What Makes a Documentary Ethical (Or Not)? 

Have you seen Season 2 of Tiger King yet? Thanks to LG for sponsoring this video! Check out the LG OLED TV 65C1 here ► bit.ly/WIsecrack_LGOLEDTV_YTI

I interned for an editing house that handled a lot of true crime detective shows. It was there that I realized that a lot of stuff really crosses the line in to voyeurism. There's like, no one to contact when the show is over if you have a lead on a cold case. The shows were just made to watch people cry on screen about their loved ones and marvel at the atrocities. Then that's it, you turn off your TV and go about your business. Do you live your life in fear afterwards? Do you try to help people? I don't know what people do after they binge on hours of murder podcasts. This unfortunately hit too close to home as a few years ago a close family member of mine was murdered. I saw the cameras flock to my family and I felt absolutely disgusted. To this day I cannot stomach to watch anything true crime related. So I feel deeply for everyone involved in docuseries and the struggles of trying to be as truthful as you can while reliving some of the most painful things in your life.

This is why I had to stop making documentaries. Any way I chopped it, it always seemed unethical to me. I just don’t feel right controlling the narratives of other people’s lives through my lens. I believe in order to have a truly ethical documentary, we have to include the subjects in all parts of the documentary process; from shooting to editing.

I feel like mocumentaries such as The Office and Parks & Rec may have something with our disassociation with these people. These shows made it so much easier to think of these people as just some characters..

Much is made here about how the audience for Tiger King are middle class coastals sneering down their nose at the crazy hillbillies in flyover country, but I can tell you that even your ordinary hillbillies in flyover country were looking down their nose at the Tiger King crew. That shit isn't normal anywhere and thus why it was so widely viewed.

My girl and I were stoked to see it pop on on the home page. 10 minutes into the first episode...we just felt the post pandemic clarity. Couldn't finish it.

I believe that all documentaries are created with the intent to persuade in one direction. It’s never as objective as they claim, with that being said there is always space for fiction and speculation when there’s a point to be made. Documentaries are seen as “truth revelations” but they’re really just a carefully selected batch of images being shone in a particular order in order to get the viewer to arrive at a certain feeling or thought.

did you know Nanook of the North died of starvation the next year because the documentary team took up vital time he needed to feed his family over a sustained period off one animal. it's not just him his family also lost others to starvation that year as well. Also his real name wasn't Nanook either.

My sister works with the homeless in downtown Vancouver. This big name documentarian came to do a film on the homeless first nation people. Two things he did was bring bottles of high end whisky to people who will steal hand sanitizer to drink. Another thing was he talked some of the residents into having a bonfire in remembrance of the death of a friend of theirs. He then filmed my sister and other aid workers stop them. Thing the documentary failed to mention was that the workers and other residents had just came back from the dead mans funeral and that the only reason those guys weren't there was they were drinking the whisky the documentarian gave them.

The end of Don't Fuck with Cats ends on this exact question. We're they partly responsible for giving the killed the attention he craved, it ends with them stating well here you are watching a 3 hr documentary about the murders what does that say about our own complacency

This is some great, thought provoking content! I actually had a very different experience watching Tiger King from the “middle class suburbanite” feeling superior to the “flyover hick.” What I found really interesting was all the people who worked for Joe. Lovers, people who seem a little outside the gender binary, I think he said he picked up one dude who was just homeless down by the bus stop. I was fascinated by the blurred line of Joe’s obvious exploitation of these people, but also the genuine compassion he held for them. It was a show full of confusing ethics - the Joe-Carole contrast, to me, was first and foremost one of class. Carole is well integrated into society, follows and obeys strict guidelines, has a bourgeois image and aesthetic, but exploits a free labor pool. Joe lives outside the law in many ways, has a meth habit, breeds cubs for sale to rich assholes, and works with a, and forgive me because I don’t mean to be derogatory, but a bunch of misfits who want no part of proper society. Being real, I’ve got family not too far off from the people working for Joe Exotic - living in the fringe, addicted to drugs, mostly out of contact, no money, no attachments. Most society treats people like that as literal refuse. Seeing Joe pick these people up and bring them into his semilegal and highly exploitative operation - well, I’ll be honest, it gave me mixed feelings. Joe created a home that those people seemed genuinely comfortable in, at least for a while, and tried to do what he thought was right outside the rules of a society that he thought was wrong. Even while I loathe the big cat trade, I couldn’t help but feel sympathy for him and admire his free spirit that reminded me of some of my relatives. Idk, just my thoughts. I think this video is spot on - “new sincerity” is largely a sham, and even when documentary filmmakers go out to try and faithfully represent the fringe in a nuanced light, they mostly end up producing poverty porn for bougies looking for the closest thing they can get to a carnival freak show, hunting down the next exploitative drama that will scratch that voyeuristic itch (looking at you, Channel5). It’s a gross industry in a heartless world, and yet I can’t deny I too am hopelessly addicted. What to do?

