke feelings of guilt and pity in Western audiences through portrayals of extreme material poverty and suffering (2014, p.141)”. Shock appeals further turn people into helpless and innocent victims, if not passive objects that are being held captive by their surroundings (Scott, 2014, p. 144). Cornwall (2016) refers to this phenomenon as

poverty porn (Cornwall, 2016, p.141), an overindulgence of poverty and display of

people’s fears, misery and grief just to trigger emotional response from the audience. The danger of shock appeals, as Martin Scott (2015) mentions is that the subjects within media campaigns, movies or documentaries will be deprived of their dignity. They are merely portrayed as passive objects whose lives get directed by outsiders and surroundings. As if only an external actor can change their situation. It additionally risks of reproducing existing stereotypes (Scott, 2014, p.145-151; Dogra, 2013, p.65).

Martin Scott also mentions in his concept of shock appeals “to provoke feelings of guilt and pity in Western audiences”. He speaks thereby of two sides, one of (Western) spectators and one of objects to watch, similar as the White Gaze by Stuart

Hall. To explore this side of audiences more, the theory of Nandita Dogra is used. She namely explains how campaigns use both difference as oneness within the same project to trigger emotional response from, mostly Western, spectators. This theory is, however, not only valid for campaigns by NGOs, but also applicable to documentaries. Difference, as described by Dogra, is shown through emphasizing oppositions. This creates a us, the audience, and a them through words, material possessions, clothing, etc. As a result of using difference, problems and people locally are portrayed as spectacles that exist out there for which Western audiences feel pity (Dogra, 2013, p.66). Nandita Dogra emphasizes in her theory that only difference would not trigger emotional response - campaigns also need an element of oneness (2013, p.108). As a result, viewers feel connected to the objects on the screen, they feel pity for the poverty and replacements the interviewees go through.

This chapter has looked at the different sides of representation within development work. It showed that representation and power are very much interlinked with a binary hierarchy where whiteness is on top. This leads to oversimplification, stereotypes and a repetition of images showing poverty and suffering. The visual and textual analysis of this research will look into if the four BBC Three documentaries show signs of white saviourism and shock appeals.

M

ETHODOLOGY

This research will be a case study of how public channels, through documentaries, represent foreign cultures, with a specific focus on topics such as poverty and violence. This chapter will look more closely into which methods are used. Overall, four BBC Three documentaries are analysed visually and textually. This analysis is supported by theory presented in the previous chapter. Additionally, secondary material, such as promotion materials, social media channels of BBC Three as the documentary makers, is used to gain an in-depth understanding.

SELECTED RESEARCH METHODS

The focus of this research is placed upon qualitative research methods, specifically case studies and methods of textual and visual analysis. By doing so, the research can bring forth a deeper understanding within a specific context and a rather small sample. This, however, also means that by choosing qualitative methods it is difficult to reach generalisations – as the methods do take more time and limit the amount of e.g. documentaries analysed possible (Kvale, 2007, p.85). However, looking at the nature of this research, aiming to increase knowledge on a small group (16-34-year olds in UK) within a rather smaller defined context (BBC Three Documentaries and media representation), it turned out to be a good fit. For this, case studies are understood as a focus upon one or a few units, instances or phenomena to enable an in-depth understanding of a specific issue (Gomm, Hammersley & Foster, 2009, p.2-4). To analyse many documentaries will take a lot of time, plus one cannot go into so much detail.

The documentaries are analysed both visually as textual. Attention is paid to words used, surroundings, voice-over, angles, sounds, people who are talking, facial expressions, tone of voice up to clothes. Textual and visual analyse is not about discover the right and single interpretation. But, as described by McKee (2003, p.1); “we make an educated guess at some of the most likely interpretations that might be

made of that text”. This educated guess will give an understanding how

documentaries will be interpreted by its intended audience, or otherwise put how minorities and cultures are represented by others visually and textually. The basis of textual analysis assumes that all texts have a “preferred meaning” but that no “correct” or “single” interpretation of a text exists, as explained in the decoding/encoding model of Stuart Hall. To gain an understanding of this preferred meaning, textual analysis aims to identify all the interpretations which are possible

