Talk:NaSTA Archive

From YSTV History Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

NaSTA 2002 News Feedback

You have obviously put a lot of work into this programme.

Your "teaser" headlines are a good idea, as they keep the viewer watching to see what's coming up in the programme. Have you thought about editing this sequence in advance and using the presenters' voices with a video clip for each headline? If we're seeing the presenters, they sound a bit odd talking in tabloid headlines like "Christian Union slammed..." rather than "The Christian Union is slammed..." Viewers aren't used to people talking like that.

Both presenters are relaxed, likeable, and interesting to listen to. There's a bit of giggling at the beginning which sets a slightly amateurish tone to an otherwise very professional-looking setting.

The Heslington Hall report was interesting, and made good use of footage, but needed to stick to facts and provide information to be a news report. It seemed more of a satire with the repeated comments about the fire alarm and antagonising of university staff. You'd do better to try to sound impartial and provide the facts - viewers will draw their own conclusions about what caused the alarm and which party was in the right! At one point the reporter is interviewing a girl outside the Hall, and keeps interrupting her. He'd do better to take it easy and let her speak in her own time, then choose the best short clip from what she had to say. It was good to include the Vice Chancellor's statement as the other side of the debate. Perhaps there could have been a short piece of voice-over explaining the other three points he made that you had clearly edited out.

The Fees story is very well done. Obviously with the rally happening the same day, you'd have no chance of getting a tape back to York, so to have photos emailed back is very clever. These are probably the first shots of the event that many of the viewers will have seen.

The Christian Union story wasn't very well explained, and I was quickly confused. The interview with the Christian Union representatives was a little deep and hard to understand, and you needed to explain in advance who they were. It would also have been good to have someone on camera representing the other side of the debate. Would the LGB Officer have done a quick interview for you?

The Flood Warning report is very well done. The interview was interesting, and you have made excellent use of video footage throughout the piece. It would have been better to see the interviewee in a close-up shot, rather than see him at a distance and see the reporter. Viewers read a lot from facial expressions which you can't see in a wide shot, and a tighter shot makes it more interesting to watch. Also, the viewer isn't really very interested in seeing the reporter - they want to hear what the interviewee has to say.

The use of video pictures over the Access Officer story is good. Could you have got Cheryl and an Estates representative to be interviewed on camera?

The Flight story is also very good. By adding interesting clips from an interview with David Waterman or one of the others, it would have made a fascinating full-length report.

Altogether the quality of your programme is very good. The best way to improve it is to think a bit more carefully about each report you do to make sure it is impartial and informative as well as entertaining. If you do this then with the amount of effort you've put in, I'd expect to see you winning this category in the future. The fact that you can put out such a packed programme, live, three times a week is amazing!

2005 Feedback

2005 COMEDY This is an adequate presentation of a panel game, and there were some amusing moments. The host controlled the game well, and the atmosphere was lively and engaging

However, much of the low-grade banter on offer wasn’t particularly funny, and showed how difficult it is to be spontaneously funny on these kinds of shows.

Where do you think improvements can be made? It’s difficult to judge this effort as, while it functions adequately as an amusing diversion for college television, it is neither particularly original, nor amusing enough for an audience not familiar with this particular college.


2005 DOCUMENTARY What do you particularly like about this entry? Good clear narrative Nice use of graphics Where do you think improvements can be made? Started off promising but went downhill. It felt like the narrative had been written in post production – very disjointed. Shots spoilt by cameraperson’s hair in shot Some cuts very poor


2005 LIGHT ENT What do you particularly like about this entry? Great opening sequence. Very professional studio, good to see behind the scenes. Good use of ‘other’ TV progs. Good for target audience Where do you think improvements can be made? Re-film bloopers?!


2005 MUSIC What do you particularly like about this entry? Good opening credits Nice graphics Made an effort with set Good use of different technology Good live footage at performance First entry with many different genres of music covered ?? pop presenter

Where do you think improvements can be made? Try not to read from scripts – look at the camera Lighting! Should be easy in studio – think about closer framing Ents background – think about colours In-jokes bad, we don’t know who ‘pete’ is Other viewers to review other than staff at TV station – when does that happen normally?


2005 NEWS What do you particularly like about this entry? Ambitious presentation at the start with chromakey didn’t quite work. Good idea to have the large headlines to the left of the screen Where do you think improvements can be made? Lighting poor. Sound a struggle. Structure of the programme needs more thought. Interview too long. Pictures again need more thought. Read up on TV production techniques for things like eyeline during interviews


2005 VIDEO TO MUSIC Where do you think improvements can be made? Edit to the song chosen Same context