Ethics in Documentary

After watching segments of two controversial documentaries: Frederick Wiseman's "Titicut Follies" and the Maysles Brothers' "Grey Gardens.", Here are my thoughts about the following:

1. What (if any) are the ethical dilemmas faced by both filmmakers when shooting these documentaries?

First they must decide the value of the content of the documentary in relation to the cost. These documentaries portray people who are not necessarily in the state of mind that would understand what they are consenting to reveal, if they do consent, or what the documentary will be used for or shown to. In regard to the mental health facility, one has to decide if and where it is ethical to use considerably troubling footage of the nature of the goings-on of that facility. Is it justified by the intent of the video? Is it not justified because some of those featured did not consent to the use of their images; or were not mentally capasitated to make that decision?

2. Should they have used all of the footage or only some of it? How should that be determined?

I think they should choose footage tactfully, but without compromising the integrity of the story. Journalists should consider the shock factor versus the need-to-know of the audience, and try to find a medium that gives the story in full with as little injury or insult as possible.

3. What would you do as a journalist or documentary storyteller?

I would determine the necessity of controversial information or footage to presenting the story. I would not censor important footage or information because some consider it disturbing or distasteful. However, I also would not include such footage for sensational purposes when it is not necessary to portray the story.