Upload
others
View
17
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
EvaluatingInteractiveDocumentaries:Audience,ImpactandInnovationinPublicInterestMedia
by
SeanPeterFlynn
B.A.,CinematicArts(CriticalStudies)UniversityofSouthernCalifornia,2013
SubmittedtothePrograminComparativeMediaStudies/Writing
inpartialfulfillmentoftherequirementsforthedegreeof
MasterofScienceinComparativeMediaStudiesatthe
MASSACHUSETTSINSTITUTEOFTECHNOLOGY
September2015
©SeanFlynn.Allrightsreserved.
TheauthorherebygrantsMITpermissiontoreproduceandtodistributepubliclypaperandelectroniccopiesofthisthesisdocumentinwholeorinpartinanymediumnowknownorhereafter
created.SignatureofAuthor:_________________________________________________________________________
DepartmentofComparativeMediaStudiesJuly24,2015
Certifiedby:__________________________________________________________________________________
WilliamUricchioProfessorofComparativeMediaStudies
ThesisSupervisorAcceptedby:_________________________________________________________________________________
T.L.TaylorDirectorofGraduateStudiesComparativeMediaStudies
3
EvaluatingInteractiveDocumentaries:Audience,ImpactandInnovationinPublicInterestMedia
by
SeanFlynn
SubmittedtotheDepartmentofComparativeMediaStudiesOnJuly24,2015,inpartialfulfillmentoftherequirementsforthedegreeof
MasterofScienceinComparativeMediaStudiesAbstractPublicinterestmediaorganizationsareincreasinglyinterestedinexperimentingwithinteractiveandparticipatoryapproachestodocumentarystorytellingenabledbydigitaltechnologies.However,duetotheexperimentalnatureoftheseinteractivedocumentaries,itisnotyetclearwhetherthemoreactiveuserengagementstheyrequiretranslateintooutcomeslikesustainedattention,greaternarrativecomprehension,enhancedlearning,empathyorcivicengagement–nevermindlargersocietalimpactslikeimprovedpublicdiscourse,behaviorchangeorpolicychange.Theshiftingdefinitionsandmeasuresofcomplex,multi-dimensionalconceptslike“engagement”and“impact”isachallengeforpublicinterestmediaorganizationsmigratingtodigitalplatforms–particularlyatatimewhenaudienceactivitieshavebecomefarmoretransparentandfundersplacegreateremphasison“data-driven”impactmeasurement.Thisthesisexploresthe“theoriesofchange”thatinforminstitutionalinvestmentsindocumentaryandexamineshowthreepublicinterestmediaorganizations–theNationalFilmBoardofCanada,POVandtheNewYorkTimes–areapproachinginteractivedocumentaryproduction,attemptingtodefinewhatconstitutessuccessorimpact–andhowtomeasureit.Iarguethatweneednewtheoriesofchangeandevaluationframeworksthatexpanddefinitionsof“impact”and“engagement,”balancingpublicservicemissionwiththestrategicgoalsofaudiencedevelopmentandthecircuitousprocessesofartisticandtechnologicalinnovation.Thismeanslookingbeyondquantitativemassmediaerametrics,whichfailtoaccountforimportantqualitativedimensionsoftheuserexperience.Iproposeanewsetofqualitativeandquantitativemeasuresthatmightbetterreflectthesocialandartisticaspirationsoftheinteractivedocumentary,testassumptionsinwaysthatcaninformprojectdesign,andembracethepotentialsoftechnologytotransformthemethods,ethicsandprocessofdocumentarystorytellinginthedigitalage.ThesisSupervisorsWilliamUricchio,Professor,ComparativeMediaStudiesEthanZuckerman,Director,CenterforCivicMedia
5
AcknowledgementsIamprofoundlygratefultohavehadtheopportunitytoworkonthisthesiswiththementorship,guidanceandsupportoftwobrilliantadvisors,WilliamUricchioandEthanZuckerman,whoconsistentlychallengedmetoaskdeeperandbetterquestionsandcraftmorecompelling,forcefularguments.ThankyoutothemanypractitionersIinterviewedattheNationalFilmBoardofCanada,POV,theNewYorkTimesandelsewhere,whoseinsightshelpedgiveformandclaritytomyunderstandingofafieldthatisstillinformationitself.I’mparticularlyindebtedtoKatCizek,AdnaanWaseyandTomPerlmutterforgenerouslysharingtheirtime,andtoSarahWolozinforcreatingcountlessopportunitiestoconnectwithartistsandscholarsattheforefrontofthefield.Therearesomanyotherswhoprovidedthesupport–inbigwaysandsmall–thatallowedmetobeginthisjourney.Ionlyhavespacetonameafew,butIwanttothankBethMurphyandKevinBelliformyfirstadventuresindocumentaryfilmmaking,AnnieLaurieEricksonforyourstrengthandsupport,JesseShapinsforyourenthusiasmandadvice,andtheFulbrightProgramandMichaelRenovforopeningthedoorstocontinuingmyeducationattimeswhenIworriedtheymightbeclosed.ThemostrichandrewardingpartofmyMITexperiencewasundoubtedlybecomingpartofadiversecommunityofcreativeandcriticalthinkers.ThefriendshipandcamaraderieIfoundintheOpenDocLabFellowsandinmyfellow15ers–Heather,Chelsea,Desi,Liam,Suruchi,Ainsley,Erik,JesseandYu–constantlyinspiredmeandkeptmegoingthroughthemanyupsanddownsofgraduateschool.Bythesametoken,IamgratefultomydearfriendsandcolleaguesBenFowlieandCarolinevonKuhnforgivingmethespaceandflexibilitytocontinuedoingajobthatIlovewhilejugglingtheresponsibilitiesofschool.Thankyoutomyparents,whohavealwaysgivenmethefreedomtopursuemydreamsandambitions,evenwhentheyhavetakenmeinunconventionaldirections.Andmostofall,thankyoutoJess.Yoursenseofhumor,yourcriticalinsights,yourunfailingoptimismandyourfiercelovesustainedmethrougheverymomentofself-doubtandallowedmetoseethisprocessasanopportunitytofindmyvoiceandbecomeabetterversionofmyself.Ican’tthankyouenoughforbeingmyperson.
6
ContentsINTRODUCTION:DocumentaryintheDigitalAge........................................................7
CHAPTER1:TheoriesofChange......................................................................................20
CHAPTER2:TheNationalFilmBoardofCanada.......................................................59
CHAPTER3:POV...................................................................................................................88
CHAPTER4:TheNewYorkTimes..................................................................................115
CONCLUSION:ADecisionatEveryTurn......................................................................139
7
INTRODUCTION:DocumentaryintheDigitalAge“Documentaryisaclumsyterm,butletitstand.”–JohnGrierson,“FirstPrinciplesofDocumentary”(1933)“Theinternet*is*adocumentary.”–KatCizek,Webbyacceptancespeech(2008)
NearlyninedecadeshavepassedsinceJohnGriersonfamouslycoinedthe
term“documentary”inhis1926reviewofRobertFlaherty’snonfictionfilmMoana.
Asamodeorgenreoffilm,thewordremainsasclumsyandimprecisetodayasit
wasinGrierson’stime,afactborneoutbytheendlesscriticaldebatesover
documentary’sclaimtorepresent“reality”or“truth.”1Yetthetermhascometo
signifynotjustagenreormodeoffilmmakingbutalsoacentury-oldtraditionof
sociallyengagedstorytelling,producedanddistributedacrossawidevarietyof
media–fromcinemaandtelevisionscreenstoprint,radioandgallerywalls.
Borrowingfromtheartisticlanguageofcinema,theinvestigativepracticesof
journalismandadvertisers’strategiesforachievingsocialinfluence,documentary
hasalwaysbeenahybrid,alternativemediaformwithawiderangeofaestheticand
rhetoricalfunctions.2Althoughithasrarelyfoundlargeaudiences,financialprofitor
astableinstitutionalhome,thedocumentarytraditionhaspersistedfornearlya
century,sustainedbygenerationsofpractitioners,funders,criticsandaudiences
1Winston,ClaimingtheReal.2Renov,TheorizingDocumentary,21.
8
whobelieveinitsdistinctsocialandartisticvalue.ForGriersonandgenerationsof
filmmakerswhohavejoinedthetraditionhehelpedtoestablish,documentaryhas
representedanattempttoexpandtheartisticboundariesandpoliticalpossibilities
ofcinemabyrecordinglivedexperience,creativelyshapingitintonarrativeform,
andofferingperspectivesontheworldthathelpaudiencesbecomemoreinformed,
engagedandcompassionatecitizens.
Thefluidityofthedocumentaryformhasbecomeparticularlyevidentinan
eradefinedbytectonicshiftsinthemediaenvironment.Duringthepasttwo
decades,networkeddigitalmediatechnologies–fromtheWebtosocialmediato
smartphones–haveenabledanexponentialgrowthintheamountofnonfiction
mediacontentbeingproducedandthenumberofchannelsthroughwhichitis
distributed.Theriseofa“participatoryculture”3hasfundamentallytransformedthe
relationshipsbetweenprofessionalmediaproducersandtheiraudiences,a
distinctionthatsomehavearguedhaslostsomeofitsrelevanceasmediausersplay
increasinglyactiverolesinbothproducingandcirculatingcontent.Amonglegacy
mediaorganizations,thisfragmentationofthemedialandscapeandgrowing
“audienceautonomy”4hasproduceduncertaintyabouttheabilityoftheir
productionstoattractandinfluencedigitalaudiencesinacompetitivemarketplace
whereattentionisanincreasinglyscarceresource.5Organizationscommittedto
publicservice,whichhavetypicallyprovidedtheinstitutionalsupportformuch
3Clintonetal.,“ConfrontingtheChallengesofParticipatoryCulture.”4Napoli,AudienceEvolution.5Simon,“DesigningOrganizationsforanInformation-RichWorld”;DavenportandBeck,TheAttentionEconomy;Webster,TheMarketplaceofAttention:HowAudiencesTakeShapeinaDigitalAge.
9
documentaryproduction,facetheaddedchallengeofprovingthesocialvalueof
theirworkinavastandfragmentedmedialandscapenolongerdefinedbythe
“spectrumscarcity”thatledtothepublicintereststandardintheearlydaysof
commercialbroadcasting.6
Againstthisbackdrop,wehavewitnessedtheemergenceofanewgeneration
ofdocumentariesthatattempttotakeadvantageofthistransformedmedia
environment–andthenetworkeddigitaltechnologiesthatunderpinit–topresent
nonfictionstoriesinmoreinteractive,participatory,nonlinearandimmersiveways.
Thoughtheseexperimentalformshavehistoricalprecedentsinthehypercard
stacksandmultimediaCD-ROMsofthe1990s,theyhavebecomebothcommon
enoughanddistinctenoughinrecentyearstowarranttheirowngenre:the
“interactivedocumentary.”Thisnebuloustermisnowusedtodescribeawide
varietyofexperimentalmediaprojectsthatidentifywiththelabel“documentary”
butbearlittleresemblancetoconventionalforms:multimediawebsites,mobile
apps,documentarygames,virtualrealityfilms,interactiveinstallationsandmulti-
platform“storyworlds”–tonameafew.
AstonandGaudenzidefinetheinteractivedocumentarybroadlyas“any
projectthatstartswiththeintentiontodocumentthe‘real’andthatusesdigital
interactivetechnologytorealizethisintention.”7Theirdefinitionforegroundsdigital
technologiesasakeydifferentiatorbetweeninteractivedocumentariesandtheir
linearantecedents.Indeed,themajorityofinteractivedocumentariesaremade
possiblebywhatJanetMurraydescribedasthefour“uniquepropertiesofdigital6“ChartingtheDigitalBroadcastingFuture.”7AstonandGaudenzi,“InteractiveDocumentary,”125.
10
mediaenvironments”–theyareinnatelyprocedural,participatory,spatialand
encyclopedic.8Murraypredictedthatthesecomputationalaffordancesofdigital
mediaplatformswouldenableradicallydifferentstorytellingformstobeinvented
bya“newkindofstoryteller,onewhoishalfhacker,halfbard.”9ThoughMurray
spentmuchofhertimediscussingthepossibilitiesofinteractivefiction,ithasbeen
thetraditionsofnonfictionstorytelling–includingbothdocumentaryand
journalism–thathavebeenamongthefirsttograpplewiththenarrativepotentials
ofnetworkeddigitalmedia.
Muchlikeothermediaformsintheirinfancy,thecollectiveexpectations
facingtheinteractivedocumentarygenrehasbeenshapedbyanalmost-utopian
senseofthepromiseofnewmediatechnologies.Overthepastdecade,aperiodof
timemarkedbytheexhilarationandanxietyoftechnologicaldisruptionsinthe
medialandscape,newstorytellingformsmadepossiblebythesetechnologieshave
beenthesubjectofagrowingnumberofconferences,museumexhibitsandfilm
festivalprogramsdedicatedtoexploringthe“futureofstorytelling.”Tom
Perlmutter,formercommissioneroftheNationalFilmBoardofCanada,writesthat
interactivedocumentariesshouldnotbeconsideredmerelyanextensionoflinear
filmmaking,butrathertheyrepresentthe“birthofanentirelynewartform,thefirst
suchinoveracentury.”10
8Murray,HamletontheHolodeck,71.9Ibid.,9.10Perlmutter,“TheInteractiveDocumentary.”
11
Bygivingvoiceandgreateragencytothe“peopleformerlyknownas
audiences”11andthe“peopleformerlyknownassubjects,”12interactive
documentariesareseenasemancipatingstorytellersandaudiencesalikefromsome
ofthelimitationsinherenttolinearformats.Insteadofparingdownrawmaterial
intoasingle,staticmediatext–leavingcountlesshoursonthe“editingroomfloor”–
documentarianscannowdesignopen-endeddatabasesanddynamicinterfacesthat
allowsuserstofreelyexplorethesearchives.Ratherthanactasthesolearbiterofa
socialissue,theycanopenupaparticipatoryprocessthatinvitessubjectsand
communitiestoshapetheirownnarrativerepresentations.Insteadofrepresenting
theworldwithinarectangulartwo-dimensionalframe,theycantellstoriesthat
unfoldinimmersive360-degreevirtualrealityenvironments.Aseachsuccessive
generationofdigitaltechnologiesbecomesmoreintegratedintoourbodiesandour
everydayexperience,Perlmutterargues,interactivedocumentaryprovidesan
artisticresponsetoa“pronouncedepistemologicaltransformationofhowwe
perceiveandunderstandtheworld.”13
Suchattemptstoreconfiguretheconventionalrelationshipsbetween
documentaryproducer,subjectandaudiencelongpredatetechnologieslikesocial
medianetworksandsmartphones,asevidencedbyparticipatoryinitiativeslikethe
NationalFilmBoard’sChallengeforChange(whichwillbeexploredfurtherin
Chapter1)andGloriannaDavenport’sgroundbreakinginteractivemedia
11Rosen,ThePeopleFormerlyKnownastheAudience.12“TheNewDigitalStorytellingSeries.”13Perlmutter,“TheInteractiveDocumentary.”
12
experimentsattheMITMediaLabinthe1980s.14Onlywithinthepastfiveyears,
however,havepublicinterestmediaorganizationsknownforproducinglinear
documentaryfilmsbeguntoinvestseriouslyintheproductionofinteractive
documentaries.RatherthanapproachtheWebsimplyasaplatformformarketing
anddistributingwhatarenowincreasinglydescribedas“traditional”films,digital-
orientedproducersworkingwithintheseinstitutionalcontextsareexperimenting
withthecreativeandtechnologicalpossibilitiesofinteractivityandparticipation,
oftenasstrategiesfordevelopingaudiencesondigitalplatforms.
Itisoftenassumedthatthesestrategieswillencourageaudiencestobecome
moredeeply“engaged”withdocumentarystoriesandultimatelygenerategreater
socialimpact.However,thefieldstilllacksbasicunderstandingaboutwhetherthe
moreactiveuserengagementsrequiredbyinteractivedocumentariestranslateinto
desiredoutcomeslikesustainedattention,greaternarrativecomprehension,
enhancedlearning,empathyorcivicengagement–nevermindlargersocietal
impactslikeimprovedpublicdiscourse,behaviorchangeorpolicychange.Some
criticshaveevenquestionedtheabilityofinteractivedocumentariestoattracta
significantaudienceinthefirstplace.A2013articleintheindependentfilm
publicationIndiewiresummedupthisskepticismwiththeprovocativeheadline:
“TransmediaDocumentariesareSexy,ButWho’sWatching?”15
Thoughlineardocumentaryfilmshaverarelyfoundmassaudiences,
distributionchannelslikepublictelevisionstillpredictablydeliveraudiencesthat
14MackayandDavenport,“VirtualVideoEditinginInteractiveMultimediaApplications.”15Kaufman,“TransmediaDocumentariesAreSexy,ButWho’sWatching?”.
13
canreachintothelowmillions.Ontheotherhand,accordingtoaninformalsurvey
conductedbyStorycode,audiencesforimmersivemediaprojectstypicallynumber
inthe10-20,000range,whilemorewell-financedproductionswithmarketing
budgetsmayreach100,000to1millionpeople.Whilethesearenotinsignificant
audiences,perhapsmoretroublingforsomedocumentaryproducersandtheir
institutionalbackersisStorycode’sfindingthatusersspendonaverage5minutes
withtheseprojectsandconsumeonly20%ofavailablecontentwithinthem.
Interactivedocumentariesnotonlylackbroadcasttelevision’sreliableaccess
toaudiences,buttheyalsointroduceunfamiliarconventionsofuserexperience.In
herdiscussionofthisexperientialdimensionofinteractivedocumentaries,Kate
Nasharticulatestheskepticismsurroundingaudienceengagementwiththesenovel
forms:
It is widely assumed for instance, that interactive documentaryaudiences are more active and engaged than film and televisiondocumentaryaudiences.Whilewidelyproclaimed,suchaviewhasnoempiricalfoundation.Itisjustaslikelythattheinteractiveexperience- the need to click, decide or move - might detract from narrativeengagement.16
Therefore,fromtheperspectiveofpublicinterestmediaorganizationsandfunders
allocatingscarceresourcestointeractivedocumentaryproductioninacompetitive
“attentioneconomy,”17theimportantquestionisnotonlywhoisviewinginteractive
documentaries,buthowareusersengagingwiththeseexperimentalprojectsand
whatimpactsthesenewengagementswillhave.
16Nash,Hight,andSummerhayes,NewDocumentaryEcologies,57.17DavenportandBeck,TheAttentionEconomy.
14
AlthoughtheInternetispurportedtobe“themostpreciselymeasurable
mediuminhistory,”18thesequestionsaresurprisinglydifficulttoanswer.Boththe
commercialandpublicinterestmediasectorsshareadesiretoreachandinfluence
audiences,whethertheyaresellingaproductorasocialissue.Intheearlydaysof
broadcast,theneedtobetterunderstandthisinfluenceledtothedevelopmentof
“metricsregimes,”suchastheNielsenrating,whichtreatedexposuretoapieceof
mediaasanassumedproxyforimpact.Digitalmediatechnologieshavecomplicated
theseassumptionsbymakingaudienceactivitiesvastlymoretransparent,giving
risetomoresophisticated“audienceinformationsystems”inwhichaconfusing
arrayof“engagement”metricsthatmonitorvariableslikesocialsharingand
commentsbecomeimportantindicators(ifnotalwaysreliablepredictors)ofvalue
orimpact.19
Incontrasttocommercialmediaindustries,inwhichsuccesscanultimately
bedefinedbyfinancialreturns,organizationsproducingdocumentariesfacethe
addedchallengeofconvincingfundersorexecutivesthattheirproductionsdeliver
socialvalueinadditionto(orinsomecases,insteadof)economicvalue.Yetinthe
publicinterestmediasector,thelackofshareddefinitionsorstandardized
measuresofmultidimensionalconceptslike“engagement”and“impact”isstilla
challengefororganizationsinvestingresourcesininteractivedocumentary
productionandtryingtomakethecaseforitssocialvalue.
Thisthesiswillexaminehowthreepublicinterestmediaorganizations–the
NationalFilmBoardofCanada,POV,andtheNewYorkTimes–areundergoinga18Graves,Kelly,andGluck,“ConfusionOnline.”19Napoli,AudienceEvolution,8.
15
processofadigitaladaptation,experimentingwiththeinteractivedocumentary
formwhilesimultaneouslyattemptingtodefinewhatconstitutessuccessorimpact
–andhowtomeasureit.Withineachorganization,Iwillexplorehowassumptions
aboutthesocialvalueofinteractivedocumentary,frameworksforunderstanding
socialimpact,audiencemetricsandotherindicatorsofsuccessshapecontent
strategy,projectdesignandfutureinvestmentintheseinnovativebutstill
unfamiliarforms.Witheachcasestudy,Iwillattempttoanswerthreebasic
researchquestions:
1. Whyareorganizationsproducinginteractivedocumentaries?
2. Howaretheydeterminingthesuccessoftheseinvestments?
3. Howarethesemetricsinformingfutureinvestmentsininteractive
production?
Byaddressingthesequestions,Ihopetodescribetheemergingpoliticaleconomyof
interactivedocumentaryandspeculateabouthowtheseforcesareinfluencingboth
theaestheticandsocialpotentialsofdocumentaryondigitalplatforms.
InChapter1,Iattempttoplacecontemporarydevelopmentsinthe
interactivedocumentaryfieldwithinanhistoricalcontextbydescribingtwobroad
“theoriesofchange”thathaveshapedtheinstitutionalproductionandfundingof
documentariesattwodifferentmoments:theearly1930s,whenJohnGrierson
helpedlaytheinstitutionalfoundationsforEnglish-languagedocumentaryfilmby
convincingtheBritishgovernmentandcorporationsthatitcouldbeatoolfor
educatingthemassesandconsolidatingnationalidentity;andthelate1960s,when
anewgenerationofLeftistfilmmakersembracednewmediatechnologieslikevideo
16
and8mmfilmcamerasastoolsfordecentralizingthemeansofdocumentary
productionanddemocratizingthemediumoftelevision.
Thedistinct“theoriesofchange”thatthesecasesillustrateareeach
embeddedwithasetofvalueassumptions–abouttherelationshipbetween
producerandaudience,thepotential“topdown”or“bottomup”socialimpactsof
documentary,andthecreativeapplicationsofnewmediatechnologies–that
representcrosscurrentsshapingthedevelopmentoftheinteractivedocumentary
fieldtoday.Withthesetheoriesinmind,Iwillreviewtherecentspateofresearchon
mediaimpactassessment,exploringhowambiguousconceptslike“engagement”
and“impact”aredefinedbynewframeworksandtools,aswellastheprescriptions
theyofferforpublicinterestmediaproducersandtheongoingdebatesovertheir
appropriateness.Finally,Iwillspeculateabouthowtheseframeworksmightguide
publicinterestmediaorganizationsinvestingininnovativeformsofstorytellinglike
interactivedocumentaries.
Chapter2willlookattheimpetusbehindtheestablishmentoftwo
interactivestudioswithintheNationalFilmBoardofCanada(NFB),anorganization
thathasbecomewidelyrecognizedasaleadinginnovatorindigitalstorytelling.Asa
publicproducerfundedentirelybytheCanadiangovernment,theNFB’smission
emphasizestakingcreativerisksinareasof“marketfailure”byproducing“public
goodsthatenrichthecountryandprovideculturalleadership.”20Asaresult,the
organizationhasbeenabletodevelopgreatercapacityforresearchand
developmentinthisspace–aswellasagreatertoleranceforexperimentationand
20“NFBStrategicPlan2008-2009to2012-2013.”
