Are Narrative And Truth Compatible Within Factual Television?

Narrative is one of the most common phenomena on television and other broadcasting media channels. Narrative refers to a report of connected either imaginary or actual events, which are presented in the form of spoken or written words or moving pictures. Narrative is organized into several formal and stylistic categories. These categories include the following:  fictionalized accounts that incorporate historical events such as legend, myth, and anecdote, and fiction that takes into account the prosaic literature. The prosaic literature includes the following: drama, poetry, novels, and short stories just to mention but a few. There are also non-fiction narratives, which include the following: historiography, biography, creative non-fiction, and new journalism. Factual television refers to a genre of non-fictitious television programming which documents real events and people. It is important for people to understand these categories of narratives to know how truth is incorporated in factual television. This analysis leads to the primary focus on whether narrative and reality are compatible with factual television proving that the topic is a competitively arguable issue.

Check out our pricing
Type of assignment
Number of pages
Writer level

Most narratives incorporate the element of truth. This implies that the person narrating the story has a high probability of telling the truth. However, it is argued that the credibility of the truth is limited to the knowledge of the narrator. The judgment as to whether the narrator is telling the truth can be identified if he or she contradicts the facts associated with the factual television. This argument points out that narrative’s and truth’s compatibility with factual television is relative. It is relative in a way that it depends on the knowledge of the narrator and on a particular theme of narration. Therefore, it can be argued that the credibility of the narrative as compared to the factual television is relative, since it depends on the level of knowledge of the narrator. This implies that there can easily be something fictitious, and, therefore, the truth will not be reflected.

In some narrations, a trope may occur when convection is discarded. It implies that the ideas drawn from the narrative and the narrator’s claim are not parallel. For instance, if the narrator is asked to retell the story, he or she will find it difficult. For example, he or she may use words that have different meanings. Such mistakes limit the narrator’s credibility implying that the truth of such a narrative is not compatible with the factual television. Additionally, when one is reciting such stories, the events may take a different form. The viewers of the factual television will not be fully satisfied, because they are left to piece the narration together. It suggests that the views and audiences are left in a state of confused thought. Furthermore, the narration depicts lies, mistruths, and half-truths.

Furthermore, the compatibility of narrative and truth within the factual television varies due to unreliability reasons. Some narrators at times tell stories with less understanding. By doing so, they are recklessly misleading the audience. Such misleading happens, since the narrator is the guilty party, and he ought to deceive not only the audience, but also other characters (Lockhart 2014). Such narrators are malicious and are at times termed as insane, because their sincerity and consistency testimonies only act to prove their unreliability that arises from their perspective of individual prejudice and conclusions that are made from unfinished interpretations. From this argument, it is clear that a narrative can be misleading, and, therefore, the conclusions drawn from it are not a reflection of truth in the factual television. Thus, factual television may claim to be airing truthful narratives. However, this is in great extent compromised by the knowledge of the narrator.

Moreover, narrative authors face the challenge of compromising the truth. The scenario is affirmed by the fact that it is a very difficult task for the author to mislead the directors and the viewers. He or she cannot accomplish this goal, and, therefore, he or she remains part of the narrative. In fact, factual television reflects that it is easier for the author to write a conventional story rather than to intentionally mislead his or her audience. Violating this rule will mislead some genuine television assumptions and lead to risks of losing viewers’ integrity due to the lack of narrative and truth compatibility within the factual television.

The factual television incorporates a framing device technique in order to uphold the narrator’s integrity. This method is useful, since the narrator is presented as a fundamental character in the story frame. It is worth noting that the technology does not view the author as the author only, but also as a participant in the play. The factual technology is very impressive as it introduces a ticker method. The method was adopted from the literary agent hypothesis whereby the narrator is highly expected to relate points in his narration to actual happenings that occur in the real life situation. Additionally, factual television uses another measure that describes Rashomon style with the multiple unreliable narrators’ results. The narrator airing a series of pictures which contradict his intention has been regarded as a compromise agent, and such an approach has been termed as unreliable voice cover. Technology has been widely adopted in other areas such as commercial advertisement. This approach enables the factual television to avoid claims that involve false advertisement with unreliable characters. This caused a turnaround in factual television, because both narrative and truth have been made compatible with the factual television.

Another vital necessity in factual television is the exposition of characters. Cases of unreliable expositors have been a common phenomenon in factual television. Sometimes this scenario occurs when the exposition is placed into the mouth of an unreliable figure. It is often invoked from a different point of view based on the characters’ research failure. It incorporates those expositions that are proven to flow out wrongly at a later date. Such a character is considered a liar, because he/she has less knowledge than he claims in the narration. Research has proven that such a narrative character is a fanatic, a liar, and fundamentally not reliable. The reliability evidence is not sufficient, and the narration is fully accurate, since the character presented should be capable of claiming the accorded attributes.

