Week Eleven in which the intern is nearing the finish line

     Well dear reader we are quickly reaching the end of summer and thus the end of the internship. I have finished the final segments and have sent them in to Dr. Brotemarkle and now I am putting the finishing touches on the historiography essay/what have I learned essay. I have been busy putting in twenty to thirty hour weeks on the internship on top of working on projects for class and life in general. I am seeing the light at the end of the tunnel and it is getting bigger and bigger every day.
     On the subject of "what I have learned" thus far, I have recently finished several essays that dealt with film documentary and what they have to say is very illuminating. The arguments are that documentaries, either in a visual or audio medium, are not less accurate or different than the written output from historians. This has to do with the fact that both essay and book are constructs from the historian just as documentaries are constructs from the film/radio producer. This also has to do with Benjamin's theory of Aura of Authenticity which states that the only true point of authenticity is the exact moment when an event occurred. In terms of radio documentary the true points of authenticity are when the interview is taking place and the moment of description. This all relates to the historian's aim of objectivity and trying to interpret the past as accurately as possible. However a true and 100% accurate narrative is impossible. It all relies on the interpretation of the sources by the historian which is the same thing a documentary creator does when creating their work. Yet while a scholarly work by a historian will contain layers of meaning and interpretation, that deep insight and research does not translate well into documentary. The audiences are different. Scholarly literature has as its audience other scholars while a documentary, both visual and audio, is aimed primarily at the general public. This difference then makes documentary as a form of public history. The documentary though must still remain historically accurate but to present an event, historical actor, or historiographical trend such as a scholarly essay or work does is nigh impossible. The general audience will either become bored or will not understand such an approach.
     When producing my segments this is what I had to keep in mind constantly. I would love nothing more than to give a deeper meaning and tie the segments into a greater historical theme but I only had five minutes to present in and these segments are meant to be listened to by a larger audience rather than other scholars. Believe me I would have loved to go into greater detail on subjects dealing with consensus history and the interviewees memory but I simply did not have the time. Nor would the audience listen. The radio dial would be turned as soon as they became disinterested. Which is not the point the segments should make. They should be listened to but remain historically accurate. Its meaning then is a result of negotiations between myself as producer, the interviewee and subject, and the listening audience.
     That is what I learned this week. Next week I will wrap up this blog and tell you dear reader, how the presentation on the internship went as well as how the historiography essay is going. Until then.