17
failure–thanmostpublicinterestmediaorganizations.UsingKaterinaCizek’s
participatorywebdocumentariesFilmmakerinResidenceandHighriseandother
prominentinteractiveproductionsascasestudies,Iwillexplorehowevolving–and
sometimesdivergent–ideasaboutaudienceengagementandimpacthaveinformed
theNFB’sdigitalstrategyandhowtheseimpactsareevaluated.
Chapter3willexamineAmericanpublictelevisionseriesPOV,whichhaslong
usedthewebtoengageaudiencesindialoguearoundbroadcastsofindependently
produceddocumentaryfilms,butonlyrecentlybeganapproachingitasaplatform
forstandaloneinteractiveproductions.Both“engagement”and“impact”havelong
beencentraltoPOV’smissionandtheorganizationhasalegacyofgeneratingsocial
valuearounddocumentaryfilmsbyencouragingactivepublicdiscoursethrough
grassrootsscreeningcampaigns,educationaldistributionandancillarycontent
online.However,theorganizationhasbeenslowerthantheNFBtobuildcapacity
forinteractiveproductionsthatarenottiedtoitsbroadcasts,inpartduetoitsmore
limitedbudgetandalessdevelopedecosystemofsupportintheU.S.for
independentlyproducedinteractivedocumentaries.Withinthisenvironment,the
POVDigitaldepartmentistakingincrementalstepstowardsfundingandco-
producingmoreambitiousinteractivedocumentaries,experimentingwithaseries
ofhackathons,hiringanin-housesoftwaredeveloperanddistributingaseriesof
“interactiveshorts.”Iwilldiscusshowtheseearly-stageeffortsarebeingevaluated
andhowtheyareinformingPOV’sdigitalstrategy.
Chapter4willexplorehowinteractivestorytellingtechniquesarebeingadopted
bytheNewYorkTimes.IncontrasttotheNationalFilmBoardandPOV,theTimesis
18
afor-profitbusinessdrivenbyadvertisingandsubscriptions,andassuchits
relationshiptothataudienceanditsprocessofdigitalinnovationareshapedbythe
needforfinancialsustainability.Thechallengesofthecompany’sdigitaltransition
werehighlightedbyitsleakedInnovationReport,whichemphasizeddeveloping
“newwaystoreachreaders”21andbettertoolsforinteractiveproduction,butalso
advocatedforaculturalshiftintheuseofmetricsandchallengedthetraditional
separationof“churchandstate.”Usingtwoprominentinteractivefeaturesascase
studies,SnowFallandAShortHistoryoftheHighrise,Iwillillustratecontrasts
betweeninstitutionalrelationshipstotheinteractivedocumentaryaudienceinthe
publicmediaandjournalismsectors.
Intheconclusion,Iwilldiscussthelimitationsofusingcurrentlyavailable
audiencemetricsandframeworksforimpactmeasurementasguidesfor
institutionalinvestmentinnascentmediaformslikeinteractivedocumentaries.
Bothconventionaldigitalanalyticsandthenewwaveofimpactmeasurementtools
paintanincompletepicturethattellsusrelativelylittleabouttheindividualuser’s
experiencewiththeseprojectsandhowtheyfitintoexistinghabitsordigitalmedia
usagepatterns.Moreresearchisneededtounderstandthepsychologicaland
emotionaldimensionsofinteractivityindocumentariesbeforewecandrawstrong
conclusionsaboutbroaderimpactslikeshiftsinpublicdiscourse.Someotherblind
spotsofcurrent“metricsregimes”includemoresubtledimensionsofsocialchange
–likethelong-termimpactsofaparticipatorymediamakingprocessratherthanthe
finalmediaproduct–aswellasavarietyofhard-to-measureinstitutionalimpacts,
21“NYTInnovationReport2014,”31.
19
suchasinnovationsinartisticformsororganizationalprocess.Byacknowledging
thesealternativeformsofsuccess,wecanbetterunderstandthesocialvalueof
interactivedocumentaries,includingbothitscurrentshortcomingsandfuture
potential.
Bettermethodsforevaluatinginteractivedocumentariesareneedednotso
muchtoretrospectivelymeasuretheimpactofspecificprojectsandseparate
“successes”from“failures”–buttobetterunderstandthefullspectrumofoutcomes
fromexperimentationwithanewstorytellingform,totestassumptionsduringthe
creativeprocess,andideally,tocrystallizethesocialandartisticaspirationsofthe
interactivedocumentaryfield.Thatsaid,itisimportanttoacknowledgethatour
modesofengagementwithdigitalmediaareconstantlyinflux.Patternsof
interactionandparticipationthatarechallengingtouserstodaymaybecomethe
standardconventionsoftomorrow.Publicinterestmediaorganizations
experimentingwithinteractivedocumentariesshouldembraceopen,flexible
frameworksanddefinitionsforwhatconstitutesimpact,aswellasmethodsand
toolsformeasurementthatarebettersuitedtotheevolvingmodesofactive
engagementrequiredbyinteractivedocumentaries.Otherwise,thereisariskthat
interactivedocumentarypracticeswiththegreatestpotentialsocialimpactsmay
notalignwithconventionalmetricsthatprivilegeaudiencereachornarrow
definitionsof“engagement”–andthereforefailtofindsustainablefundingor
audiences.Inthissense,thedomainsofinstitutionalproduction,fundingand
evaluationarecrucialtoshapingthelanguageofdocumentaryinthedigitalage.
20
CHAPTER1TheoriesofChange
Thedesiretousestorytellingasaninstrumentofsocialchangehaslongbeen
oneoftheprimaryimpulsesinthedocumentarytradition.22Byrepresentingreality,
manydocumentarymakersalsohopetoinfluenceitinavarietyofways.
Documentariesmayraiseawarenessorinitiatedebateaboutanimportantsocial
issue,asAnInconvenientTruthdidwithclimatechange.Theymayattempttoshape
publicopinion,asMichaelMooredoesinfilmslikeFahrenheit9/11,oralter
audiencebehaviors,asMorganSpurlockattemptedtodoinSupersizeMe.Orthey
mayevenpursuemoreconcreteimpactslikebuildingsocialmovementsorchanging
publicpolicy,asTheInvisibleWardidwhenithelpedchangethemilitary’ssexual
assaultpolicies.Thesepopularexamplesofsocialjusticedocumentariesarenot
necessarilyrepresentativethefullspectrumofdocumentariesproducedtoday,and
socialchangeisbynomeanstheonlyreasonformakingdocumentaries.AsRenov’s
taxonomyofdocumentary’s“rhetorical/aestheticfunctions”outlines,filmmakers
havelongpursueddocumentarywithawiderangeofothermotives,rangingfrom
historicalpreservationtoartisticexpression.23Nevertheless,forthegovernment
agencies,foundations,nonprofitsandcorporatesponsorsthathavehistorically
22Whiteman,“OutoftheTheatersandintotheStreets”;Aitken,FilmandReform;Lesage,“FeministDocumentary”;Waugh,ShowUsLife;Winston,ClaimingtheReal;Zimmermann,StatesofEmergency.23Renov,TheorizingDocumentary,21.
21
investedintheproductionanddistributionofdocumentaries,theform’spotentialto
producevariousformsof“socialimpact”hasbeenoneofitskeyvaluepropositions.
Thoughtheword“impact”isnowevokedwithincreasingfrequencyinpublic
interestmedia,itcanmeanverydifferentthingswithindifferentinstitutional
contextsanddifferenttraditionsofnonfictionstorytelling,suchasdocumentaryfilm
orjournalism.Broadlydefined,itrefersto“changesamongindividuals,groups,
organizations,systems,andsocialorphysicalconditions”24thatmediaproductions
mayhelpadvance.Generallythesechangesareassumedtobepositive,generating
someformofsocialvalueby“improvingthewell-beingofindividualsand
communitiesacrossawiderangeofdimensionsthatarecentralgoalsofmostpublic
interestmediainitiatives.”25Inthisthesis,however,Iwillargueforadefinitionof
impactthatgoesbeyondthesocial,lookingatthevariouswaysthattheprocessof
makingdocumentaries–particularlyemerginggenresofinteractivedocumentary–
cancontributetolong-termprocessesofinstitutionaltransformationandthe
developmentofnewartisticforms.Theseimpactshavelesstodowiththecapacities
ofmediatoinfluencetheindividualhumansubjectorthelargerpublicsphere,but
theyoftenrepresentimportantsteppingstonesforinstitutionstransitioningfroma
relationshiptoaudiencesbasedontheparadigmsofmassmediatoonedefinedby
networkeddigitalmedia.
Despitethelongtraditionoftreatingdocumentariesasacatalystforsocial
change,theextenttowhichtheyreallyinfluencetheiraudiences,whatformthat
influencetakes,andhowitcanbemeasuredremainsasubjectofongoingresearch24LearningforAction,“DeepeningEngagementforLastingImpact,”29.25Napoli,“MeasuringMediaImpact,”6.
22
anddebate.Tobetterunderstandhowthesequestionsmightshapethe
developmentoftheinteractivedocumentaryfield,thischapterwillexaminetwo
distinct“theoriesofchange”thathaveshapedthedocumentarytradition.Iwill
focusprimarilyonhowinstitutionalsupportershaveconceivedandevaluated
documentary’ssocialimpact,butalsopointoutthewaysinwhichexperimentswith
thedocumentaryformhavehadimportantlong-term“institutionalimpacts.”
First,IwillexploretheemergenceoftheBritishdocumentarymovementof
the1930s,inwhichJohnGriersonandhiscolleagueshelpedlaythefoundationsfor
institutionalfundingofdocumentaryfilms–stillanascentcinematicformthatthey
promotedasanationalistalternativetoHollywoodandavehicleforpublic
education.Second,Iwilldescribetheradicalexperimentsinthelate1960sand
early70s,inwhichagenerationofyoungprogressivefilmmakersrespondedtoa
crisisoffaithinpoliticalandculturalinstitutionsbydevelopinganalternativevision
ofadecentralizedmediasystembuiltaroundnewtechnologiesthatallowedthemto
makefilmswithpeopleratherthanaboutthem.
Finally,Iwilldescribehowtheunstableconditionsinthecurrentdigital
mediaenvironmenthavegivenrisetotwostrategicprioritiesforinstitutions
producingdocumentariesandotherformsofpublicinterestmedia.Ononehand,
thereisgrowingpressuretodemonstratetheimpactofsocialjustice-themed
documentaryfilmsandrelatedoutreachcampaigns,butalackofconsensusabout
howtodefineandmeasureambiguousconceptslike“impact”and“engagement.”On
theotherhand,thereisawidespreadpressuretoexperimentwiththeaffordances
ofinteractive,digitalplatformsforreachingandengagingaudiencesinnewways.I
23
concludethechapterbyassessingthestrengthsandlimitationsofexisting“theories
ofchange”andspeculateabouthowimpactmeasurementframeworksmightguide
publicinterestmediaorganizationsinvestingininnovativeformsofstorytellinglike
interactivedocumentaries.
Grierson’sPulpit
TheEnglish-languagedocumentarytraditionbegan,inmanyways,witha
theory.Itsearlydevelopment–andparticularlyitsrelationshiptoaudiences–was
fueledbyaninstitutionaldesiretousemediaasatoolforshapingthepublicsphere.
“Theideaofdocumentary,”wroteJohnGriersonin1943,“cameoriginallynotfrom
thefilmpeopleatall,butfromthePoliticalScienceschoolinChicagoUniversity
roundabouttheearlytwenties.”26AsayoungScottishstudentinmoralphilosophy,
GriersonhadspentthreeyearsthereonaRockefellerResearchFellowship
beginningin1924.HearrivedinChicagopreoccupiedwiththe“problemofmaking
large-scaledemocracywork”andspenthistimestudyingemergingmassmedia
suchasthepress,thecinema,advertisingandother“instrumentsaffectingpublic
opinion.”27
WalterLippman’sPublicOpinion,publishedin1922,provedtobeaformative
influence,withitstheorythatthecomplexityofmodernmasssocietydemandeda
newformofpubliceducationinordertomakedemocracysucceed.Atatimeof
greatsocialupheavals–includingwavesofimmigrationandtherapidgrowthof
26Ellis,JohnGrierson,22.27Grierson,GriersononDocumentary,15.
24
cities–Lippmanarguedthatordinarycitizens“couldnotbeexpectedtoamass
enoughever-changinginformationtomakeintelligentdecisions.”28AsJackEllis
pointsout,Griersonwasparticularlyfascinatedbytherolehesawtheyellowpress
playingintheassimilationoffirst-generationimmigrantsintoAmericanculture:
Grierson noted that, with their headlines and photos, theirsimplifications and dramatizations, these papers served as informalbutnonethelesscompellingmeansof leadingyoungLithuaniansandPoles,GermansandItalians,IrishandCzechsawayfromtheirparentsandtheoldcountryandintoAmericanizationofonesortoranother.The news report of the European press had been shaped into thenewsstory.Theactiveverbwasthekey:somethingdoessomethingtosomething; someone does something to someone. This approachseemedtohimtoreflectthewaytheAmericanmindworked,andthedocumentary film, as it would develop, came in part out of hisunderstandingofthisdramatic,activestrategy.29
DramaandnarrativewerecentraltoGrierson’sunderstandingofthe
emergingmassmedia’spowerto“commandthesentimentsandloyaltiesofthe
people”andestablish“acommonpatternofthoughtandfeeling”acrossan
increasinglyheterogeneouspublicsphere.30Theyprovidedawaytotranslate
Lippman’sideasintoactionbyeducatingcitizensaboutpublicaffairsandshaping
theirworldviewonanemotionalratherthanintellectuallevel.“Thedramaticlevel
ofapprehension,”Griersonwrote,“istheonlyonethatrelatesamantohisMaker,
hisneighbororhimself.Isetitoveragainsttheinformationallevelonwhichthe
28Ellis,JohnGrierson,21.29Ibid.30Grierson,GriersononDocumentary,15.
25
poorliberaltheoryofeducationhadbeenhumourlesslyinsistingforhalfa
century.”31
FollowingLippman’ssuggestion,Griersonturnedhisattentionfromthe
presstothemoviesduringhistimeintheStates.Hebegananalyzingtheboxoffice
recordsofHollywoodfilmsforrelationshipsbetweenform,contentandpopular
appeal,inferringtheirabilitytoinfluencethepublic:“Byromanticizingand
dramatizingtheissuesoflife,evenbychoosingtheissuesitwilldramatize,
[Hollywood]createsorcrystallizestheloyaltiesonwhichpeoplemaketheir
decisions.This,inturn,hasagreatdealtodowithpublicopinions.”32These
reflectionsmirroredthoseofEdwardBernays,thepioneerofthemodernpublic
relationsindustry,whocalledtheHollywoodfilm“thegreatestunconsciouscarrier
ofpropagandaintheworldtoday.”33Filmthusseemedtobeanidealmediumfor
reachingthemasses,framingsocialissues,andprovidingthekindofemotionally
excitingpubliceducationGriersonimagined.Yethealsoarguedforcefullythata
purposiveandpersuasiveapproachtofilmmakingneededtobecultivatedoutside
Hollywood,independentfromtheprofitmotivesofcommercialmediaindustries,
whichhefelt“wastedopportunitiestoelevatetheemotionsandconsciousnessof
theiraudiences.”34
Thedocumentaryfilm,atleastasGriersonformulatedit,wouldleverage
massmedia’spowersinserviceofthepublic,helpingordinarypeopleunderstand
31Ellis,JohnGrierson,35.32Ibid.,67.33Swann,TheBritishDocumentaryFilmMovement,1926-1946,22.34Ibid.,176.
26
the“stubbornrawmaterialofourmoderncitizenshipandwaketheheartandthe
willtotheirmastery.”35Whilehisrhetoricemphasizedaneedtoempower
audiencestobecomebetter,moreinformedcitizens,Grierson’stheoryof
documentaryalsoreflectedanelitistdesireforcentralizedcoordinationofpublic
opinion–whatLippmanfamouslycalledthe“manufactureofconsent”36–that
seemedtogrowoutofaperceivederosionoftheinfluenceoftraditionalsocial
institutions.AsPaulRotha,oneofGrierson’searlyprotégés,describesit:“thepower
totapthespringsofactionhadslippedawayfromtheschoolsandchurchesandhad
cometoresideinthepopularmedia,themovies,thepress,thenewinstrumentof
radio,andalltheformsofadvertisingandpropaganda.”37Thegrowing
sophisticationandperceivedinfluenceofcommercialmediaindustriesputpressure
ongovernmentstoapplythesesametechniquesofpersuasionto“informand
educatethoseoverwhomtheyheld‘stewardship.’”38Documentary’searliesttheory
ofchange,therefore,wasbuiltuponassumptionsaboutcinema’sabilityto“tapthe
springsofaction”andthepotentialforgovernmentinstitutionstoharnessthis
powerinthenameofpublicservice.
WhenhereturnedtoBritainin1927,Griersonfoundhisfirstmajorallyina
Britishgovernmentbureaucrat,StephenTallents,thensecretaryoftheEmpire
MarketingBoard(EMB).TallentsinitiallyhiredGriersontoproduceaseriesof
reportsontheprospectsforBritishfilmproductionanddistributionatatimewhen
35Aitken,TheDocumentaryFilmMovement,106.36Morris,“Re-ThinkingGrierson.”37Grierson,GriersononDocumentary,15.38Swann,TheBritishDocumentaryFilmMovement,1926-1946,5.
27
95%offilmsshowninBritainwereproducedinHollywood.Establishedin1926to
promotetradethroughouttheBritishEmpireasasubstituteforthe“decaying
militaryandpoliticaltiesofempire,”39theEMB’smission,accordingtoTallents,was
to“bringtheEmpirealivetothemindofitscitizens,andindoingsotosubstitutefor
talkandtheoriesaboutitavividandexcitingrepresentationofitsinfinitelyvarious
livesandoccupations.”40Asthefirstgovernmentbodytoengageinthestillnascent
fieldofpublicity,theEMBwasquicktorecognizethevalueofstate-supportedfilm
asaninstrumentfortheexpansionofmarkets,sinceitcouldhelpeducatethe
diversepublicsoffarflungterritoriesaboutBritishculture,valuesandproducts.
TwoyearsafterhejoinedtheEMB,Griersonhadtheopportunitymakehis
firstandonlyfilmasadirector,TheDrifters.AfilmaboutfishermenintheNorthSea,
itwasintendedprimarilytoadvertisetheherringindustry.41Thefilmreceived
criticalacclaimandearnedaprofitwithinayearofdistribution,givingGrierson
leveragetolaunchtheEMBFilmUnitin1930andbeginhiringagroupofyoung
protégésthatwouldformthecoreoftheBritishdocumentarymovement.42
Initsfirsttwoyears,theFilmUnitproducedmorethan100films,butnone
wereabletoduplicatethesuccessofTheDrifters.43Theaterownersgenerally
resistedshowingdocumentaries,eitherbecausetheydidn’ttrustgovernment-
fundedpropagandaorbecausetheEMB’sshortsilentfilmscouldn’tcompetewith
39Ellis,JohnGrierson,33.40Ibid.,34.41Swann,TheBritishDocumentaryFilmMovement,1926-1946,30.42Ibid.,34.43Ibid.,43.
28
theproductionvalueofwell-financedsoundfilmsfromHollywood.44Asaresult,
Griersonwasforcedthroughoutthe1930stodevelopcircuitsofnontheatrical
distribution,showingfilmsinschools,churches,factoriesandtradeunions.45Ofthe
roughlyhalfmillionpeoplethatwereestimatedtohaveseenEMBfilmsinitsfirst
year,threequartersofthesewereschoolchildren.46
ThedisparitybetweenthecriticalandcommercialsuccessofTheDriftersand
therelativelysmallaudiencesforotherearlyEMBfilmswouldberepeated
throughoutthe1930sinotherinstitutionalcontextssuchastheGeneralPostOffice
FilmUnitandtheShellFilmUnit.Outofthehundredsoffilmsproducedby
Grierson’sfollowersduringthistime,thevastmajoritywererelativelylow-budget
educationalorinstructionalfilms.47Bytheendofthedecade,themovementshifted
awayfrompubliceducation,adoptingamoretargetedstrategyof“aimingfilmsat
elitesanddecisionmakers,ratherthanbroadcastingthemtogeneralaudiences.”48
Theseearlyyearsofthedocumentarymovementdemonstratedhow
Grierson’sintellectualidealsabouttheuseoffilmforciviceducationbumpedup
againsttherealitiesofthemarketplaceandtheconstraintsofinstitutionalsupport.
SchoolchildrenandelitesmaynothavebeenthemassaudiencesGriersonhadin
mindwhenhefirstarticulatedthepotentialofdocumentaryfilmtoraisepolitical
consciousnessandshapepublicopinion.Ifitsimpactswereevaluatedbasedsolely
onthenumberoffilmsitproducedorthesizeofitsaudiences,PaulSwannadmits44Ibid.,42.45Ellis,JohnGrierson,363.46Swann,TheBritishDocumentaryFilmMovement,1926-1946,44.47Ibid.48Ibid.,178.
29
that“eventhemostgenerousofassessmentsforeitherofthesefigurestendsto
chastenstatementsabouttheinfluenceofthedocumentarymovement’soutput.”49
However,asIwillattempttodemonstratethroughoutthisthesis,itisalso
importanttoacknowledgelong-termimpactsthatextendbeyondasimplemeasure
ofthesizeofBritishDocumentaryMovement’saudiencesortheinfluencethat
documentaryfilmshadonthem.TheinstitutionalsupportGriersonfoundinthe
EmpireFilmBoardfacilitatedthedevelopmentofacommunityofpractitionersthat
wasabletodevelopanewcinematiclanguage-onethatcontinuestoevolvetothis
day.TheEMBFilmUnitalsocreatedastrongerprecedentforstate-supported
documentaryfilmprogramsinothercountries,suchastheU.S.FarmSecurity
AdministrationandtheNationalFilmBoardofCanada.Thechallengesofreaching
audiencesincommercialtheatersforcedGriersonandhiscolleaguestodevelop
alternativenetworksofnontheatricaldistribution,whichElliscontendsultimately
laidthefoundationsforthealternativemediathatfollowedagenerationlaterinthe
formofpublictelevision,communityaccesschannelsandvideoactivism.50Inthese
ways,themovementhadimportantinstitutionalimpactssinceitcreated
infrastructuresthatsupportedthedevelopmentofacinematiclanguageoutsideof
Hollywoodandhelpedrebalance,toasmallextent,thedistributionofmediapower.
49Ibid.,177.50Ellis,JohnGrierson,359.
