Are Documentaries Journalism? The Gap Between a Shared Truth and Verification A dissertation presented to the faculty of the Scripps College of Communication of Ohio University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy Paul R. Jacoway August 2014 © 2014 Paul R. Jacoway. All Rights Reserved. This dissertation titled Are Documentaries Journalism? The Gap between a Shared Truth and Verification by PAUL R. JACOWAY has been approved for the E. W. Scripps School of Journalism and the Scripps College of Communication by Michael S. Sweeney Professor of Journalism Scott Titsworth Dean, Scripps College of Communication ii Abstract JACOWAY, PAUL R.,, Ph.D., August 2014, Mass Communication - Journalism Are Documentaries Journalism? The Gap between a Shared Truth and Verification Director of Dissertation: Michael S. Sweeney This dissertation examines to what extent the most popular documentaries as ranked by Netflix conform to the principles of journalism as defined by Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel, vs. the shared truth of the documentary filmmaker as defined by narrative inquiry theory. Fifteen of the most popular documentaries were viewed twice in their entirety. Time-code was noted to mark events and sequences of the narrative for the sake of reference and comparison. They were selected from the documentary categories used by Netflix that most parallel the documentary categories of history, propaganda, art, style, entertainment, biography, and politics or dissident message, which have appeared as the most common categories in the literature. Qualitative analysis found that political documentaries were the most closely associated with a shared truth, while biographical and historical documentaries were most closely associated with journalistic standards. If documentary filmmakers edit fairly, such as by providing clear identification of speakers and sources, offering the facts and voices of more than one side, verifying their facts and claims, stating their premises clearly, and leaving the conclusion open to the viewer, then they are an example of a high level of verification associated with journalism. iii Dedication To my father, Benjamin Jones Jacoway. iv Acknowledgments I would like to thank Dr. Michael S. Sweeney and my committee, Dr. Aimee Edmondson, Dr. Joseph Slade, and Dr. Katherine Jellison, for being a searchlight on my horizon. I also would like to thank E.W. Scripps School of Journalism Director Robert K. Stewart. v Table of Contents Page Abstract .............................................................................................................................. iii Dedication .......................................................................................................................... iv Acknowledgments ............................................................................................................... v Chapter 1: Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 2: Literature Review and Theory .......................................................................... 8 Chapter 3: Ken Burns, Historian or Revisionist? .............................................................. 32 Chapter 4: Hillary: The Movie, Documentary or Propaganda? ........................................ 57 Chapter 5: Methods ........................................................................................................... 79 Chapter 6: Results ............................................................................................................. 89 Chapter 7: Discussion and Conclusion ........................................................................... 176 Bibliography: .................................................................................................................. 190 Appendix: Notes on Documentary Content ................................................................... 197 vi Chapter 1: Introduction The Metro Goldwyn Mayer Logo appears on the screen, with the famous lion and its iconic roar. The credibility offered by the image offers a sense of security, believability, and reliability. After the opening title and studio credits of the film, a single slide appears. “The following documentary would like to give special thanks to Dr. Eudora Fletcher, Paul Deghuce, and Mrs. Meryl Fletcher Varney.” The first quote offered, credited to Susan Sontag, appears in a lower third over a ticker tape parade in Times Square: “He was the phenomenon of the ’20s, when you think at that time he was as well known as Lindbergh, it really is quit astonishing.” Other quotes follow. Credited to Irving Howe: “His story reflected the nature of our civilization, the character of our times, yet it was also one man’s story, and all of the symbols of our culture were there. Heroism, will, things like that. But when you look back on it, it was very strange.” Credited to Saul Bellow: “Well, it is ironic to see how quickly he has faded from memory, considering what an astounding record he made. He was of course very amusing, and at times could touch a nerve of people, perhaps in a way that they didn’t prefer to be touched. It certainly is a very bizarre story.” The film is Zelig, a work of fiction by American writer and director Woody Allen, a story of the chameleon character, Leonard Zelig. The narrator goes on to describe the climate of America in the 1920s and the opening scene at a party at F. Scott Fitzgerald’s. 1 It is obviously a satire on the documentary style, which has developed some traditional canons of narrative style, and Allen uses his cinematic talents as a writer and director to make Zelig a very believable spoof.1 The problem is that the same believability of onscreen images is possible with today’s digital and financial toolbox to create a production in a very credible and professional package. And that package can be intended for a specific audience. The differences between claimed facts and shared truths may be undetectable, without further study. This dissertation will investigate a purposive sample of the most popular documentaries on Netflix, the online movie streaming service, correlating the storytelling techniques of documentary filmmakers with measures and principles of traditional journalism. It will qualitatively examine the content of these documentaries, as measured by such canons of journalism as fact, objectivity and verification, and it will do so through the lens of narrative inquiry theory. It will examine whether the sampled documentaries fit with the terms of journalism, propaganda, history, entertainment, etc. It will examine the producers, topics, voices, actors, arguments, evidence, and findings of the documentaries studied. Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel, veteran journalists and authors, created a reality check system that will be the basis for this dissertation. Their ten-point rating scale on the level of verification has become a standard in teaching journalism classes and also during this age of media convergence. For clarity, it will be important to establish definitions of a documentary and the relative terms of this study. 1 Zelig, directed by Woody Allen, DVD (Fox Searchlight, 2001). 2 The word “documentary” is described by documentary historian Jeffrey Geiger as referring to “cinematic forms that haven’t always fit comfortably within stricter definitions of the term. ‘Film’, similarly, serves as shorthand for motion picture techniques ranging from celluloid to video and digital technologies.”2 Geiger focuses on how films can add to national identity and reviews state actors who implemented the documentary style as works of propaganda. “Films, with the discourses that surround them and the institutions that support them, are central means through which the idea of the national is articulated and culturally determined.”3 He particularly studied the propaganda documentaries of the Second World War and how they managed “division and dissent.”4 His research shows that what one audience may take as the trusted word of documentary could be viewed as pandering by the producer or sponsoring organization. Film historian Susan Hayward said, “Like national affiliations themselves, films and filmic discourses are selective: they can mobilize, promote and also suppress key ideas and myths of the nation.”5 This confusion can be directly linked to the narrative of the documentary. Does it have information that can be verified or is preaching to the choir, or speaking to an audience that has shared values and a shared truth. Some thirty years after the term “documentary” appeared, Cecil Starr of the Saturday Review complained in 1954 that the documentary not having a proper definition is “an irritation among film- minded people, and the repeated demand for a definition.”6 2 Jeffrey Geiger, American Documentary Film: Projecting the Nation (Edinburgh, United Kingdom: Edinburgh University Press, 2011) 2. 3 Ibid, 3. 4 Ibid. 5 Susan Hayward, French National Cinema (London; Routledge, 2005) 6-8. 6 Geiger, American Documentary Film, 5. 3 John Grierson, a respected theorist of narrative and documentary, reflected on the role of the documentary and verification. Grierson stresses the creative role of the documentarian and how it can conflict with any form of verification. By trying to be “cinematic,” the documentarian can go beyond clearly stating the facts of the researched and archival material without intending any form of creative license through “arrangements,