and likely. This is crucial as consumers/receivers of the text, or image, might not accept, understand or take the intended meaning given to the text by its producers (Leeuwen & Jewitt, 2004, p.68). To identify these likely interpretations, the researcher has to look into the text’s context, codes, conventions and genre. Questions such as “Who created the test?”, “Who is the (intended) audience?”, “What is the text’s purpose?”, “What is the central theme?” and “How does the text relate to other texts?” can help the researcher in identifying likely interpretations (Given, 2008, p.865). Other relevant questions relate to the text’s content, such as “What language do they use?”, “What photos are used?”, “Whose voices are heard?”, “Which elements are emphasized?” and “With whom is the reader supposed to sympathize?” (McKee, 2003, p.30). Visual analysis, instead of textual analysis, additionally looks into colour use, composition, symbolism and framing (Leeuwen & Jewitt, 2004, p.68). This research will combine both to gain an in-depth understanding. Only looking at the text, might ignore how e.g. colour and images create a certain atmosphere. The analysis will further relate to the theory discussed previously, as dominant cultural orders, flavoured by white saviourism, create the preferred meanings in which media messages are being decoded. All of that said, there has been critic on the method of textual analysis. It is argued that the researcher’s perspective influences how a text is read, and which interpretations are identified and perceived as most likely. That’s why it is important for this research, as for textual analysis in general, to always reflect upon one own’s bias and to aim towards using different methods of textual analysis if possible (Given, 2008, p.865-6). Overall, looking into likely interpretations will tell us how foreign cultures are being represented in the media. As said in the theoretical chapter, it is a choice, deliberate or not, which elements are chosen to be portrayed, which characteristics are to be represented. And as representation and power are interlinked, especially from a white saviourism perspective in which the North’s power decide on how the South is portrayed, a visual & textual analysis could tell us more how the BBC tells the story of the “other” and therefore represents them.

LIMITATIONS & CHALLENGES

As the main challenge, as already mentioned before, I need to reflect upon my own bias, place within the research as this could limit/impact the research. This is especially important as within a textual & visual analysis, my perspective might influence how a text is read and which interpretations are identified and perceived as most likely. Besides reflecting upon my own position, I will aim to use diverse ways of analysis and sources of literature to limit the influence. Additionally, it needs to be

acknowledged that a fully correct analysis of a text is unattainable. Another challenge is to get access to the documentaries – all in the same quality.

To limit the research, I will focus on four documentaries broadcasted on BBC Three within a limited time frame – namely 2015-2018. This will make it difficult to make generalisations. However, it will make the research doable and create findings that are detailed and concrete. The purpose of the research will not be to generalize its findings but has a qualitative angle. The documentaries are selected, and not randomly chosen. As mentioned in the introduction, BBC Three is chosen as it addresses a specific, and young, audience. This target group is one that seamlessly blends offline and online words, and it is interesting to see how BBC Three tries to reach them both via online television as social media related to the programmes. The documentaries are chosen based on (1) being made for BBC Three, (2) broadcasted on BBC Three, (3) each one by a different documentary maker and (4) having its main topic focused on minorities or foreign cultures in respect to development topics (e.g. poverty, education, violence, racism, medical care). It is crucial that all documentaries are produced by different people – as if the research would only focus on one documentary maker the report could not produce any conclusions on how BBC Three represents others, merely how one specific documentary maker does. Based on the above criteria, four documentary makers were found. From each documentary maker one documentary was selected based on (1) the documentary was produced and broadcasted during the last three years and the (2) topic relates to a development topic. During the time period of 2016-2018 only a handful of documentary makers made documentaries for BBC Three. Some of them focused on the UK itself. They were excluded from this research. From the documentary makers left, 4 of out 6 were analysed based on the availability of their documentaries online. This offered another limitation to the research. The chosen documentaries also represent different countries and different continents (East Asia, Central Asia, Europe and Africa).

BACKGROUND ON DOCUMENTARIES SELECTED

All documentaries analysed are featured by BBC Three, a BBC channel that is since 2016 online only. The same year, the channel underwent a complete rebranding which included new lay-out, logo, and colours. It was not merely the idea to stream their previous programmes online, but to re-invent new kinds of programmes. The rebranding was aimed to please BBC Three’s core audience of 16 to 34-year olds (Dawood, 2017). As Liz Warner, former BBC Television executive, argued British television was “getting boring, old and boring” (Woods, 2017, p.140), and therefore needs to be more active in the digital world. So, from 2016 onwards BBC Three

created mostly short-form content which got spread through YouTube, Facebook and other social media platforms. Their main focus was placed upon (1) documentary, Make me Think, and (2) personality led comedy, Make me Laugh (Woods, 2017, p. 141; Ramsey, 2018, p.159). Or as Inge Ejbye Sørensen has argued, “[they] use documentary as one of the main genres with which to promote their brands, differentiate themselves from their competitors, and demonstrate their commitment to serious, public service programming”. Within the programmes, the channel sees its main role to capture the British youth’s own experiences, struggles and views, as followed by the objectives of the 2003 Communications Act. The channel further witnessed a budget cut by £45 million to £25 million the same year (Woods, 2017, p. 140-142). Documentaries made by BBC Three are by e.g. rapper Stephen Manderson, actor and radio DJ Reggie Yates, Stacey Dooley, Investigative journalist Ellie Flynn. The ones selected for this research are based on if they report on foreign cultures/minorities in respect to development topics.

