I've been trying to think of a good way to frame this debate based on some of the discussions we've been having about "F 9/11" and now with the so-called "documentary" - "Outfoxed" which seeks to bash Fox News Channel.

"Fair use" is a legal term that is a part of copyright law and attempts to define when material created by someone else can be used for one's own purposes. We here on America's Debate have in a sense our own "fair use" policies concerning quoting copyrighted material in our own posts. I'm not a lawyer and maybe some of our resident attorneys here will chime in with some of the specific legalities in Fair use, but here are a couple of websites that discuss it for those interested.

Multi-media guidelines

Stanford on Fair Use


However, I don't want to get bogged down in the legal aspects of this. Rather, I'd like to debate the ethical aspects of using someone else's material against them. This is the case in Outfoxed where they have taken stories from Fox News Channel, in some cases broadcast and some not and edited some of them and presented a case that Fox News Channel is horribly biased for the right wing. Michael Moore does it in a similar way by taking things out of context to make his point.

This is really nothing new, people have been doing this sort of thing for years. I know one company I worked for wouldn't allow their people to be interviewed on tape without having their own second camera in the room to film the full, un-edited interview. It would probably be possible for one of us here to search through the archives and pull out statements made here and there by people without providing the context of those statements and "prove" pretty much any point we wanted to make.

So, the question for debate is....

Is selective editing and the use of out of context quotes even with material that's in the public domain an ethical thing to do? Why or why not?

First off Aquilla your posts are generally top notch but this one is excellent great question.
Never acceptable. All thats really produced is real Goebells would shed a tear propaganda. Take the bare minimum of information and edit it until Lincoln actually says we need more slaves.
Selective editing is simply manufacturing deceit. One cannot take creative license with the truth.
If you beleive that something is true try to find evidence to support your thesis.
Doctoring your evidence is clearly undefensively immoral.

I think it depends on who is doing the selective editing, and what their motives are.

The 2 cases that were mentioned are both films; Art. Holding artists to ethical standards would seem unethical in the art world. Both are things in which the content used, must be desired to be seen by the viewer by buying a ticket.

Selective editing

When I started reading this post, I thought it was going to get to the Campaign ad where someone "Selectively Edited" a number of Democrats (and a radical website) speaking containing the most prominent Dems, and Hitler. Now we are getting into an ethics issue, for this is not art but an attempt to influence perception in the guise of truth. That is when Selective Editing becomes dangerous, and yes, unethical.

(I really did want to mention a Dem. ad that uses the same tactic, as I am sure that they are out there. I do not watch politics at the movie or on TV, and I can't recall one off the top of my head. Both parties seem to play this game, and I think it is inappropriate on either side.)

FYI,
I haven't seen either of the films mentioned. I am not into 1 sided accounts of perceived reality. Same reason I don't watch Fox uhem.....news to use the term lightly.

I fail to see what selective editting has to do, if anything, with fair use practices. Fair use has nothing to do with the creator's intention whatsoever. Rather it is a legal 'doctrine' designed to strike a balance between the rights of the creator, and of the environment into which he creates. Those rights are not abrogated by the intentions or politics of the user; only by their actions. If editting in a gratifying fashion is illegal, then editting in a disingenuous fashion is as well. It is for this reason that it is legal (within certain limits.)

The problem with questions of fair use and copyright is in HOW to regulate behaviour. This is in some ways a very OLD problem, and very new. The mass-production or reproduction of intellectual property or information was impossible until the invention of the printing press; with innovations coming in the form of sound, print visual and animated mediums following steadily ever since.

How then can we engage questions of ethics, property, and fair use? Lawrence Lessig defines four categories of control; controls which regulate every aspect of society. I'll define these using the example of pornographic magazines...

Architecture: A good example would be placing smut magazines on the very back of the magazine rack in a corner store.
Laws: It is illegal for someone under the age of X to purchase pornographic material.
Social Norms: We generally turn our nose at someone walking down the street with a copy of Hustler in his hands.
Market: Prohibitive costs (production and regulation) deflate demand.

The reality of fair use is that the nature of technology has invalidated or frustrated architectural controls on the use of copyrighted technology, the market is nonexistant since production or reproduction is inexpensive, and laws are often inadequate as they are the least flexible of the controls.

This leaves Social Norms as the only effective way of controlling material available under fair use agreement. The climate that has existed in these circumstances (say, for the last 90 years or so) is one that recognizes (socially) that it is harmful in general to inhibit the flow of information; benefits on restrictive policies of use are far outweighed by the costs. This intellectual climate is being threatened by people who think, like Christopher, that the burden lies solely with the source (author, editor, filmmaker, etc.) in the interpretive process. The very nature of "fair use" demands that the source and the user are both key figures in information distribution.



This is perhaps a misunderstanding of fair use. Material that is in the public domain isn't really theirs any more. They still have certain rights over it, but it is no more "theirs" than the statement "We the people" belongs to Thomas Jefferson.



You are ignoring the reality of the interpretive process. If I were to write, lets say, a Ph.D. thesis on the subject of multiple-node computing, and I took someone else's work out of context as a supporting evidence, when my thesis is challenged I would be asked to answer for the discrepancy.

While this sort of peer-review isn't universal, a similar sort is, or should be. We all edit. More to the point we all edit selectively. The process of choosing where to acquire your evidence is in and of itself the sort of "immoral" behaviour you are railing against. We all examine "truth" from subject positions , and as such our subjective position determines how we perceive said truth. Therefore "editing" is not only universal, it is completely inevitable.

What you (and Aquilla) seem to disagree with is the process of editing that renders a conclusion that the reader or creator disagrees with. In the same way that the original work is property of both the creator and the user, so too is the replica (used, say in a documentary.) As such the interpretive process belongs to both the person presenting the material, and those seeing it.

Where this particular question comes from (by which I mean the question posed at the beginning of this thread) is the universal decline of critical thought. Whether through apathy, fatigue, or pure information overload society is by and large abandoning the critical aspect of communication. As this happens, the burdens of interpretive thought shift almost exclusively onto the shoulders of the presenter, threatening the creative process.



