Should people shooting a documentary on drug abuse give ride to a drunk participant instead of let them 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

I accidentally posted this question twice so please give me a break.
Secondly, I am not in school and I already have my juris doctorate and I'm an attorney in Arizona. This is purely a philosophical question. Yes, sometimes people just wonder and it isn't necessarily for a class project or to elicit angry bitter responses. Again, I reiterate that this question is about journalistic integrity and being objective when presenting a documentary. To those of you who have in some strange way taken personal offense to a question on yahoo answers, please don't take yourselves too seriously. This is a website devoted solely to curiosity, not to personal affronts of others because you have some underling issues. Thank you to all of you who are just interested in discussing a philosophical topic, and please get lost to those of you that really need to get a life.

Answer 1

Well... there are laws about blood alcohol content while driving, and they don't have exceptions for documentaries. Even if it were legal, there's liability to consider. (Aside from, of course, just plain ethics!)

I don't think March of the Penguins is a good parallel for practical reasons, as well. It would take a great deal of resources to shelter and feed the penguins. It's more like doing a documentary on starvation in Africa. If you were determined, you might be able to help a couple people out while you were around, but not hundreds. Another thing to consider is that interfering with the penguins would undermine the very subject of the film, while a documentary gains virtually nothing from reckless driving. There are many other ways to elucidate things about alcoholism and driving.

Another thing to keep in mind is that documentaries are not "real life"; they are presentations about it. Whether or not you interfere with the material you're documenting, you necessarily "interfere with" (ie. plan, edit, produce) the presentation. It is a form of storytelling, and there's nothing wrong with that. Your choice to take a non-participatory role is still a choice about the storytelling. I'm not saying that every documentary producer should get all personal about things, just that there are many possible approaches and I question the idea of there being a "true documentary." :)

On a tangental note, have you ever read Speaker for the Dead, by Orson Scott Card? It's a sequel to the book Ender's Game. I mention it because it has some related themes, including the idea of telling the truth about someone (their flaws and all) after their death (consequently revealing some not-so-comfortable things about the living), and how a human colony interacts with an intelligent alien species. I was reminded of it because the scientists try to be as hands-off as possible, but for better and worse this starts to break down. You might enjoy it.

Answer 2

I'm going to give you the same answer I gave you yesterday, because I don't think you get what journalistic integrity is.

Especially since the best answer you picked for this question yesterday was obviously from someone who read your additional comment before answering.

I did understand your question the first time. What I think you're failing to get is that journalistic integrity isn't just about filming the facts, documentary or not. There are also ethics involved. This is not a nature film we're talking about.

And the whole concept of the show is INTERVENTION.

Again, 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. There are consquential outcomes. Legal ramifications, etc..

Also, you're failing to see the production company's point of the show. They are not caring about capturing the addict actually driving. They have portrayed the addicts willingness to drive and ergo disregard possible harm to self or others. They didn't have to let it play out to portray it. The facts of the doc are therefore displayed and held true.

I dare say that you would not find a true journalist with integrity involved in filming a documentary in the manner in which you believe it should've been filmed. IE: Just let it play out without any intervening. A journalist lacking intergrity would, and if there had been consequences, the journalists involved would have had criminal negligence charges. Rightly so.

Journalists are not strangers to being scapegoated by the legal system for their ethical standards. But generally I find it's for taking the higher ground, not the lower. Which is what inaction in this case would have been.

Answer 3

I think they did the right thing. Think about the possibly of her killing an innocent person. Now think about how you would feel if you were close to that innocent person. You would want the people to get involved to stop her from driving drunk.

Answer 4

difficult aspect. look into at google or bing. it could help!