In the broadcast commentary process, there has been a constant debate about spontaneous talk versus scripted talk and which one of them is more effective than the other. There is a well believed notion that spontaneous talk is more natural and appealing than a scripted talk. However, I believe that spontaneous talk is a fantasy. It is something that sounds good but isn’t practical. Scripted talk has far more advantages than spontaneous talk and is more effective as I realized through my experience.
Scripted talk in the broadcast commentary process is less time consuming because you know what you are saying literally word for word. Everybody involved reads their lines in the order specified. There is no thinking required as your thoughts are already put down on paper and your position decided. This takes very little time in recording. It makes your work faster and easier. The time required to edit the recording is also very little. This wasn’t the case with our spontaneous talk, even though we had earlier discussed the topic, knew what we wanted to say and decided on our positions. We seemed to need time to rethink our statements and sometimes we weren’t even able to say all that we had hoped to say at the time. Recording took longer as we did not know exactly when to stop talking and even when we knew when to stop talking there was always the risk of cutting someone off mid-sentence as they are explaining their point. Editing was also time-consuming and difficult.
Reading off a script dictates in what order everyone involved is going to speak so that everyone’s voice is heard. There is no room for any awkward silence as everyone wonders who is going to speak next or any verbal “clash” that ensues when everyone wants to talk at the same time. In normal conversations there are always people who talk more than others and some people are barely given the floor to express themselves. In spontaneous talk it is very difficult to concentrate on ensuring that everyone is given equal opportunity to speak. However, in scripted talk you consciously plan it out so that everyone gets equal opportunity to speak. Scripting also makes it easier to position everyone’s point of view so that the argument makes perfect sense.
As you read your lines off the script you avoid the obvious tell signs of thinking; the awkward silence, the constant repetition of a word or phrase or interjections such as the famous “umm” or “uh” that break the flow of a conversation or distract listeners or viewers from the point. A script also helps avoid words and phrases that may not be appropriate for radio. Curse words such as “what the hell?” may spill out during a conversation as is common with street talk. Sexist language that may be misinterpreted can also be avoided.
I do not dispute that scripted talk has its share of disadvantages like if you do not have a good rapport with your co-host or guest then the work may sound revised or planned which is unappealing. During our class scripted presentation we had to work on our rapport so that the final product sounds as natural and unplanned as possible. We particularly had a problem with the part on the script that was written roar of laughter. At the time of the crafting of the script the roar of laughter came out so naturally but when it came to recording, the joke was already stale and the laughter seemed more strained and forced each time round. The more we revised the script, the more we got bored with it and every moment we had to redo the presentation required more effort. However, with every practice we learnt to make the presentation sound more natural.
It is also very difficult to write a script for an interview with someone you will interact with on the show for the first time. It is very difficult to predict what your guest will say and what your response will be. Even when you write a “dummy” script and try to predict what your guest would say, it still reaches a point when you cannot fill in the blanks. Plus if you could predict everything your guest would say, then that will only mean that all that information is available to the public, what would be the point of listening or watching your show? However, a script would act as a guide giving you a glimpse of how the show would turn out.
Spontaneous talk is fun to do and interesting to listen to because you just go with the flow. It has the feeling of engaging in an ordinary conversation with people. If there is chemistry among the presenters, it shows and pulls audiences in. For example, in main stream media the chemistry between presenters such as Shaffi Weru and Kalekye Mumo on “The Rush Hour” in Kiss FM or Maina Kageni and Joseph King’angi on “Maina and King’angi in the Morning” in Classic F.M. is so natural that you just want to listen.
Even with spontaneous talk, the participants still have to prepare for it. You discuss the topic prior to the presentation so that everyone has a general feel of what everyone’s’ positions are. The problem with spontaneous talk is that the mind is prone to forgetfulness. People may forget what they initially wanted to say. You may also have it all planned out in your head but it still doesn’t come out right. It is believed that the mind works faster than the mouth or the hand so that you have all these ideas that are begging to be expressed at the same time and in your attempt to do so, your sentences spill out in confusion. Editing a spontaneous talk to ensure that it is a certain number of minutes is tasking as there are a lot of mistakes. Besides spontaneous means unplanned, something that happens in the spur-of-the-moment hence very unpredictable and the end result could be amazing or disastrous. The consequences of such a risk again are unpredictable.
After my experience with both scripted talk and spontaneous talk, I concluded that spontaneous talk is a fantasy. It is just something that looks good, feels good but isn’t necessarily good. Scripted talk on the other hand sounds boring and dull but has a lot of advantages and in effect is more effective.
No comments:
Post a Comment