Yes, for one simple reason. Context is not always objective. When it is subjective then it is up to the receiver to determine the relative value of the material taken.

Of course, deliberate malfeasance or outright falsification is illegal, and unethical. But that happens far less often than most people think.

Going back to tie this altogether (or at least try too); fair use laws are a recognition, if not an overt one, that societal norms are the best way to regulate the use of material in the public domain. These norms are derived by the prevailing social attitudes in question. The seemingly shifting social values regarding information reflect a shift in understanding of the interpretive process; and this shift makes 'selective' editting seem unethical, when in reality all it does is underline our own failings as an audience.

And yes I realize there is a certain irony in me editing the the last quote there.

I framed the question for debate and the premise in this fashion so that we wouldn't get bogged down in strict legalistic matters concerning what is "Fair Use". Ever since my discussions with Cube Jockey on another thread I've been looking for a straightforward definition of the Fair Use laws and there doesn't appear to be one. (Not unlike some other areas of the law). I wanted to stay away from the argument of "if it's legal, it must be ok" kind of debate and concentrate more on the ethical concerns that movies like "F-9/11" and "Outfoxed" present. I would submit that the simple question of whether or not it was "legal" does not address the higher question of right and wrong from an ethical standpoint.

That is the direction I hoped this debate would take.

Aquilla, if you would read the rest of my post you would see that is the very direction that I was taking the discussion. Sorry if I failed to get that across.

The reason why I included that first paragraph is because "fair use" IS a legal term. I was trying to detach the legal and ethical elements of your question so we could discuss the more important ethical questions.

It's unethical, but it's common practice. How many campaign commercials would still be running if we removed those which took the politicians' statements out of context? And how many of David Letterman's schticks on President Bush would be eliminated?

So while it's unethical, I think enforcing some kind of law against it, unless real damage were proven to be incurred by the plaintiff, would be futile.

A lot of this pulling quotations out of context is funny and entertaining--I'll admit to laughing at a lot of of them. It's not funny, though, when we use these misquotes as a basis for our political beliefs and candidate choices.

Is selective editing and the use of out of context quotes even with material that's in the public domain an ethical thing to do? Why or why not?

It really depends on the motivation of the creator. If the creator is a news reporter with a bias against someone and he/she uses selective editing to make that person look bad, it's unethical. Is it unethical for someone who's writing an editorial, for instance? Disingenuous perhaps, but people simply shouldn't expect absolute objectivity from the editorial page. My point is if the person is held to some standard of objectivity, they should provide that objective coverage; likewise, if they are not held to some standard of objectivity, it's not unethical for them to selectively edit. Nobody would expect an objective analysis of a news event here at AD, but they would from their local news. I think we shouldn't prevent authors in the op-ed pages from using out-of-context quotes for the simple fact that they can reference their sources and the truth will become known: the news pages often are the sources, so they should be held to a professional standard of objectivity. It's unethical for the same reason that anonymous sources are beginning to fall out of favor: people expect better from the news department and they most certainly deserve it. In the case of Fahrenheit 9/11 and Outfoxed, people don't go to see those for an objective exposé of the Bush Administration or of Fox News so why should they be held to an objectivity standard?

Is selective editing and the use of out of context quotes even with material that's in the public domain an ethical thing to do? Why or why not?

I think that the determination of whether this is ethical depends on the source using the material.

If I were watching a news program and the editors for the program took a state of the union speech by the president and edited it to convey a different message than one would glean by reading the speech, that would be an unethical use of taking quotes out of context. In this scenario, the viewer/listener tunes into the program expecting to hear the truth (or a very close approximation). If the editors were to alter the meaning of someone's speech and present it as truth that would be unethical. To a certain extent I feel soundbites are bordering on unethical for the same reason.

On the opposite end of the spectrum you have art and entertainment. I can provide a few examples here. If a musical artist selectively edits footage in the public domain, uses quotes out of context or even splices them together it is perfectly ethical because it is a creative expression. No one listens to a song and believes what they hear as the truth, there is no expectation of accuracy.

The same goes for movies, I don't know one single person that claims to get their information from movies. Now I haven't seen (nor do I really have any interest at this point) Outfoxed. However, I can address F 9/11 here because I know that in part is why you started this thread Aquilla. F 9/11 was from the very beginning by Moore himself presented as an op-ed documentary.

Moore makes use of lots of footage from the public record but he selectively edits the footage so that it'll fit in with the story he is trying to present. If I remember correctly the idea for this debate started over some footage from a military funeral. In this instance I believe the seeds were planted from this post by Aquilla. The family found out that footage of their son's funeral was used (in part) and they were angry that their son was proud of what he did and that wasn't represented (I guess?). This particular footage only had one point, that there were a lot of deaths from the war in Iraq and the media was not allowed to broadcast these deaths/funerals. So in a sense Moore edited the footage and didn't include the soldiers full dossier and political leanings, but why would he? He was making a creative statement and the funeral served as mothing more than images. Does this editing make his statement any less factual? The media was in fact not allowed to broadcast coffins coming home.

None of the footage was so egregiously out of context as to be completely false, although much of it clearly had a slant to it. There are ways Moore could have crossed the border into the unethical, but that is one of the great things about our legal system and the fact that any idiot that knows HTML can put up a web page. He might be liable for slander/libel and he would also have to defend his position from attacks. So far no suits have been filed and he has successfully defended everything in the movie.

In summary, as both TenneseeLeftWinger and Ultimate Joe hit upon, it is all about an expectation of objectivity and an expectation of truth. If you are listening to the news you expect an objective and truthful broadcast. If you go to the theater to watch F 9/11 you can't honestly say that you expect an objective analysis of the bush administration's shortcomings.

Is selective editing and the use of out of context quotes even with material that's in the public domain an ethical thing to do? Why or why not?

