Should a team doing a documentary on drug use/abuse give a drunk participant a ride instead of let her drive?

Question

I saw AE's Intervention last night. It is a documentary program that follows people who have alcohol/drug use problems. The story was about a woman who had a very serious problem with drinking. At 2 points during the show the woman was given a ride by the documentary producers because they did not want her to drive. I believe that to shoot a true documentary one should not interfer in the result, because then you become a participant, and the show is not longer a documentary. For instance if you saw that movie, The March of the Penguins, even though many penguins died from starvation, attacks and the elements, the producers did not interfer and let nature take its course. I understand that in Intervention we are talking about humans, but should a person shooting a documentary become involved in it to that level. This is just something I've been thinking about. Serious answers only, please.

This is a question about journalistic integrity folks and objectivity, not just your high morals. And no I don't want to see anyone killed, but that means you don't understand the question either.

Answer 1

OK. All the people who answered are idiots because: 1) they need to get off their high-horses; and 2) they didn't understand the question. I understand the question. I think your concern goes more toward the implications of losing journalistic integrity by getting involved with the subject matter of the documentary. Essentially, journalists are NOT to interfere with the course of action involving the subject matter (e.g., helping a penguin across the road to prevent it from getting squashed) because doing so, would of course, violate that sacred rule of objectivity. For those of you idiots who can't understand this concept, it's the same consideration an attorney defending an accused murderer would have: namely, that regardless of whether the defendant is guilty or not, the attorney's job is to ensure that the defendant gets a fair trial. Same thing with this situation, I think ultimately, the guy filming needs to maintain integrity by not getting involved. However, I don't think that in this situation, the integrity is not violated as the level of involvement with the subject matter is really minimal. It is not like actually lending her money to go get drunk. So, no, no problem exists here. It's all a case-by-case basis. And for that idiot who asks "Do you need her to drive drunk and kill someone to be a true documentary??," take some classes on analytical thinking.

Do you need her to drive drunk and kill someone to be a true documentary??

Answer 2

Well the way of the wild doesn't really apply in this instance. To interfere in the penguins way of life would have been wrong as the balance is very easy to upset. If a lion was chasing an antelope we wouldn't interfere because this is a catch 22 situation. Save the antelope and let the lion starve or let the lion eat?
The documentary is very different. First of all they can't put a camera man in the car with the woman knowing that's she's under the influence and more likely to have an accident. Secondly they have morals and couldn't possibly endanger the lives of others if they know they can prevent it. Wouldn't you feel responsible if someone you were filming got into their car, drove away and killed a child getting their ball from the road. Especially when all you had to do was give them a lift.

Answer 3

The difference here is that letting a Penguin die doesn't put you or anyone else at any risk. Letting a drunk person drive you in their car is absolutely moronic. Is a documentary worth losing your life for?

Additionally, there will be various forms of insurance paid for by A&E to cover employees against injury etc while on the job filming. Knowingly getting into a car with a drunk driver would certainly void any insurance policy.

Think about this. You decide not to drive with her but let her drive home drunk and just follow her in another car. While driving along you see her run a red light up ahead and smash into the side of someone elses car, killing herself plus a mother and child from the other car.

Just how important is the realism of your documentary?

Answer 4

You cannot equate a documentary about substance abuse with a documentary about Nature---they are not the same thing.

Letting nature take its course is not the same thing as knowingly allowing someone to drive who may end up hurting (or ending) their own or other's lives. I'm sure a documentarian is affected by a penguin getting eaten by seal, but how would that same person feel if the let someone drive drunk (for the sake of realism) then also followed them, witnessed a horrific accident (all covered on film), then had to sit back and watch mutilated bodies be pulled from the wreckage of a major accident?

Let's put it this way---you are doing a documentary about children's style of play. At some point, a toddler wanders from the park, goes into the street and is hit by a bus. All on video and you captured it beautifully! Should you have stopped the child before he got to the street?

Answer 5

Gotta disagree with you on this one.

I get your point, but what if the producers let her drive and she killed someone or herself?

If I were a family member of the deceased you can bet your red hot bannas I would sue A&E into bankruptcy. They are directly involved, not just an average bystander, as they are filming it for their commercial gain. They are after all making money on a hit show.

A show is a show. A life more valuable...dontcha think?

How would you feel if it were your loved one?

ADD: I did understand your question. But journalistic integrity isn't just about filming the facts. There are also ethics involved.

Journalists all over the world have been killed themselves by involving themselves in "the story", not just reporting it, because it's the right thing (in their own minds) to do.

There's a bigger picture in this kind of documentary too. It's not a nature doc., it's not on a completely harmless subject. There are consquential outcomes. Legal ramifications, etc..

Also, the producers may not have cared about capturing the addict actually driving. More perhaps to portray the addicts (alcohol in this case) willingness to drive and ergo disregard possible harm to self or others. They didn't have to let it play out to portray it.

If these aren't the answers you're looking for, pose this question to a journalism school I think you'll find the answers will be similar.

Answer 6

I understand where you are coming from, however, we are talking about humans and not penguins here. We are also talking legalities here. Had the producer allow an intoxicated person to drive, he could be held responsible for her killing someone. He is doing a documentary true, but that doesn't mean she can't self destruct on camera all on her own without crashing into an innocent person(s). If she was all over the road, and a cop pulled her over with him in the car, the police would ask why wasn't he driving...."well, officer, you see I am doing a documentary on people with substance abuse.....", so allowing her to endanger someone elses life just to make a documentary, I think the cop would be pissed....It would be irresponsible!!!!

Answer 7

Your question is quite profound. Instead of dealing with the defining of a documentary, I offer a fishing metaphor: When my brother and I head out in the boat to do some fishing, he catches the big one and I catch nothing: yet we are both fishing. I think in both examples you cite, a documentary is being made regardless of whether the drunk drives or does not drive.

Any documentary comes to an end at the discretion of the producer, so I think your example has more to do with when to start or stop the documentary and not the status of it being a documentary.

Answer 8

For them to NOT do things that way (giving her a ride),.. they would have to mount equipment around her car (for fear for their own lives). The Equipment might be lost and if the person being interviewed dies then they may have to go through alot of problems... like their equipment being taken,.. some things being taken from them by a judge,.. and the Documentary would never be shown.

Some Drunks will REFUSE a ride and insist they drive on their own. Some will take a ride from anyone to offer. So as I see it they did not interfer as much as you believe. The only difference is if someone else had given them a ride they might have robbed, raped, beatten or dumped them,.. all of this the crew would not have been able to record any which way you try to think of it.

Answer 9

In the interest of public safety I applaud them for having driven her. Could you imagine if she had hit and killed someone. I find if hard to swallow that this would have made the documentary more realistic. If I were a producer of a film like this I would always stick to my beliefs in helping someone rather then just "getting the shot."

It is an interesting question but I think it would be better applied to scenes like March of the Penguins etc. and not a human drama.

Answer 10

as a recovering alcoholic, i watch that show also. However, when i get that drunk i would hope that people would interfer. I have had many blackout drunk days (as it appeared she did too), where i would drive and thank god didn't kill anyone. So when someone goes on a show like that i am sure that they sign forms that if it endagers the life of the subject and even worse innocent bystanders. So my answer would be that they were deffinately doing the right thing.