“There is something fundamentally different about having subjects create or recreate what you think happened. ”

and….different than….

It isn’t a lazy argument. To call it such is lazy because it implies a whole raft of assumptions about the nature of the information gathering process.

It’s more lazy to write off one part of a process as unethical and imply a more robust ethical standard for another without considering that large chunks of both of those processes are exactly the same.

Take your point about working with whats in front of a reporter when they get back to the office.

Let’s assume for a moment that the footage was gained in some ethically pure way – a judgment call on your own practice, but I’ll allow you the power to simply imbibe truthful footage by some form of technical osmosis at this point – what about when you get back to the office?

You make a choice about what to leave in and what to take out. You mask edits in the shots with (some of that truthful b-roll you shot). How is that any more honest – you didn’t have two cameras. You didn’t catch b-roll at the same time and you didn’t have the contributor in the room to say “yes, that’s what I meant”

I have yet to see a news website running completely unedited footage which runs as long as it needs to for the viewer to ‘get’ the story on their own. Everything we produce is a constructed reality and my point, my only point, was that to make a value judgment on the basis of ethics was wrong given that position. Not because the practice itself is wrong (or right) but because it wasn’t an appropriate measure to judge by.

By your own measure, your alleged ‘better’ way of doing it is no less open to an accusation of being unethical.

I agree that producing videos requires an endless series of judgments, but that doesn’t mean you have to descend into directing the action.

Just as reporters must work with the quotes they bring back in their notepads, video journalists must work with what is front of them.

I would argue though that there is a difference between the two in that making up a scene is plagiarism and can (and should) be punished. Although I believe reenactments to be unethical AND an “undesirable working practice”, it pales in comparison.

But, all can agree that the saving grace in the field of journalism is to maintain trust with our viewers. No matter if you believe these practices are unethical, unmoral or just bad work habits, it will slowly but surely break this trust …

“and in various criminal circles, too” LOL. I can see the newsroom scene now – I’m off to fit-up an MP for the 10pm news.

I agree. The key thing is “a greater approximation to reality”. The key thing is that the journalistic values are paramount. Directing a shot, in my view, doesn’t necessarily compromise that

I think there is is an important distinction to be made between directing the action and making stuff-up. If you ask a person to repeat an action that’s not making it up. Getting someone to stunt up an action is and that, as with making up a quote, is not on.

The issue that Tracey raised was about directing the shot in particular not making-up shots. (although I think she would say that there is no distinction) True, there is a fine line between direction, illustration and deception but I don’t think it’s an ‘ethical’ issue.

I’ve said before that to frame it in that way is an internal debate – one of a defining purpose rather than any absolute truth. This struck me as an effort to set her practice apart from the poor practice of the news crews she saw. That’s not ethics it’s working practice. Undesirable it may be but not unethical.

The more accurate comparison in her terms would perhaps have been between the journalist and ethnographic documentary maker. All that participant observer and action research bobbins :)