STACEY DOOLEY – GIPSY KIDS TAKEN FROM HOME

The documentary Gipsy Kids Taken from Home was broadcasted February 2018 and produced as part of the tv series Stacey Dooley Investigates. Other episodes of the series focused on a.o. child soldiers in Congo, the crystal meth industry in Mexico and domestic violence in Russia. In total Stacey Dooley has made more than 80 documentaries across a diverse range of topics and a time span of just ten years (Kellaway, 2017; BBC Three, 2018a). Many of Dooley’s documentaries end up being one of the most-watched programmes on BBC’s iPlayer (Curtis Brown, 2018; Kellaway, 2017). In this documentary, Dooley travels to Hungary to find out if Roma children are in real need of institutional care or if their families merely suffer from institutional discrimination. To find out she interviews parents, children and social workers (BBC Three, 2018b).

Stacey Dooley started making documentaries after participating in BBC’s 2008 tv series Blood, Sweat and T-shirts. She was one of six fashion obsessed British youngsters travelling to India to experience the daily life of garment workers. Up to then Dooley, being 21 years old, worked at a perfume and make-up store at Luton airport. The 2008 series would, however, change her life and open up new possibilities. Back in the UK, Dooley began campaigning against child labour and even appeared on BBC talk shows to promote the cause. Soon, she was approached by BBC’s Danny Cohen, who oversaw BBC Three. He commissioned the first of Dooley’s sixty documentaries. Many followed (Gillespie, 2015; Kellaway, 2017; Curtis Brown, 2020). In 2018, Stacey Dooley published the book On The Front Line With The

world. It draws from her documentaries, that often have a focus on (young) women - from domestic violence in Russia and Honduras, girls fighting for ISIS, disappearing women in Canada, up to sex workers in the Philippines. The book made it to The Sunday Times bestseller list. Book tours and talks about her experiences followed. Besides making documentaries, Dooley has participated (plus won) Britain's Strictly Come Dancing show and presented the BB3 reality series Glow Up: Britain’s Next Make-Up Star (Curtis Brown, 2020).

BEN ZAND - DICTATORLAND

Iranian/British video journalist Ben Zand produced the episode Dictator land: Kazakhstan as part of a 3-episode series on the Stan-countries of Central Asia. As the description reads “Ben Zand travels to some of the worlds’ longest running dictatorships, discovering the sinister and at times bizarre reality of life there” (BBC Three, 2020). The other episodes, all around 20 minutes long, focused on Belarus and Tajikistan. In the Kazakhstan episode, Zand investigates the media freedom of the country. It was aired in 2018.

Zand was born in Liverpool and studied journalism at Edinburgh Napier University. During studies he already took diverse jobs within journalism and made his first documentary, Tehrangeles which is about Iranians living in Los Angeles. From 2011 he started working for the BBC for a programme called BBC Big Questions, followed by different jobs for BBC 2, 3 and Panorama. He describes himself as “I taught myself how to film, edit, produce, present”, “I didn’t have anyone that I could use as a mentor” (Middlesex University, 2016). In 2016, he received an RTS Television Journalism Award (Rts, 2017). Other documentaries he made are e.g. Trump In Britain: Protests, Pubs and Giant Balloons, the series Worlds’ most dangerous cities, The Dark world of Kanye West, Cults, Gangs and God. He has also made travel shows called Tripstar Travel.

LIVVY HAYDOCK – DEADLIEST PLACE TO DEAL

For the one-hour long episode Deadliest Place to Deal, Livvy Haydock visits the Philippines where she investigates the country’s war on drugs. She follows police men, talks to victims and interviews President Duarte’s sister while she takes her viewers through the city of Manila. The episode was aired in 2017. No other episodes were part of this series.

Haydock is an investigative journalist who has studied at the London College of Communications (degree in journalism) and has worked previously for Panorama, Dispatches, BBC Three, BBC One, ITN, Channel 4, Al Jazeera, National Geographic Channel, ITV, Sky One and Channel 5. As part of these jobs, she made documentaries on child soldiers in Congo and investigated the international drugs trade. From 2016 onwards, she started to work for BBC Three. Since then she has made documentaries such as The Illegal Job Centre, Girl Gangs, Drugs Map of Britain, Heroin Haters, Festival Drugs and Breaking into Prison. She also writes articles for several UK newspapers (United Agents, 2020). She emphasises that she is not a typical journalist, as “When I’m on location – especially in more obscure places, like the Congo or Sudan – people look at me, a blonde with a spray tan, and say "What are you doing here?". I don’t look like a stereotypical war journalist – I’m a South London girly-girl, and always have my mascara on (BBC Three, 2017)”.