30
TheParticipatoryTurn
IntheFallof1971,justafewmonthsbeforehisdeath,JohnGriersoninvited
CanadianfilmmakerColinLowtospeaktohisclassatMcGillUniversityandscreen
somefilms.LowhadrecentlyspentthreeyearsworkingwiththeNationalFilm
BoardofCanadaonChallengeforChange/SocietéNouvelle,ambitiousmulti-year
initiativeestablishedtoexperimentwithdocumentaryfilmmakingtotoolfor
directlyaffectingsocialchange.51LowhadshotaseriesoffilmsonFogoIsland,a
smallfishingcommunityoffthenortheastcoastofNewfoundlandthatwas
strugglingwithunemployment,decliningfisheries,andpossiblegovernment
relocation.AccordingtoLow,theproject’spurposewastousefilm“asacatalystto
generatelocaldebate-togivelocalpeopleavoiceandeveneditorialcontrol-andto
providethosepeoplewithaccesstopeopleinpower,viafilm.”52
ThefilmsthatLowshowedtotheclassweremundaneandattimes
inaccessible.Theylackedthecontext,narrativestructure,andissue-based
commentarythatwerestandardfordocumentariesofthetime.One18-minutefilm,
BillyCraneMovesAway,depictedafishermanpackinguphisequipmentwhile
casuallytalking(inathickregionalaccent)aboutleavingtheislandtoseekmore
stableemployment.Therewasnoexposition,noplotandrelativelylittleediting.
Griersonappearedunimpressed.Infrontofhisstudents,hepressedLow:
"WhatwasthevalueofthefilmoffFogoIsland?Wasitgoodfortelevision?Mass
51Low,“GriersonandChallengeforChange,”17.52Ibid.
31
media?WhatdiditsaytoCanada?Whatdiditsaytotheworld?"53While
acknowledgingthattheFogofilmsgenerallylackedpopularappeal,Lowcountered
thattheirprimarypurposewasnottoreachabroadaudience,buttocreatea
“communicationloop”bothwithintheFogocommunityandbetweencitizensand
governmentstakeholders.54Throughouttheprocessofproduction,thefilmswere
screenedforresidentsandtheireditorialinputwassolicited,sparkingasustained
publicdialogueaboutthedevelopmentissuesfacingtheisland.Thiscommunity-
basedmodelofdocumentaryfilmmakingbecameknownasthe“FogoProcess.”55
TheclassroomexchangebetweenGriersonandLowhighlightedthetensions
betweentwocontrastingidealsofdocumentary’smethodsforachievingsocial
impactanditsrelationshiptoaudiences.ForGrierson,cinemawasahammer–a
toolwieldedbytheelitetoeducatethemasses,toconsolidatenationalidentityand
tofosternewformsofdemocraticcitizenship.Low,ontheotherhand,was
interestedinusingcinemaasamirror,acommunicationsmediummadeaccessible
tothegeneralpublicthatcouldbeusedtocreatesocialchangethroughamore
tactical,bottom-upprocessofmediationanddialogue.
TheFogoProjectwouldbecomeaniconicexampleofanewgenerationof
activistfilmmakerswhosawemergingtechnologieslike8mmcameras,videoand
cabletelevisionasopportunitiestooverthrowthehegemonyofbroadcasttelevision
anddemocratizethemediumbygivingformerlymarginalizedcommunitiesapublic
voice.IncontrasttotheBritishDocumentaryMovement’sdramatic,polemical53Ibid.,19.54Ibid.,17.55Wiesner,“MediaforthePeople:TheCanadianExperimentswithFilmandVideoinCommunityDevelopment,”73.
32
documentariesaimedatgeneralaudiences,theFogoproject,alongwithmanyofthe
ChallengeforChangeprojectsitinspired,placedapriorityoncollaborativerather
thanprofessionalauthorship,onaddressinglocalratherthanglobalaudiences,and
onsocialprocessratherthancinematic“product.”
Officiallylaunchedin1967,theNationalFilmBoard’sChallengefor
Change/SocieteNouvelleprogramwasbornintoaverydifferentpoliticaland
culturalclimate.56The1960swereadecadeinwhichdocumentaryfilmmakers
begantoemployhandheld16mmcamerasandsyncsoundrecordingsystemsto
makemoreintimate,personalandobservationalfilmsaboutsocialrealitiesunder
thebannersof“directcinema”and“cinemavérité.”AccordingtoNichols,these
developmentsenableda“farmoreparticipatorycinema”(inthesensethatthey
allowedfilmmakerstoparticipatemoredirectlyinunfoldingevents)andthenew
modes“signaledaradicalbreakwithdominantdocumentarystylesfromthe1930s
tothe1950s.”57Thelatterhalfofthedecadewasmarkedbyagrowingsenseof
rebellionagainstpowerfulinstitutionsofthepoliticalandculturalestablishment,
amongthemthe“massmedia”anditsperceivedideologicalcontrol.The
developmentofrelativelyinexpensiveimage-makingtechnologieslike8mmfilm
andlightweightPortapakvideorecordersofferedtheprospectofdecentralizingthe
meansofproductionandtheopportunitytoreimaginedocumentaryfilm’ssocial
56Waugh,Winton,andBaker,ChallengeforChange:ActivistDocumentaryattheNationalFilmBoardofCanada,4.57Nichols,IntroductiontoDocumentary,chap.1.
33
functionanditsrelationshiptothepublicsphereasarticulatedbyGriersona
generationbefore.58
Againstthisbackdrop,ChallengeforChangebroughttogether“theunlikely
partnersofgovernmentbureaucrats,documentaryfilmmakers,communityactivists,
and‘ordinary’citizens”aroundthecommongoalof“addressingpovertyinCanada
throughtheproductionanddisseminationofdocumentarycinema.”59Agroupof
youngidealistswithintheNFBsawanopportunitytonotonlymakefilmsabout
peoplestrugglingwithpoverty,buttotrainthemtomaketheirownfilms,thereby
freeingthemfromdependenceupon“liberalstrangerswhowanderedintotheir
livesandthenoutagainoncethedocumentaryhadbeenmade.”60
Similarexperimentswithdocumentary’smethodsofrepresentationandits
relationshiptothesubjectwerehappeninginparallelaroundtheworld:SolWorth’s
1966participatoryethnographicfilmseries,NavajoFilmThemselves61;theSLON
collective,inwhichChrisMarkerandotherscollaboratedwithstrikingworkersin
Paristomaketheirownfilms62;thegrowing“guerrillatelevision”movementinNew
YorkCity63;andJeanRouch’snotionof“sharedanthropology,”inwhichthe
ethnographicfilmmakershareshisworkandenablessubjectstohavegreaterinput
intotherepresentationsmadeofthem.64Eachofthesegroupssharedthegoalof
58Boyle,SubjecttoChange.59Waugh,Winton,andBaker,ChallengeforChange:ActivistDocumentaryattheNationalFilmBoardofCanada,4.60Boyle,SubjecttoChange.61Pack,“IndigenousMediaThenandNow.”62vanWert,“ChrisMarker.”63Boyle,SubjecttoChange.64Rouch,“TheCameraandMan,”96.
34
decentralizingtheprocessormeansofproductionasastrategyforovercomingthe
institutionalhegemonyassociatedwithbothmassmediaandacademicresearch.
TheFogoIslandprojectbecameoneoftheChallengeforChangeinitiative’s
firstmajorundertakings.ItpairedColinLowwithDonaldSnowden,acommunity
organizerbasedatthenearbyMemorialUniversityinNewfoundland.65Giventhe
complexchallengesfacedbytheislanders,thetwomenwantedtofindawayto
stimulateaprocessofcommunitydevelopmentratherthandocumentsocial
problemsinordertoenlightenageneralCanadianaudience.
AlthoughhewasalreadyanaccomplishedfilmmakerandoneoftheNFB’s
mostrespectedauteurs,Low“didnotwanttousetheFogoIslanderstomakean
artisticstatement.”66Instead,hewantedto“investigatethereactionsofa
communitywhenitspeopleandproblemswerefilmedindepthandthenplayed
backtothemfordiscussionandcriticism.”67Thisdecisionlaidthefoundationsfor
therestoftheproject,shapingtherelationshipbetweenfilmmakersandsubjects,as
wellastheaestheticsandutilityofthefilmsproduced.
Overthecourseof3years,theFogoProjectproduced29shortfilmsthat
containedscenesofeverydaylifeontheisland,interviewswithresidents,andgroup
discussionsaboutsocialproblems.Lowdescribesthesefilmsasbeingedited
“verticallyratherthanhorizontally…[they]werebasedonpersonalities
incorporatingavarietyofissues,ratherthananissueincorporatingavarietyof
65Wiesner,“MediaforthePeople:TheCanadianExperimentswithFilmandVideoinCommunityDevelopment,”83.66Ibid.,82.67Druick,“MeetingatthePovertyLine:GovernmentPolicy,SocialWorkandMediaActivismintheChallengeforChangeProgram,”345.
35
personalities.”68Thisemphasisonpersonalitiesratherthanissuesmeantthatthe
filmsspokemoredirectlytotheislandersthemselves,buttheyhadlessvaluetoa
generalaudience.BecausetheFogofilmswereintendedforalocalaudiencethat
fullyunderstoodtheircontext,Lowwasfreetodispensewithnarrativeconventions
likeexposition,narrativedevelopment,andclosure.Instead,thefootagefunctionsas
acollectionofdisaggregated,open-endedscenesthattogetherprovideacumulative
portraitoftheislandanditsproblems.Arecordofscreeningsheldontheisland
revealsthatdifferentordersandcombinationsoffilmswereshowndependingon
thelocationandaudience.69Inthissense,thecollectionfunctionedlikeadatabase,
withmultipleconfigurationsandpointsofaccess.
Thetheoryofchangebehindthe“FogoProcess”revolvedlargelyaroundthe
documentaryfilmmaker’sethicalresponsibilitytothesubject.ForLowandthe
ChallengeforChangefilmmakersthatfollowedhisexample,artisticambitionshad
tobesubvertedforthesakeofasocialprocessthattreatedfilmasacatalyst
enabling“ordinarypeopletoexploretheirownproblemsandarriveattheirown
solutions.”70Filmmakersintheprogrambegantodescribetheirroleas“social
animators”71ratherthanartists.Thiswasinmanywaysaradicaldeparturefrom
theGriersoniantradition,whichchampionedfilmsthatcouldspeaktothemasses
andshapepublicopinionthroughdramaticstorytelling.AsRosenthalpointsout,
thisinversionoftraditionalnotionsofmedia-drivensocialchangeprovokedanew
setofcriticalquestions:“Whataretheresponsibilitiesofthefilmmakerinthistask?68LowandNemtin,“FogoIslandFilmandCommunityDevelopmentProject,”8.69LowandNemtin,“FogoIslandFilmandCommunityDevelopmentProject.”70Boyle,“O,Canada!GeorgeStoney’sChallenge,”314.71Dansereau,“Saint-Jérôme:TheExperienceofaFilmmakerasSocialAnimator.”
36
Wheredoesoneplaceoneself?Isone’smainresponsibilitytosocietyingeneral,to
thepeoplebeingfilmed,tothenetwork,ortosomewhereelseentirely?”72
SincetherewasnoformalevaluationoftheFogoProject,theimpactofthe
filmswascommunicatedprimarilythroughthefilmmaker’saccountsofthe
participants’impressions.Low’sdocumentationoftheproductionprocessand
reactionstoscreeningsstronglysuggeststhatthefilms“arousedcommunity
discussiononaverylargescale.”73Theislandersultimatelydidmanagetoavoid
relocationandtakegreatercontrolovertheirlivelihoodsbyformingafisherman’s
cooperative.Whetherthatdevelopmentcanbecorrelateddirectlytodiscussion
generatedbythefilmsisaharderquestiontoanswer.Accordingtotheofficial
report,
No one got up at a screening and proposed a plan and had itunanimously carried into effect. I think what did emerge was aconsensusforaction.Thefilmsseemedtocauseacertaintensionorimpatiencetodosomething,andwhentheopportunitywasprovidedbytheco-operativeformation,peopleturnedoutinlargenumberstosupportit.74
Whiletheprojectmaynothavebeenthesolecatalystforthesechanges,thefilms
Lowproduced–andparticularlytheprocessbehindthem–seemtohave
strengthenedtheworkalreadybeingdonebycommunityorganizerslikeSnowden.
Indeed,evaluationbecameaperennialissueforthefilmmakersand
administratorsofChallengeforChange.Theparticipatoryfilmsproducedbythe
initiativecouldn’tbeheldtothesameartisticstandardsastheNFB’straditionalfilm
work,norcouldtheybemeasuredagainstthetraditionalmetricsofbroadcast72Rosenthal,“YouAreonIndianLand:AnInterviewwithGeorgeStoney,”169.73LowandNemtin,“FogoIslandFilmandCommunityDevelopmentProject,”24.74Ibid.
37
television,theatricaloreducationaldistribution,sincetheywereaimedprimarilyat
small,localaudiences.A1972articlebyDanDriscollintheCFCnewslettertitled
“CanWeEvaluateChallengeforChange?”attemptedtoaddresstheissuebyaskingif
socialplannerscouldlearnfromengineersandtheir“highlydevelopedcapacityfor
selfcorrection.”75ChallengeforChange,heargued,shouldbeviewed“asan
instrumentdesignedbypoliticalandsocialprofessionalsforcertaindefined
tasks.”76Lowechoesthispointinhisreport,callingforsocialscientiststotreat
projectslikeFogoaslegitimateobjectsofstudy.77Butitseemsthatthesecallswere
neveransweredandnoformalstudiesweredoneontheprojectsinsitu.
Byintroducingthepossibilityofafilmmakingprocessaimedatalocalrather
thanamassaudience,theFogoProjectfilmsdestabilizeddocumentaryfilm’s
traditionalrelationshiptoitsaudience,whichwasrootedinaGriersonianideal
aboutthesocialinfluenceofmassmedia.Thistransitionfrombroadcastingtoa
more“narrowcasting”basedstrategymarkedtheemergenceofmediaenvironment
inwhichvisualcommunicationtechnologieswerebecomingmoreaccessible,
channelsfordistributionwereexpandingrapidlyandtheattentionofaudienceswas
becomemorefragmentedintonichecommunities.
AlthoughexperimentslikeFogoinitiallydrewwidespreadattention,it
becamehardtoproveanydirectcorrelationbetweenthemediaartifactsproduced
bythemandmeasurablesocialchange.Theprocessdependedontheskillof
filmmakersas“socialanimators”andwastypicallyembeddedwithinpreexisting
75Driscoll,“CanWeEvaluateChallengeforChange?(1972),”67.76Ibid.,68.77LowandNemtin,“FogoIslandFilmandCommunityDevelopmentProject,”29.
38
communitydevelopmentefforts.Thesechallengesinevaluation,combinedwitha
changingpoliticalclimate,madeitdifficultfortheChallengeforChangefilmmakers
tojustifythegovernment’scontinuedinvestmentandtheNFBreturneditsfocusto
professionallyproduceddocumentariesandanimatedfilmsaimedatlarger
audiences.ReflectingonhisclassroomexchangewithGrierson,ColinLow
summarizedhisowninterpretationoftheprogram’sdemise:
Somewhere in themid-seventies theprogramslowlyexpired–afterseveral attempts to revitalize it – for those reasons Dr. Grierson sodeftlyfingeredinhiscriticismoftheprogram.“Evidence.”That’swhatyoumustbring to these situations–andwhatyoumust carryawayfrom thesituation.Governmentwantsevidence.Evidenceof change.Cost-benefit analysis. As money became tighter – as the idealisticcitizen-participation rhetoric of the sixties did a cross-mix to therhetoric of energy economics – we saw the emergence of anotherapproach.“Somethingdoessomethingtosomething,”innouncertainterms. Referendums are won by the merchants of hard sell. Theadvertising companies do their homework,with statistical evidence.For X dollars you reach Y people with Z impact. They are hard torefute.Theyhavefiftyyearsofadvertisingtheoryandpracticebehindthemandaconditionedpopulacewhich, if itdoesnottotallybelievethemessage,atleasttoleratesit.78
Duringthesametimeperiod,parallelmovementsforparticipatorymediaalsolost
momentum,oftenbecausetheirimpactcouldn’tbeeasilymeasuredandtherefore
didn’talignwithexistinginstitutionalagendasorfundingpriorities.Writingabout
theforcesthatpreventedtheAmericanguerillatelevisionmovement’s“dreamfrom
becomingreality”,Boylenotesthatthelackofaudiencesplayedakeyrole:“Their
successeslookedsmallandtheirreachpunycomparedtothevastaudiences
demandedforsuccessintheworldofbroadcasttelevision.”
78Low,“GriersonandChallengeforChange,”22.
39
Themethodologicalinnovationsenabledbynewtechnologieslike8mmfilm,
videoandcabletelevisionintroducedthepotentialforaparadigmshiftinthe
relationshipbetweenmediaandthepublicsphere,onewhichproponentsargued
couldcreatemoretangibleandtacticalformsofsocialimpactattheindividualand
communitylevel.However,theinstitutionallogicofmassmediaultimately
prevailed,inpartbecauseestablishedmeasurementsystems–builtaroundthe
commercialimperativesofthemarketingandbroadcastingindustries–favored
“statisticalevidence”ofsocialinfluence.Evendocumentaryfilmsproducedoutside
thecommercialmediaindustrieswereconsideredtohaveimpactonlyinsofaras
theycouldattracttheattentionofalargeaudienceandaffecttheirattitudesor
behaviors.
1.4The“ImpactIndustry”
Duringthelastdecade,thesocialimpactofdocumentarieshasbecomea
renewedfocusforfilmmakers,publicinterestmediaorganizationsand,in
particular,thefunderssupportingthem.Asdigitalplatformshavegivenfilmmakers
newopportunitiesandtoolstoreachaudiencesandcreatesocialactionor
“audienceengagement”campaigns79,abroadecosystemofsupporthasemergedfor
socialjusticedocumentaries,includinganarrayoffoundations(Ford,MacArthur,
BRITDOC,theFledglingFund),“doublebottomline”productioncompanies
(ParticipantMedia,ImpactPartners)andnonprofits(SundanceInstitute,Tribeca
FilmInstitute).Asthesefundersdeepentheirinvestmentsintheproductionand79KarlinandJohnson,“MeasuringImpact,”3.
40
distributionofissue-drivendocumentaries,theyhavealsofacilitatedthe
developmentofwhatIcallthe“ImpactIndustry”–asmallbutgrowingnetworkof
professionalsinvolvedinproducingconferences,pitchsessions,awards,dozensof
researchreportsandcasestudies,measurementtools,andmostimportantly,
outreachcampaignstiedtofilmsandoftenrunbyspecializedcampaign
coordinatorsknownas“impactproducers.”
AccordingtothefoundationaffinitygroupMediaImpactFunders,questions
aboutwhatthesocialimpactofdocumentariesandotherformsofpublicinterest
mediais–andhowitshouldbeevaluated–havebeentackledinrecentyearsby“a
growingarrayofconvenings,reportsandresearchinitiativeswithinthe
philanthropicsector.”80Since2008,nofewerthan20whitepapershavebeen
publishedonthetopic,inadditiontocountlesscasestudiesandarticles.81Mostof
thesereportshaveproposedconceptualframeworksfordefiningandmeasuringthe
quantitativeandqualitativedimensionsofmedia’ssocialimpact.
Otherinitiativeshavedevelopedtoolsforimpactmeasurementthatcapture
thetrailsofdataleftbehindbydigitalaudiences.Forexample,ConText–atool
developedbycomputerscientistsattheUniversityofIllinoisUrbana-Champaign
withsupportfromtheFordFoundation–usessemanticnetworkanalysisofmedia
coverageandsocialmediadatatoconstructamodelthat“representsthepublic
discourseonthemaintheme(s)addressedinafilm”includingthenetworksof
stakeholdersinvolvedinthatissue.TheHarmonyInstitute’sStoryPilotoffersauser-80BarrettandLeddy,“AssessingCreativeMedia’sSocialImpact,”2.81Foracomprehensivelistofresources,seeMediaImpactFunders’website“AssessingtheImpactofMedia”:http://mediaimpactfunders.org/assessing-impact-of-media/
41
friendlydashboardthatparsessimilardataonafilm’sreachandthediscourse
surroundingit–includingboxofficereports,YouTubetrailerviews,Wikipedia
views,socialmediafollowersandengagement,“massmediamentions,”and
mentionsbypolicymakers.Basedonthesenumbers,documentariesareassigned
differentimpactlabelssuchas“IssueTrendsetters”(filmsthatinitiatepublic
discourse),“IssuePrimers”(filmsthathelpgetaudiencesuptospeed),and“Social
MediaStars”(filmsthatarediscussedwidelyonsocialplatforms).TheParticipant
Index,developedbytheUniversityofSouthernCaliforniaandParticipantMedia
withfundingfromtheKnightFoundationandGatesFoundation,attemptsto
combinequantitativeandqualitativemethodsto“provideinsightsaboutwhatan
audiencelearns(knowledge),feels(attitudes)anddoes(behaviorsandactions).”
LikeConTextandStoryPilot,itdrawsondatasetslikeviewershipandsocialmedia
conversations,butitalsotriestointegrateaudienceopiniondatagatherfrom
surveys,basedonthetheorythatthemoreemotionallyinvolvedaudiencesarewith
afilmthemorelikelytheywillbetotakesocialactions.
Whyistheresuchagrowingemphasisonevaluatingimpactnow?The
“ImpactIndustry”hasemergedatamomentwhenachangingmediaenvironmentis
creatingbothopportunitiesandexistentialchallengesfordocumentaryfilm
producersandforthepublicinterestmediasectorasawhole.Digitaltechnologies
havedramaticallyloweredthebarrierstoentryformediaproductionand
distribution,enablingarapidgrowthinthenumberofdocumentariesbeing
producedthathasfaroutpacedtheavailabilityofgrantfunds,evenasthecostof
productionhascomedownandcrowdfundingplatformsprovidealternativepaths
42
tofunding.Whereasthedistributionofdocumentarieswasoncelimitedbya
relativelysmallecosystemofbroadcastersanddistributors,thedigitalenvironment
hasintroduced“myriadnewanduntestedplatforms”82thathavethepotentialto
reachglobalaudiencesthatnowincludemorethan3billionInternetusers,butalso
carrytheriskoffragmentingtheirattentionacrossavirtuallyunlimitedarrayof
mediachoices.
Perhapsmostimportantly,theriseofsocialmedianetworksandthegrowing
ubiquityofcamera-equippedsmartphonesallowaudiencestoplayincreasingly
activerolesinproducingandcirculatingmediacontent.Amediaenvironmentonce
dominatedby“one-to-many”masscommunicationisincreasinglycharacterizedasa
“many-to-many”networkedinformationeconomyanda“participatoryculture”with
“lowbarrierstoartisticexpressionandcivicengagement.”83WhatJenkins,Fordand
Greencalla“reconfigurationofaudiencepower”84mightalsobedescribedasa
redistributionofpowerfromlegacymediainstitutionstoindividualmediausers,as
wellasneworganizationalplayerslikedigitalnewsstartups.
Theserapidchangeshavesignificantlythreatenedsomelegacymedia
businessmodels.Newspapershaveseenprintadrevenuesdrop65%withinthelast
decade.85Publicbroadcastingcontinuouslyfacesthethreatofbudgetcutswhile
being“stretchedtothelimitbydemandstoproducecontentformultiple
82“FunderPerspectives:AssessingMediaInvestments,”1.83Clintonetal.,“ConfrontingtheChallengesofParticipatoryCulture.”84Ford,Green,andJenkins,SpreadableMedia,117.85Shirky,“LastCall:TheEndofthePrintedNewspaper.”