I have been uncomfortable with this for quite some time. For me it boils down to a perception/reality line of reasoning. Imagery is a very persuasive tool and even when there is a disclaimer preceding a piece that this is in fact a creative representation of real life events when the artist uses actual people/situation specific imagery and verbiage I believe it is nearly impossible for the viewer/listener to not perceive the presented material in the light of reality. Or might I say " Seeing is Believing" ahh maybe not. When a viewer exposes themselves to media such as F 911 or any other forms of media the experience takes on a life of it's own, it is an interactive experience of stimuli and reaction emotional and cognitive train of thought. To me Propaganda is in actuality when the artist goes to such lengths as to use real life material manipulated to present his or her personal perception of reality. That same artist could just as easily use paid actors and actresses to represent the same story line and create the same interactive experience with the viewer, without blurring the line between perception and reality for the viewer. It is an unethical and downright sleazy thing to do. Yes I will pay good money to be fooled for 2 hours, into believing that the terminator is coming through a wormhole to save mankind but I really have no interest in walking out of the theater and wondering if this might really happen, or worse did happen.

edited to add..

an example;
Artist A takes a Baboon Torso, and through the marvels of digital editing places a saddened likeness of Bush's face on it, effect is funny and viewer enjoys a good laugh at the artists perception of Bush's inability to lead a nation during a time of war.

Artist B takes that same same saddened likeness of Bush's face and places it on a slouched over torso of a man using the back of a chair to hold himself up, effect a defeated impotent leader unable to effectively lead a nation during time of war.

Which one do you believe to potentially be true. Both are artist perceptions/depictions of the same idea, Bush is unable to lead the nation.

This is patently absurd, I'm sorry. You have just described EVERY SINGLE semi-historical book, movie, or painting. See, I had no idea the film "Pearl Harbor" was propangada... (although I did know it was crap.) It appears to me that you are simply using the word propaganda itself to categorize a media trend that you are uncomfortable with in an effort to legitimize your own distaste for it.

Your definition of propaganda is apallingly broad. You have created the ultimate crutch; a tool to ensure that people are no longer required to think critically or question what they see. What purpose could such a definition serve? Are we as a society so pathetically inept that we are not liable for confusing reality from fiction? Whether we are or not, this sort of thinking ensures that one day we will have a world where nobody will have to think for themselves.

Do I seem a bit harsh? You betcha. Am I off-topic? Nope. As I tried to say before, (which seemed to have been largely ignored )... Can selective editting be unethical? Sure. If I were to, say, twist the words of a military leader so that instead of reporting that thousands of soldiers died in a particular battle, that people only knew that a few brave souls died and our forces were victorious, (and supress all information to the contrary) THAT would be unethical. The subject position of the audience renders them incapable of critically asessing the information. That is what real propaganda is. The "P" word is thrown about so often I wonder at times whether people have willingly had themselves lobotomized to remove the burden of having to think for themselves.



Has anyone here been able to say why it is unethical, in strong "ethics" terminology? Four people have called this behaviour unethical, and the justifications have ranged from "it just is" to "it manufactures deceit." When questioning the ethical consequences of something, platitudes and blind assumptions are insufficient. You can't question the "ethics" of something without exploring the relationship of the individual in question and the society at large; yet everyone here has gone to lengths to disentangle the presenter of said information with the audience. Dividing them is absurd. You can't engage a question of media ethics without discussing the audience.

Ultimatejoe, I don't think you're being very fair to Piper Plexed in this thread. Lifting a sentence out of her post and then construing it to its harshest possible interpretation, without giving the writer the benefit of the doubt regarding context and to what degree she was implying, does not promote civil debate. You have to admit there is a little irony there given the overall thread topic.

If she had written: "When an artist goes to such lengths as to use real life material manipulated to present his or her personal perception of reality, it is always propaganda," I could understand your outrage. But a more reaslistic interpretation of what she intended was that when an artist goes to such lengths as to use real life material manipulated to present his or her personal perception of reality, it could be propaganda.

A commonly accepted definition of propaganda is that it is a deliberate attempt by an invididual or a group to form, control, or alter the attitudes of other groups by the use of communication, with the intention that in any given situation the reaction of those so influenced will be that desired by the propagandist.

She had the civility and politeness to preface her statement with "To me," indicating she was stating it as her opinion, not a fact, and you began your response by telling her that her opinion is patently absurd. How does that further civil debate?

Okay, let's just work to keep this civil; I'm not trying to offend anyone here, but just want to keep all of us from going down the wrong track.

Maybe I was was unclear about what I consider to be real life material, In that I apologize. When I say real life material I refer to actual footage imagery audio taken out of context manipulated and presented in a new context as seen by the artist. Such a piece of propaganda stands on it's own, a product and a fully developed and misleading concept. I remember very little of the movie Pearl Harbor but what I do remember involves Actors scenes sets, I in no way see that as edited and modified real life material i.e.. footage, sound bites, still shots of actual events using the actual people involved out of context. Even if some actual footage is used it is obviously used in the context of supportive to quite apparent fiction. Please refer to my examples of artist A & B's vision, I find A to be ethical and B to be unethical. I believe an artists place in society is to share thoughts and create a forum for contemplation and dialogue of other points of view not to manipulate, mislead and dupe the viewer. I believe an artist that practices the later insults the viewer as well as his fellow artists.

I believe it is unethical because it is a distortion of truth out of context. I thought Christopher described it quite well. Actually if I were to do such a thing as my hypothetical artist B I would expect to be sued for misrepresentation and liable because I created the image it is not real. Actually if I were to publicly circulate image B I would most likely seek a release from Mr. Bush himself.

While I'm not sure quite what you mean by "strong ethics terminology" other than the four "issues of control" that you cited in a previous post, I can certainly quote Websters and their definition of "ethics".



