Produced by: Nicola Humphries
Narrator: Konnie Huq
Length: 24:17
Shisha is getting popular in Asia, where it started to spread through café’s and even universities. Some youth started to prefer shisha over cigarettes believing that it is less harmful. This is a summary of what was reported on BBC Asian Network regarding the issue.
Known as Naguila, Hookah and other names, shisha is served with several fruit flavours and is known to be a sort of relaxation. It became a traditional thing and citizens believe that it is not as serious or danger ad cigarettes for example. That’s why, children as young as eleven smoke shisha with their parents normally in café’s.
Shisha produces carbon monoxide more than that being produced by the cigarettes. Smoking shisha especially indoors can collapse the body’s natural defence mechanisms which will not facilitate oxygen to reach the brain.
More exposures of shisha can cause flue like symptoms such as headaches, running noses and sore eyes. Medium exposure can result in to dizziness and sickness while extreme exposures can result in unconsciousness, brain damage and death.
Carbon monoxide is not visible, that’s why many people believe that water cleans the tobacco making it less hazardous, unlike the cigarettes which leave stains on the tissue for example. Hillary Warren elaborated more on this misconception by saying that “How long will it take you to smoke a cigarette… two minutes, but shisha lasts half an hour and sometimes an hour”
A restaurant manager Akram believes that Smoking shisha is different that smoking cigarette because shisha is taken in to the mouth to taste the flavour and then exhaled, while cigarettes are inhaled directly in to your lungs so more smoke is taken in to the body.
Carbon monoxide should be only fifty in the body, excess might be risky. A continuous process of smoking shisha may cause strokes and heart attacks.
The documentary was very interesting for me because I used to believe that shisha is less hazardous than cigarettes and I was proven wrong.
There were around ten music samples as music background in the audio documentary. The duration was from 1 to 3 minutes each, and they were not the same, some of which were Indian, others were Arabic, English…etc. The samples were very interesting as it created an Asian atmosphere and made the audio documentary more interesting especially that it was a long documentary. However, I noticed that the music was loud at first and gradually started to get lower and lower. It did not match the flow of the documentary because it could make the listeners get bored or even sleep. Loud music is not also a smart thing because it attract attention more than the announcer, but at least it enthusiasms the listener to hear and be more alert.
Regarding the announcer’s voice, I felt it was very clear despite the music going on in the background. And the sentences were understandable that I got what she said from the first time. Moreover, I liked the way she interviewed people and talked between each guest and another. The announcer did make a very professional flow of her documentary that was appealing. However she should have minimized the documentary by interviewing less guests because it started to get boring at the end. And what I noticed is that very interesting information were showed during the first five minutes and the last ten minutes, and maybe some in the middle. So having very interesting information at the end is not smart because those who will get bored in the middle will not continue to hear till the end. I believe that interesting information should be divided equally among the time in order to keep the documentary as smooth as possible.
Hillary warren, the director of tobacco control collaboration centre had a British accent that I could not understand easily. On one hand, it is illogic to have guests with different accents because it makes it hard to follow up. But in the other hand, it made the documentary more interesting.
Caron Carter from the NA Chest stop smoking service was talking very fast as if someone was running after her! It was very hard to understand her from the first time. She even took clear large breaths between each sentence and another.
The voice I liked the best was Akram's voice, a man who runs a restaurant. Akram voice was clear and from his sentences he seemed very wise. I liked his tone of his speech and the way he clarified his points by giving examples to support his statements and beliefs.
To sum up, the voices of the guests were clear and understandable to a large degree. The only difference was the speed of the speeches. Some were talking slowly, others were talking fast. And it is very hard to tell your guests how to speak, but at the same time, the documentary sounded not alike.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/asiannetwork/documentaries/troublewithhubblebubble.shtml
No comments:
Post a Comment