SOFIA MORGAN – THE WORLD’S WORST PLACE TO BE DISABLED

Broadcasted in 2015, Sofie Morgan portrays the lives of disabled people in Ghana. She visits prayer camps, interviews disabled people living on the streets, meets local activists, and learns about children being “returned to the spirits”. The one-hour documentary aims to understand if Ghana is the worst place to be disabled. Morgan, in her wheelchair, is accompanied by her brother, and compares her findings with her own experiences in the UK. She has made other documentaries previously, e.g. Channel 4 News on indigenous boys in Australian prisons, Tricks of the Restaurant Trade, a documentary on fresh and handmade food, and a Channel 4’s Unreported World series.

Morgan is besides documentary maker, a British TV presenter, artist and disability activist. As a result of a traffic accident, she ended up in a wheelchair in 2003. In 2005, she appeared on TV for the first time in a BBC Two documentary called Beyond Boundaries. The show included 11 disabled people who trekked through the Nicaraguan jungle. This was followed by her participation in Britain’s Missing Top Model, a British reality tv show. She later became a model for Stella McCartney’s collection (My 2012) and presented TV shows such as the Paralympics. Besides being a presenter and model, Morgan invented the mannequal (a wheelchair mannequin that can be used in stores) to change the perception people have of disability in fashion. She furthermore supports diverse disability organisations and is a disability campaigner (Disability Horizons, 2019). Morgan is expected to publish a book called Little Brown, a “part-memoir, part travel log and part coping strategy on how to adapt to life’s challenges”, in 2021 (Morgan, 2020).

F

INDINGS

This chapter presents the research’s overall findings. Four documentaries made on behalf of, and broadcasted by, BBC Three were analysed. The findings are presented in five subchapters which reflect all, or nearly all, the documentaries. The previous chapters on background and theory will be referred to when relevant. Overall, attention was paid visually and textually when analysing each of the four documentaries. Based on these comparisons were made.

1. A PICTURE IS WORTH A THOUSAND WORDS

Images of marching soldiers. Faces of six men appear. A voice-over, “What do all

these men have in common? That’s right, they are all dictators. They hate journalists like me [a shot of the presenter with his thumbs up and a big smile] and they are quite frankly ridiculous. Complete mental”. Images of more marching soldiers follow.

And so, has Ben Zand’s documentary (2017) on Kazakhstan’s leader Nelbasy Nursultan Nazarbayev officially begun. The tone has been set. A tone indicating that the leaders of Kazakhstan, but also Belarus and Tajikistan (his two other episodes), are simply ridiculous and that they hate journalists. The journalists are portrayed by himself, his big smile and thumbs up showing innocence. All this shows the documentary’s starting point but even more so that merely an introduction can impact how the audience will perceive the rest of the documentary.

Zand’s documentary is not the only one. Dooley (2018) pictures an image even more clear. “Images appear, a ticking sound in the background. The image of the text

Cocaine <3 scribbled on the wall, followed by another image of a pair of creased panties lying on a bed. All turns black, and the viewer hears Stacey Dooley ask a question before she appears herself, “So how many of these girls do you think are selling themselves, how many of them are prostitutes?” The camera moves to the social worker who answers, it is half of the girls. Next shot is of a couple of girls, blurred faces, laying on the sofa while giggling”. The image of the panties and the

wall scribble are not innocently inserted, neither is the interview clip that follows. It is as Fehrenback & Rodogno (2015) describe “a picture is worth a thousand words (p.244)”. The introduction sets a rather negative tone which already seems to answer the documentary’s main question, namely if the Roma children are better off in youth centres than in their homes.

Unlike the previous two mentioned documentaries, Morgan’s documentary (2015) on disabled in Ghana starts off in the UK. Morgan appears on screen, packing her bag.

Her voice-over mentions “I am Sophie Morgan, one of the 11 million disabled people in the UK”. She puts on her mascara and then says goodbye to her brother. The next scene she rolls with her wheelchair in downtown London. “Living and working in London has its own challenges but it doesn’t stop me from doing what I want. But there are many places in the world where it is terrible for disabled people”. Images of a busy street appear. A disabled person trying to cross. Crawling over the ground, in the dirt. “This is the place? This is the place you sleep?” “Yes, they have attacked me several times”. The voice over starts again, “In this film I’m going to find out what life is like for disabled people living in a country where they could be imprisoned”. Followed by an image zooming in on feet locked up in chains. “They tricked you to come here?”. The camera zooms into the chains. The voice-over continues “abandoned”, followed with another interview fragment where Sophie is shown whilst saying “Someone could help him. No one wants to help him”. Then the voice over says, “And beaten”, fragments of disabled people being hit are shown”. As the

previous two mentioned documentaries, Morgan clearly starts with a rather negative tone. It is already clear that Ghana is not a good place to be disabled. Even more so, as did Zand’s introduction, Morgan clearly shows a two-side story from the start: the west versus the rest. Whereas Zand portrayed the innocent journalist versus the ridiculous dictator, Morgan is the image of being disabled whilst living in London versus the hardships in Ghana. This makes it relatable to the audience who personify themselves with the two presenters who are both from the UK so does the main audience group.

