3 ms·

>But if you do a documentary where you ask for your subjects' help, then you owe them something, and the least you can do is not exploit or spin their testimony

>But if you do a documentary where you ask for your subjects' help, then you owe them something, and the least you can do is not exploit or spin their testimony to fit a specific point of view -- esp. a point of view they would discover after the fact. That's a betrayal. It sounds like you are saying that it's unethical to include interviews in a documentary unless the interviewee is on board with the message of the documentary? I don't agree with this claim either. Suppose I'm a documentary filmmaker approaching the Sackler story with an open mind. I call up the Sacklers and say: "Would you like to tell your side of the story on camera?" They say yes. I interview them. As I continue investigating, I discover lots of evidence that the Sacklers are villains, and their villainy ends up being the message of my documentary. The Sacklers watch my film and discover it has a point of view they dislike. They feel that they've been exploited, that their testimony was spun, and that I owed it to them to not betray them this way, since they helped me with the documentary. Do you agree with the Sacklers in this hypothetical? Personally, I don't find the argument as stated particularly persuasive. If the Sacklers could demonstrate that their interview footage was cut in a way that misrepresented what they said, then I'd find fault with the documentarian on the grounds of making a misleading documentary. But I don't believe in a reciprocity obligation of the kind you describe. It seems to me that such an obligation is incompatible with the idea of investigative journalism. Side note: In practice, it is already in the self-interest of journalists to play this kind of "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine" game, in order to gain continued access to their subjects. I don't think it is a good idea to pile additional enforcement on top of the incentives that already exist.

tomrod 4y ago
My reading of the Guardian article is that the men feel they were interviewed under false pretenses. If true, that begs the question of the ethics of filmmaker. It also highlights a concern that those rushing to defend the film are either okay with the subjects being lied to or aren't aware of the primary criticisms.
- ShredKazoo 4y ago
  Could you quote specific passages of the Guardian article that support the idea that they were interviewed under false pretenses? I just skimmed it a second time and nothing is jumping out to me as support for that idea.
  - tomrod 4y ago
    This paragraph is where I inferred this, especially the second portion I'm putting down in the second > > Mohammed Al-Hamiri, one of the men featured in the film, told the Guardian that he wasn’t aware the film would be accessible internationally and only found out that it had been made available online after its showing at Sundance. “My life is already difficult but this film poses a serious threat to my life and that of my family,” said Al-Hamiri. > *Another man said that he had explicitly told the film-maker that he did not want to be featured in the film but his wishes had been disregarded.* The film’s director Meg Smaker says that all the participants in the film signed consent documents and denied that the men expressed any fears in correspondence with her. Personally, I am more or less ambivalent to the film currently as I've only heard about it due to the controversy and that Sam Harris covered it. Perhaps it's extremely meaningful and perhaps not, I haven't had time to process it.
    - ShredKazoo 4y ago
      Sounds like a "he said she said" situation.
bambax 4y ago
> Do you agree with the Sacklers in this hypothetical? Yes, I think I would. I think the proper behavior in that case would be to return to them after you decide they're the villains, and let them respond to that. If they chose not to, fine, you can go ahead with the original footage. But if they choose to answer your new questions, you should include those too.
- ShredKazoo 4y ago
  Sounds like we may be more or less in agreement then -- my proposed solution was to have Sundance show the film and include an addendum from the subjects at the end https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33215012 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33215012 (last paragraph)

tomrod 4y ago

My reading of the Guardian article is that the men feel they were interviewed under false pretenses. If true, that begs the question of the ethics of filmmaker. It also highlights a concern that those rushing to defend the film are either okay with the subjects being lied to or aren't aware of the primary criticisms.

ShredKazoo 4y ago
Could you quote specific passages of the Guardian article that support the idea that they were interviewed under false pretenses? I just skimmed it a second time and nothing is jumping out to me as support for that idea.
- tomrod 4y ago
  This paragraph is where I inferred this, especially the second portion I'm putting down in the second > > Mohammed Al-Hamiri, one of the men featured in the film, told the Guardian that he wasn’t aware the film would be accessible internationally and only found out that it had been made available online after its showing at Sundance. “My life is already difficult but this film poses a serious threat to my life and that of my family,” said Al-Hamiri. > *Another man said that he had explicitly told the film-maker that he did not want to be featured in the film but his wishes had been disregarded.* The film’s director Meg Smaker says that all the participants in the film signed consent documents and denied that the men expressed any fears in correspondence with her. Personally, I am more or less ambivalent to the film currently as I've only heard about it due to the controversy and that Sam Harris covered it. Perhaps it's extremely meaningful and perhaps not, I haven't had time to process it.
  - ShredKazoo 4y ago
    Sounds like a "he said she said" situation.

bambax 4y ago

> Do you agree with the Sacklers in this hypothetical? Yes, I think I would. I think the proper behavior in that case would be to return to them after you decide they're the villains, and let them respond to that. If they chose not to, fine, you can go ahead with the original footage. But if they choose to answer your new questions, you should include those too.

ShredKazoo 4y ago
Sounds like we may be more or less in agreement then -- my proposed solution was to have Sundance show the film and include an addendum from the subjects at the end https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33215012 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33215012 (last paragraph)