Accuracy is all about a story being told and taken from a source reliability, preciseness and how trustworthy it is. This can be tested by the use of facts as well as evidence. If there is none of that the story/information might be inaccurate. For example, BBC news could be counted as a reliable source as the government wouldn't possibly lie on live tv right? There was a report named " Cameron warns leaving EU is a "step into the dark" which can be considered as being accurate as David Cameron was actually present in the studio and was being asked questions about his proposition. Also, there were facts being raised on why we shouldn't leave the EU as well as other politicians views and quotes being mentioned.
Balance is when there's equal perspective from both parties. So the audience understands both side of the argument otherwise the story would be biased. An example of this is very well shown on "The Jeremy Kyle Show", one episode where this was shown was called "Did my murdered son have a baby?". The mum who arose the issue had an equal amount of time to speak the same way the son had an equal amount of time to answer the questions and speak in general. This allows audiences to absorb both sides and both arguments then they can decide what side to be on.
Impartiality is the common idea of staying neutral and taking no sides. This is what presenters tend to do in order to avoid conflict and controversy. An example of a presenter that does this is Reggie Yates, this was well shown in a documentary of his called " The state of man". Reggie Yates listened and found out reasons why men activists exist as well as what they actually are and what they do. He didn't support them nor against them even though he questioned some of their movements and actions. You could tell by the mellow tone that he kept throughout the whole documentary and close ups which allows audience to see his reactions to certain things and the questioning of things as well as understanding.
Objectivity is when personal belief/opinions do not influence how a story is told. This also about having a balance and not forcing what side to be on. For example, "Question time" is a show which doesn't influence how stories are told and how questions are answered. This is done by one party raising and a question, it could be the government side or the audience and the other party is expected to answer the question. Both parties can continue to talk about the question and then you can move on to the next question. Question time also has a impartial "middle man" which means he's on neither side and allows both side to talk but he can question issues and matters.
Opinion\ Subjective (opinionated) is when the story is one sided and most definitely influences the viewer. "Beaten by my boyfriend" is definitely opinionated as Stacey Dooley, the reporter, clearly shows that by showing emotions show by close ups and voiceovers which explains how she feels about matters. In this documentary, Stacey Dooley only shows females who have experienced domestic abuse by their boyfriends and obvious purpose is to say that it is bad and to raise awareness etc. This is the same as subjectivity. Most documentaries tend to be subjective if they're to do with crimes in order to educate the viewers (gratification) and to inform them of the issues or matter.
Being Biased i would say is the same as being opinionated and subjective as it's when a story is one-sided. "Bowling for Columbine clip" is clearly anti-guns and not supporting America's open law of carrying weapons for protection making them highly accessible. This was clearly shown with long and medium shots of protestors carrying boards and shouting and there was no evidence or view/speech from the boys who actually committed the crime.
Representation is very important when telling a story as it sort of impacts how the audience absorbs the story and helps with picking sides. Fo example, a documentary on the "teenage gangs of South London" the teenage gangs were represented as being bad as scary and intimidating pictures were shown. On the other hand, the police were represented as the good people (it was their documentary).
Access issues is to do with the permission given when creating a documentary. To make sure you have the right/correct information and failure to actually have permission and access can lead to breaking the law. For example, if Reggie Yates didn't have permission to film the meeting of the male extremist meetings we as the audience wouldn't have an insight of what they actually do and how they gain their motivation or where the belief and idea comes from making the documentary incomplete and pointless. Also, being given permission to film the meeting will not get him fined or in trouble.
Privacy in documentaries occurs when someone or possibly an interviewee decides and prefers not to say/something. For example, in most murder cases and gang documentaries witnesses hide their faces so sometimes they're blurred or they get an actor to act in place of them just to keep that privacy. This is vital when it comes to being a witness as it is dangerous and people can end up getting attacked later on or hurt.