The last to mention documentary in this subchapter is Haydock’s (2018). She sets a tense dark tone from the start. “Pinkish skyline. It is dark. A busy street appears,

along with tense music. Next shot is from the car looking through the front window, “We have got a tip that there has been a killing. So, we are heading to the scene now”. Haydock’s face appears, she is sitting in the back of the car. Her face looks worried and stressed. She rushes out onto the street. Pitch dark. “So, all the journalists are running out this way, so we are following them”. She points in a direction. A torch highlights a dead body lying on the ground. The boy lays on his belly, his hands are tight to the back”. The documentary has set the tone, one of

tension, midnight trips, deaths and danger. As well as Dooley’s documentary, the viewer already gets an insight into Haydock’s interpretation on the war of drugs. It is one of death.

All four documentaries have created vivid images, worth more than thousands of words. They influence how the audience will interpret the rest of the episode and therefore they are of importance to look at.

Not merely do introductions set the tone, negativity continues throughout the documentaries. Shots of broken toys, children’s drawings on damaged walls, and close-ups of children are followed by a sad line of music. It is here where the theory of Martin Scott (2014) on shock appeals comes into play. Dooley’s documentary shows the children’s suffering whilst little to no explanation is given about potential causes or context. Consequently, only a simplified version of reality is presented, one in which complex, longer term and structural causes are lacking. However, it is not only visually. Sound and words add onto the negative atmosphere. Dooley describes the living situation as “I’m annoyed that Europeans have to live like this”, “Feels like

another world...like we went back in time. Houses are falling apart. There is no real infrastructure. There is kids everywhere”, which is followed by more images of broken

toys, an empty child pram and a lack of basic housing. Images and words seem to be carefully selected, in such a way that words are proven visually. This is also fitting to Cornwall’s concept of poverty porn (2016, p.141), “an overindulgence of poverty and display of people’s fears, misery and grief just to trigger emotional response from the audience”.

Whereas Dooley shows the miserable living conditions of the Roma children’s families, Morgan describes the situation for disabled people in Ghana; “This is

begging like I’ve never seen it”, “They aren’t human beings”, “In my opinion, Ghana is the worst place in the world to be disabled”. This is strengthened visually. It is dark, a

shot of someone sitting hiding his face in his laps. There is garbage everywhere. “This

is the place where you sleep?”. Zoomed into a sleeping bag, “All that Adam has in the world, is wrapped up in his bedding”. Words like in the world emphasize stronger the

few stuff he has. “This is just such a horrible place to stay”, while zooming into another garbage pile. “The reality is that Adam does not really have a choice. Not only

is he incredibly poor but he is also disabled. And it is just the worst combination you can have out here. He is so incredibly vulnerable….I do not even know what to think about the conditions that people sleep in in the rural areas, or elsewhere, if this is the

best option”. She shakes her head. Another scene in the documentary shows some

buildings, sad music starts to play. “As I look around it is clear Kevin is not the only

patient in chains”, whilst the camera zooms into a sad looking woman, sitting on a

broken staircase, followed with a shot on her ankle which is chained up. The next shot shows another half-finished building where a man stands in front. Followed by a chain-up man standing with a plate in his hand. His ripped clothes are dirty with holes. Some broken chairs in front of a broken wall and a yellow plastic water box. The sad music strengthens it all. Or like Scott describes in his theory on shock appeals, “aims to provoke feelings of guilt and pity in Western audiences through portrayals of extreme material poverty and suffering (2014, p.141)”. Interviewees

them who decide what is shown, what is said, which music is chosen, how they are portrayed.

It is not merely Morgan and Dooley, Haydock’s documentary includes shock appeals too. Take for example when she stands on a rooftop, the camera at times moves to the children on the street playing. A child runs barefoot, tense music in the background. Three other children wave at her, the building that they are in is semi-finished. “They are the poorest, they are the lowest of the low. It doesn’t feel like this

is a war on drugs. They are not targeting the big guy, they are shooting fish in a barrel”. The images strengthen her argument that the poor are the victims in the

situation. The choice of the children who play barefoot in semi-finished buildings are the representatives, enforcing the idea of innocence and being passive victims. The scene is directly followed by Haydock rushing down the street to encounter another dead body. The camera zooms in. A girl lying forward over the edge of the street. Blood around her face. Another camera angle is used. Throughout the documentary more fragments of playing children follow. In another scene for instance, Haydock hugs the mother of a victim. “That doesn’t justify being killed, this is just one case.