I hear what Michael is saying here and he makes a lot of great points but...ummm...did I watch a different documentary as everyone else? I always viewed Joe Exotic as the villian who horribly abused the animals, did nothing for conservation, and exploited a young man to essentially sell his body for drugs which ultimately led to his tragic suicide. Did others read this show differently?

A lot of the topics in this video remind me of the things Lovely Lor has said about TLC’s “Living Doll” program. She was contacted by the documenters, who claimed they wanted to film an informative piece about lolita fashion, but also wanted her to call the fashion style “dolly fashion”. She ultimately declined to participate in the project, and the two lolitas who did participate where largely mischaracterized in the final product.

Thanks so much for this video. It echoes a lot of my thoughts that I've never been able to put into words on what I find wrong with most documentaries. I feel like I'm arguing with every documentary I'm watching and I'm always wondering what their angle is and how much I can trust them, even if what they're saying is 100% factual. Lies by omission.

From what I remember from watching Tiger King a year ago, it had a heavy Libertarian bias throughout the entire show. It didn't seem to focus on the morality of owning said animals, but the morality of taking away the rights of those people to own those animals. That's why Joe hated Carol so much, and that's why the show villainized her and focused so much on the only facets they could attack her character on.

Yes, I thought more could have been made of the fact that Carole B looked after her cats a lot better than did Joe E and the rest

Never watched Tiger King and I thought it was a mockumentary until I've watched another documentary about this documentary and the dark side of this story

10:02 The lack of empathy is the most disturbing thing I've seen on Wisecrack...

Am i losing my mind? I swear the show highlighted the horrors of what they were doing. I don't remember exactly but I'm just so confused this is the message people took away from this doc because i never once looked at any of it and thought "derrrr this looks good for tigers" Like didn't they expose Doc and Joe for killing tigers once they weren't small and marketable anymore?

Tiger King came at a perfect time when a lot of people were held captive in their homes by a pandemic, and this show presented a crazier, escapist world then the existing turbulent reality. I don't think most viewers are not "entangled with the ethical concerns" of the documentary considering the level of Joe fans and Carol haters out there. Also how almost everyone featured that's not Joe or Carol appear be reaping some significant social & capitalist success.

I feel like like this right here also represents the admittedly blurry line between documentary and reality TV.

Tiger king is like crack, You know its not good for you but you just want more.

I just rewatched season one the other night and... They really do work to make Carole seem villainous and Joe seem like a wacky antihero. When nothing is so black and white, but Carole didn't kill her husband and was being threatened and harassed and stalked by a nutjob and because he had more sympathetic light we all laughed it off but like, holy shit. Not.to.mentiom all the crimes against animals Joe commited? He deserves to do prison time. As does pretty much every one else involved, with few exceptions.

TBH when I watched the show the outcome I had was to understand Carole was for the better or worse the better alternative for the cats (between the two) and fighting for the end of private ownership (even if at face value) while Joe was just a standard run of the mill exploiter, the cats meant nothing to him but a paycheck and that becomes clearer and clearer by the end showing him killing the cats when they were a bigger expense than money and breeding just to exploit the kittens.

In the documentarians defense, they really had set out to do a documentary on the unethical treatment of big cats, but while doing their initial research and filming they began to uncover the crazy story that we watched in the show.

Once again, great video guys. Really makes you think about our role as audience members! I just have one question… what is that red that that shows up for a split second at 16:20???

When I first saw Tiger King, I liked to see that lolcow Joe Exotic being exploited into oblivion. He exploited tigers, he was getting a taste of his own medicine. Then I watched part two and heard him gloat about his fame in prison. There is no point in trying to shame that man. He does not know embarassment. As long as he has eyeballs on him, he is high on dopamine and blissfully unaware that people make fun of him. But are people are the people he exploited, his victims, as immune to humiliation? Season 2 is dedicated to the late Erik Cowie, the blonde-haired tiger keeper in season 1. He had substance abuse issues that Joe exploited already...and season one exploited Joe's exploitation of him. He was found dead of alcohol poisoning. Only Erik knows what was in Eric's head, but viral fame certainly didn't help his issues.

I didn't think this was a documentary series, I thought it was a reality show.

The lack of ethics with Tiger King became obvious when the GW Zoo in Oklahoma was breaking its attendance records last year...

