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.