There are thousands like these in this country”. Sad music starts to play. A fragment

follows showing a sad looking child in a worn-off pink top, when she turns away the dirty street behind her appears. The camera follows her, and another child is shown. His shirt is ripped. Another kid comes in the camera, looking sad while blowing bubbles with his mouth. The voice of Duarte, “You are worried about the death of

1000, 2000, 3000? Hitler massacred three million Jews” appears at the same time.

One can wonder, why is this so important? The three documentary-makers merely show the reality, don’t they? The struggles of disabled people living on the streets, the Roma children growing up in poverty or the Filipino children growing up during a dangerous time. It is important though to consider that by selecting images, music and text in such a way, people are turned into helpless and innocent victims, “passive objects that are being held captive by their surroundings (Scott, 2014, p.144). It additionally reproduces stereotypes and gives the impression to the audience that merely outsiders, not the ones in the camera themselves, can change the situation. Especially when little to no explanation is given about potential causes or context, a simplified situation is created. One should always keep in mind that the rough material that is being shot is way longer than the final product. Recordings are selected and cut, others thrown away. By editing, the producer can alter meanings or approach the same material in different ways. Furthermore, provided context and showing people in their dignity plays an important role.

Another striking element, which additionally triggers the misrepresentation discussed above, is a wrong focus of perspective. One could expect a documentary talking about journalists in Kazakhstan or Roma children in Hungary to focus on the journalists or children themselves or in a broader sense on their families. Would it therefore not make sense if one gains understanding on their experience, their opinions, their values once the documentary finishes? However, the documentaries rather emphasise the presenters’ experience of visiting the subjects and thereby takes a so-called “white saviour perspective”. Focus is namely placed on how they experience and react to the world around them. They become superheroes that speak on behalf of. As a result, the documentary emphasises more on constructing an image e.g. around Dooley and Morgan as caring and compassionate persons than on creating awareness of the local situation. As an audience, the story is told by Zand, Dooley, Morgan and Haydock and shown from their perspective. The subjects are merely there to be talked about.

This wrong focus of perspective is noticeable through diverse ways. Dooley, for instance, refers to her own expectations and emotions frequently. She as well as Morgan, additionally, ask numerous loaded questions. Loaded questions are usually only asked to verify and check reliability of information already at hand (Kvale, 2007, p.89). However, the two journalists frequently ask this type of questions. For example, Morgan’s ““You feel like no one cares?” or “Are you afraid you will be here

the rest of your life”, which is accompanied with some sad music and Morgan crying.

Dooley’s version is like “You feel like you’re powerless, like you can’t control the

kids?” to a woman working at the youth centre, or to a mother “So the situation is now that you’ve got a perfectly lovely home but you are not able to live there because you genuinely feel threatened, and if you didn’t leave, they’d have taken the kids?”.

This gives the viewer the idea that Morgan and Dooley already have the information, and merely uses the interviews for validation. It emphasises the “white saviour” perspective, of a white reporter knowing best and the locals just humming a mere yes.

Dooley is further not afraid to share her opinions or thoughts on the matter. With side words, “Awful”, “Frightening” up to full sentences “the evil that exists here”,

“treated like dogs”, “doesn’t really feel like there’s any care for these children”. Her

voice even gets shaky at times and she seems to get emotional. She further refers to her own and her audience’s standards, “lots of people listening to this will be

completely outreached”, “circumstances are far from ideal” or “feels like another world”. Morgan joins this tendency in her documentary, “really strange”, “It is disgusting...absolutely disgusting”. Dooley even goes one step further, by saying “I feel odd leaving this care home knowing that lots of vulnerable kids sat in there” and

strengthened by Dooley having an interview with the local mayor, who is portrayed as the “bad guy”, whilst she shows compassion for the local Roma families. Morgan also visits a government’s official. She stands up to the “bad guy”, showing her audience that she is addressing the “bad guy”. “What I am struggling to see is how it

is implemented and enforced” while she interrupts him talking. “Human rights watch did a report. What has been done since the report has come out?...I want to know what the government is going to do?...In my opinion, Ghana is the worst place in the world to be disabled”. She, thereby, comes across as a wonder woman that speaks