"Moral duty and obligation". Whose? You seem to place an equal obligation on the audience to interpret the content as you do to the originator to present the content. I don't go along with that. To be sure, the audience does need to form an understanding of what they are seeing and it's context and I think many people here have alluded to that. Paladin Elspeth referenced the obviously edited "press conferences" that David Letterman airs as comedy, and she's right, they are really funny and everyone knows they're intended as comedy. Others have posted about a "sliding scale" if you will about ethics depending on the context of the presentation. If it's presented in a news broadcast as truth, it should be true and not taken out of context. If, on the other hand, it's presented as an artform to be sure dramatic license allows for certain distortions or dramatizations. Where I have problems is when an artform is presented as a truth- that crosses the line.

If one visits Michael Moore's 9/11 fact page, it is pretty clear that he is intending to present his movie as truth. To be sure, other than his own commentary, the actual people in his movie actually said those things, Michael Moore didn't put the words in their mouth. So, that part is true. But, it lacks any actual context. Instead, Moore attempts to create his own context and it is there that I believe he crosses the ethical line. He presents his story as "truth" but his context is fiction and a distorted version of the truth.

With "Outfoxed", we have much the same sort of thing. I haven't seen the entire movie, but the trailers I've seen present only one side of what Fox News does. I could easily do the same thing to shows like Nightline, Meet the Press, This Week, Late Edition and selectively edit footage from those shows to "prove" they are completely liberal-biased. It would be all true, but without the proper context. Heck, I could probably go through archives of Rush Limbaugh's radio show and extract enough to "prove" he was a mouthpiece for the DNC. That might be a stretch, certainly would be a challenge, but the point is that it seems to me that if someone presents their work as "truth", there is an ethical obligation there for them to provide a truthful context. If they don't want to do that, fine, then present it as art and be done with it. I don't think you can have it both ways.

I disagree that artists have a responsibility or a duty to present the truth in their creative works. When people view a piece of art, there is no reasonable expectation that what they see will be truth. I'll use photography as an example.

There is a growing trend in photography specifically and art in general to produce digital composite images as art. The artist takes disparate elements and combines them in a creative way making the image appear to be real. A specific example of this would be a project my wife is currently working on through one of her internships. The photographer takes pictures of babies and then manipulates the images in photoshop to make them do crazy things like stand on each other's shoulders, etc for stock photography purposes.

Now, no one actually believes that babies can stand on the shoulders of another baby, even though that is what the image presents. By your definition that practice would be unethical because we are misleading people into thinking babies can stand on someone's shoulders.

I realize that is a pretty simplistic, and also ridiculous example, but the same holds true for any kind of art. Art by its very nature is not meant to communicate truth in the strict sense of the word.

Another example would be a political cartoon. If an artist creates a political cartoon that takes things out of context, maybe edits an image in the public record -- this is not unethical. No one reads a political cartoon in search for answers to burning questions, we read them to laugh or perhaps evoke some other emotion. No one here on AD would use a political cartoon as a source for anything.

So I guess what I'm saying is that this ethical question does not apply to art, art is a creative expression and the inherent purpose is not to inform people (like a news borad cast might).


Again, considering this movie is presented as an op-ed documentary, where is his obligation to do that? If you were reading an op-ed piece in the morning paper, would you expect the author to present everything in context, even if it weakened his argument or wasn't really relevant to his point?

I would submit that you wouldn't. Part of what makes op-ed an effective persuasion tool is that it is based in fact, but the author clearly has a message he/she is trying to convey. It is up to the reader to look at that objectively and decide if they believe it. If you take it 100% literally as fact, then you have no one to blame but yourself.

This sort of thing frequently happens even here on AD. Someone will post a quote, but only a portion of it that suits their point. In rebuttal someone else might post the full quote, because the context changes the meaning. Would you call poster A unethical? Or would you say that poster A presented the information with a clear agenda in mind, but through rigorous debate the truth came to be known?

Cube Jockey said:



Wow CJ! How could you say such things...

Now CJ, you did in fact, say all of these words in your last post. But with the magic of 'editing' they have an entirely different meaning.




So is a documentary art?

Cube I have to say I really don't know, I can say what level of misrepresentation I am willing to accept in my work and that of the work of those that have had to create imagery for me. It really falls within intent of the artist. When using stock photography the bottom line is that I have purchased the model release and copyright from the copyright holders and am responsible to work within the parameters of accepted usage i.e.

Corbis

Obviously this covers liability to subject and usage though it is still does not address the ethics of misleading the viewer. To me when an artist misrepresent a subject w/o release from the subject or manipulates the viewer with a blurred line between fact and opinion it crosses the line between ethical and unethical. As it stands now it has been left to the discretion of the artist and only recently has media technology even required the issue of ethics on this level to be addressed. I believe when an artist creates imagery which is apparently not real like babies doing a cheerleader pyramid or football players flying out of TV screen, my specialty, the end result negates the ethics issue as it is quite apparently a doctored image. Where my concerns lie is the ethics of doctored but misleading imagery, both as a disservice to the original images subject and to the viewer. I don't know the answers Cube, I know what I practice in my work and I know it is an issue for me as a responsible artist. I do suspect this issue will become a much bigger issue as technology progresses in my field and people abuse it's capabilities. Back in the day of hand drawn images and B/W film this wasn't a problem, Now the ability to splice and digitally revise images begs the question of intent, and effect, and liability, for me at least.

edited typo..

Methinks that goes beyond creative editing and is an example of libel.

Aquilla and PP, I know exactly what you two were suggesting. My opinion of those ideas still stands. Ethics are useless in this discussion because you are completely ignoring the reality of interpretive thought.

Where is the mention of the responsibility of the audience? What role do they play. Can you not see that the ideas you are postulating are only valid as far as the example you provide?



So what is a truthful context? Who provides this? Are there objective standards for measuring truth? Of course not. But that doesn't seem to bother people who complain when their own truth jives with what they are watching. Your example goes a long way to undermining your own position.



If we can agree that this is not 'true' (which I think IS something that we can agree on) then obviously it would be impossible to PROVE.