43
platforms.”86Atatimewhenboththeirbusinessmodelsandtheirinfluenceonthe
publicspherearebeingsignificantlychallenged,publicinterestmediaorganizations
arestrugglingtosimultaneouslyinnovate,adaptandarticulatethesocialvalueof
theirworkinthedigitalage.StudieslikeDeepingEngagementforLastingImpact,
commissionedbytheKnightandGatesFoundations,arguethat“demonstrating
impactiskeytosurvival”and“stayingrelevantinachangingworld.”87TheUK-
basedBRITDOCFoundationpointsoutonitswebsitethatalthoughdocumentaries
are“increasinglybeingrecognisedasakeymediumforcommunicatingsocialjustice
issuesandinspiringsocialchange,”theirimpactmaystillbedismissedbycynicsif
filmmakersrelysolelyon“anecdotalevidenceorcommonsense”ratherthan“hard
evidence”ofchange.88
Foundationshavesteppedintothisfrayinanattempttopreserveand
enhancethecorepublicgoodprovidedbynonfictionmediaformslikedocumentary
filmandinvestigativejournalism.Media-relatedgrantmakinghasgrownrapidly–
increasingby21%between2009and2011alone.89Outof172digitalnonprofit
newsoutletsidentifiedinaPewResearchCenterreport,over70%werefounded
since2008.90Forfundersconcernedwiththehealthofthepublicinterestmedia
sector,alternativeproducerslikenonprofitnewsstartupsandindependent
documentaryfilmmakersofferpotentialantidotestofailingnewspapersanda
86ClarkandAbrash,“SocialJusticeDocumentary,”6.87LearningforAction,“DeepeningEngagementforLastingImpact,”1.88BRITDOCFoundation,“TheImpactFieldGuide&Toolkit.”89Henry-SanchezandKoob,“GrowthinFoundationSupportforMediaintheUnitedStates,”4.90KellerandAbelson,“NEWSLYNX:AToolforNewsroomImpactMeasurement.”
44
polarizedcablenewsindustry,creating“qualitycontentthatcanbeusedtoengage
membersofthepublicascitizensratherthanmerelymediaconsumers.”
However,relianceon“non-marketsourceslikephilanthropyand
government”91comeswithstringsattached.Sincethesefunderscomeundergreater
publicscrutinythanprivateenterprises,theyplacegreateremphasison
accountabilityandevaluation.Giventhesheerquantityofcontentnowbeing
producedandtheshiftingdynamicsofthemediaenvironment,fundersalsoface
greatuncertaintyaboutwhichprojectsandorganizationstosupport.Asaresult,
manyofthemarelookingforbetterframeworksandtoolstohelpthemmake
decisions.AccordingtoBRITDOC,documentaryfundersareincreasinglysearching
for"harddatatoshowtocolleagues,bossesandboardswhenitcomestomedia
fundingdecisions.AndtheyneedmorethanjustTVratings,presscutsandawards
toprovetherealreach,influenceandimpactoftheirinvestment."92Overtime,
BRITDOCargues,betterevaluationofimpactcould"helpthedocumentarysectoras
awholetolobbyforgreaterresourcesandstatus."93
DimensionsofImpact
MuchlikethepractitionersinvolvedintheBritishDocumentaryMovement
andChallengeforChange,thestakeholdersintoday’s“ImpactIndustry”operate
fromasetofassumptionsaboutwhatformsofsocialimpactdocumentariesand
publicinterestmediacanproduce,aswellashowthisprocessunfolds.Muchofthe91“TheReconstructionofAmericanJournalism.”92Search,“BeyondtheBoxOffice:NewDocumentaryValuations,”6.93Ibid.,47.
45
contemporaryliteratureonmediaimpactmirrorsGrierson’sidealsaboutfilmasa
powerfulmediumforpubliceducation.Fromthisstandpoint,thesocialimpactofa
documentaryfilmrestsonitsabilitytoraiseawarenessandunderstandingaboutan
importantissue,particularlyifthatissueis“incrediblycomplexornotwell
understood.”94Insomecases,awarenesscanextendbeyondtheaudiencesforthe
filmitself,since“certainpiecesofmediacontentcanhaveanagenda-settingeffect
onothermedia;andasaresultindividuals,organizations,orinstitutionscanbe
affectedwithouteverhavingbeenexposedtotheoriginalcontent.”95Formany
publicmediaandtraditionalnewsorganizations,theideaof“impact”isstrictly
limitedtotheseessentiallyjournalisticimperativesofinformingaudiencesand
stimulatingpublicdiscourseordebate.Thus,formanydocumentary’scoresocial
functiontodayremainsitsabilitytodrawanaudience’sattentiontoanissue,
representitinmorecomprehensibleorhumanizedterms,andcatalyzediscourse.
Asfoundationsplayagreaterroleinsustainingthepublicinterestmedia
sector,moreemphasisisnowplacedonimpactsthatextendbeyondthesphereof
awareness,understandinganddiscourse.TheFledglingFund’sseminalreport
“AssessingCreativeMedia’sImpact”–oneofthemostcitedpublicationsinthis
genre–iswrittenfromamoreexplicitlyactiviststance,groundedinthebeliefthat
filmcanbe“acatalysttochangeminds,encourageviewerstoalterentrenched
behaviors,andstart,informorre-energizesocialmovements.”96MuchlikeGrierson,
theauthorsdrawadirectconnectionbetweencommercialmedia’spersuasive
94BarrettandLeddy,“AssessingCreativeMedia’sSocialImpact,”14.95Napoli,“MeasuringMediaImpact”;Nisbet,“Introduction.”96BarrettandLeddy,“AssessingCreativeMedia’sSocialImpact,”2.
46
poweranddocumentary’spotentialinfluence:“Weassumethatifadscansell
products,visualimagerylinkedtoasocialjusticenarrativecansellsocialaction,or
politicalconviction.”97Forissuesthatarewidelyunderstoodorhaveavailable
solutions,theauthorssuggestthatafilm-basedoutreachcampaign’sgoalsshould
“shifttosomethingmoreconcretethansimplydialogue.”98Inthismodel,awareness
andunderstandingideallyleadtochangedattitudes,behaviorsor“socialaction.”
Theword“engagement,”whichFledglingdefinesas“ashiftfromsimply
beingawareofanissuetoactingonthisawareness,”liesatthecruxofmost
contemporarytheoriesofchange.Thewordhasappearedwithincreasingfrequency
inthemediaimpactliteratureandvirtuallyeveryothersectorofthemedia
industries,signalingawidespreadshiftfromaninstitutionalviewofaudiencesas
comprisedofpassiveviewersorrecipientstooneinwhichtheybecomeuserswitha
varietyofactiverelationshipsorresponsestomediacontent.
Muchlike“impact,”theconceptof“engagement”cantakeonamultiplicityof
meaningsdependingonthecontextinwhichitused.PhilipNapolioutlines25
differentdefinitionsoftheterms“audienceengagement”usedwithininadvertising
industryresearch,rangingfromviewers’involvementorinteractionwitha
marketingcommunicationtotheir“emotionalconnection”andloyaltytothebrand
behindit.Innumerousreportsdiscussingengagement,thetermisequatedwith
mediausers’levelofattention.Forexample,Chartbeat’s“engagedtime”metric,
popularamongnewsorganizations,measurestheamountoftimereadersspend
97Ibid.98Ibid.,14.
47
withasinglearticleratherthanmoregenericmeasureslikepageviewsandsession
duration.99
Increasingly,theword“engagement”alsoreferstovarioussocialmedia
activities,suchasliking,sharing,commentingonanddiscussingmediatexts,and
sometimesevencontributingcontent.Giventhetransparencyofsocialmedia
activities,thisdimensionofengagementhasbecomeakeysiteofmeasurement.For
example,Twitterhasbegunmarketingitselftothetelevisionindustryasa
“synchronizedsocialsoundtrack”forTVprograms,andthecompanynowworks
withresearchfirmslikeNielsentouseaugmenttraditionalratingslikeimpressions.
Finally,astheFledglingFundreportdemonstrates,thewordengagementis
sometimesusedtorefertotheconcreteactionsthatindividualsmighttakein
responsetoviewingmediacontent.Inamarketingcontext,thisusuallymeans
buyingaproductafterseeinganadvertisement.Inthecontextofpublicinterest
media,itmightmeanparticipatingincivicactivitieslikevoting,signingapetition,
contactingarepresentativeorjoiningaprotestmovement.Forbothmarketersand
advocacy-orientedmediaproducers,thesekindsof“offline”impactsareoftenthe
ultimategoal.
Manyimpactreportsdevotesignificantattentiontostrategiesforbuilding
partnershipswithactivistsandcommunityorganizations,whichcancreatean
infrastructure“thatencouragesindividuals,organizations,and/orcommunitiesto
act.”100Partnerscanhelpfilmmakersplanaudienceengagementcampaigns,hostor
facilitategrassrootsscreenings(ofteninnontheatricalvenueslikethoseemployed99“AudienceDevelopmentWhitepaper.”100BarrettandLeddy,“AssessingCreativeMedia’sSocialImpact,”14.
48
byGrierson)and,importantly,providewaysinwhichaudiencescangetdirectly
involvedwithanissue.Insomecases,partnersmayevenprovideinputduringthe
productionprocessandhelpshapethemessageorframingofafilm.David
Whitemanidentifiesthisapproachasthe“coalitionmodel,”describinghowfilms
that“mayneverachievesignificantdistribution,andthereforeneverenter
mainstreampublicdiscourse”canstillhavesignificantimpactby“educatingand
mobilizingactivistsoutsidethemainstream.”101Accordingtothistheoryofchange,
suchcollaborationscanstrengthensocialmovementsandcontributetosocial
changeovertimeeveniftheydon’treachlargeaudiences.
Althoughcontemporarymodelsofmediaimpactstillarelargelyrootedinthe
topdowncommunicationdynamicsofmassmedia,theemphasisonsocialmedia
engagementandthedevelopmentofalternativedistributionnetworksfor
documentaryindicatesashifttowardmoreparticipatorydynamics.Grassroots
audienceengagementcampaigns,forinstance,havethepotentialtoopenup
channelsofparticipationthatinvolvecommunitiesmoredirectlyintheprocessof
communicatingsocialissuesandcollaborativelydefiningappropriateresponses.In
somecases,thesecampaignsmayeveninvolveparticipatoryelementssuchas
solicitingstoriesfromaudiencemembers.
AreportpublishedbyAmericanUniversity’sCenterforMediaandSocial
Impact(CMSI)titled“SocialIssueDocumentary:TheEvolutionofPublic
Engagement,”extendsthisconceptbyexploringhowdigitaltechnologiesanda
multiplatformmediaenvironmentaremakingpossibleanewbreedofpublicmedia
101Whiteman,“OutoftheTheatersandintotheStreets,”54.
49
thatismoreaccessible,participatoryandinclusive.WhatCMSIcalls"PublicMedia
2.0”includesnotonlypublicbroadcastersbutawholeecosystemofdistributors,
serviceorganizations,festivals,fundersandnonprofitorganizations.Theyargue
thatnewtechnologiesandaudienceengagementstrategiescanhelpthesepublic
mediaproducersmovebeyonditstraditionofeducatingandinformingthepublicby
focusingonenablingpublics“torecognizeandunderstandtheproblemstheyshare,
toknoweachother,andtoact."Documentariesformaimportantpartofthis
ecosystem,sincethey“notonlyprovidetrustedinformationaboutthornyissues,
theytellstoriesthatframeandgivehumanmeaningtothoseissuesandprovide
languagefordebateacrossboundariesofdifference.”Whileprofessionally-
producedfilmsarestillemphasizedasthecatalystsofsocialchange,reportslike
CMSImoveawayfromGrierson’spaternalisticmodelbyacknowledgingtheagency
ofsubjectsandaudiencesasproducersofknowledge,meaningandvalue.
ThePoliticsofEvaluation
Howshouldthesevariousdimensionsofimpactbemeasured?Whiledigital
technologieshaveopenedthefloodgatesforproductionanddistributionofmedia
contentonnewplatforms,theyhavealso“openeduparangeofnewanalytical
opportunities”102bymakingaudienceactivitiesmoretransparentthanever.The
combinationofthepressuretorationalizemedia’sinfluenceandthetechnical
abilitytorenderaudiencesmorevisiblehasgivenrisetowhatPhillipNapolicalls
102Napoli,“MeasuringMediaImpact,”4.
50
“audienceinformationsystems.”103Inthepublicinterestmediasector,thesame
foundationsthatsupporttheproductionofdocumentariesarealsofundingthe
developmentofasuiteofnewtoolsformeasuringimpact.Theseincreasingly
sophisticatedmetricsattempttogobeyondtraditionalmeasuresofsuccesslike
“reach”or“exposure”andusethetrailsofdataleftbydigitalmediausersas
indicatorsoftheirlevelofengagementwithcontent.
FledglingFundsuggestsarangeofmeasuresspecifictoeachdimensionof
impact.Forinstances,acompellingstoryisvalidatedbyacceptancetofestivals,
broadcastontelevision,awardsandreviews.Awarenessismeasuredbyfactors
suchasaudiencesizeanddiversity.Engagementisreflectedinviewers’
participation,whetherthroughsocialnetworkingsites,facilitateddialogues,Take
Actioncampaignsorotherforms.Evidencethatafilmisacreatingastronger
movementcanbefoundinthenumberoforganizationsutilizingthefilm,
collaborationbetweenpartnerorganizations,screeningswithpolicymakersand
mentionsinpolicydiscussions.Finally,socialchange–whatFledglinglabelsthe
“UltimateGoal”ofissue-drivendocumentary–canbemeasuredbylookingat
factorslikepolicychange,behavioralchangeandshiftsinpublicdialogue.
Thegrowingemphasisonevaluatingimpacthasbeenreceivedwithsome
skepticismanddebate,evenamongthosefilmmakerswhocountsocialchangeas
oneoftheirprimarygoals.InasurveyconductedbytheTrue/FalseFilmFestival
andthe“creativestrategygroup”Aggregate,72%offilmmakersbelievedthattheir
filmcouldcreatesocialchange,while66%answered“No”tothequestion“Doyou
103Napoli,AudienceEvolution,8.
51
thinkthereshouldbemetricstomeasurethesocialchangecreatedbyafilm?”104A
reportpublishedbyacoalitioncalledMediaImpactFundersacknowledgesskeptics’
concernsthat“anexcessofevaluationmightstiflecreativity,needlesslylimit
fundingtothoseprojectswhoseshort-termimpactcanbeconclusivelyproven,or
simplyboggranteesdowninadministrativetasksthatrequireentirelydifferent
skills,aswellasresources.”105
InJuly2014,theNewYorkTimespublishedanarticletitled“Participant
IndexSeekstoDetermineWhyOneFilmSpursActivism,WhileOthersFalter,”
profilinganewimpactmetriccalledTheParticipantIndex,orTPI.Developedby
ParticipantMediaandtheUniversityofSouthernCaliforniawithfundingfromthe
GatesFoundationandtheKnightFoundation,TPIcombines“insightsaboutwhatan
audiencelearns(knowledge),feels(attitudes)anddoes(behaviorsandactions)”106
intoasinglequantitativemeasureofafilm’simpact.TheTimesarticleexacerbated
concernsthatsuchmetricsruntherisk,inthewordsofconsultantPatricia
Finneran,of“failingtocapturethebeautifulcomplexityofstorytellingandsocial
change”byreducingafilm’simpacttoasinglenumberorscore.107
InSeptember2014,TheFledglingFundrespondedtotheseconcernsinan
openletter,arguingthatnewtoolslikeTPIcan“helpusandourgranteeslearn”by
providinginsightsthatcanbeusedto“shapeandstrengthencampaignsasthey
unfold.”Theletteremphasizesthelimitsofbigdataanalytics,theimportanceof104“DocumentaryFilmmakersandSocialChange:ASurveyofTrue/False2014Filmmakers.”105“FunderPerspectives:AssessingMediaInvestments,”1.106“StorytellingMatters:MeasuringtheSocialImpactofEntertainmentonAudiences(KeyFindings),”1.107Finneran,“STORYMATTERS.”
52
balancingquantitativeandqualitativemethodsforimpactassessmentandtheneed
tomeasureimpactagainsta“project’suniquegoals,itstargetaudiencesandits
strategyforchange.”Italsoacknowledgesthatfactthatmostsocialchangescan’tbe
attributedtoasinglefilm,butratherdocumentariescontributetotheworkof
“activists,leaders,organizationsandcoalitionsthathavelaidgroundworklong
beforethefilmsandcampaignswereconceived.”108
Whilethesedebateshavebeenconductedwithintherelativeisolationofthe
documentaryfilmcommunity,theyreflectconcernsaboutevaluation’susefulness
andscientificvaliditythathavebeenanundercurrentinthephilanthropicsector
sincethe1960s.PeterDobkinsHall’sexcellenthistorydetailshowevaluation
researchemergedinitiallyoutofpolicydebatesovertheregulationoffoundation
spendingandgovernance,whichraiseddeeperquestionsaboutwhether,inthe
wordsofJohnD.RockefellerIII,“foundationshaveadvantagesoverothermeansfor
promotingthegeneralwelfare.”109In1973,aroundthesametimethatColinLow
lamentedthedeclineofthe“idealisticcitizen-participationrhetoricofthesixties”
andtheriseof“energyeconomics,”thepresidentoftheRussellSageFoundation,the
sociologistOrvilleG.BrimJr.,publishedaninfluentialarticletitled"DoWeKnow
WhatWeAreDoing?"Init,hedistinguishedbetween“the‘impressionistic
evaluativeprocedures’usedbyadministrators,politicians,andjournalistsfrom
‘hard-headed’and‘specific’assessments.”110BelldetailstheRobertWoodJohnson
Foundation’sinvestmentsinsystematicevaluationofitshealthcare-related108Barrett,Leddy,andVerellen,“FledglingResponsetoImpactMeasurementDebate.”109Hall,“AHistoricalPerspectiveonEvaluationinFoundations,”31.110Ibid.
53
programs.Whiletheeffortwaspraisedinthephilanthropicforgenerating
“reproducibleconclusion[s]”aboutthesuccessorfailureofprograms,itshugecost
madeit“prohibitivefor99%ofthenation’sfoundations.”Inanarticlewrittenon
theoccasionofhisretirement,thefoundation’spresidentDavidRogersarguedthat
themajorcontributionofoutcomes-basedevaluationwas“allowingafoundation’s
stafftoagreeonits‘majorprogrammaticthrust.’”111AsBellsummarizes:
Thisrevealingadmissionilluminatesanaspectofevaluationthatfewevaluationresearchersatthetimewerewillingtoacknowledge:thatrather than producing "objective" measurements of the impact offoundationinterventions,itsprimaryvaluewastoreduceuncertaintyanddisagreementwithingrantmakingorganizations.112
Despitetheselongstandingdoubtsabouttheabilityofevaluationresearchto
produceobjectivemeasuresofsocialchange,thesubjecthasbecameincreasingly
ubiquitousinthenonprofitsectorsincethe1990s,inpartbecauseofarapidgrowth
inthenumberofnewfoundations(manyfromthe“results-orientedworldofhigh-
techbusiness”),the“professionalizationofnonprofitmanagement”through
businessandpublicadministrationschools,andthecapacityoflargefoundationsto
“toincentivizeareasinwhichtheywantedresearchdone”bythescholarly
community.113
Inrecentyears,amodelofevaluationknownas“TheoryofChange”has
becomemorepopularacrossthephilanthropicsector.DevelopedbyCarolWeiss,
theapproachasksplannersofsocialprogramsto“describethesetofassumptions
thatexplainboththeministepsthatleadtothelong-termgoalofinterestandthe
111Ibid.,39.112Ibid.113Ibid.,43.
54
connectionsbetweenprogramactivitiesandoutcomesthatoccurateachstepofthe
way.”114AccordingtoareportpublishedbytheAspenInstituteRoundtableon
CommunityChange,whichhasplayedamajorroleinpopularizingthismodel,
The TOC approach is designed to encourage very clearly definedoutcomesateverystepof thechangeprocess.Usersare required tospecifyanumberofdetailsaboutthenatureofthedesiredchange—includingspecificsaboutthetargetpopulation,theamountofchangerequiredtosignalsuccess,andthetimeframeoverwhichsuchchangeisexpectedtooccur.Thisattentiontodetailoftenhelpsbothfundersandgranteesreassessthe feasibilityofreachinggoals thatmayhaveinitially been vaguely defined and, in the end, promotes thedevelopment of reasonable long-term outcome targets that areacceptabletoallparties.115
Thelastsentenceaboutdefining“targetsthatareacceptabletoallparties”confirms
Bell’spointaboutevaluation’sbasicroleasatoolforaligningexpectationsbetween
grantmakerandgrantee.Whilethe“TheoryofChange”frameworkallowssome
flexibilityforprogramplannerstodeterminewhatkindsofimpactsoroutcomes
theirworkwillproduce,itstillstartsfromthebasicassumptionthatimpactscanbe
predictedandmeasured.
Recentinitiativesaimedatevaluatingmedia’ssocialimpacthaveinherited
thiscomplicatedlegacy,yetrarelyreflectonit.Whilethe“TheoryofChange”model
ostensiblyallowspublicinterestmediaproducerstodefinetheirowngoalsand
outcomes,thiscanbestillbehugelychallengingsincecreativeworkslike
documentariesinevitablyhaveunintended,unpredictableandhard-to-measure
114Anderson,“TheoryofChangeasaToolforStrategicPlanning:AReportonEarlyExperiences,”2.115Ibid.,4.
55
impacts–particularlywhentheirunderstandingofaudiencesismediatedthrough
theabstractionofaudiencemeasurementsystems.
EvaluatingInteractiveDocumentaries
Inparalleltothisgrowingpressurefromfunderstoevaluatesocialimpact,
publicinterestmediaorganizationshavebeenexperimentingwithboththetypesof
contenttheyproduceandthewaystheydistributeandpresentit.Giventherolethat
newtechnologieshasplayedinthedisruptionsofthemedialandscape,these
institutionsarenowlookingtocreativeapplicationsofthesesametechnologiesin
theirsearchfor“deepeningengagement”and“lastingimpact.”116Intheprocess,
theyareexpandingtheircapacityforproducinginteractivemediaontheWeb,
mobiledevicesand,insomecases,emergingplatformslikevirtualreality.
Todate,thevastmajorityofmediacontentonthewebresemblestheforms
thatcamebeforeit:static,linearblocksoftext,videosandphotographsandaudio
clips.Asbroadbandaccessspreadsandtechnologiessuchasthewebbrowserand
mobiledevicesmature,itisbecomingpossibletoproducemorepersonalized
multimediaexperiencesofnonfictionstorytellingthatareinnatelyinteractive,
nonlinear,participatoryand/orimmersive.Inparticular,interactivityand
participation,twoofthedefiningfeaturesofnetworkeddigitalenvironments,have
beenembracedasstrategiesforbuildingmoreengagedaudiencesontheWeb.
Fromaninstitutionalstandpoint,however,innovativeandunfamiliarmedia
formslikeinteractivedocumentariespresentseveralchallenges.Manyinteractive116LearningforAction,“DeepeningEngagementforLastingImpact.”
56
documentariesattempttoforgenewconventionsofuserengagementwith
nonfictionnarrative,askinguserstonavigatethrougharchivesoffootage,
participateinconstructingastorybycontributinguser-generatedcontent,orplay
animmersivefirst-person“documentarygame.”Giventheexperimentalnatureof
thiswork,itisoftenunclearwhetherthesestrategiesallowuserstoengagemore
deeplyinastory,orwhethertheypresentobstaclestoengagementforusersmore
familiarwiththe“leanback”experienceoflinearstorytellingforms.
