Showing posts with label American University Center for Social Media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label American University Center for Social Media. Show all posts

Sunday, October 25, 2009

Questioning the Doc

There's no denying the growing influence that documentary films have on the national debave over issues like the Iraq War and health care. As works of art, they can be powerful. As visual think pieces, they can be effective. But scrutinized reports they are often not...at least before their release.

Here we're talking about the traditional journalistic practice of second-party editors looking at content and context, not to mention occasionally raising questions about how information was received or video obtained.

Media-savvy viewers go into documentaries knowing that the filmmakers may not be striving to produce a balanced work. But shouldn't there be an expectation that documentarians are following a code of conduct?

Much like traditional journalists, documentary makers face myriad ethical concerns, many of which are outlined in a new report from American University's Center for Social Media.

While "old media" types typically adhere to a common set of principles that apply to the craft (don't accept gifts from sources; don't alter a quote or leave out passages that change the context), folks in the documentary world operate without broad standards in ethics practices, according to the report, "Honest Truths: Documentary Filmmakers on Ethical Challenges in Their Work."

The authors interviewed dozens of doc filmmakers, many of whom said the same thing: Commercial pressures and time limitations often force them to consider cutting corners.

Along those lines, the report raises several interesting ethical questions that might look familiar to people at traditional news organizations: Do subjects have a right to review and request changes to a film? Can a director stage an event to further the narrive, particularly if the point wouldn't be made as clearly otherwise? (It happens, as the report notes).

There's a lot of good stuff in the study -- too much to chronicle in this space. But it's a good read, and an even better starting point for a conversation in j-schools about what's lost and gained when work is produced that isn't subjected to traditional news editing.