The compatibility of narrative and truth within factual television is a competitively arguable concept. Narrative experts argue that fictional stories are developed from what happens in the real life situation. Therefore, narratives are a reflection of what happens in our societies. On one hand, it is arguable that narratives account for theoretical concerns that bring out conversions through imagined narratives. On the other hand, general persuasion calls for impacts on fictional narratives, which influence reader’s beliefs. This is so because narratives do not involve evaluative and elaborative processes. However, the impact of narratives, as aired on factual television, cannot be underestimated, since it includes transportation that is widely regarded as particular experiment state. Thus, the compatibility of narrative and truth is in factual television. More so, it is evident because narratives influence people’s beliefs.

Some scholars argue that narrative is considered a myth. They claim that language is the fundamental building block of ideology when it is described as a myth. The science of signs repeatedly adopts the mode of signification. It is emphasized that myths are a representation of a net language. It is, therefore, right to argue that it serves as symbolic, metaphorical and ironic commentaries. According to myth, narratives have literal meanings that have different ideological flavour. However, media narratives, especially those aired in factual television, might assume fundamental aspects in which truth is encoded with regard to the society. Thus, listeners understand that narratives may represent truthful individuals and the society. However, the factual television may not be in a position to encode the actual truth encoded in the narrative. Therefore, there may be truth in the narrative, but encoding it by the factual television interferes with it. The factual television will reflect something that is entirely different from what the narrative encapsulates.

Narratives are intended to trigger emotions. The cognitive firm carried out a research, which claimed that bodies and minds are highly pre-disposed for particular emotional structures. This implies that there should exist a proper understanding between the narrative and what the factual television is airing. A good story should possess attributes that are similar to those aired on factual television. Such attributes include ethos, which defines personal credibility. It should also possess logos, which regards the power of argument. Moreover, it should incorporate pathos that regards the power of creating emotions. Thus, the listeners can conclude that both narrative and factual television are built on similar attributes. Significantly, story and truth have been made compatible within factual television.

The roles of images have been significant in both fictional and factual television. The field of cognitive linguistics claims that the role of image in factual television has also been accounted for in the narratives. Stories create images through metaphors and structures. They have been very significant in communication and language. Metaphors have brought about the reality of concepts and thoughts and have enabled listeners to possess an embodied understanding of how people think. This is the same thing that is reflected in the factual television. Narrative uses metaphors to challenge certain misconceptions, such as the myth of rationality and objectivism. Thus, narratives and factual television allow to have an in depth of understanding and reasoning. In addition, it grants the audience a chance to have a better understanding of their emotions and bodies. Therefore, narrative forms the basis that analyses the essential dimensions of factual television. Listeners can, therefore, overlook the connection among narrative, emotions, and metaphors in relation to factual television.  

Narrative and truth are compatible with factual television, since they have the same structures. Both of them involve characters. The character may be a real or an imaginary one. These characters may either serve a function in the plot or produce the plot. The characters may either have right attributes or exaggerated ones. It, implies that narratives that inculcate characters that possess real characteristics are very significant for factual television. Those that possess exaggerated characters have false compatibility within factual television. Thus, character traits are fundamental in checking the truthiness or falseness of the narrative in relation to factual television.

The narrator is another common future which indicates the truthfulness of the stories in relation to factual television. The narrator is the one responsible for telling the story and he may explicitly or implicitly evaluate and comment on the presented material. On one hand, the narrator enables the audience to create a point of view or an angle of vision. More importantly, it may appear as if there is no narrator in factual television. Nonetheless, the camera lens is itself the narrator that provides the audience with an ordered, selected and organized structure of images. The decoding of these images enables the viewers and listeners to understand the message. In this case, one realizes that there is truth in the compatibility of factual television and narratives.

Narratee is also important for determining what one gets from a narration of factual television. Listeners, viewers and the audience in both cases should not reconstruct the message that was intended or put forth by the director or the producer. It should be the audience’s subjective or personal response regarding the kind of feelings, attitudes, and thoughts developed pertaining to a narrative or a program. Thus, one understands that both narratives and factual television provide a choice of feelings. It is, therefore, possible to claim that both narratives and factual television have truthful compatibility regarding emotions developed by the viewers and audiences.

In conclusion, from the above argument it is evident that there exists a truthful relationship between narrative and factual television. This is so because both narrative and factual videos incorporate enormous similarities. For example, they inculcate characters, narrators, viewers, among others. Though there exist some minor false attributes between the two, the narrative and truth within the factual television surpass false claims. Therefore, one cannot separate narratives and factual television.