for the poor and disabled. That leaves one to wonder if she has visited other countries, if a two-week visit can make her an expert, if no one else has addressed it. The emphasis on the reporter’s emotions towards the local situation is strongest in Morgan’s documentary on Ghana’s disabled. Morgan continuously refers to her own situation and experiences in the UK, e.g. “This is begging like I’ve never seen before” or “Since my car crash, keep losing sight of him is making me nervous”. Scenes visually strengthen her words. She travels across Ghana in her wheelchair, whilst she looks very independent. The documentary even starts with her saying “It is a

challenge, but it has not stopped me from doing what I want in London” and “Still live life to the full”. Whilst in Ghana, she relates herself on numerous occasions to her

subjects (e.g. “Like me, he can’t use his legs”). Visually and textually, a clear difference is made between life as a disabled in the UK and life as a disabled in Ghana, making the situation in Ghana seem cruel and harsh and something that needs to look like life in the UK. She looks powerful. The fragment in which she interviews a traditional doctor shows it most clearly; “Do you think my parents should

kill me? For fuck sake. I think it is wrong that you kill disabled children. Do I have to continue asking these lunatic questions? That’s murder, nobody is doing anything about it”. This is followed by a scene showing Morgan lying in bed. She got sick.

“When you get sick, you realise all the things you took for granted. The people out

here, when they get sick. Nowhere to go, no one to look after them. It reminds me how lucky I am. I will be feeling that every single day”.

Morgan thereby creates a strong us & them perspective. The audience sees vividly who the presenter is and who the subjects of the documentaries are. Stacey Dooley for example describes the local situation on numerous occasions as “feels like

another world” or that it is unbelievable that people must live like this. Morgan says

“They are not human beings” whilst she gets comforted by her brother. These examples create the image that the local community’s living conditions are quite unlike theirs and unlike their audience’s. Visuals, clothes and voice-over add on to the feeling. Dooley for instance wears Western and expensive-looking clothes. She additionally never takes off her jacket, creating a distance between her interviewees and herself. Her interviewees wear mostly sportswear or cheaper looking clothes. As Dogra explains, clothes worn can create a difference. By wearing Western clothes,

Dooley namely comes across as more powerful (Dogra, 2013, p.55). Dooley further appears quite often in her car, driven around while explaining to her audience the local situation. When interviewing the Roma families, she visits their homes - houses that are falling apart, with no running water or working electricity. The two worlds, her car and their homes, can almost not be any further apart. However, the differentiation is complete when voice-over is added on multiple occasions to the documentary. The voice over has the power to delink Stacey’s talking, as a white Western girl, from the visuals of the local area. As a result of using difference, problems and people locally are portrayed as spectacles that exist out there for which Western audiences feel pity (Dogra, 2013, p.66).

Looking at Haydock’s documentary, similar elements can be found. Just like Dooley, one can see her often driving across Manila in her car. From the car, she makes comments and remarks about the situation. This creates the previously mentioned distance between the interviewer and the locals. Furthermore, Haydock looks confident, wears make-up and has her blonde hair blow dried. She, thereby, clearly distinguishes herself from the local situation. She also refers to her audience, “A lot

of people watching this might think drug dealers should be arrested, sent to prison and that killing drug dealers is wrong”, asks loaded questions “So they did find a gun here, but you think they placed it here” and shows her emotions. Take for example

when she interviews a mother whose drug addicted son was killed by the police. “That’s terrible”, whilst she places a hand in front of her mouth and shakes her head. “Oh dear, give me a cuddle, oh” and hugs the woman. “I am so sorry”. The camera zooms into the photo of the man killed. In another fragment, “It is insane. I am

terrified what will happen to him if he tests positive”. Haydock’s documentary

additionally clearly shows her perspective through her “I-language”. Take for instance “I speak to the police officer in charge”, “I want to investigate claims many have been

set up by the police”, “I can completely understand why” or “I wonder how big the drug problem really is”. These are merely a few examples. At the end of the

documentary, just like Dooley and Morgan, she addresses the bad guy of the story: the police. “So many people have been telling me, so I have come to the Philippian

national police because I want to put it to them and ask them about it”. “He [Duarte] did encourage extra judicial killings. Do you think people have misunderstood it? I have been out late at night and seen all the bodies”. Her I-language enforces the

visuals and her behaviour that create a division between them and us, as well as the locals being dependent victims.