Furthermore,therearenowell-establisheddistributionplatformsonwhich
interactivedocumentariescanreachwideaudiences.Oneofthecentralchallenges
oftheWebisthefactthatithasenabledanexponentialgrowthinamountofmedia
contentcompetingfortheattentionofaudiences.Distributionisnolongerquestion
ofmerelypublishingtoagivenplatform,butnowrequiresuserstoshareand
discussthatcontentviatheirsocialnetworks,ordiscoveritviasearchalgorithms.
Thismeansthatinteractivedocumentaries,likemostmediacontentontheWeb,
havestruggledtofindaudiencescomparabletotheirbroadcastcounterparts.
Finally,despitetheunprecedentedtransparencyofaudienceactivitieson
digitalplatforms,therearestillfewtoolsavailabletailoredtomeasuringuser
behaviorswithininteractivedocumentaries.Althoughcontemporarystudieson
mediaimpacttendtorevolvearoundtheideaof“audienceengagement,”the
measurestheyproposearegenerallylimitedtovariableslikeaudiencesize,
attentionandsocialmediaactivities–thesamemetricsusedforlinearcontenton
theWeb.Reflectingthead-drivenmediaeconomicsoftheWeb,theyconstructa
narrowviewofwhatEttemaandWhitneycallan“institutionallyeffectiveaudience”
57
fordocumentariesondigitalplatforms,failingtocapturemanyqualitative
dimensionsoftheuser’sexperienceininteractivedocumentaries.
Aswetransitionfromlinearformstoawidevarietyofinteractive,
participatory,nonlinearandimmersiveformsofdocumentary,anewsetof
questionsopensupabouthowdifferentformsofaudienceengagementtranslate
intodifferenttypesofsocialimpact.Forexample,manyinteractivedocumentaries
inviteaudiencestoplayamoreactive,participatoryrolesinthestorytellingprocess
orthediscoursesurroundinganissue.SandraGaudenzihasidentifiedarangeof
differentcollaborativestrategiesusedbyproducers,includingconstructing
documentariesarounduser-generatedcontent,invitingdebateandcommentary
withinaproject,or,inthetraditionofChallengeforChange,collaboratingwith
specificcommunitiesinwaysthatarenotalwaysvisibletogeneralaudiences.
AsKateNashhaspointedout,therearemultipledimensionsthatcanbeused
tocharacterizethe“interactivity”ininteractivedocumentaries.Perhapsmost
obviousarethetechnologicalandexperientialdimensions,whichreferrespectively
tothetechnicalinfrastructureanduser’sexperienceoftheinteractionsthatenables.
Nashcontendsthatinteractivedocumentariesalsorelationaldimension,referring
to“howusersareaddressed,howthey’reinvitedtoparticipate,andthetypesof
communicativeenvironment”theycreate.Finally,Nashpointsoutthatinteractive
documentarieshaveadiscursivedimension,asking:“towhatextentdouseractions
haveameaningfulimpactontheargumentsmadebythedocumentaryandtowhat
extentthereforedousershaveagencywithrespecttodiscourse?”Eachofthese
collaborativestrategiesanddimensionsofinteractivitypointstothewaysthat
58
interactivedocumentariescanhaveafundamentallydifferentrelationshipto
audiences,aswellasdifferentwaysofconstructingthepublicspherethrough
media.
Giventhiscomplexity,itisessentialforinstitutionsexperimentingwiththese
formstodevelopabetterunderstandingofhowindividualusersareaffectedby,for
example,theexperienceofnavigatingawebdocumentary,producingmediafora
participatorydocumentaryor“immersing”themselvesina360-degreevirtual
realityfilm–andhowtheseengagementsmayormaynotleadtoformsofimpact
thatfalloutsideoftraditionalmetricsregimes.AsEttemaandWhitneyhaveshown,
audiencesare“constructed”toserveinstitutionalpurposes.Willinteractive
documentariesattractaudiencesthatserveexistinginstitutionalpurposesand
notionsofsocialimpact?Orwilltheynudgelegacymediainstitutionstoadapttheir
“theoriesofchange”tothedynamicsofanetworkedmediaenvironment?Theways
inwhichtheselegacymediainstitutionsdefineandmeasureimpactwillbeakey
determinantofhowtheprocessofdigitaladaptationandinnovationunfolds,how
thelanguageofinteractivedocumentaryevolves,andwhetherornottheinteractive
documentaryultimatelyreachestheartistic,socialandpoliticalpotentialsthat
manyhaveascribedtoit.
59
CHAPTER2TheNationalFilmBoardofCanada
InChapter1,Ioutlinedtwodistinctwaysthatthesocialimpactof
documentaryfilmhasbeenconceptualized,ortwo“theoriesofchange”thathave
shapedthedocumentarytraditionatdifferentmomentsofhistory.Thefirst,rooted
inGrierson’spaternalisticvision,emphasizesthewaysinwhichmassmediacan
influenceaudiencesbytransmittingknowledgeorvalues–inGrierson’swords,
creatinga“commonpatternofthoughtandfeeling”amongcitizens.Thesecond,
reflectedinparticipatoryexperimentslikeChallengeforChange,emphasizesthe
waysinwhichmorelocalizedpublicscanformandgainagencythroughaprocessof
mediaproduction–particularlywhennewtechnologieshelplowerthebarrierfor
entry.Finally,Ilookedatthewaysinwhichvariationsofthesetheoriesare
expressedinthecontemporaryliteratureonsocialimpactmeasurement–which
increasinglystressestheimportanceof“audienceengagement”–andhowthey
mightapplytoemergingformsofinteractivedocumentary.
Inthischapter,I’llexplorehowrecentinvestmentsininteractive
documentaryproductionattheNationalFilmBoardofCanada(NFB)reflectboth
these“topdown”and“bottomup”theoriesofchangeandtheircorresponding
notionsofsocialimpact.Likemanypublicinterestmediaorganizations,theNFBhas
facedthepressureofshrinkingbudgetsandaneedtojustifythevalueofitswork
whilesimultaneouslyadaptingtothedigitalmediaenvironment.Atthesametime,
asa“publicproducer”withabroadmandate,alegacyofinnovation,andasingle
60
fundingsource–theCanadiangovernment–theNFBhashadthecreativeand
financiallatitudeinrecentyearstotransformitselfintoanR&Dlabforthe
documentaryform,launchingtwointeractivestudiosdedicatedtoexperimenting
withawidevarietyofnewtechnologiesandtechniquesforinteractivedigital
storytelling.FocusingonsomeoftheNationalFilmBoard’smostprominent
interactivedocumentaries,Iwillexplorehowthesedifferenttechniquesreflect
variednotionsofwhatconstitutes“impact”–andthereforerequiredifferent
approachestomeasuringit.
MuchoftheNFB’sinteractivework,producedbytwoInteractiveStudiosin
MontrealandVancouver,hasexperimentedwithnoveluserinterfacesfor
multimediacontent–includingcallsforparticipation–inanattempttobuild
audiencesontheWebandengagethoseaudiencesmoredeeplyinastory.The
impactofthesewebdocumentaries,muchliketheirlinearcounterparts,istypically
evaluatedbasedontheirabilitytocapturetheattentionofaudiencesorstimulate
somekindofbroaderdiscussiononline.Ontheotherhand,NFBprojectslike
KaterinaCizek’scollaborativedocumentariesFilmmakerinResidenceandHighrise
growoutoftheparticipatorytraditionofChallengeforChange,approachingnew
technologiesasanopportunitytoworkcloselywithlocalcommunitiesandrethink
themethodsandethicsofdocumentarystorytelling.LikeChallengeforChange,this
community-basedprocessblursthelinesbetweenmediamakingandsocialwork.
Thereforeitdoesn’talwaystranslateintolargeaudiences,butitarguablyallows
Cizektomakeamoredirectandqualitativelymeasurableimpactsonthelivesofher
subjects.
61
FurthercomplicatingthesedivergentnotionsofimpactarewhatIcall
“institutionalimpacts”:thevariouswaysthatdigitalexperimentationisseenas
benefitingtheorganizationitself.TheNFB’sevolvingpublicinterestmissionhas
largelyfocusedonitsabilitytodifferentiateitselffromothermediaorganizations
producingdocumentaries.Fromthisstandpoint,theinstitutionalimpactsofthe
NFB’sinteractivedocumentariesincludethewaysinwhichtheyallowthe
organizationtodemonstrate“culturalleadership”bydevelopingnewartisticforms,
workingin“areasofmarketfailure,”andbuildingcapacityforinteractivemedia
productionthatextendswellbeyondwhatmostotherpublicinterestmedia
organizationscanafford.
Whiletheseoutcomesmaynotbeconsideredsocialimpactsinthetraditional
sense,theyarehighlyvaluedbythekeystakeholderswithintheorganizationand
keytothedevelopmentofinteractivedocumentaryasanartform.Regardlessof
theirimpactsonaudiences,theNationalFilmBoard’sinteractivedocumentaries
havestronglyinfluencedthedevelopmentofanascentfield,bringinggreater
visibilityandprestigetotheorganizationandhelpingmakethecaseforits
continuedexistenceasa“publicproducer”ofdocumentariesinthedigitalage.
Lookingforward,however,theseimpactsmaynotbeenoughtojustifycontinued
experimentationifinteractivedocumentariescan’tdrawconsistentaudiencesor
demonstratesocialimpactinotherways.
62
RedefiningthePublicSphere
TheNationalFilmBoardofCanadaisanorganizationthathasboth
documentaryandinnovationinitsDNA.Duringits75-yearhistory,theNFBhas
producedover13,000filmsthathavegarneredover5,000awards.117Mostlyof
thesehavebeendocumentaries,althoughtheorganizationalsohasastudiothat
producesexperimentalanimation.Duringthe1960s,NFBfilmmakershelped
pioneertheobservationaltechniquesofcinemavéritéandnewtechnologieslike
IMAXcinema.118Aswesawinthepreviouschapter,theorganizationwasalso
responsibleforboldexperimentsinparticipatoryfilmmakingandvideoactivism
throughitsChallengeforChangeinitiative.Thislegacyofexperimentationhasbeen
madepossiblebyitsunusualfundingmodelandmandate.Fundedentirelybythe
Canadiangovernment,theNFBhashistoricallyenjoyed,accordingtohistorianGary
Evans,an“atmosphererelativelyunfetteredbythepoliticalmasterswhopaidthe
bills.”119Nevertheless,theNFB’sapproachtoitspublicservicemissionhasevolved
continuouslyinresponsetochangingpoliticalcontextsandmediaenvironments.
TherootsoftheNationalFilmBoardlieintheBritishDocumentary
Movement’smodelofusingdocumentaryfilmasatoolforstate-sponsoredpublic
education.In1938,JohnGriersonwasinvitedtostudythefilmmakingactivitiesof
theCanadianGovernmentMotionPictureBureau,whichfortwodecadeshadbeen
producinglow-budgeteducationalfilms“designedtopromotespecificideas,ora
117GovernmentofCanada,“OurCollection-NationalFilmBoardofCanada.”118Evans,IntheNationalInterest.119Ibid.,xi.
63
senseofbelongingamongthecitizenry.”120HisfindingsthattheMotionPicture
Bureaulackedadequateresourcesanda“governingdirection”ledtothepassageof
theFilmActthefollowingyear,whichGriersonhelpedtodraft.Thenewlegislation
establishedtheNationalFilmBoardasa“publicproducer”withamandateto“make
anddistributefilmsdesignedtohelpCanadiansinallpartsofCanadatounderstand
thewaysoflivingandtheproblemsofCanadiansinotherparts.”121Inthesameway
thattheEMBFilmUnitwassetupto“bringtheEmpirealivetothemindofits
citizens,”122theNationalFilmBoardapproachedtheproductionanddistributionof
documentaryfilmsasawaytoconstructapublicsphereacrossCanada.
Today,althoughitsfocushasbroadenedtoaudiencesoutsideCanada,the
NationalFilmBoard’scoremissionremainslargelythesame:“toprovidenew
perspectivesonCanadaandtheworldfromCanadianpointsofview,perspectives
thatarenotprovidedbyanyoneelseandthatserveCanadianandglobal
audiences.”123IntheGriersoniantradition,itsdocumentaryproductionsarestill
describedasservingthepublicinterestby“creatingcommondemocratic,civil
values”andexplainingthe“thechangingculturalandsocialrealitiesofCanada.”124
Duringthepastdecade,however,theorganizationhasundertakenanambitious
digitaltransformation,perhapsbestillustratedbyashiftinhowtheNFBdescribes
itscreativeoutput.Whereasitonceusedtheword“film”almostexclusively,the
organizationnowreferstoitsproductionsas“innovativeanddistinctiveaudiovisual
120“OurHistory.”121Evans,IntheNationalInterest,17.122Ellis,JohnGrierson,34.123GovernmentofCanada,“MissionandHighlights-NationalFilmBoardofCanada.”124“NFBStrategicPlan2008-2009to2012-2013,”5.
64
worksandimmersiveexperiences”125–abroaddescriptionthatencompasseslinear
films,productionsinothermedia,andagrowingbodyofinteractivedocumentaries
madefortheweb,mobiledevices,festivalexhibitionsandeveninstallationsin
publicspaces.
OneofthedriversofthistransformationwasTomPerlmutter,whojoined
theNFBin2002asHeadofEnglishProgrammingbeforebecomingCommissionerin
2007.Whenhestartedthejob,Perlmutterwasconcernedthattheorganizationhad
lostsightofwhatmadea“publicproducer”distinctandnecessaryinthedigitalage,
particularlyatatimewhencommercialbroadcasters(aswellaspublicmedia
organizationsliketheCanadianBroadcastingCorporation)werealsocreatinga
broadrangeofdocumentariesforCanadiantelevisionaudiences:
Iwasthinkingthrough[theNFB’s]necessity.Onwhatbasisdoweargueforapublicinstitution?Itwasarealquestion.Ididn’tcomeinassumingweneedpublicinstitutions.Everythingwasonthetableforme…Whydoyouneedapublicproducertoproducetelevision?Therewasaverydynamicprivatesector–theyweredoingreallywell.Awholerangeofso-calledimportantCanadiantopicswerebeingcoveredbyawholerangeofthingswithallthespecialtychannelsandcablechannelsthathadcomealongsincethemid-80s,whetheritwashistoryorlifestyle,orscienceortechnology,itwasbeingdone.Onwhatbasisthendoyouargueforhavingthispublicproducermaketelevision?126
Atitsfounding,theNFBwastheonlyorganizationwiththeresourcesto
professionallyproduceanddistributedocumentaryfilmstotheCanadianpublic.In
theinterveningdecades,however,documentaryproductionanddistributionhad
expandeddramatically.Perlmutterrecognizedthat,despitehistoricallystrong
125“Imagine,Engage,Transform:AVision;APlan;AManifesto(2013-2018),”5.126Perlmutter,interview.
65
supportfromtheCanadianpublic,theNFBneededtotransforminordertojustify
itsexistenceinthedigitalera.
TheNFB’s2008-2013and2013-2018StrategicPlansarethebestexpressionsof
thephilosophybehindthisdigitaltransformation.WrittenbyPerlmutter,the
documentsoutlineaboldmanifestothatemphasizestheNFB’slegacyandreaffirms
itsoriginalraisond’etre:producingartisticworksthattakecreativerisksandserve
thepublicinterestinwaysthatthecommercialmediaindustriescannot.Forthe
NFB,itisnecessarynotonlytodifferentiateitselffromothermediaproducers,but
alsotopushtheenvelope,providing“culturalleadershipbothdomesticallyand
internationally”andcreatingpublicgoodsinwhattheycall“areasofmarket
failures.”127ThisarticulationoftheNFB’smissionrestsontwoassumptions:the
currentmedialandscapeinadequatelyaddressestheneedsoftheCanadianpublic;
andartisticexperimentationcanhelpaddressthesefailures.
OneofthefirstmajorstepstowardsdifferentiatingtheNFBwasaneffortto
developaudiencesondigitalplatforms,firstbydigitizingtheNFB’sentirefilm
collectionandbuildingaweb-based“ScreeningRoom”thatmadetitlesaccessible
forfreetoaudiencesbothinsideCanadaandabroad.Thisambitiousinitiativewas
undertakenwithoutanyadditionalfunding,andthusrequiredsignificant
restructuringoftheorganizationandthedevelopmentofentirelynewtechnical
infrastructures.Asaresult,itwasmetwithsomeresistancefromwithintheNFB
itself.Manyfilmmakersinitiallyobjectedtoofferingtheircontentforfreeonline,but
Perlmutterinsistedthattheportalwouldbeasteptowardsbuildingadeeper
127“NFBStrategicPlan2008-2009to2012-2013,”5.
66
connectionwiththeaudience–“creatingengaged,authenticrelationships”–and
ultimatelyamoresustainablefundingmodel.128
Thisdesirefora“deeperconnection”reflectsanotherinstitutionalanxietyfacing
theNFBandmanyotherlegacymediaorganizations.Newtechnologieshave
allowedaudiences,inPerlmutter’swords,to“bypassthegatekeepingconstraints
imposedbymoviehousesortelevision”and“settheirownparametersfor
engagementwithcontent.”129Thisshiftinpower,heargues,“canbeprofoundly
disturbingforcreators,whohavealwaysoperatedinenvironmentsthatallowed
themtocontroltheirworkanditsrelationtoaudiences.”130ThoughtheNFB’s
articulationofitscoremissionhasremainedrelativelystablethroughthesedigital
transitions,italsoseemstorecognizetheneedtofundamentallyreconsiderthe
institution’srelationshiptoaudiencesandthepublicitwasestablishedtoserve.
Anexampleofthisistheboldsuggestioninthe2013StrategicPlanthatthe
NFB’sworkcanhelp“redefinethenatureandpurposeofthepublicsphereforthe
21stCentury.”131ThedocumentproposesthattheNFBfulfillitspublicinterest
missionnotonlybyinformingandeducatingaudiences,butalsobyusingdigital
technologiestoproducedocumentariesthatare“creative,dialecticalandopen-
endedaboutwhospeaks,whocreates,aboutwhat,forwhomandtowhatend.”132
AccordingtoPerlmutter,“wemustconfrontaverydifferentideaofaudience,"one
thatmovesbeyondaconceptionofaudiencesaspassivereceiverstooneinwhich
128Perlmutter,interview.129Perlmutter,“TheInteractiveDocumentary.”130Ibid.131“NFBStrategicPlan2008-2009to2012-2013.”132“Imagine,Engage,Transform:AVision;APlan;AManifesto(2013-2018),”12.
67
theyare“co-creators,citizens,activists,teachers,learners,collaborators,fansandso
on.”133Hearguesthat,inthedigitalera,therelationshipofapubliccultural
organizationtoitsaudienceneedstobe“embeddedinsomenotionof
empowerment,somenotionofconnection,andtomakeoneselftrulypartofthese
communities,inwhateverwayswecan.”134
Fromthisperspective,theroleoftheNFBbeginstoshiftfromtheGriersonian
traditionofdocumentary–“creatingcommondemocratic,civilvalues”and
explaining“changingculturalandsocialrealities”–tooneinwhichdocumentaries
become“newformsofpublicspace”135forcreativeexpressionanddiscourse.These
emergingnotionsofimpacthaverootsinearlierexperimentslikeChallengefor
Change,buttheyalsoreflectanewfoundsenseoftheartisticandpoliticalpotentials
ofaudiences’moreactiveengagementswithdigitalmediainwhatYochaiBenkler
calledthe“networkedpublicsphere.”136Atthesametime,theseaspirationalgoals
reflectanunderlyinganxietyabouttheNFB’sneedtodifferentiateitselfandjustify
itsnecessityinthedigitalage.ThechallengeimplicitintheStrategicPlans,then,is
totranslaterhetoricof“empowerment”and“connection”into“innovativeand
distinctiveaudiovisualworksandimmersiveexperiences”thatbothhelprebrand
theNFBwhilealsomeaningfullyfulfillingitssocialpurpose.
133Perlmutter,“TheInteractiveDocumentary.”134Perlmutter,interview.135“Imagine,Engage,Transform:AVision;APlan;AManifesto(2013-2018),”17.136Benkler,TheWealthofNetworks.
68
ReinventingChallengeforChange
In2005,theNationalFilmBoardcommissioneda50-pageresearchreport
aboutthepossibilitiesforadocumentaryfilmaboutSt.Michael’sHospitalininner
cityToronto.Thoughitindicatedseveralstrongpossibilitiesforfeature-length
documentarysubjects,Perlmutterwantedtoapproachthesubjectina“radically
differentway.”137NFBproducerPeterStarrsentthereporttothedocumentary
directorKaterinaCizekandrequestedameeting.Cizek,whohadco-directedSeeing
isBelieving,afilmaboutactivistsaroundtheworldusingdigitalvideotoadvocate
forhumanrightsissues,wasinitiallyskepticalthatherbackgroundandinterests
wereagoodmatchforan“emergencyroomdocumentary.”Shetookthemeeting
anyway,andwassurprisedwhentheconversationturnedquicklytoChallengefor
Changeandthepossibilitiesofreinventingtheinitiativeinthecontextofthedigital
age.Cizek’sskepticismturnedquicklytoexcitement:
Whatwassobrilliantabout[ChallengeforChange],Ithought,wasthescopeofitandthesuccessesandthefailures.Thefactthatitwasjustso experimental and the mandate was not about even creatingfinished films. Themandatewas to see how these technologies andthese methodologies might impact communities and policy andgovernment-citizen relations. I just thought that was absolutelyrevolutionary and fascinating. I felt really invigorated by thatpossibility, to be working in an environment where those are thethings that matter rather than some of the standard barometers ofsuccess when you fund something, in a TV business model forexample.138
137Perlmutter,interview.138Cizek,interview.
69
Withriseofsocialmedianetworksandagrowingnumberofcamera-enabled
cellphones,itseemedlikeanidealmomenttoreviveamodelthatwasbuiltaround
theideaofmakingfilmswithpeopleratherthanaboutthem.
WhenFilmmakerinResidencewasofficiallylaunchedlaterthatyear,Cizek
andhermaincollaborator,NFBproducerGerryFlahive,decidednottobeginthe
projectwiththefinalgoalofmakingalineardocumentary.Instead,theystarted
withafocusonprocess,thinkingcreativelyabouthowadocumentaryfilmmaker
mightcollaboratewithvariouscommunitieswithinthehospital.Togroundthis
processintheneedsofcommunities,Cizekspentmonthsmeetingdoctors,nurses,
patientsandadministratorsatSt.Michael’sbeforefilminganything.139
Oneofthefirstinitiativestogetoffthegroundwas“YoungParentswithNo
FixedAddress,”aparticipatoryphotographyprograminvolvingpregnantteen
motherswhowerehomeless.Takinginspirationfromthe“Photovoice”method,
Cizektrainedtheyoungwomentocreatephotoblogsoftheirlivesandaskedthem
reflectontheirexperiencesinregularmeetings.Cizekworkedwithasuicide
preventionsupportgrouptocreateanimatedfilmsthatreflectedtheirexperiences
whileprotectingtheirprivacy.Yetanotherinitiativeestablisheda“videobridge”
betweennursesandpatients,whichinvolvedfilminginterviewswitheachgroup,
screeningthemfortheotherandinvitingresponses.MuchliketheFogoProcess,
whichestablishedchannelsofcommunicationbetweentheislandersand
governmentofficials,thepurposeofthisinitiativewastoimprovecommunication
139Ibid.
