Buy Rights to this title. Request a Review or Inspection Copy. The first major study of mock-documentary - one of a number of screen forms that play with the assumed boundaries between 'fact' and 'fiction'. Examines mock-documentary through the specific relationship which the form has with documentary. Part of a wider discussion of the increasingly fragile association between factual codes and conventions and the discourses which underpin the documentary genre. Opens out this relatively new media form and by doing so throws light on the status of the documentary itself.
Introduction: Mock-documentary and the subversion of factuality 1.
Factual discourse and the cultural placing of documentary 2. Recent transformations of the documentary genre 3. A cousin for the drama-documentary: Situating the mock-documentary 4.
Muddled about what makes music? Amy and Lauren's plan to reunite their parents is derailed by a revelation in Karma's home life. A suggested genealogy 6. Karma's rivalry with Amy's old camp friend comes to a head at a game night. Take a look at how our collaboration impacted intersex advocacy.
Building a mock-documentary schema 5. A suggested genealogy 6. Degree one: parody 7.
Faking It is an American single-camera romantic comedy series that premiered on MTV on April 22, , starring Rita Volk, Katie Stevens, Gregg Sulkin. Faking It Poster. After numerous attempts of trying to be popular two best friends decide to come out as lesbians, which launches them to instant celebrity status.
Degree two: critique and hoax 8. How can the same quality account for the success of two figures as different as Trump and Obama?
How can Trump in particular—an inveterate fabricator born to fabulous wealth who poses as the self-made tribune of the working class—come across as so authentic to so many? The key word here is seem.
Smith described the results of a variety of tests showing that listeners perceived speakers to be less authentic when they were told that the speakers were repeating themselves. When that assumption is revealed to be false, we penalize the speaker. This is true, the authors found, even in contexts where it makes no sense to expect speakers not to repeat themselves, such as listening to a tour guide or a stand-up comic.
This finding helps make sense of the Obama-Trump paradox.
Obama and Trump both have an uncommon ability to avoid that pitfall—even if they do so in very different ways. As a candidate and as president, Obama had the gift of seeming unrehearsed.
He could deliver scripted speeches with the emotion, humor, energy, and surprise of someone articulating his ideas for the first time. Recall that one of the ways Republicans tried to bring him down was to point out that he was reading from teleprompters: They sought to undermine his authenticity by puncturing the illusion that he was speaking off the top of his head.
At the other end of the spectrum we find Hillary Clinton.
Despite her obvious qualifications, she was hamstrung as a presidential candidate by an inability to sound like a normal person when addressing large audiences. Her performances in the major televised contexts in which most Americans saw her in were generally robotic and awkward—filled with strange pauses and painfully delivered jokes, drained of spontaneity.
That, as much as anything, explains why voters were so primed to entertain questions about her authenticity and trustworthiness. Clinton, to be sure, was also held to unfair standards because of her sex.
But her problem was a variation of the same one that male candidates such as Al Gore and John Kerry faced before her. Trump achieves authenticity in a more unusual way. First, of course, he brazenly violates all kinds of taboos—against racism, sexism, authoritarianism, and so on.