What are each of these items? How might we define them?
The videos I watched were about the Australian white people, and the indigenous population of Australian.
,

First clip is a 2 minutes long, which is talking about the living condition of white people and the impression of whites in the public. The second clip is about 4 minutes long, which focus on the indigenous population of Australia.

What components (or parts) is this item created from? Single Take? Many edits? Music? Narration?
In the video of area of endemic white people, the first shot is an interviewer come into the screen then she introduces the story background. In order to expand the topic, she interviews some strangers randomly on the street to investigate the impression of white people in different races. And then go back to white community to interviewing white people.

In the video of local people in Australian, the camera takes us to the place that local people living environment. At first, there is no character and dialogue, full shot of landscape instead and we could hear an introduction from a female voice. The story background represents by the voice-over with the local people life image transition. Roughly 1 minute after, the interviewer comes into the screen and she is talking with a female local people. The images show more of the local living environment. The Voice-over as a supplement and explanation to describe the incident. And there is a dialogue between the interviewer and local people embed into the production line.

Do either of these items have a commercial interest or endorse a product/organisation?
I didn’t find any commercial interest in the second video. However, there is a name – Australian screen embed in the right corner screen. Australian screen is a part of national film and sound archive of Australia. These two videos are concentrate on Australia white people and local people, it belongs to television special.

What does each piece convey to us about the real world… or about the product/organisation?
The first video tells about the status and public impression of whites in Australia. These may have some feelings from life, but we have not completely discussed this matter in a public occasion. There are many random interviews in the video and the views of public figures on white people, which can be seen as a representative of society. Let the audience understand and think about this topic.

The second video is about Australian Aboriginal people. He showed us what the life of the locals looks like, and their living conditions are very bad compared to the people in the city. And interviewed individual local residents, let us see their inner world and ideas.

Is one of these items a better representation of the real world than the other? If so, why?
In the first video, not only did the interviewer describe the topic and embedded many interviews with passers-by, collecting their opinions and ideas. Finally, I went into the interview of the white family and went deep into this group. In general, this can be seen as a representative of the real world, but not absolute. Because the director can use the clip to express his or her own thoughts, this may be biased. Among the interviewed groups, one of them is the white minister, who himself represents the white group. So these views cannot represent everyone. Interviewers also have the suspicion of deliberately praising the white group.