So if it is not valid (which we agree on), yet it is possible to "prove" it, that means that there must be some subjective quality to the work presenting it, and the audience. How can you PROVE a falsehood? You can't. You can certainly mislead, but that requires outright falsification. If you splice individual words from sentences to change not only their context but their substance then YES, you are being unethical. But that happens rarely and is usually recognized for what it is. If this sort of falsification has not occurred, then what has happened is that people have applied their subject position to the works that they are using. The disagreement that you have (and hide poorly) is that position. You say people are mislead? That's absurd. People aren't mislead, they are simply following WHAT THEY WANT.

Look, I'm getting worked up here and I shouldn't. There is a reason though. Everyone here is ignoring a vital part of the interpretive process, the audience. Without it any subjective works have no value whatsoever. So, I ask the people in this thread, who have posted in brief or at length: what of the audience? Are they to be handled as sheep? If so, then "fair use" laws and principles are meaningless and should be repealed. But hey, we don't want to confuse the argument with reasoning or "laws"...

I would say that it is. Documentary as it relates to film making is a style, it doesn't determine content. Film making in my opinion is definitely art.

Some of the best documentaries take a stand on the issues in some form or fashion.

OK let me propose a hypothetical to you. Lets say you are an avid Hockey fan and there is a very clear picture of you on the Senators web site as the image is shot of Fans as they watched the Rangers steal the puck out from under the Goalies mitt and SCORE!!! OK here is a picture of you in public domain with your mouth hanging open and your eyes squeezed shut, as you can't believe that it counted as a Goal! Now as bright as you are you then graduate College Graduate Law school and run for mayor. I being a visually oriented person see your image on a campaign poster, remember seeing your image at that hockey game and dig it up. Hypothetically of course, I really don't like your campaign platform as it runs in direct contradiction to my belief structure I fear that you may win anyway so I Grab that picture of you from supposed public domain and insert you likeness over some freak image of a guy doing unthinkable, questionable things to ______, I will leave this blank as I am too polite to finish this thought I then circulate this creative likeness of you. Hypothetically, I believe that you are as sleazy as the guy in the pic and this is my art. Do you believe that you have legitimate recourse against me, wouldn't you feel I misrepresented you? As for your supporters have I not wronged them by tainting their perception of you and swayed them against voting for you? This of course is a hypothetical scenario, it also could happen. I venture to say that the truthful context is you at the hockey game, the untruthful context is you in the compromising position.

edited typo..

Again, what you have done is alter the CONTENT of the material, not the context. If you just used hte picture it would be lousy campaigning, but it would not be unethical.

Well, legally I believe that person would have recourse against you. I believe you could be sued for libel (I think that's the one that deals with words/images -- if not then is slander).

I see where you were going with that, but the example was so extreme it was also illegal. If you toned it down to the point of being legal again, it would depend on the use of the image.

If as in your example you used it in a political campaign, that would probably be unethical (a certain Bush-Cheny ad comparing Democrats to Hitler comes to mind). However if you posted it over on The Caption Machine, posted it in your personal portfolio or even ran it in an art show then it wouldn't be unethical. I suppose it would be up to you as an artist to determine if it was unethical because you would know exactly what you were trying to say with the art.

To Ultimate Joe's point, with the latter example, the audience would become important too. If you did a digital composition and showed it in the gallery and the picture was political in nature people wouldn't think it was necessarily reality (i.e. journalism) they would likely be trying to figure out what you were trying to say as an artist. So I'm not sure how that would be unethical from a general standpoint, although it is personally fesible for you to find it unethical from a personal standpoint and refuse to make art like that.

The audience has a role to be sure, but it is reactive in nature. The presenter's role is pro-active, they supply all of the information. The audience reacts to it. If the presenter fails to provide a context, or worse yet, provides a false context for the information, what choice does the audience have? To inject their own knowledge and create a new premise? That is fine if the audience is sufficiently aware of the subject matter to do that, but if they know the subject that well one must wonder why they went to see the show in the first place.




That is why I put the word "prove" in quotes. The person responsible for providing the truthful context is the presenter, not the audience. Obviously I would have a difficult time here presenting a claim that Rush Limbaugh was a liberal because the knowledge base here is so large. Yet, if I could frame a debate around the idea that a person's politics is defined based on who they quote and how often and sell that to an audience, I could make a good case that indeed Rush is a liberal. It wouldn't fly with the AD crowd because they bring an informed knowledge base into this forum and know better. It might work elsewhere though....




You appear to be saying here that context isn't important and so using a partial quote, not "splicing words", or even a full answer without explaining what the question was is ok. I disagree. My claim is that the question is every bit as important as the answer because it provides a the context for the answer. If you don't do that, or if you provide an alternate context for the answer like Michael Moore did in his movie, you are misleading the audience into a false conclusion.

The audience is only one part of the equation. The other part is how is the information presented.

If the information were presented as a news broadcast, on a commentary show or in a politcal campaign ad most people could reasonably believe it was the truth. Therefore you could say the audience was mislead and they might not be expected to examine it so closely.

If the information were presented as a work of art, a comedy show or a movie then one would not have good reason to believe it was absolute truth. I don't get my education, current events and political analysis from the theater generally, do you aquilla?

Is selective editing and the use of out of context quotes even with material that's in the public domain an ethical thing to do? Why or why not?
I do not believe that selective editing is an ethical way to approach "news" and "documentary films". While I understand CJ's position that in the form of art there is a degree of creative license that allows for some type of selective editing. Where I disagree, especially in the case of F 9/11, is that a documentary is meant to portray the truth. So to use selective editing, without providing the entire context, to prove his position is unethical. Michael Moore presents his movie as a documentary.


Mikes Words

A documentary is defined as:

emphasis is mine.

Michael Moore can take a stand on an issue and provide the support for his argument but he crosses the lines from ethical to unethical by creating a scenario where a normal person may view his information as the complete truth. Regardless of his blurb (and I am taking the word of those that have seen the movie) at the beginning, he is still portraying this movie as documentary. I bet there are facts in there but he looses me with the selective editing.

emphasis mine
And Michael Moore goes further (same link as above), first he say's it is fact then he says it is his opinion. So is this a documentary or an opinion piece? Is he basing his movie on unedited non selective footage, providing the viewer with a chance to come to their own conclusions with the entire context?