70
betweenpatientsandcaregiversbyexposingstereotypesandassumptionsonboth
sidesofthehealthcaresystem.140
Cizekdescribesthesevariousmethodologiesas“interventionistmedia,”
borrowingfromthemethodsofinterventionistresearchandparticipatoryaction
research,whichattempttoproduceknowledgeandunderstandingwhile
simultaneouslyimprovingthesocialconditionsbeingstudied.AccordingtoCizek,
“Wehavetothinkabouttheresources,theexpertisethatwebringasdocumentary
makers.Howcanithelptobuildandsustainthethingsthatmaysorelybelackingin
thecommunitiesthatweworkin…it'slookingatthemethodologyasawayto
transformsocialrelationships.”141
Thisapproachrepresentedaninversionofthestandarddocumentarymodel,
inwhichfilmmakersget“access”toacommunityinordertofilmitforaperiodof
weeksormonths,andthenmonthsoryearslaterreleaseaneditedfilmthatis
screenedforageneralaudience.Whilethistraditionalrelationshipbetween
filmmakerandsubjectcanbedeeplycollaborativeincertaincontexts,Cizek’s
approachbeginswithanethicalshiftthatplacestheneedsandgoalsofthesubjects
beforetheneedsofthefilmortheaudience.
ThecentralobjectiveofFilmmakerinResidence,accordingtoCizek,wasto
“affectreal,tangible,socialandpoliticalchange”bycollaboratingwithhersubjects
toproduce“mediathatcouldbeusedasatooltoadvance,enhanceandachieve
theirdistinctgoals.”142Inthecaseofthe“YoungParentswithNoFixedAddress”
140Ibid.141Ibid.142Cizek,“ManifestoforInterventionistMedia-BecauseArtIsaHammer.”
71
mediaworkshops,amorespecificgoalwasprovidingwomenwithopportunitiesto
developmedialiteraciesthatbuildself-esteem,creativeexpressionandabilityto
communicatetheirneedstohealthcareproviders,whileproducingmediathatmay
serveasa“acatalystforfutureinitiativeswhichinfluencehousingandhealth
policies.”143Inthecaseofthevideobridge,impactmightbedeterminedbythe
project’sabilitytoimprovecommunicationbetweennursesandpatients,whichin
turnmightleadtoimprovedhealthcareoutcomes.
However,aswesawinGrierson’scritiqueoftheFogoProject,thisapproach
canintroduceafundamentaltensionbetweenservingthetangibleneedsoflocal
subjectsandproducingmediathatcanspeaktogeneralaudiences,particularly
withinaninstitutionwhosedefaultisthelatter.Anexampleofthistensionisthe
factthatCizekwantedtoguaranteeprivacyandanonymitytotheyoungteen
mothersthatparticipatedinhermediaworkshops.“Meanwhile,”sheexplains,“it's
fundedbytheNationalFilmBoardofCanada,essentiallyamediaorganization.Ifit’s
fundedbytaxpayers,whatdowesay?Dowesaywedidthisgreatparticipatory
workshop,butyoucan'tseeit?”144Regardlessoftheimpactstheworkshopsmay
haveproducedontheground,itwasstillimportantfortheNFBthatCizekproduce
mediaaboutherworkthatcouldbesharedwithageneralaudience.
CizekandFlahivedecidedtoaddressthischallengebycreatingamultimedia
websitethatwouldtellthestoryofhertimeatSt.Michael’sandtheimpactherwork
created.Toproducethepiece,theyhiredRobMcLaughlinandLocDao,whohad
workedtogetherinaninnovativedigitalunitrunbytheCanadianBroadcasting143Cizek,“FilmmakerinResidence-IWASHEREResearchProposal.”144Cizek,interview.
72
Company’sRadio3beforestartingtheirowninteractiveagency,SubjectMatter.145
Thewebsitelaunchedin2008andwasmarketedasthe“firstonlinefeature-length
documentary”–orwhatisnowmorecommonlycalleda“webdocumentary.”It
featuredambientsounddesign,fullscreenvideoandaninteractiveFlash-based
interfacethatgaveuserscontroloverhowtheyadvancedthroughthestory.It
receivedcriticalacclaimandwentontowinaWebbyAwardandaRockieAwardat
theBanffTelevisionFestival,whichhelpeddrawgreaterindustryattentiontothe
NFB’sfledglingdigitalexperiments.
In2010,inspiredbythesuccessofFilmmakerinResidence,CizekandtheNFB
launchedanotherambitiousmulti-yearcollaborativedocumentarycalledHighrise,
buildingonthesameiterative,community-basedprocesstotellthestoriesofpeople
livinginresidentialhigh-risebuildingsaroundtheworld.Likeitspredecessor,
Highrisewasbrokenupintomultiplechaptersandinitiativeswithoutputsona
widerangeofplatforms,includinglinearfilms,photoexhibits,liveevents,
installations,radiobroadcasts,workshops,academicresearchandinteractiveweb
documentaries–eachofwhichreacheddifferentaudienceswithdifferentimpacts.
OneofitsmostsuccessfulchapterswasHighrise:OneMillionthTower,whichwas
conceivedoriginallyasashortdocumentaryfilmaboutaparticipatoryurban
planningworkshopheldbetweenarchitectsandresidentsofahighrisebuildingon
theoutskirtsofToronto.Astheprojectevolved,itultimatelybecameanimmersive
webdocumentarythatdocumentedboththeprocessitselfandtheresidents’vision
ofurbanrenewal.TheteamusedWebGL,anoveltechnologythatallowedusersto
145McLaughlin,interview.
73
explorea3Dworldwithinthebrowser.BypartneringwithMozillaandWiredonthe
launch,theprojectwasabletoattractabroadaudience,manyofwhomwere
technologistsinterestedinthenoveluseofWebGL.AccordingtoCizek,thisglobal
attentionalsohelpedamplifyimpactslocally:
Because of the technologywe used, because of thewaywe told thestory, it became something that audiences around the world wereinspiredby.Itbecamesymbolic.Itworkedonmany,manylevels.Thatprojecthadreallyspecificramificationswithinthecommunity,bothatthehighriseitself,butalsowithinTorontoinreallyprofoundways.Itgot to theprovincial levelofgovernment, Itaffectedwhitepapersatthemunicipallevel.Itreallyhadanimpact,andithadaprofile,bothIthinklogisticallyandpolitically.146
SomeoftheindirectimpactsofmakingHighrise:OneMillionthTower
includedthebuildingofanewplayground,theformationofatenant’sassociation,
improvedresident-landlordrelations,andUnitedWay’scommitmenttomakethe
communityademonstrationsiteforits$1millionTowerNeighborhoodRenewal
Project.Onabroaderlevel,thewebdocumentaryhelpedconvincetheprovincial
government'sMinisterofTransportationandInfrastructuretocommittothetower
renewalprocess.147
LikeFilmmakerinResidence,thesuccessofHighrise:OneMillionthTower
demonstratedthepossibilityofadocumentarypracticethatbalancedbetween
engagingsubjectsinaparticipatorymedia-makingprocessthathadtangiblelocal
impactsandtranslatingthatexperienceintoastorythatcouldstillreachandaffect
generalaudiences.Theopen-ended,collaborativeandmultiplatformnatureofthe
146Cizek,interview.147Ibid.
74
twoprojectsenabledthemtointegratetheseseeminglydivergenttheoriesof
change.Onthelocallevel,onesetofimpactsisdrivenbythemethodological
innovationofworkingcollaborativelywithcommunitiestoidentifyneedsand
potentialsolutionsthroughahands-onprocessofmediamaking.Onamoreglobal
level,thewebdocumentariesthatresultedfromthisprocessintroducedartisticand
technologicalinnovations–suchastheuseofambientsounddesignorWebGL3D
interfacetocreateamoreimmersiveuserexperience–thathelpeddrawattention
tostoriesthatmighthavereachedasmalleraudienceifpresentedinmore
conventionalformats.Inadditiontothesesocialimpacts,bothprojectshad
importantinstitutionalimpacts.Theawardsandcriticalacclaimtheygarnered
helpedbringtheNationalFilmBoardgreaterindustryrecognition,whilealso
buildingcapacityformoreexperimentationwiththeartisticandsocialpotentialsof
documentarystorytellingnativetotheWeb.
Yetthiswiderangeofimpactsalsoraisesquestionsabouthowtoevaluate
them–andwhichimpactsmattermostfromaninstitutionalstandpoint.Since
Cizek’s“interventionistmedia”approachallowshertodeeplyunderstandthe
contextandherinitial“audience”isrelativelysmallandlocal(usuallyhersubjects
themselves),theimpactofsuchprojects–atleastintheshortterm–canbe
observeddirectlybythefacilitatorsthroughinterviews,discussions,skills
assessmentsandotherqualitativemeasuresthatmightusedinrelatedformsof
socialwork.What’sgenerallymoredifficulttotrackiswhetherornotthese
programsproducelong-termimpacts,suchastheyoungwomencontinuingto
producemediaorbecomingbetteradvocatesforthemselvesorothers.
75
Ontheotherhand,theimpactonaudiencesreachedbythetwoweb
documentariescanonlybeinterpretedviamoreabstractmeasureslikethenumber
ofuniquevisitors,timeonsite,presscoverageandsocialmediaactivity–thesame
metricsusedbythetelevisionandadvertisingindustries.Asapubliclyfunded
organizationwithamandateto“reflectCanadatoCanadians,”theNationalFilm
Board’sdefaultmightbetoprivilegethelattersetofattention-basedmetrics,which
areeasiertocaptureandreport,aswellastheinstitutionalimpactsofawardsand
prestige.Thesearethekindsofimpactstypicallyexpectedfrommediaprojects,
makingthemeasiertosummarizeandcommunicate,particularlyinpolitical
settingsthattendtofavorquantitativedata.Furthermore,impactmetricsbasedon
attentionandprestigemakedifferentprojectsmorecomparable,whichiscriticalfor
anorganizationthatreleaseshundredsofdocumentarieseachyear.Thiskindof
institutionalbiasmakesiteasiertoscaleupworklikewebdocumentaryproduction
andmoredifficulttoscaleupcommunity-basedworkthathasmorequalitative
impacts.
InteractiveStudios
Ayearafterthepublicationofthe2008-2013StrategicPlan,theNFB
continueditsexperimentationwiththeWebasamediumforinteractive
storytelling.Collaboratingwithaninteractiveagency,Jam3,theyproduced
Waterlife,awebdocumentarythatservedasacompanionsitetoafilmabout
environmentalissuesintheGreatLakesregion.MuchliketheFilmmakerin
Residencewebdocumentary,WaterlifeisbuiltaroundanelegantFlashinterfaceand
76
usescinematictechniqueslikeambientsounddesigntocreateamoreimmersive
experience.Usersaregivenasimpleprompt–“Wateris…”–followedbyalistof
keywordslikeFishing,Poison,Bottled,Power,HealingandMusical.Clickingoneach
ofthesewordslaunchesacorrespondingmultimediavignettethatcombinesvideo,
narrationandtexttoexplorevarioushistorical,ecological,politicalandeconomic
dimensionsoftheGreatLakes.
Thiskindofinteractive,nonlinearapproachtonarrative–whatHartCohen
callsa“databasedocumentary”148–presumablyallowsuserstoapproachthese
intersectingissuesbasedontheirindividualinterestsandconsumeasmuchoras
littleoftheavailablecontentastheywouldlike.Thisenablesindividualusersto
haveafargreaterrangeofexperiencesthana“onesizefitsall”lineardocumentary
filmproducedforbroadcasttelevision.Waterlifewashailedasamajorsuccess,
achievingcriticalacclaimandattractingmorethan2.1millionpageviewsfrom
450,000uniquevisitors.149ItseemedasthoughtheNFBhadfoundanewformula
forreachingandengagingaudiencesontheWebwithdramaticvisualstorytelling.
In2010,theNFBbeganamoreaggressiveexpansionintointeractive
documentaryproduction.RobMcLaughlinandLocDaowerehiredtosetupa
dedicatedInteractiveStudioinVancouver.AsecondFrenchlanguageInteractive
StudiowasestablishedinMontreal,ledbyHuguesSweeney.Tomakethispossible,
theNFBredirectedmoneyawayfromtheproductionoflineardocumentaries,
148Cohen,“DatabaseDocumentary.”149“Waterlife.”
77
devotingapproximately20%ofitstotalproductionbudgettointeractive
documentaries.150
InthefiveyearssincethelaunchofWaterlife,thetwoInteractiveStudios
havereleasedapproximately50interactivedocumentaries,eachofwhichisbuilt
arounddifferentinterfaces,technologiesandlogicsofaudienceengagement.Many
oftheNFB’sinteractivedocumentariesfollowthe“databasedocumentary”model,
usinganinteractive,nonlinearstructurethatgivesuserssomedegreeofcontrol
overtheorderinwhichtheyexperiencecontent,theamountoftimetheyspend
withit,orthedepthwithwhichtheyexploreagiventopic.
OneprominentexampleofthisapproachisWelcometoPinePoint.Produced
byPaulShoebridgeandMichaelSimons–acreativeteamalsoknownasThe
Goggles–theprojecttellsthestoryofanow-abandonedminingtowninCanada’s
NorthwestTerritories,weavingtogetherfirst-personnarratives,archival
photographsandvideo,andanambientsoundtrackintoanostalgia-tinged
multimediascrapbook.Althoughthecorenarrativestructureisessentiallylinear,
PinePoint’sinterfaceallowsuserstoadvanceattheirownpaceandpausetotakea
“deeperdive”oncertaindetails–forexample,byflippingthroughavirtualphoto
album.AmorenonlinearexampleofthisstrategyisfoundinSevenDigitalDeadly
Sins,anNFBco-productionwithTheGuardianthatexploresthedownsidesofusers’
onlinehabitsthroughshortfilmsandsurveysthatcanbeaccessedinanyorder.
AnothersetoftechniquesusedbythesenewNFBdocumentariesincludean
efforttotaptheparticipatorypotentialsoftheWeb,askinguserstocontributetheir
150Perlmutter,interview;McLaughlin,interview.
78
owncontenttoadocumentary.JournalofInsomnia,forexample,invitedusersto
makealatenightappointmenttoaccessawebportalthatallowedthemtosubmit
videos,drawingsandwrittenaccountsofinsomnia,aswellasexplorethestoriesof
others.PrimalisanotherprojectfromtheMontrealstudiothatinvitesusersto
“contributetothemakingofaninfinitescream”byuploadingavideoofthemselves
screaming,whicharethenoverlaidwithfiltersandstitchedtogetherintoanever-
expandinguser-generatedmontage.
AthirdmajortechniqueintheNFB’sinteractivedocumentariesis
personalization–projectsthatadapttotheuser’scontextorbackgroundinan
attempttomakecontentmorerelevantorresonant.Usuallytheseprojectsfollowa
morelinearstructureandrequirelessuserinputorchoicethannonlinear
interactivedocumentaries.Forexample,Bear71,oneoftheNFB’smostpopular
interactivedocumentaries,isconstructedaroundaneighteen-minuteaudiostory
aboutagrizzlybearbeingcollaredandtrackedinBanffNationalPark.Asthisstory
plays,theprojectinsertsaliveimagefromtheuser’swebcamintoanabstract,
interactivegridofdatapointsthatrepresentsthevariouswaysthepark’sanimallife
issurveilledbyhumansusingdigitaltechnology.Twomorerecentexamplesof
personalizationincludeInLimbo,a30minutefilmaboutBigDatathatoverlaysdata
pulledfromtheuser’ssocialmediafeeds,andDoNotTrack,anepisodicwebseries
aboutprivacyandthewebeconomythatperiodicallypromptsuserstoanswer
questionsabouttheirdigitalmediahabitsandtrackstheirbehaviorovertime.
OneoftheNFB’smostambitiousinteractivedocumentaries,FortMcMoney,
combineselementsfromeachoftheseinteractivestrategiesandaddtheadditional
79
dimensionsofgameplayandsimulation.DirectedbyDavidDufresne,this
“documentarygame”allowsuserstonavigatethroughtheoilboomtownofFort
McMurray,Alberta,interviewresidentsandvoteonreferendathatinfluencea
virtualsimulationofthereal-lifecity.Thefirstpersongamemechanicallowsusers
toexploretheenvironment,charactersandotherstoryelementsinanonlinearway
basedontheirowninterest.Thegame’sdashboard,whichfeaturesreferendaand
opendebatesonkeysocialandenvironmentalissues,invitesuserstoparticipatein
thestorybycontributingtheirownperspective.Theepisodicstructurerequiresthat
usersregisteraccountsandreturnperiodicallytoplaytheentiregame,allowingthe
gametocaptureauser’shistoryandaddresstheminapersonalizedway.
Inadditiontothesestrategies,oneelementthatsetsFortMcMoneyapart
fromotherNFBinteractivedocumentariesisitsattempttosimulatepossiblefutures
forthecity–andgiveplayerstotheabilitytodirectlyshapethosefutures.Inorder
tocreatethissimulation,theteamworkedwithaneconomisttodevelopa
spreadsheetthatmodeledtheenvironmental,socialandeconomicfactors
influencingthedevelopmentofFortMcMurrayandthewaysthatthesedimensions
areinterrelated.Thismodelallowedthemtospeculate,forinstance,abouthowa
policychangelikenationalizingtheoilindustrymightaltertheenvironmental
impactonFortMcMurrayandthesurroundingarea.OverthecourseofFort
McMoney’sfourepisodes,whichwerereleasedatmonthlyintervals,playerswere
abletodebateandvoteonaseriesofreferendumsthatovertimeinfluencedthe
balancebetweenthesocial,economicandenvironmentalhealthofthevirtualcity.
ForDufresne,thiscombinationofinteractivetechniquesismeanttoovercomewhat
80
hesawas“greenfatigue”–theideathatthepublichadstartedtotuneoutbooks,
moviesorjournalisticarticlesaboutenvironmentalissues–byinvolvingusers
directlyinthestoryandenablingthemtodevelopamoreholisticunderstandingof
thesystemsinvolved.151
EvaluatingImpact
Injustfiveyears,theNFB’sinteractiveproductionshavehelpeddefinethe
interactivedocumentaryfieldbyexperimentingwithawiderangeofinteractive
storytellingtechniques–includingnonlinearnarrativestructure,promptsforuser
participation,personalizationofcontentandsimulationofcomplexsystems–in
additiontothemethodologicalinnovationsunderlyingKaterinaCizek’scommunity-
baseddocumentaries.GiventherangeofinstitutionalgoalsbehindtheNationalFilm
BoardofCanada’sinvestmentininteractivedocumentaries,thereisnosingle,
straightforwardwaytomeasuretheimpactsofthisworkorevaluateitssuccess.On
onelevel,theNFB’sstrategicshifttodigitalplatformshasbeenmotivatedbyaneed
todifferentiateitselffromotherorganizations,buildinganddemonstratingits
capacityforinnovationand“culturalleadership.”Onanotherlevel,theorganization
isseekingtodevelopmore“engaged,authenticrelationships”withaudiencesand
producecreativeworksthat–inPerlmutter’swords–are“embeddedinsome
notionofempowerment,somenotionofconnection.”152
151Dufresne,interview.152Perlmutter,interview.
81
Withoutadoubt,theNFB’sinteractivedocumentaryworkhasconsistently
pushedtheartisticboundariesofnewtechnologies,winningawards,criticalacclaim
andindustryrecognitionatfilmfestivalsandconferencesaroundtheworld.
However,thereislesscertaintyabouttheabilityoftheseinteractivedocumentaries
tomeaningfullyconnectwithaudiences.IncontrasttoCizek’scommunity-based
“interventionistmedia”projects,whichbeginwithafocusonthesubject,mostof
theworkproducedbytheNFB’sInteractiveStudioshasbeendesignedprimarilyto
reachgeneralaudiences.Assuch,theyarestillpartlyrootedintheGriersonian
traditionofdocumentary,inwhichinformingandentertainingaudiencesis
paramount.Atthesametime,eachofthemexperimentswithgivingtheaudiencea
greaterdegreeofcontroloverthenarrativeexperiencethantheywouldhavewitha
linearfilm,andmanycreatespacesforparticipationandpublicdiscoursethat
reflectatheoryofchangeinwhichactiveengagementiscritical.
Afundamentalassumptionbehindthiswork–perhapsrootedinearly
successeswithwebdocumentarieslikeFilmmakerinResidenceandWaterlife–is
thatthesenewformsofengagementcanhelpbothattractaudiencesandenhance
theirexperienceofthestory.Yet,asmostlegacymediaorganizationshave
discovered,buildingloyalaudiencesondigitalplatformscanbefarmore
challenging,bothbecauseofthevirtuallyunlimitedsupplyofcontentcompetingfor
users’attentionandthewaysthatintermediarieslikeFacebookandGooglenow
directthatattentioninunpredictableways.Althoughproducingdocumentaries
nativetotheWebhasallowedtheNFBtodistinguishitselfandbypassthe
gatekeepersofbroadcasttelevision,ithasalsomeantbuildingaudiencesfrom
82
scratchwitheachnewinteractivework.AccordingtoJeanSebastienDefoy,until
recentlyaMarketingDirectorattheNFB,interactivedocumentariesare“notdriving
theaudienceaswewantitto.Wehaven’tfiguredouthowtogetpeopletogofrom
onetoanothertoanother.”153Thissuggestsanunderlyingtensionbetweenthe
organization’sgoaloffosteringartisticandtechnologicalinnovation,whichadds
prestigetotheNFBbrand,anditsgoalofdevelopingauthentic,engaged
relationshipswiththeCanadianpublic.
RobMcLaughlin,wholefttheNFBtoworkforthenewspaperpublisherPost
Media,pointsoutthattheorganization’srelationshipwithaudienceshasalways
beencomplicated.TheNFB’sanimationunit,forinstance,haslongproduced
experimentalfilmsthathavewonawardsandhelpedadvancethetechnologyof
animation,buttheyreachrelativelysmallnicheaudiences.McLaughlinsees
parallelsbetweenthislegacy,inwhichtechnologicalandartisticinnovationare
privilegedoveraudiencereach,andtheworkbeingincubatedintheInteractive
Studios:
Arguably that's thecoredebateabout theFilmBoard.Why is it thatthe Film Board supports auteur animation when no one else does?[Animation]doesn’thaveabigaudiencereach.Itdoesn'tcarrysocialissues and yet it's this unique application of technology – specifictechnology that the FilmBoard takes great pride in, especiallywiththeOscars,wherewehadanomination.Theytakegreatprideinthis,yetnoonewatchesit.Itonlyworksforaverytinyamountofpeople.In someways, there are a lot of similarities to the interactiveworkthat we do. It hasn't been, to date, hugely mainstream. It hasn'treachedmass audiences, but it is loved bymany for its unique andartistictakeonsocialissues.154
153Defoy,interview.154McLaughlin,interview.
83
HisobservationpointsnotonlytotheNFB’sprecedentofproducingexperimental
workfornicheaudiences,butalsothewaysinwhichinstitutionalimpactslikethe
prestigeofawardscanhelpjustifycontinuedinvestmentevenintheabsenceof
mainstreamaudiences.
Whatabouttheaudiencesthatinteractivedocumentariesarereaching?