Looking at Zand’s documentary, one can clearly notice the emphasis is nearly completely on him and how he experiences media freedom in Kazakhstan. “I need to

be careful of what I say. Somebody is checking what we are doing. They haven’t stopped us yet”. Or “We experienced more interference from the authorities in Kazakhstan than expected”, even though he manages to sneak off to a dissident

meeting where he mostly focuses on his own safety. Little later, when he visits a group of youth in the east of the country, “Also a little bit scary, because they don’t

want us to be here and I have to make sure we don’t get caught. Freaky Kazakhstan, always making us nervous...I got a message from the producer. Probably one of the most terrified messages I have seen in a long time. “Go to your room and stay there. The police are looking for foreigners”. Which can only be us. I don’t know what they will do if they find us”. The next day, he takes a taxi to the airport and leaves

Kazakhstan. Nothing has happened.

The documentary is very much focused on Zand, as a journalist, in a country that threatens people working for the media. By doing so, it simplifies the story and makes it easier to watch for an audience (Stoddard & Marcus, 2006, p. 28). The viewer looks through Ben’s eyes how it is to be a journalist while being entertained through a bad/good guy narrative. Zand is portrayed as a funny, friendly, relaxed and young journalist. He wears casual clothes, makes jokes (e.g. “wished for that I could

be the next president of Kazakhstan”, “a new kind of dictator torture death by a thousand facts”), complains about the weather and gives compliments to locals (e.g.

“you have such a nice eyes”). Furthermore, he uses easy language that addresses a young audience (e.g. kinda cute, freaking, complete mental). He, thereby, seems to be the boy next door who is the total opposite of the subject of his documentary series, the powerful mental dictators. The viewers can relate to him and understand media freedom through Zand’s eyes. Kazakh journalists do not tell their own story, except for the less than 2-minute interview with the owner of a newspaper. As Dooley’s documentary, Zand’s is more focused on him and how he experiences things than on letting his subjects talk freely. Even more so, when he spends the afternoon with some Kazakh youth in the mountains, he ridicules their views, “they are forced

to spend a day here to sell the idea of Kazakhstan to me”.

4. SIMPLIFIED NARRATIVE: THE BAD GUY

All the four documentaries simplify the local context. Not only is the time short, at times 20 minutes per episode, the story line is clear and easy to understand to its viewers. Morgan starts with a conversation in an UK office, where an expert from Human Rights Watch tells her how bad the situation is for disabled people in Ghana. “You have to go there and see it for yourself. If I didn’t see it for myself, I wouldn’t

actually believe that that’s what people do”, the woman says with a smile on her

face. Then Morgan travels to Ghana and reveals the horrible reality in the developing world. She shows how they are forced to live on the street, how they are chained up or even killed in the countryside. Whilst comparing it to her independent life in the UK and whilst addressing local priests (“They don’t want to be here, so why chain

them?”). Only once she visits a Catholic based organisation where sister Elisabeth, a

white woman, is helping disabled children. At the end, as a real white saviour, she addresses a government official. “I want to know what the government is going to

do?”, “What has been done since the report came out?”. The audience receives the

image that the state should do more, does not take its responsibility, and that the disabled are merely out there by themselves while people could help them. Only at the very end, a positive scene follows showing the disabled playing skate football. This makes her story less simplified, even saying “survivors who refuse to give up”. Details of local activists are left out. Hardships for disabled in the UK are neither mentioned. Neither anything about the general health care system in Ghana, nor a historical context or international context (World Health organisation, what do they do?). But most of all, little attention is given to let the subjects, or the local organisations speak on behalf of themselves. It is merely a story of dependent disabled people who are victims of the system whilst Sophie as the white saviour tells their story to the world.

Dooley’s story follows the same line. She additionally concludes at the end of the documentary that there will be less removals if the local government tackles the issue of poverty, or like she puts it breaks the cycle of poverty. She mentions adequate housing, followed by “and the other tools you know that are necessary“ (one can wonder what these other tools are). There is however no mention of a historical paradigm or social/political/economic context;the rich Roma culture, the situation of poor Roma children that are not removed or examples of Roma activists that are trying to change the situation. Neither on the national Hungarian policy and situation, nor on any EU policies. Instead, the viewer is merely left with the impression that the local extreme right government is the bad guy that does not want to help the community and instead takes their children while the community itself is portrayed as rather helpless and stuck in a poverty cycle. The danger in doing so, as Martin Scott (2015) mentions is that the local Roma will therefore be deprived of their dignity. They are merely portrayed as passive objects whose life gets directed by outsiders and surroundings. As if only the government can change their situation. It additionally risks reproducing existing stereotypes (Scott, 2014, p.145-151; Dogra, 2013, p.65).

This oversimplification can have very dangerous consequences. An example of this is given by Andrea Cornwall (2016). She describes an incident of a near suicide following a VICE documentary. The woman felt that she was taken advantage of and being misrepresented (p.149). Dogra (2013, p. 1) describes why representations are so important, “We come to know the world through its representations. They do not

only re-present facts, but also constitute them”. The British audience will learn about