As a wise woman on AD once said:
Context is Everything emphasis mine.

Art can use selective editing, as in it can portray the opinions of the artist, convey their emotion and position on an issue without being unethical because art is a medium where you are expressing yourself. Since I believe that Michael Moore's intent is to portray a documentary (even though he tries to cover himself and say this is his opinion) and persuade the audience to take his documentary as the complete truth his film looses the creative license aspect.

I also wanted to add, Susan Sontag made a statement in either On Photography or Regarding the Pain of Others (I can't remember which) something to the effect that to shoot (photographically or through moving film) is to frame and to frame is to exclude. That statement has stayed with me since I first read it. I can give a little on the visual impact because I know you are seeing what the photographer wants you see and are not getting the entire picture that surrounds the event. Perhaps these are words we should remember when viewing the news or seeing the images in print media. Context has already been diminished but I have a problem with using selective editing as to what you see and hear and then to try to pass the scene off as completely factual.

edited to correct spelling and some of my thoughts, I hit add reply instead of preview by accident!

I would say that selective editing is actually an entirely necessary process, (especially here on AD) in many aspects of debate, otherwise we'd be wading through loads of documents or video footage trying to find the relevant point someone is trying to make.

What I find interesting is some people saying that people are using selective editing to "show their own perception of events" (or however it was phrased), and to me, it seems so obvious that is what everyone does when they communicate (in a conversation with your neighbor, in an editorial, in a letter, in a documentary, etc.) The WHOLE point of telling a story, or giving your opinion is to try to get the reciever to understand YOUR PERCEPTION OF REALITY.

So when does selective editing become unethical? When its a blatant lie, which may be harder for some to define. In Moore's 9/11 I have yet to see anything being blamed as outright fabrication. (maybe Im not looking hard enough). And the example that stirred this whole debate, about Moore's use of a coffin being brought home, doesnt strike me any sort of fabrication, nor does it defame the soldier that's lying in it (and from what I remember of the film, its about the funeral and soldiers dying, not about this guy specifically).

In conclusion, Moore made his film because he's trying to show his version of the truth. Is that unethical? No, people do it everyday. If Moore was footage of Bush with different women (in various settings, meetings, press conferences etc.) and then tries to infer that Bush is having an affair with all these women because he's caught on tape with these women, that would unethical, as it is an outright lie.

I dont know if I have really clearly made the distinction between someone's version of the truth, and an outright lie. Im just going to hope that everyone can intepret my meaning.

I'm glad you brought this up, Kimpossible because it's not really what triggered this thread. Fair Use was broached in a F911 thread in reference to that funeral, but the issue there was really exploitation of the family's grief, not whether it was fair use or not.

What caused me to start this debate is the larger question of the context in which information is presented. It seems to me that it is possible to tell the truth and still lie by omission by not presenting the correct context for what the truth truly is. It is probably a perfectly legal thing to do from a fair use standpoint, but is it really an ethical thing to do? A better example in F911 would be the scene where Bush answers a question about terrorism on the golf course then tells the reporters to "watch this drive". The implied context of that remark was that he was concentrating more on his golf game than on the war on terror where our soldiers are involved. The real context was that he was being asked about a Palestinian terrorist attack against Israel. Different context entirely. Another one would be where Moore confronts a Congressman on the street......



"Doesn't always give the whole story"... Lie by omission? Misleading? Ethical?

That's the focus of this thread.

Yes I believe your correct and let us not forget, good luck figuring out that I did it and get me, that's a whole other issue. I guess most of my concerns lie between that extreme and the normal editing and cropping of media lies about a billion degrees of truthfulness and misrepresentation. There are also a billion interpretations of level of liability and intent. I believe through what I have read about F 911 (as I refuse to see it) that Bush actually has a case of misrepresentation. I have no great love for Bush though I also know the power of images and selective editing, I prefer to enter the voting booth with what I consider to be less biased perceptions of his tenure. I see even the existence of F 911 as a whole new realm of media driven campaigning and marketing and I will stick with the present mode of 30 second back to back commercials from each side for now. At least I have a greater chance of hearing both sides that way.

This is a difficult topic as the context of information is altered even in the act of sharing it. What I choose to say and how I say it, the editorial judgements I make are all slightly altering context, by definition I selectively edit. For me, there are two ethical issues, the act of selective editing and the misrepresentation of the purpose of the new product.

It seems to me that all the responses to the question of the ethics of selective editing - the creator's responsibility (or lack thereof) to accurately reflect the context of the creation (i.e. is it an opinion piece, a fictional account, an objective recounting of an event...) and the audience's responsibility to be an informed consumer (critical thinking on content, taking the time to understand a creator's biases and beliefs, etc.) - are analogous to a consumer right's debate; caveat emptor v. truth in advertising. The move from "fact" to "interpretation" is gradual and mixed; there's no place where an objective news story becomes an op/ed piece becomes a biased polemic becomes a skewed advertisement; there are simply degrees along a scale (leaving aside the issue of factual inaccuracies and overt lying). The consumer o the information has a responsibility to understand from whence the information comes (we don't eat at restaurants we don't trust to handle our food properly), the producer has a responsibility to accurately reflect what they are producing and what they are using it for.

It is here that the question of ethics becomes more serious. I don't know if Michael Moore used selective editing and altered the context of words and images to make advance his opinion about the war in Iraq or the President (I haven't seen the film nor have I done any detailed investigations into it's claims), I do know that it would be highly unethical for him to call his work a documentary while doing the editing and altering. (Just as it's up to me as a consumer to critically think about the food I eat, however that's not licence for McDonalds to claim that its food is the extremely heart-healthy meals on the planet). This ethical lapse (if it exists) does not, however, excuse me as the consumer from consuming this information intelligently and actively (McDonalds shouldn't claim its food is extremely healthy, that doesn't excuse me from the responsibility to remember that McDonalds food is high in fat and should be consumed in moderation if at all)

Editorialising, whether through context shifting or simply speculating on a person's motivations, is a technique as old as language (I presume - I know Suetonius did it, and that's old enough for me). It is also unavoidable (by the very act of making a documentary or writing a biography you make the subjective judgement that your subject is worthy of attention). Not labelling your work as such does present an ethical problem. I am responsible to critically analyse what I see and hear, but that is not licence for explicit misrepresentation on the part of an author, artist, or filmmaker.

