I hear a lot of talk these days about making factual programming more "authentic" for audiences. But what does that mean, exactly? Here are a few criteria I would use to define "authenticity" in terms of storytelling for factual programming:
- Stories that are closer to the real lives of the viewers (based on audience research)
- Stories that have a strong human component, i.e. strong emotion
- Stories with a strong protagonist/character (a reporter is not a protagonist)
- Stories where there is a lot at stake for the character, i.e. life and death, illness, fears, difficult goals, etc.
- No "betrayal" - stories are always: accurate, journalistic and deliver what they promise
- Tell the whole story, don't leave anything out; fulfill the audience's expectations and don't leave any unanswered questions
A key metric to ask: why should the audience care about the story?
And here's another: "what will the audience talk about tomorrow... or share online right now?"
- Stories that are closer to the real lives of the viewers (based on audience research)
- Stories that have a strong human component, i.e. strong emotion
- Stories with a strong protagonist/character (a reporter is not a protagonist)
- Stories where there is a lot at stake for the character, i.e. life and death, illness, fears, difficult goals, etc.
- No "betrayal" - stories are always: accurate, journalistic and deliver what they promise
- Tell the whole story, don't leave anything out; fulfill the audience's expectations and don't leave any unanswered questions
A key metric to ask: why should the audience care about the story?
And here's another: "what will the audience talk about tomorrow... or share online right now?"