Perlmutterbelievesthatinnovationrequiresgettingoutofaheadofaudiencesin
orderto“deliversomethingthatthey'llwant,whentheyconnectwithit,butthey
can’ttellyoutheywantitbecauseitdoesn'texist.”155However,sinceinteractive
documentariesgenerallydemandmorefromauserthantraditionalformats,thereis
adangerthattheybecomelessaccessible,evenfortheaudiencesthatdiscoverthem
viasocialmediaortheNFB’swebsite.Orconversely,theymaybebetterat
attractingaudiencesspecificallyinterestedintheformandtechnology,suchasweb
developers,designersandfilmmakers.
Despitetheircriticalacclaimandinfluenceonothercreators,Perlmutter’s
theorythataudienceswillwantmoreinteractivedocumentariesoncetheyconnect
withthemremainslargelyuntested.Askedaboutmeasuringaudiencesfor
interactivedocumentaries,HuguesSweeney–headoftheInteractiveStudioin
Montreal–acknowledgesthat“We’rejustbadatit.We’rejustbadatsettingthe
goalsstraightfromthebeginning.WeuseGoogleAnalytics.Eachtimewereleasea
project,wespend5daysgluedonthescreenandjustlookingattherealtimeview.”
Forprojectsthatrelyonuser-generatedcontent,theNFBwilllookatmetricssuch
asthepercentageoftotalusersthatweremotivatedtocontributecontent,in
155Perlmutter,interview.
84
additiontostandardanalyticslikeuniquevisitorsandsessionduration.Sweeney
wouldliketoseetheorganization“bealittlebitbetteratbuildingexpectationsinto
theprojects”byrealisticallymatchingmetricstoeachproject’sgoals.
Perlmutteracknowledgesthatthesemetricsforinteractivedocumentaries
aregenerallyinsufficientandthat“agreatdealofworkstillneedstobedoneonthe
cognitive,emotive,psychologicalandphysicalforcesatworkintheinteractive
experience.”156Defoy,whowasresponsibleformarketingtheNFB’sinteractive
documentaries–sawhisjobas“notjustaboutgettingsomeonetoseeourwork,it’s
understandinghowtheyseeit.”157However,hefeltthatconventionalanalyticslike
pageviews,visitorsandsessiondurationwereunabletoprovidethiskindofinsight
intotheuserexperience:
Withlinearcontentyouexpectpeopletogountiltheend…butwithaprojectlikethiswhereateveryturnoftheroadthereisadecisionandpeoplecandropout, Iwould lovetobeable tohave fullanalyticsofhowpeoplearebehaving,andwhatmakesthemtick?Isitthecontentitself?Isitthenavigation?Sometimesthecontentisonlyhalfofwhatwe’re trying tobringout.Themedium, thenavigation, theaesthetic,the environment– this is also what we’re trying to do, and this ismuchmoredifficulttomeasure.158
Thelackofunderstandingabouthowindividualusersexperienceinteractive
documentariesmakesitdifficulttoeffectivelyevaluatetheiroverallimpact,
particularlysinceuserscanhaveamuchwiderrangeofexperienceswiththesame
project.Thissuggestaneedtodeploytoolsthatbettertrackauser’smovement
throughasite,butperhapsmoreimportantlytheneedforqualitativeresearchto
156Perlmutter,“TheInteractiveDocumentary.”157Defoy,interview.158Ibid.
85
betterunderstandnotonlyhowinteractiveandparticipatoryengagementsaffect
theexperienceofadocumentarystory,andbyextensionhowtheymighttranslate
intosocialimpactslikelearning,empathyorotherformsofcivicengagement.
Thesequestionsabouttherelationshipbetweenuserexperience,audience
developmentandsocialimpactwillbecomeevenmoreimportantastheNFBfaces
thepressureofsteadilyshrinkingbudgets.SincethereleaseofFilmmakerin
Residencein2007,theorganization’sproductionbudgethasshrunkfrom$54
milliontoanestimated$38millionin2014-15.Duringthesametimeperiod,the
interactivedocumentaryfieldhasexpandedandmatured,asmanyother
organizationshavebegunexperimentingwiththesametechnologiesand
techniques.ForDefoy,2014wasatippingpointyearthatdemonstrated“how
quicklypeoplehavecaughtup”withtheNFB’sinteractiveproductions.“Weseeit
becauseweusedtobethedefactowinnerseverytime,”hesays,referringtothe
variousawardsforinnovationininteractivestorytelling.“Andnowwehavevery
seriouscompetition.”159McLaughlinseesthisasasignificantchallengefortheNFB’s
InteractiveStudios:
Whenyou’vegotGoogleandSamsungandplaceslikethatplayinginthemediaspace,andseeingvalueindemonstratinginnovation,thenIthinktheFilmBoardisgoingtobeinamuchmorechallengingplacegoing forward… because innovation for innovation's sake is not thegamethattheyshouldbein.160
AsotherinstitutionalplayersbegindoingR&Dininteractivemedia,itwillbecome
harderfortheNFBtouseinteractivedocumentariestodifferentiateitself.
159Ibid.160McLaughlin,interview.
86
IftheNFBwantstomakethecasethatitsinteractivedocumentary
productionsservethepublicinterestandstrengthenthepublicsphere,itneeds
betterwaysoftestingandarticulatingthesocialvalueofthisworkwithout
constrainingthe“imaginativeexploration”itrepresents.Defoybelievesthe
combinationofshrinkingbudgetsandgrowingcompetitionwillforcetheNFBto
confrontthetradeoffsbetweenexperimentingwiththeformandreaching
audiences,particularlyintermsofhowinteractivedocumentariesareevaluatedand
howbudgetsareallocated:
WhatIseehappeningismorequestionsbeingaskedwithmorerigor.Ithinkthatwhenyou’reintheexplorationphase,thediscoveryphase,you need to be allowed to fail… because you’re trying to develop anew genre. But now the interactive world has matured. It doesn’tmean thatwe’regoing tospend less,butwe’reprobablygoing tobemorerigorousastohowwespendit.Andseriousquestionsaregoingtobeaskedabouttheequilibriumbetweendiscoveryandaudiences.We need to more and more combine the two because we’re notmakingprojectsforgroupsof25people.161
However,iftheNFBshiftsitsstrategicfocusfromformalinnovationtoaudience
development,thereisadangerthatitwillemphasizethoseimpactsthataremost
familiar,measurableandpredictable–uniquevisitors,pageviews,socialmedia
activity–whilelosingsightofsocialimpactsthatfalloutsidebothofthese
categories.
AsCizek’sworkhighlights,thepotentialsofanetworkeddigitalmedia
environmentcanbefoundnotonlyinabilitytocreateinteractiveinterfaceswith
documentarycontent,butinthepossibilityofreimaginingthemethodological
161Defoy,interview.
87
foundationsofdocumentarystorytelling.Inherwords,wecan“driveforwardinold
methodswithnewtechnologies”ortreattechnologiesliketheInternetandmobile
phonesinthesamewaytheactivistfilmmakersofthe1960sand70streatedvideo
and8mm–aschallengesto“rethinkethics,rethinkourrelationshipwiththe
subject,rethinksomeofthecoreprinciplesofjournalismanddocumentary.”162This
radicalvisionrequiresgoingbeyondthemassmedia’sstatisticalmeasurementof
audiences–asLowputit,“ForXdollarsyoureachYpeoplewithZimpact”–and
continuingtoexperimentwithwaysthatinteractivedocumentarymightbeusedto
morefundamentallyreshape“thenatureandpurposeofthepublicsphere.”
162Cizek,interview.
88
CHAPTER3POV
Inthischapter,Iwilldescribethenascentdigitalexperimentshappeningat
POV,anaward-winningseriesonPBSthathasbecomeAmericantelevision’slongest
runningshowcaseforindependentdocumentaries.FoundedbyproducerMarc
Weissin1988,theseriesisproducedbyaNewYork-basednonprofit,American
DocumentaryInc.,althoughtheindustryroutinelyreferstotheorganizationitselfas
“POV.”163Asapublicmediaorganizationdevotedtodocumentaryfilm,POVshares
manyofthesamegoalsandobjectivesastheNationalFilmBoard,providingartistic
orpersonalperspectivesonsocialissuesthathelpstimulatepublicdiscourse
withoutdrivingaparticularpoliticalagenda.WhereastheNFBhashistorically
identifiedasa“publicproducer,”withmuchofitsproductionhappeningin-house,
POVfunctionsmoreasapublicbroadcaster,curatinganannuallineupofroughlya
dozenindependentlyproduceddocumentariesthatairweeklyonPBSaffiliate
stations,helpingthefilmsreachanationalaudienceof3-5millionviewers.164
AlthoughthisbroadcastaudienceiscentraltoPOV’sunderstandingofits
socialimpact,theorganizationalsohasastronglegacyofengagingaudiencesin
publicdiscoursethroughalternativechannels,suchascommunityoutreach
campaigns,educationaldistributionandonlineforums.POVwasoneofthefirst
163“POV:FifteenYearsofDocumentaryTelevision.”164Ibid.
89
publicmediaorganizationstoviewtheInternetasaplatformforengaging
audiencesinconversationsaboutsocialissuesafteradocumentary’sbroadcast.Asa
result,theorganization’s“theoryofchange”reflectsboththecentralimportanceof
broadcast’saudiencereach–raisingawarenessaboutasocialissueonalargescale
–andtheaddedvalueofdeeperengagementsthroughgrassrootsscreenings,
strategicpartnershipsandonlineforumsforpublicdiscourse.
Inthepastthreeyears,however,POVhasbegunfocusingmoreresourceson
research,productionanddistributionof“standalone”interactivedocumentaries–
thatis,interactivefeaturesthatarenotconnectedtoabroadcastfilm.Although
mostofPOV’sdigitalcontenthastreatedtheWebasaplatformfordiscoursearound
thebroadcastoflinearfilms,theseinvestmentsininteractivedocumentary
representarecognitionoftheWeb(andemergingdigitalplatformslikevirtual
reality)asanopportunitytopresentdocumentarystoriesinnewways,reachnew
audiencesandexperimentwithnewtechnologiesandmodesofengagement.
ComparedtotheNationalFilmBoard,however,POVhasbeenslowertobuild
capacityforinteractiveproduction,inpartbecauseitsbudgetissignificantlysmaller
anditsfundingsourcesaremorediverse.RoughlyhalfofPOV’sannualbudgetof$3-
4millioncomesfromaPBSbroadcastlicense.Therestcomesprimarilyfrom
foundations.165TheMacArthurFoundationhaslongprovideoperatingsupportand
POV’soutreachcampaignsandeducationaldistributionhavebeensupportedby
funderssuchastheCorporationforPublicBroadcasting,theEducational
165Licht,interview.
90
FoundationofAmericaandtheFledglingFund.166Despitetheseconstraints,thePOV
Digitaldepartmentrecentlylaunchedaseriesofhackathonsin2011designedto
encourageindependentfilmmakerstoexperimentwithinteractivemediaand
collaboratewithtechnologistsanddesigners.In2014,withagrantfromtheKnight
Foundation,POValsohiredaTechnologyFellow–theorganization’sfirstin-house
softwaredeveloper–andbeganco-producinganddistributingitsfirstseriesof
“interactiveshorts.”
Todate,theseinitiativeshavebeenevaluatedprimarilyintermsoftheir
institutionalimpacts–helpingPOVdevelopresourcesforindependentcreatorsand
buildcapacityformoreambitiousinteractiveproductionsthatwillhelppreparethe
organizationforafutureinwhichthemajorityofitsaudiencesareondigital
platforms.Withagrowingnumberofpeoplestreamingdocumentariesonline,POV
maybeinapositiontouseitsvisibilitytohelpindependentproducersofinteractive
documentariesreachwideraudiencesandgeneratepublicdiscourseinthesame
waythatitsbroadcastdocumentariesdo.
HighImpactTelevision
OnDecember18,2014,thestationservingpublictelevision’slargestmarket,
WNETinNewYork,announcedplanstomovetwoindependentdocumentaryseries
–POVandIndependentLens–fromtheirregularMondaynightprimetimeslottoa
secondarychannelwithsmallercoveragearea,replacingthemwithrerunsof
popularartsprogramsthatdrivesfundraising.Themoveimmediatesparkedan166Ibid.
91
outcryfromthedocumentaryfilmcommunity.167Morethan3,000peoplesignedan
onlinepetitiontoreversethedecision.168TelevisionwriterNormanLearandother
prominentcriticsaccusedthePublicBroadcastingSystem(PBS)ofneglectingits
missionbychasingratingswithdramaslike“DowntonAbbey”attheexpenseof
documentariesthatrepresentthe“heartofitspublicmission.”Bytakingoncritical,
oftenoverlookedsocialissues,Learargued,theindependentfilmsairingonPOVand
IndependentLenshelpexpand“freedomofexpressionforpeoplewhosevoicesare
noteasilyheardinAmericanmedia.”169Furthermore,theschedulingmovewould
createrippleeffects,encouragingotherstationstoreprogramtheshowsand
undercuttingfundingofindependentdocumentariesfromfoundations,forwhom“a
robustdistributionplatformiscrucial.”170
Inresponse,thestationdelayedimplementationoftheplanandscheduleda
nationwide“listeningtour”tomeetwithdocumentaryfilmmakersinseveralkey
cities.Fourmonthslater,publictelevisionexecutivescommittedtokeeptheshows
intheirexistingtimeslots,alongwithanincreaseintheirmarketingsupport.171
Thispoliticalbattlehighlightedtheoften-precariousrelationshipbetween
independentdocumentaryfilmmakersandtheAmericanpublicbroadcasting
system.Italsounderscoredthegrowingimportanceofbuildingaudiencesonthe
Web,wheresmallorganizationslikePOVcanconnectdirectlywithaudiencesand
distributioncostsarelower.167Sefton,“NewYork’sWNETtoPullDocumentaryShowcasesfromMondayNightsonMainChannel.”168“PaulaKerger.”169Lear,“IsPBSNeglectingItsMission?”.170Ibid.171“WNETAndPBSAgreementKeeps‘POV,’‘IndependentLens’inPrimetime.”
92
Infact,thisprecariousrelationshipwasamajorreasonthatPOVwascreated
inthefirstplace.Inthemid1980s,founderMarcWeisswasinspiredbythe“bold,
independent,point-of-viewdocumentarystorytelling”hesawappearingatfilm
festivalsatthetime,butdisappointedthatthesefilmsweren’treachingwider
audiences,largelybecauseofthechallengesofworkingwithinthefragmented
publicbroadcastingsystem.172Writinginabookletcelebratingthe15thanniversary
oftheseries,henotes,
Althoughpublictelevisionwastheonlyplace independentworkhadevenashotatanationalbroadcast,thepublicTVsystemdidn’tmakeiteasy…Withalloftheirskillsandpassions,independentfilmmakerswere not necessarily the best candidates to navigate the multiplebureaucraciesofpublictelevision.173
AfteraseriesofconversationswithFRONTLINE’sDavidFanning,Weissbecame
convincedthatthesefilmscouldfindasustainablehomeonpublictelevisionand
begansettingupmeetingswithproducersandpublicTVrepresentatives.The
organizationgotoffthegroundwithsupportfromtheMacArthurFoundation,the
CorporationforPublicBroadcastingandaPBSdistributioncontractthatensured
theindependentdocumentariesacquiredbytheserieswouldbebroadcaston
affiliatestationsnationwide.174Althoughinitiallyfocusedonacquisitionsoffinished
films,POVwouldlaterbegintoco-produceandoffereditorialsupportfor
documentariesstillinproduction.
POVpridesitselfonshowcasingfilmsthatarebothartisticandsocially
relevant,andthatwouldotherwisebeunlikelytofindalargebroadcastaudience.Its
172“POV:FifteenYearsofDocumentaryTelevision.”173Ibid.,3.174“POVHistoryTimeline.”
93
organizationalidentity–muchliketheNFB’s–isbasedlargelyonthedistinction
betweentheindependentdocumentariesitbroadcastsandthemoreconventional
documentariesofferedby“mainstreammedia”outlets.Weissmakesitapointto
contrastPOVfilmswiththejournalisticdocumentariesthataremorecommonon
bothpublicandcommercialtelevision:
While traditional journalism calls for 'objectivity' (a debatableconcept), the most interesting indie docs are often the opposite:intensely subjective, made to represent a perspective that thefilmmakerfeelsismissingordistortedinthemainstreammedia.175
InWeiss’sview,independentdocumentariescouldaddresstheseblindspotsinthe
mainstreammedia–whattheNFBmighthavecalleda“marketfailure”–by
enlargingandenrichingthepublicspherewithmorediverseperspectives.
Indeed,sinceitsfounding,POVhasmadeeffortstonotonlyinsertitsfilms
intoalargermediadiscourseviabroadcast,butalsotoinviteaudiencemembers
themselvestocontributetothatdiscourse.Throughoutthe1990s,POV’sEllen
Schneiderhelpedpioneeramodelofoutreachandcommunityengagement
campaignsknownas“HighImpactTelevision”thatremainsoneofthecentral
aspectsoftheorganization’sworktoday.Themodelinvolvesasystematicapproach
todevelopingpartnershipswithgrassrootsorganizationsandcreatingresources
thatconnect“filmstoissuesandissuestopeople.”176POV’sstaffproduces
discussionguidesthatpartnerorganizationscanusetofacilitatedialoguewith
grassrootsscreeningsinrelevantcommunities.Theyalsocreatelessonplansfor
educatorsthatwanttousePOVdocumentariesintheclassroom.Whilethese
175“POV:FifteenYearsofDocumentaryTelevision,”4.176Ibid.,13.
94
grassrootsandeducationalscreeningsreachfewerpeoplethanbroadcasts,theyare
oftenmoretargetedaudiences,includingthosedirectlyaffectedbyaparticular
socialissueorthosethathavetheabilitytomakeadirectimpactonit.Forexample,
POVhasconductednumerousscreeningsonCapitolHilltargetedat
policymakers.177Overthelongterm,thishashelpedPOV“createanaudiencethat
understandsandusesindependentmediastrategicallyandeffectively.”178
DespitethefactthatPOVdistributesindependentdocumentariesthatare
“intenselysubjective,”theorganizationiscarefultodistanceitselffromtakingan
explicitlyactiviststanceonanissue,sincemuchofitsfundingcomesfederal
governmentsourcesthatprohibitadvocacy,includingitsPBScontractandgrants
fromtheCorporationforPublicBroadcasting.ThismeansthatthematerialsPOV
producestogeneratediscussionattempttotakeaneutralpositionbyproviding
information,resourcesandreferencestoorganizationsthatbothsupportand
counterbalancethefilmmaker’sstrongpointofview.“Alotofitisreallyawareness,”
saysElizaLicht,POV’sVicePresentofContentStrategyandEngagement.“Actionis
veryexcitingandwedohaveTakeActionsections[indiscussionguides]butreallyI
thinkwe'vealwaysseenourselvesasjusthelpingtomovethoseconversations
alongasmuchaswecan.”179ForSimonKilmurry,whoservedasPOV’sExecutive
Directorfrom2006–2015,this“neutral”positionreflectsarespectforthe
autonomyandintelligenceofaudiencesasmuchasitdoestheimperativesof
federalfunding:
177Licht,interview.178“POV:FifteenYearsofDocumentaryTelevision,”13.179Licht,interview.
95
Justfrommyowninstinctasanaudiencemember,Idon'twanttobetoldwhattodo.IwanttobeabletoprocesstheinformationandthenI'll come tomyownconclusions.Sowe tryandhaverespect for theaudienceinallowingthemtoprocesstheinformation,toprocesstheexperienceandthendrawtheirownconclusionsonwhattheywanttodonext.180
WhilePOVavoidstakinganexplicitpositiononissuesordrivingtowardsaspecific
outcome,the“HighImpactTelevision”modelisdesignedtocreate,ononehand,a
breadthofawarenessatanationallevel(helpingtoraiseanissue,reframeitoreven
influencetheagendaofothermediaoutlets)andfacilitatingdiscussionsanddeeper
engagementswiththeseissues,oftenbyconnectinglocalaudiencestoarangeof
organizationsworkingonagivenissue.
Inmanyways,thistwinstrategycombinesbothGrierson’svisionof
documentaryasatoolforpubliceducationandtheColinLow’sinterestinusing
mediatobringtogetherlocalcommunitiesandstimulatedialogueaboutissues
importanttothem.(Onedistinctionworthnoting,however,isthatPOV’scampaigns
stillfocusontheexhibitionofdocumentaryfilmsratherthanacommunity-based
methodologyformediaproductionlikeFogoProcessorCizek’sinterventionist
media.)POV’saudienceengagementstrategieshavegreatlyinfluencedthe
developmentofthe“ImpactIndustry”IdescribedinChapter1,particularlyas
foundationsliketheFledglingFundbegantorecognizethepotentialinwhat
Whitemandescribesasthe“coalitionmodel”–filmmakersworkingwithcommunity
organizationstoformalternativenetworksofdistributionfordocumentariesthat
canbelinkedmoredirectlytoaction.Manyofthesecampaignsbecamemore
explicitlyactivistthanPOV’smodel,attemptingtoinfluenceviewers’attitudesand180Kilmurry,interview.
96
behaviorsorpushingaspecificpolicychange.AsFledglingFund’sfirstimpactputit,
“Weassumethatifadscansellproducts,visualimagerylinkedtoasocialjustice
narrativecansellsocialaction,orpoliticalconviction.”181POV’snotionofimpacthas
remainedgroundedintheideaofusingfilmtoopenupa“publicspace”and
discourseinwhichdiverseperspectivescanbevoicedandheard.
TalkingBack
Inadditiontopioneeringthemodern-daydocumentaryoutreachcampaign,
POVwasoneofthefirstpublicmediaorganizationstobuildapresencein
“cyberspace,”experimentingwithdigitaltechnologiestocreateaforumfor
audiencestodiscussissuesraisedbybroadcastoffilms.Inatypewrittenletterto
POV’sOnlineAdvisoryGroup,writtenin1993,MarcWeissexpressedhisexcitement
aboutthedemocratizingpotentialoftheInternet,writing:"Finally,thetechnologyis
availabletostartarealdialoguewithTV."182WhenPOVOnline,theprecursorto
POVDigital,officiallylaunchedintheSummerof1994,viewerswereinvitedtosend
emailcommentsattheendofbroadcastsandparticipateinhour-longforumsheld
inAOL’s“CenterStage”chatroom.Accordingtoanassessmentreportpublished
laterthatyear,thepurposeoftheprogramwas“totestthepotentialofcomputer
networkingtoencourageviewerstoriseupfromtheircouchesandtalkbackto
theirtelevisionsets.”183
181BarrettandLeddy,“AssessingCreativeMedia’sSocialImpact,”2.182“POVHistoryTimeline.”183AdamsandGoldbard,“TheP.O.V.OnlineExperiment,”4.
97
Thatsameyear,POVlaunchedarelatedinitiativecalled“TalkingBack.”
Takingadvantageofthegrowingubiquityofhomevideocameras,POVallowed
viewerstosend“videoletters”inresponsetodocumentaries,whichwereedited
andincludedattheendoffuturebroadcasts.In1995,itexpandedonthisconcept,
producinganentire"user-generated"programcalled“Two-WayTV”afterreceiving
1,000responsestoLeona'sSisterGerri,afilmaboutanabortion-relateddeath.184
“TalkingBack”emergedalongsidesimilarexperimentswithbroadcastingamateur
videoonnationaltelevision,likeBBC’sVideoNation.185Muchliketheexperiments
inparticipatorymediaofthe1960sand1970s,theseinitiativessawmoreaccessible
mediatechnologiesasanopportunitytobringnewvoicesintothepublicsphere,
grantingmoreagencytoaudiencesandsubjects.