Can you all tell I missed lunch today?

Here are other instances of news programming reporting life out of context:

• The 40 minutes every day spent reporting on the 3 violent crimes that happened last night versus the 5 minute story reporting ONE volunteer out of an entire organization of 50 individuals that tutors the community children. One encourages people to be more suspicious of each other, the other encourages people to be more helpful to each other. One story is newsworthy and interesting, the other is un-newsworthy, less important, and boring - only able to hold public interest for 5 minutes.
• The news report that praises how a Senator pushes a clean air bill through Congress, but neglects his allowance of a piggy back on that legislation that funnels funds away from educating our children.
• The news reporter who begs the public to send money into a fund for the dead officer, but neglects to mention that they already pay for his life insurance policy, which will be paying his wife 5 million dollars.
• The news report that chooses to "err on the side of safety" by recommending snow storm preparation procedures that direct the paranoid public to the stores of their prized advertisers.
• Etcetera, Etcetera
• I could go ON and ON....

Selective editing doesn't only take place on the material broadcase across the wavelengths, but selective editing in programming - choosing which of life's events are "newsworthy" and which aren't.

Despite my annoyance at most news programming:
Selective editing is ethical, legal, and necessary. Truth always floats up to the surface, so I'm not concerned. The only people who live their lives in a jaded, biased way are those who don't know enough to search for more than face value. The average American will always judge a book by it's cover. The solution is not to label book covers as unethical - the solution is to educated the average American to be more inquisitive. People like Michael Moore get that inquisitive gene stimulated in the average American.

If people like Michael Moore didn't fight to keep the other side of the story, the other side of the "news" - the "non-newsworthy" events in the public eye, for the public to decide whether or not that aspect of life is interesting or newsworthy - then we'd all be under the repression of self-imposed censorship. If social norms ever decide that 'selective editing' is unethical, (and if we held news stations to that same ethical standard, which is a BIG IF) all news stations will become so boring that they won't be entertaining to watch - they won't be able to hold public interest. And if the news stations ever are allowed to have free rein over the term "newsworthy", we're all in trouble. While Michael Moore's documentary might have a very biased edge to it, all of that thunder could have been intercepted by unbiased news reporting earlier on.

edited: to add article

I was hoping we wouldn't get back to the documentary = news and dry fact discussion, but I guess it must be addressed again. I laid it out starting with this post in another thread.

A documentary is a style of film-making, there is nothing implied in there about truth, being news-like or anything of that nature despite what merriam-webster might have to say about it. If you were to talk to a film student, that is the definition you'd probably get. I know because I asked one


That is a pretty weak example in my opinion. Bush was talking about the problem rather seriously and then made the remark. Moore didn't edit the remark, so I don't see what the problem is. Bush was talking about terrorists, and last time I checked he doesn't differentiate between terrorists who strike the US and terrorists who strike elsewhere, he is after all of them.

The other example with the congressman might have some merit, but notice it says cut from the "trailer". By its very definition, trailers are edited to showcase exciting events in movies. Sometimes the stuff in the trailer doesn't even happen in the movie, or happen in the order in which it is presented. Are the makers of the Matrix unethical because they present a trailer that makes the story appear to go a different way than it does? The important thing is how is the Senator portrayed in the movie itself?

I guess Merriam-Webster should get with you regarding their definitions because:



Wow! I wish I had the qualifications to redefine terms.

Sarcasm aside, CJ you just can't redefine terms to fit your debate.

Sleeper, if you would kindly take a look at the post which I linked you will see that Merriam-Webster's definition does not match up with how the academy awards defines "Documentary". If you take a look at how film textbooks define the genre, you will also see that the Merriam-Webster definition does not match. Here is a sample of some of those definitions:


Now if we are going to get into a battle of the dictionaries I'm going to go with the authorities that actually know something about the subject (i.e. The Academy Awards and Film Professors) and not something general like Merriam-Webster.

I'll also say that a statement "It's true because it says so in the dictionary" is probably one of the worst ways to support your case. It doesn't work with the homosexual marriage debate and it doesn't work here. How the film industry defines Documentary is what is important.

LOL The academy awards?!?

I will have to remember them next time I want to use them as a credible source.

As a last statement, when you splice and combine scenes to of a person from different times and places to make it appear that it was said in the context it is being presented, that is blatantly dishonest.

I will bow out of this debate now...

I see a real problem here finger pointing aside, words are intended to define a concept and if the same word has a contradictory definition I tend to think the more universal definition to be more appropriate. I actually am concerned, not being a film major I would most likely go to a dictionary to get the definition and it would not occur to me seek another source. Now if the artists creating said documentary believes it to be opinion and the viewer believes it to be an objective presentation of fact then we have a real riff here, and a very misleading one at that.


documentary

 

SYLLABICATION:
doc·u·men·ta·ry

PRONUNCIATION:
  dky-mnt-r

ADJECTIVE:
1. Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents. 2. Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.

NOUN:
Inflected forms: pl. doc·u·men·ta·ries
A work, such as a film or television program, presenting political, social, or historical subject matter in a factual and informative manner and often consisting of actual news films or interviews accompanied by narration.

American Heritage Dictionary

I don't see how that follows. If you seek to define a concept specifically related to your field, are you going to go to a general source like a dictionary or are you going to use an industry specific source like a textbook, white paper or trade publication?

I'll give you an example from my field - let's say I wanted to define "Object Oriented"? That isn't even in the dictionary, but it is still a concept that exists. I would be forced to go to something that relates specifically to programming in order to define that concept.