I would be fascinated to get wisecrack's opinion on "Behind the Curve", the documentary around the flat earth conspiracy theorists. I found it very well presented, with what I felt was a pretty ethical documentary

absolutely fantastic analysis. I've done documentary film-making myself, but took a break to examine my perspective/gaze and think about how to move forward when the main "characters"/"subjects" of the film are very real people, who have to be squeezed into a tightly woven narrative, which is bound to leave out parts of their story. Thank you for the implicit tips on how to be more ethical!

At least they addressed the argument that tiger breeders help to repopulate the species and how it's a myth in the second season. And addressed that there was plenty of space for tigers to be in the wild. I would've liked an entire episode dedicated to educating people about conservation. I mean if they can do an entire one dedicated to Don being in costs rica (which to me was the least interesting part) why not tackle the big cat issue as well once viewers are already buckled in and binge watching

Watched an episode and a half and it's clear people didn't understand everyone in the documentary is insane and the treatment of the animals is appalling. Just because someone is on a TV show doesn't make them a hero.

Kept the show at an arm's length during the early times of the pandemic. I found out I subconsciously judge my entertainment by how I feel after I've watched it. It's part of the entertainment to not feel bad for watching it - at least for me. Watching the trailers for it, I already felt like I was dragged into a freak show. So I passed. The Jan 6th documentary by the BBC seemed to have the same kind of voyeurism about it and I felt the same way until a scene where some of the rioters shared a couple of joints in the halls of congress in an absurdly wonderfull moment of bonding. I was thankful for the inner conflict this gave me, bc I related to these people for a second while being appauled by them seconds later. That ambiguity felt sincere und real and asked me a tough question: how can such a mundane, even likeable thing happen during the same event that killed 5 people and tried to overthrow the most powerful country on earth with all the repercussions this meant. That ambiguity, to me, became the whole point: how postmodernly infantile, unreal and tongue on cheek political desasters like Brexit or Jan 6th can feel, while having real life consequences with death, injuries, depression and 'regular people' imprisoned. That documentary, while flawed, did something that TIGER KING never would've done: it talked to me.

I can say that I have watched more Wisecrack videos about Tiger King, than I have watched seconds of the actual show.

When is a show a documentary, and when is it just sensational reality TV? For me, documentaries are about education, but I have yet to hear one person say "today on Tiger King I learned something".

Saff is the true Tiger King. Prove Me Wrong. Also, I honestly liked Carole Baskin, and really admired her for trying to push for legislation banning big cat ownership. This signaled to me that she really did puts the cats first. In contrast, Doc Antle made the hair stand up on the back of my neck from the moment he was on screen.

It was brought up during work meetings over and over when it came out. I put it on in the background at some point but felt it was just mean spirited. I think it’s pretty common for people to like looking at the circumstances others are in to feel better about their own. Honestly, that was my takeaway over the last 1.5+ years of events on the news: like wow I’m not as much of a mess as I thought lol

Congrats on the LG sponsorship.

The documentary Don't F*ck with Cats ends with a damnation of us at viewers. It hit me hard.

Thanks. I found this very interesting.

I edited a documentary so it could air on TV. Won’t get into details but it was a story about struggling business owners and government policies that actively hurt their business, and I turned it into a doc about business owners who just don’t know how to run their business so the government doesn’t look bad…. Yeah, I know. This is why documentaries are the worst genre. Their either purposely omitting facts to push a bias narrative, or their just no different than a RU-vid video without that little something that makes it cinematic. Even docs with messages I agree with I still think they stink because they’re made like a reading a Wikipedia page. You know who makes the best docs? Werner Herzog. Not because he doesn’t manipulate the reality or is a “fly on the wall”. Lol, oh no. He lies quite often. But he does what he does to tell a broader truth about humanity, not to push a narrative.

I remember watching a film called “Drugged: High on Alcohol” where they shove a camera in the face of a man dying of alcoholism and they refuse to intervene.

The series were definately a cringe to watch, but fascinating for someone who knows minimal about the subject. I remember watching with detachment and disgust, but still with interest. Also conscious of not being able to do much against this pet industry...

Great video, thanks :)

I remember hating this documentary before I watched it, then hating it more after I watched it because people wouldn't shut the up about it. It just seemed like it was exploiting and glorifying stupid assholes...so I guess it makes sense why it got so popular in this country.

This is why I always felt uneasy about true crime documentaries because there’s something very uncomfortable for me about shoving a camera in someone's face and forcing them to relive extremely painful memories and editing the interview to reinforce what the filmmaker wants us to feel. It almost feels like it trivilazes the humans involved in what's turned into another story that feels more fictional than real when put in that way.

