Over the years, I’ve heard a variety of documentary ethics conversations. One of the issues that always comes up is paying subjects and the topic is still very much alive, as evidenced by a recent NY Times article:

“I paid the ‘bad apples’ because they asked to be paid, and they would not have been interviewed otherwise,” [Errol Morris] said in a statement. In a brief interview after the screening of the film at the Tribeca Film Festival in Midtown Manhattan on Thursday night, Mr. Morris would not say which of the soldiers he paid, or how much. Read the entire article>>

The article discusses the long-held belief by journalists that paying subjects can alter the story they tell. And while no one writes or says that documentary is journalism, by discussing that standard in journalism  in context of a film like Errol Morris’ Standard Operating Procedure, there is definitely a linking of the two traditions. But documentary isn’t journalism, even if ancillary products like books and articles are produced in conjunction with the film.

A filmmaker can spend anywhere from hours to years intruding on the lives of subjects. Frequently, the filmmaker is an economically advantaged person sporting expensive equipment, flights to and from the subjects home, and probably a paid crew. It’s difficult for people outside of the industry to understand that the majority of docs don’t make money. Errol Morris and few select others aside, even those that appear on television or in theaters often make back about as much as they did to produce. Even so, most filmmakers understand the disparity in their relationship with subjects and will walk this line about paying subjects by sometimes offering assistance in one form or another. Some are hardliners, while others, like Morris, believe the ends of telling their stories justify the means.

I’m not sure that the Times article does a good job of exploring the nuance of this subject, or at finding examples. I’ve heard a number of filmmakers express frustration at the growing wariness of subjects to agree to be filmed because of the way they have seen others’ images edited out of context, such as in the Borat movie or in Michael Moore’s films. Along with the mistaken notion that the film will be a big moneymaker for everyone but them, subjects also want to feel that should they not like the outcome, at least they got something out of it.

Why doesn’t The Times talk to the interviewees about why they asked for payments? Or try to find examples of when a subject actually embellished their story? Or what about films that were stymied because a filmmaker refused to pay? Maybe this is asking too much of the journalist, or perhaps the writers couldn’t get substantive comments on this subject, but it is such a complicated issue that it deserves an in-depth discussion. I think the field suffers from articles like this one. People outside of the media industry read this and think that there is a right and wrong, as well as continuing the conflation of documentary and journalism.