The dictionary also doesn't completely flesh out concepts (and this is the case with the definition of documentary -- it is one of the interpretations). If I go to merriam-webster.com and look up the definition for a photography concept, depth of field, this is what I get:


Ok great, but what does that mean? I know what it means because I am familiar with the concept, but if I knew nothing about photography (as many here probably don't) then what information would this arm you with? Could you describe this concept, perhaps teach it to someone else? Demonstrate it? Recognize it? I hardly think so.

Let's also not forget that most dictionaries define marriage as the union between a man and a woman. Well shoot I guess that settles that debate, it says so right in the dictionary.

My point is, "because it says so in the dictionary" isn't a good source and I think we should all strive to set higher standards than that.

CJ- I understand where you are coming from and not wanting to inhibit the creative flow in creating a movie. You choose to find more validity in the Academy Awards definition of a documentary and I find more validity in the dictionary's definition.

Selective editing in a documentary is not meant to allow the audience to draw their own conclusions with the topic, it is meant to sway the audience to believe that they are getting the whole truth. MM can still have his slant, he can still say he doesn't approve, and he can still make his case that the current administration is horrible but he leaves the arena of ethical to unethical when he does it in such a way that does not allow the viewer the opportunity to draw their own conclusions.

Ethics in and of themselves are subjective. I happen to hold documentaries on a higher ethical ground and believe it is the responsibility of the film maker to try and stay as objective as possible. MM does not pass this test for me.

I have seen interviews of MM and I don't ever want him to stop saying what he has to say. He can remain as critical as he wishes but when he first makes such a clear statement that everything is factual and accurate, leading the viewer to believe that they are indeed getting the whole picture, and then goes on to say that these are his opinions he is in effect trying to confuse the viewer. Since most of his statement is about how this is an accurate sequence of events then I believe he has already placed an ethical burden on himself. Sure he hasn't gone to the illegal realm (yet) but ethics have nothing to do with legality. Ethics have to do with a set of principles and moral values. Since I view his principles in use of selective editing to be immoral I draw the conclusion that he is unethical.

The media has powerful tools at their disposal and it can be used to manipulate the response of the viewer. Some of it is inherent to the mere fact that they have to edit in order to get the communication out. If you are purposefully editing to lead the viewer to a conclusion that is not completely valid and portraying these actions as completely factual well then you have crossed the line, in my opinion, from ethical to unethical. The viewer, with all the context, could still very well come to the same conclusions that you do but they are not afforded the opportunity to make a reasonable conclusion.

I can not hold documentaries on the same level as art. Yes there are creative aspects to it but for me getting the whole truth, in the proper context, is more important then the creative part.

OK as to Depth of field LOL I do know what that means , and I wouldn't look any further I would then say DUUUH has it been that long since you picked up a real camera OK seriously if I didn't understand it, I would research further.

Now in the case of the dictionary definitions of documentary they are pretty clear, I wouldn't feel need to look further. Like I said before it is the contradiction that concerns me more. The artists intent in creating the piece and the common viewers perception of the piece. Art is about relaying a message the type of art created is categorized by the genre, I always thought that documentaries were to be as fact based as possible, opinion to be left up to the viewer. This is all very new to me.

Edited...after much heated debate as to the proper spelling and pronunciation of the word DUH though with a long A sound, as I don't believe it is in the dictionary for easy reference the consensus is that I must edit my post and DAAA now becomes DUUUH

It's not anything new Piper. I believe CJ is just trying to find a definition which fits his argument best. Remember it all boils down to what the meaning of is "is".

That is not what I'm doing, I'm suggesting (I think correctly) that the people actually responsible for working in the film industry, teaching at prestigious schools, making awards and analyzing film are infinitely more qualified to say what a "documentary" is than a simple sentence in Merriam-Webster.

Art is not an absolute science and cannot be treated as such. It also can't be put in some box by a simple dictionary definition, its scope is much larger than that.

One of documentary films' old masters, Wolf Koenig, put it perfectly. In documentary cinema "[e]very cut is a lie. It’s never that way. Those two shots were never next to each other in time that way. But you’re telling a lie in order to tell the truth."

Documentary films are not journalism. They are supposed to have a point of view. If this is misunderstood by the audience, that's terribly sad that they are such susceptible viewers.



Is selective editing and the use of out of context quotes even with material that's in the public domain an ethical thing to do? Why or why not? In the context of documentary-- like Mr. Moore's-- absolutely it is ethical ], expected and required to illustrate the point of the bloody project.

Ethical in so-called 'straight' journalism? Of course not. People have to trust journalism to SOME degree at least for it to serve its important watchdog role.

That's not what Moore does though. He doesn't strive to "tell the truth" with his editing. Instead, he attempts to portray a myth by distortion and then turn around and claim it's all true. They really said that and they probably did, but by distorting or changing the context of the circumstance, Moore attempts to mislead. To me, that crosses the ethical boundary, even for a so-called "documentary".

I agree with you Aquilla, even though I agree with Moore's conclusions - I have merely based my conclusions on objective fact-finding and research, not snippets of news broadcasts taken out of context - I do not approve of dishonest methods to get there. But, while I may agree with you about the nastiness of this methodology, gosh - that's what movement conservatives have been doing for several decades - going back to The News Twisters and really culminating with the Clinton presidency. If we're going to denounce this tactic, we've also got to be honest about who all uses it!

I don't have any channels on my TV at home, but last week I was in a hotel, so I watched FOX News a lot, just as an observer. I noticed that, hours (minutes) after John Kerry clearly stated that he thought giving the president the kind of authorization to commit troops that Bush was given, and which Kerry voted for, was the right thing to do, FOX was taking his statement way out of context. Old smug O'Reilly was blathering on, saying Kerry was clearly stating he supported the authorization of Bush's Iraq invasion, and what a hypocrite because now he says he doesn't. Of course, it didn't take much of a brain to suss out what Kerry was really saying.