I misread the title as 'What makes a Debate ethical' and instantly thought of one word: Bothsideism.

If you have to ask if something is ethical it probably isn’t

Did you mispronounce "cinema verité" forcing a re-dub?

6:26 very smooth editing there you guys. I don't think anyone noticed

Koyaanisqatsi, Baraka and Samsara may be the best observational documentaries ever made. The only issue is that the music creates such a powerful tone that your opinions are being led by the music. Even without dialogue I feel les by what's on screen. But still, it shows truth and tries to captures the emotions they felt while filming it. Seriously everyone should check them out.

The irony. The ad for a TV that distorts the image from how the creator intended, while Wisecrack explores how docs distort real life. As someone who works in film and TV: yes. 🤣

As you dive deeper into the layers of analysing a show, the less likely other people will have had the same line of reasoning as you did. The average TV binger probably hasn't thought that deeply about their own "voyeuristic urges" at all, so I don't think that was the main intention of the documentary makers.

Every mention of the term cinema verite is looped in this video, which makes me wonder what the original script said.

But I thought that they did showcase how tiger breeding by private zoo's was problematic by showing how Joe's place treated them?

I am glad this video commented on the post-season 1 interview special. I remember being extremely disappointed (and indignant) watching it. They had a chance to really delve into something fascinating, on a psychological level. Instead, the whole thing was played off like a joke.

Don't Look Back is one of my favourite documentaries. Not sure what makes it better than other pop docs, e.g. the one about the Beatles on tour in the Us, but probably something about Dylan's character at the time. It's the quintessence of rock star cool as acerbic aggression. That said, I also really like Robert Frank's Stones doc, 'C•••sucker Blues.'

I strongly agree that the after show was more explicative and dehumanizing to the people in the show itself

Haven't seen Tiger King and don't really fancy it, but might be interesting to compare with Errol Morris's Gates of Heaven, about pet cemetaries. Could also be seen as exploiting the weirdness of flyover country, but I found it astonishing.

Thanks for breaking this down in words, what I had feelings about. That’s why i just couldn’t bare to watch the Tiger King - it felt like exploitation

Wow, I never knew that about old documentary footage, that most of it was meticulously planned and staged. That’s really important to know, I feel like it’s easy to fall for something when someone says “but it was caught on film”

I love Michael's clear stream of consciousness

Get that bread but nobody is buying a $7000 tv from a youtube ad lmao

Whether they tell the truth, simple as. The events or reasons for the documentary do not matter if it’s done in good faith and you’re getting the whole story. Obviously, we can’t have the full story if someone involved is dead, but that should be noted in the production either directly or at the end as part of the closing credits.

It actually blew my mind that people hated Carol and assumed her guilt. I tried defending her and everyone laughed at me. I'm a fucking genius apparently . I swear I did not watch the same show as everyone else. Why would anyone believe Joe's narrative?

I have had that same experience Norouzi talks about, while watching Law & Order SVU. I realized the structure of an episode (or "the deal" as I thought at the time) was we spend 5 minutes watching some crime that had a "special victim," and in return we got to spend the rest of the time watching Marska Hargitay be compassionate and Chris Meloni be angry. After that I had to stop watching- but I don't think that is that common (at least for Law & Order).

Why is the thumbnail for a video about documentaries a picture of two people from a reality show? Reality shows and documentaries are different categories right? Like a documentary is educational and a reality show is sort of the exact opposite of educational?

Tiger king's huge popularity shows would-be film makers that this type of documentary style entertainment is good, which will lead to more exploitative shows and films, rather than solving any of the problems we see, because there's a detachment. So, yes, by watching Tiger King, or anything similar, the audience is implicit in any mistreatment or exploitation.

Why is this even a question? We have proven time and time again that we don't care as long as it entertains us.

I paid for RU-vid premium to not have to sit through ads, still had two with this one...😅

Was that an “among us” character that skirted behind you when you said “pretty sus”?

I think another important aspect of this is that content is expected to be entertaining, and our expectations for entertainment have been distorted by reality TV. After countless seasons of shows like the Real Housewives of (insert city), we may be less concerned about the social issues presented in documentaries and mainly drawn by the individual quirks of each character, their bickering, their loudness, their obnoxiousness, or anything else that makes us feel superior.

I've yet to see or hear anything about Tiger King that made me want to even start an episode. :P This confirmed I probably made the right choice. :/

I like documentaries, so I always make myself ask whats the narrative the documentary is pushing? Is the narrative in line with the sinopsys of the film? what aspects of the film did not click and how can I find out more about the topic discussed that does not come from this same sources. It has helped me a lot to find out true sh**ty documentaries.

Personally, I was not aware that there were so many lions and tigers in the U.S. So, When I first saw Tiger King I had a lot of questions about what made the living conditions of the tiger at Joe Exotic's Zoo so much worst than at Carole Baskin's Zoo, and about the ethics of breeding captured wildlife. So for me, Tiger King did spark an interest into this problem of privately owned wildlife.

Aye it’s film theory class all over again

I really want to know what was being said before dubbing in "cinéma vérité". Now that I think about it, it was probably just a mispronunciation. Still want to hear it, though.

The issue I had with Tiger King was the framing and the advertising. After the ads, when I finally watched it, it was 20 minutes before I realized it wasn't a mockumentary, but an actual documentary. Everything from the editing, the camera work, the transitions and the moments they chose to use to advertise it felt like Reno 911. I actually thought that it was the same concept, a mocumentary about zoo's in the same vein of comedy as Reno 911. As soon as I realized it was real, I was actually appalled at the way they had framed the scene of the worker having his arm bitten off like a comedic tragedy in the advertising.

You summed up how I felt seeing people share photos of Haitian and Central American refugees and families. The "moral outrage" was transient and allowed non-refugees to participate in the public performance of commentating on imperialism and police brutality without exercising any type of accountability

Part 2 kinda skipped right past the new information about the missing husband being a paedophile. Plus all the horrific treatment of the animals by these monsters should have been more prominent and addressed more to prevent them doing the same again in the future.

Does the tv have ads

Carol Baskin! Stole my, heart, she nabbed it! #BaskinLove

Was the Cine Verite insert a real last minute correction 🤔

“Nothing observed is unaffected by the observer”

After a little reflection, I'm surprised this video didn't mention The Act of Killing.

Can you talk About Kaitou Joker?

Throughout the whole documentary, I didn't really care about the people, but was wondering what was going to happen to the animals. I was shocked to see that these zoos still had customers in season 2 and, even worse, that season 1 served as publicity.

It's been over a year since I watched season 1 but I seem to recall to them making it clear that Joe Exotic and other Breeders were full of shit when they claimed to be helping conservation efforts, primarily in that their largely inbred Tigers wouldn't be able to survive in the wild. So I feel like that one Critic wasn't paying attention

Netlflix's The Keepers used faked letters, there was misdirection. As in: Someone remembered a certain letter but it had vanished, and the documentary makers wrote, uh, stand-in letters, without addressing the fact that they were just that. They showed them as if they were real letters and left out the note that they weren't.

Why was each mention of "cinéma vérité" overdubbed?

I got they will really open my eyes with a random RU-vidrs experience with the Tiger King they were just there shooting a video like normal and the Tiger King and his crew were like stalking them a demon called the police on him it really shows just how bad it can be if you're on the wrong side of the guy

Yeah, I have never nor will I ever watch Tiger King for a lot of the reasons brought up in the video. It feels like it's mocking the subjects, and marveling at how weird or sad someone's life is just isn't entertaining to me at all. I'm honestly a little judg-y when someone says they love it, which I realize is more my problem than theirs.

Never saw tiger king and what I’ve heard of it glad.

16:21 is there a child running through the shot?!

Anyone who knows anything about the exotic animal problem in the US and gives a damn about big cats must have hated TK - I sure did. At first I thought "Well, this is probably one of those cases where, like, the filmmakers set out to make a documentary about one issue and found themselves in the middle of an unexpected freak show, but *one episode*, at least one must actually be about big cat conservation, right? Right?". For years I've been following Big Cat Rescue's work and efforts to end the harmful private ownership of big cats in the US, so I was really hopeful at the prospect of a "Tiger Blackfish" - obviously I couldn't have been more disappointed.

During the original Tiger King, I was suddenly reminded that I had objectified the individuals when one of the people -- the young man who was Joe's campaign manager -- said that he had suffered from depression, PTSD, and other psychological ailments as a result of Joe's husband accidentally killing himself. He said something along the lines of: as he lay on the ground, I could see the look of shock and horror in his eyes as he died (...) I never got psychological treatment." I remember thinking: "Holy shit. If I witnessed that, there's a good chances I'd have problems too." and then: "Fuck ... I'm an asshole." So of course I finished the series and proceeded to rewatch it a couple of months later.

16:20 What monster is running around in that background?

What is going on @ 16:20?

I think people can differentiate between the facts and fiction of this serie. In a few episodes it already talked about what Joe Exotic etc was doing was wrong and unhelpful. People can still enjoy thus ridiculous show