AstheWeb’spopularitygrew,POVbegantousethemediumasatoolto
promotebroadcastsandofferancillarycontentaroundfilms,inadditiontoinviting
discussionabouttheissuestheyraised.Theorganization’sfirstcompanionwebsite
wasproducedin1996forthefilmJustForTheRide.186Thesesiteswouldgenerally
includearticles,shortvideoclips,interviewtranscriptsandlinkstoadditional
resources–basedonthepremisethatthesematerialscouldhelpinterested
audiencesengagemoredeeplyinthestoryorissuerepresentedinthefilm.
Televisionwasstillprivilegedastheprimarymediumforconveyingthestoryitself,
whiletheWebwasseenasawaytoengageviewersbeforeandafterafilm’s
broadcast.184“POVHistoryTimeline.”185Carpentier,“TheBBC’sVideoNationasaParticipatoryMediaPracticeSignifyingEverydayLife,CulturalDiversityandParticipationinanOnlineCommunity.”186“POVHistoryTimeline.”
98
POValsocontinuedtoexperimentwithweb-basedchannelsforaudience
participation,suchasRe:Vietnam,acompanionwebsiteforthefilmMayaLin:A
StrongClearVisionthatinvitedveteranstosubmittestimoniesabouthowthewar
hadshapedthem.187Remarkably,accordingtoKilmurry,theprojectremainedone
ofPOV’smostvisitedsitesforalmostadecade–“eveninitsveryold,almostquaint
format.”188Thissuccesspointstothepotential“longtail”impactsofsitesthat
effectivelytargetnichecommunities.Similarto“TalkingBack,”italsomarksasubtle
shiftfromtreatingaudienceperspectivesas“commentary”aroundfilmstofeaturing
themasthecontentitself.
In2002,POVlaunchedBorders,athree-partmultimediaseriesthat
representeditsfirstexperimentininteractivestorytellingproducedexclusivelyfor
theWeb.Theprogramcombineduserinteractionwithparticipatoryelementsinan
attemptto“pioneeranewformofpublicdialogue.”189ItmarkedthefirsttimePOV
approachedtheWebasastorytellingmediumuntoitselfratherthanaplaceto
promotebroadcastsandgeneratediscussion.AlthoughitgarneredPOVitsfirst
WebbyAward,Bordersprovedtobeexpensivetoproduceandattractedrelatively
smallaudiences.190Afterthethirdepisodewasreleasedin2006,POVceasedto
produceinteractivedocumentariesandrefocuseditsdigitaleffortsonbuilding
companionsitesandstreamingfilmsonline.
POV’searlydigitalexperimentswereintendedtodeepenaudience
engagementandpublicdiscourse,usuallyinawaythatsupplementedthe187Ibid.188Kilmurry,interview.189“POVHistoryTimeline.”190Kilmurry,interview.
99
experienceofviewingfilmsonbroadcast.However,thechallengeofbuilding
audiencesforstandaloneinteractiveprojectslikeBordersonlyunderscoredthe
importanceofthebroadcastaudienceasthefoundationforthisdiscourseandthe
basisforPOV’sunderstandingofitsimpact.
Pasteur’sQuadrant
In2011,AdnaanWaseybecametheExecutiveDirectorofPOVDigital.The
departmentconsistedofonlytwopeople(outofastaffofroughly30)andits
primaryresponsibilitywastomaintaintheseries’websiteandmanageonline
streamingofitsfilms.InthefiveyearssincethelastepisodeofBorderswasreleased
in2006,theInternethadtransformeddramatically.Broadbandaccessbecamemore
common.Twobillionmorepeoplebecameinternetusers.Socialnetworkingsites
likeFacebookandvideodistributionplatformslikeYouTubehelpedquicklyusherin
anerathatTimO’Reillydubbed“Web2.0.”191Particularforyoungerinternetusers
inWesterncountries,interactivescreenslikelaptopsandmobilephonesbeganto
occupyagrowingportionofeverydaymediaengagementsanddrawattentionand
financialresourcesawayfromtraditionalmedialikebroadcasttelevisionand
newspapers.ForPOV,thisinitiallymeantthatonlinediscussionaroundfilmsbegan
toshiftfromcommentsectionsontheirowncompanionsitestosocialnetworking
siteslikeFacebookandTwitter,whichhadbecomedefaultspacesforpublic
discourse.192However,theorganizationhadremainedfocusedonbroadcastfilms
191O’Reilly,“WhatIsWeb2.0.”192Licht,interview.
100
andaudienceengagementcampaigns,ratherthancontinueexperimentslikeBorders
thatusedtheWebasamediumfornewformsofstorytelling.
Comingtotheorganizationwithabackgroundinsoftwaredevelopmentand
business,WaseyrealizedthatPOVhad“amassiveopportunitytoengagepeoplein
theformatoftheWeb,butweweren’tdoinganythingaboutit.”193Theancillary
contentofferedoncompanionsites,hesays,was“nolongerhavingresonance”with
audiences,soheturnedhisattentiontothegrowingcreativepotentialsoftheWeb.
AsWaseydevelopedastrategyforthedepartment,hewasfocusedonhowasmall
organizationlikePOVcouldcompetewithSiliconValley’senormousinfluence:
How do we do play the game of the Web when we’re competingagainst massive budgets and giant staffs and lots of history ofinnovation, and also do it in a way that’s right for public media?Becausewedon’tneed toduplicatewhat someoneelse isdoing.Wejustneedtodoitintherightwaythat’sservingthepublicinthebestwaypossible.194
Aroundthesametime,independentdocumentaryfilmmakerswerebecoming
increasinglyinterestedinproducinginteractivework,oftenasextensionsoflinear
documentaryprojects.Thisworkwassupportedbyasmallbutgrowingecosystem
ofpublicmediafundersandlabs,includingtheBayAreaVideoCoalition’sProducers
Institute,theIndependentTelevisionSystem’sProject360,andtheTribecaFilm
Institute’sNewMediaFund.Waseywantedtosupportthiskindofexperimentation
inawaythatwasconsistentwithPOV’smission.Hestartedbyaskinghimselfhow
POVDigitalcould“dothethingsthatPOVhasdoneinthepastandtranslateitinto
193Wasey,interview.194Ibid.
101
digitalexperiences.”195Thismeantcreatingwhathecalls“contentfor
conversations”–storytellingthathelpsstimulateanactivediscourse,bothonline
andoffline,amongmediaoutletsandthegeneralpublic.Healsowantedtorevive
thelegacyofPOVOnline’searliestexperimentsby“usingtechnologyinwaysthat
haveneverbeenusedbeforeforstorytelling.”TherewasasensethatPOV–and
publicmediaingeneral–hadfallenbehindSiliconValleyintermsofitsabilityto
facilitatepublicdiscourse.Yet,asWebtechnologiesmaturedandmoreindependent
filmmakersbegantoexperimentwithit,Waseysawanopportunityto“bringPOV’s
mojoback.”196
OneofthebiggestchallengestofosteringmoredigitalinnovationatPOVwas
findingawaytodoitwithintheorganization’slimitedbudget.Whenhestartedthe
job,WaseymadealonglistofdigitalexperimentsthatPOVmightundertake.He
thenrankedthembycostandimpactandfocusedonthoseoptionswiththelowest
costandhighestpotentialimpact.Thefirstoftheseinitiativeswasaseriesof
“hackathons”–eventsthatbringtogetherfilmmakers,technologistsanddesigners
toprototypeinteractivemediaprojectsoverthecourseofaweekend.Waseywas
particularlyinterestedinthepotentialsofinteractivevideoandwantedtousethe
hackathonstoexplore“whatwecoulddowithit,whatwecouldinspirepeopletodo
withit,whatwecouldlearnfromit,whatwecouldpotentiallybuildoffofandother
peoplewecouldworkwith.”197Theseeventsweredesignedtohelpindependent
filmmakersandothermediamakersfindinspirationandlearnmoreabout
195Ibid.196Ibid.197Ibid.
102
interactiveproductionwhiledevelopingnewcollaborations,storytellingtechniques
andinsomecaseslargerprojects.Todate,POVhasorganized7oftheseeventsand
roughlyhalfoftheprototypescreatedduringthemhavebeendevelopedinto
completedprojects.
ForWasey,thecreativeprocessthatunfoldsatthePOVHackathonsis
analogouswhatscientistscall“Pasteur’sQuadrant”–theplacewherebasicscience
overlapswithappliedscienceandengineering.Theformerisfocusedon
understandingnature(forexample,bymixingdifferentchemicalstoseehowthey
react),whereasthelatterisaboutfindingspecificusesandapplicationsofthat
knowledge(forexample,bydevelopingplastics).Interactivedocumentary,ashe
seesit,isafieldthatexistsatthisjuncture:technologistsarelikebasicresearchers,
experimentingwiththebuildingblocksoftheWeb,whilefilmmakersarelike
engineers,attemptingtodevelopnewwaystotellstoriesontheWebthatresonate
withaudiences.Thesuccessofthehackathonsofferanillustrationoftheproductive
tensionbetweenthesetwoapproachestotechnology.Bothgroupscanaccomplish
greatthingsontheirown,Waseysays,“butyouhavetoputthemtogetherinorder
tohavethismagicalthing.”198ThoughPOVdidn’tyethavethebudgettocommission
interactivedocumentaries,theseeventscreatedanopportunitytoinexpensively
facilitatethiscreativeprocessanduseitsreputationtohelpdevelopthefield,while
alsoexpandingbeyonditsexistingnetworkofindependentfilmmakersbyworking
withsoftwaredevelopersanddesigners.
198Ibid.
103
InFebruary2014,POVDigitalwasawardeda$250,000grantfromthe
KnightFoundationtohelptheorganizationextend“beyondtelevisionintothe
digitalspace.”199PartofthemoneywenttowardsfundingayearlongKnight
TechnologyFellowship.DespitehavingbeennominatedforsevenWebbyAwards
andwinningone,POVhadneverhadasoftwaredeveloperonstaff.BrianChirls,a
developerwhohadextensiveexperienceworkingwithindependentfilmmakers,
becamethefirst.
DuringhisyearatPOV,Chirlsusedhisbroadmandate–“develop[ing]digital
andmobiletoolsfornonfictionmediamakers”200–toworkonsoftware
experimentsin“problemareas”hesawininteractivemedia,whileblogginghis
findingsregularlyandpublishingopensourcecodetoGithub.Oneoftheproblem
areasheidentifiedwasthelackofflexible,creativetoolsforinteractive
documentarymakers.“Innon-interactivemedia,youhavetoolsthatarevery
powerfulforaestheticexpression,”hesays,referringtopost-productiontoolslike
colorgradingandgraphicssoftware.“IwantedtoseehowIcouldgrantthatsame
expressivepowertoadynamicinteractivepiece.”201Alongtheselines,Chirls
expandedonaSeriously.js,aJavascriptlibrarythatallowsfordynamicfilterstobe
appliedtoawebvideobytheviewer,andhecreateda“virtualcamera”for
199Sherry,“AmericanDocumentarytoDevelopNewInnovationsinDigitalStorytellingthroughItsAward-WinningPBSSeries,POV.”200Ibid.201Chirls,interview.
104
interactivedocumentariesanddatavisualizations,inspiredbyside-scrollingvideo
games.202
AnotherareathatChirlsexploredwasusinginteractivemediato“meetthe
audienceontheirturf”inamediaenvironmentwherefilmmakersandbroadcaster
havelesscontrol.“Earlycinemawassuccessfulbecausepeopledidn’thavealotto
doonFridaynight,”Chirlspointsout.“Itdoesn’tworkthatwaynowbecausepeople
haveotheroptions.Youhavetoworkalothardertogetaudience’sattention.”203
`Someoftheseprojectswereapplicabletolineardocumentaries–for
example,anadaptivecroppingtoolthatallowsfilmmakerstopublishvideothatcan
beautomaticallyadjustedtoscreensofanysizeoraspectratio.Otherexperiments
exploredthefrontiersofinteractivestorytelling,suchastheWebVRToolkit,acode
librarythatallowsmediamakerswithlittleornosoftwareexperiencetocreate
basic3Denvironmentsthatcanbeexperiencedwithvirtualrealityheadsets.204For
Wasey,itwasimportantthatChirls’sexperimentswerealwaysconductedwithan
eyetowardstheirrelevancetopublicmedia.InthecaseoftheWebVRToolkit,that
meantpushingtechnologicalboundaries,butalsostartingapublicconversation
abouthowVRcanbemademoreaccessible,bothtoaudiencesandcreators.
MoneyfromtheKnightgrantwasalsoallocatedtohelpPOVdistributesix
“interactiveshorts,”allproducedbyindependentfilmmakersandlaunchedonthe
202Chirls,“AVirtualCameraforInteractiveDocumentaries,InspiredbySide-ScrollingVideoGames|POVFilmsBlog|POVBlog|PBS.”203Chirls,interview.204Chirls,“HowAnyoneCanCreateAVirtualRealityExperienceWithOneLineofCode.”
105
POVwebsiteinSeptember2014.205Whencuratingtheseries,Waseywaslookingfor
“boldandinnovative”work,projectsthat“pushthetechnologicalboundsatthe
sametimethathavethestorytellingwithinthem.”206TheoRigby’sImmigrantNation
combinescharacter-drivenshortfilms,datavisualizationanduser-generated
contenttotellthestoriesofdifferent“waves”ofimmigrationtotheUnitedStates.
Thisallowsuserstogetabroadquantitativeviewofthehistoryofimmigration
whilealsodiscoveringthestoriesofindividualsandcontributingtheirown.Living
LosSures,producedbytheBrooklyn-basedUnionDocsCollaborative,isa
community-basedparticipatorydocumentarythatusesa1984documentaryabout
Williamsburgasastartingpointforacollaborativeexplorationofgentrificationin
thatneighborhood.TheWhitenessProject,directedbyWhitneyDow,isa
provocativewebdocumentarythatfeaturesadatabaseofinterviewswithwhite
peoplespeakingabouttheirviewsonraceissuesinAmerica.MuchlikePOV’sfilm
program,eachoftheprojectsrepresentdifferentvisualstyles,approachesto
interactivity,andstrategiesforaudienceengagement.
EvaluatingImpact
AsPOVexpandsitsfocusbeyondlinearfilmsforbroadcasttelevisionand
beginstosupporttheproductiontointeractivedocumentariesfortheWeband
otherdigitalplatforms,thekeyquestionsfacingtheorganizationarewhetherornot
itcancreate“digitalexperiences”thatservethesamepurposes–andhowtogauge205“POVDeliversaRevolutionaryApproachtoStorytellingwithSixNewInteractiveDocumentaryShorts.”206Wasey,interview.
106
thesuccessoftheseearlystageexperiments.Thesequestionsarecomplicatedbya
numberoffactors,thefirstofwhichisparadoxofaudiencedevelopmentonthe
Web.Ononehand,WaseyseestheubiquityoftheWebascreatinganopportunity
forPOVandpublicmediaingeneraltoreachnewandexistingaudiences:
We’re just staying really focusedonwhere's the audience.What arethe tools they are using? Right now the reason why theWeb is soexciting is because everyone has theWeb. The sameway everyonehad(andhas)TV,theynowhavetheWeb.Sowecanusethis[tobuildaudiences], essentially the same way that broadcast television hasdone,butalsoengageatthesametime.207Indeed,POV’sonlineaudienceisgrowingfasterthanitsbroadcastaudience,
althoughitremainssignificantlysmaller,with7millionpageviewsin2014
comparedto25millionviewersonbroadcast.208Thisaudienceisalsoyoungerthan
POV’sbroadcastviewers,since“peoplewhodiscover[documentaries]onredditor
FacebookorTwitterisadifferentdemographicthanontelevision.”209Ontheother
hand,thereisvastlymorecontentontheWeb,makingitmoredifficulttoattract
attentionforindividualproductions.“Oneofthegreatchallengesofdigitalspaceis
findingwaystobreakthroughofthenoiseofeverythingelsethat'sgoingon,”says
Kilmurry.“It'salsoachallengeonbroadcast,butit'samuchmorelimited
environment,evenwith500channels.Onlineyouhavemillionsofchannelswith
peopleputtingupstuff,andbreakingthroughthattofindaudiencesisastilla
challenge.”210
207Ibid.208Kilmurry,interview.209Wasey,interview.210Kilmurry,interview.
107
BothWaseyandKilmurrypointtoTheWhitenessProjectasanexampleofan
interactivedocumentaryprojectthatwassuccessfulat“breakingthroughthenoise”
oftheWebandbuildingasignificantaudience,inlargepartbecauseitsprovocative
contentattractedcoveragefromthemainstreampressandalsoencouragedviewers
toshareitviasocialmedia.Thispointstotheimportanceofmakingcontentmore
sharableand“discoverable,”aswellasthewaysthataudiencebuildingandpublic
discoursecanbecloselyintertwinedontheWeb.Lichtalsoseesanopportunityto
adaptPOV’sengagementmodeltointeractivedocumentaries,takingtheseprojects
“offline”and“bring[ing]themintoaspacewhereveritcanbeinaroomtogether
andtalkaboutit.”211Forinteractivedocumentariesthatdon’thavethesocial
distributionpotentialofTheWhitenessProject,thismaybecomeaneffective
audiencedevelopmentstrategyinthefuture.
AnotherchallengetoadaptingPOV’sbroadcastmodelforinteractive
documentariesistherelativescarcityofprojects,particularlywithintheUnited
States.SincePOV’smodelisbasedoncuratingtheworkofindependentartists,it
alsodependsonthedevelopmentofarobustsupportnetworkforindependent
interactiveproductionthatincludesotherfundersanddevelopmentopportunities.
Althoughlabsandfundingopportunitiesforinteractivedocumentarieshavegrown
steadilyinrecentyears,mostofthesegrantsaren’tbigenoughtofundentire
projects,sothecostofinteractiveproductionremainsprohibitiveformany
independentproducers.Forthisreason,oneofthemostimportantimpactsofPOV
211Licht,interview.
108
Digital’srecentworkhasbeenbuildingcapacityforinteractiveproductionboth
internallyandamongindependentproducers.
WaseyseesthePOVDigitaldepartmentgoingthroughaprogressionthatwill
allowthemtoplayalargerroleinthedevelopmentofthisecosystem:movingfrom
afocusonmarketinganddigitaldistributionoflineardocumentaryfilmstotheR&D
andexperimentationofthePOVHackathonstodistributing“interactiveshorts”and
eventuallyfundingandco-producingmoreambitiousinteractivedocumentaries.
AlthoughtheKnightFoundationgrantonlylastsforoneyear,theprogramsit
supportedrepresentincrementalstepsinalong-termprocessofdigitaladaptation.
WaseyhopesthattheTechnologyFellowpositionwillevolveintoastaffposition
andthattheorganizationwillbeabletocurateaseriesofinteractivedocumentaries
onanannualbasis.
Theultimategoal,Waseysays,istodevelopa“stableofonlinecontent,just
likethere'sastableofbroadcastcontent,andhavetheproducersinhousetomake
thatcontenthappen.”212Kilmurrysimilarlyexpressesastronginterestin“growing
[POV’s]commissioningdollarsforinteractivework”andincreasingthevolumeand
qualityoftheorganization’sinteractiveproductions.213Thisgrowthmayhappen
slowly,sinceitwillrequirePOVitselffindsustainablefundingsourcesfor
commissioninginteractivedocumentaries,or–followingtheNFB’sapproach–
significantlyrestructureitsexistingbudgetandpriorities.Lichtpointsoutthatas
moreviewersencounterPOV’slineardocumentariesonline,“therewillbelessofa
212Wasey,interview.213Kilmurry,interview.
109
linebetweenthebroadcastandthis[interactive]media…andthat'skindofthe
goal.”214
LiketheNationalFilmBoard,POVevaluatesitsinteractivedocumentariesin
termshowtheypushedtheboundariesofbothtechnologyandcreativeform.These
kindofcontributionshavebecomeparticularlyimportantasPOVbeginstomore
fullyrecognizetheartisticpotentialsofinteractivedocumentary.AsWaseyputsit,
Interactive documentary is absolutely a craft in itself. It's nottelevision, it's not documentary [film], it's not code. It's reallysomethingelse. It's really takenmea littlewhile tobecertain that'strue…When you combine software and storytelling, technology andstorytelling, it'snot justtechnologyplusstorytelling.That'sthethingthatwewanttoworkonandinvestinandhelppeopleunderstand.215
Kilmurryechoesthisrecognitionofinteractivedocumentaryasadistinctform,but
contrastsitwiththemoredevelopedlanguageofcinema.“Ifyouthinkofgreatfilms,
theonesthatreallylast,”hesays,“it'sstorytelling,character,emotion,allthose
kindsofthingsthatengageyou.Iwouldliketohavedigitalprojectsthathave…a
similarkindofgreatnessofart,greatnessoffilmmaking.”216Thoughtheyreflectan
optimismthatinteractivedocumentarieswillcontinuetodevelopmorefullyasan
artform,thesekindsofcomparisonalsopointtothechallengeofevaluating
interactivedocumentariesonaestheticlevel,particularlywithinanorganization
thatisstillfirmlyrootedinthetraditionalformofcinemas.
AgainstthebackdropofthesemyriadchallengesfacingPOV’sdigital
transitionisagrowingpressureinrecentyearsfromsomefoundationfunders“to
bemoredata-driven”andmeasurethespecificimpactsofitsdocumentaryfilms.214Licht,interview.215Wasey,interview.216Kilmurry,interview.
110
ThisseemstohavecreatedtensionbetweenPOV’sprioritiesandsomeofits
funders’goals,sinceKilmurrybelievesthat“filmsshouldbeallowedtoexistfor
theirownsake”andtheireffectsshouldbeplacewithinabroadercontextrather
thanattributedtospecificsocialoutcomes:
It'saheavyburden toplaceona film tosay it'sgoing tochange theworld.AndIdon'tbelievefilmsexistinavacuum.Ibelievefilmsexistinasocialandpoliticalcontextandanecosystemaroundwhichtherearemanymoving parts andmany other people are involved, and afilm may play a part in that. So ascribing a certain set of data oroutcomestoafilm–I'msomewhatskepticalofit.Thatsaid,Idothinkthefilmshaveanimpact.217
Kilmurry’sstatementisconsistentwithPOV’spolicyofremainingneutralon
politicalissues,butitalsoreflectsaconvictionabouttheintrinsicsocialand
artisticvalueofdocumentaryfilms.
POV’sapproachtoimpactmeasurementhasbeentoprovideasmuch
dataaspossible,whilemakingsuretonotadaptprogrammingdecisionstoa
particularfunder’sagendaormission.Waseyadvocatesforanopen-ended
philosophyaboutaudiencemeasurement,withmetricsthatvarybasedon
thetypeofcontentanditsgoals.“Ifyourgoalisartversusifyourgoalis
activism,”hesays,“thosearemeasuredinvery,verydifferentways.”218Like
mostbroadcasters,POVusesNielsenratingstoestimatethesizeofits
broadcastaudiences.Engagementcampaignsaretypicallyevaluatedbased
onsurveyshandedouttoaudiencesatcommunityscreenings,aswellas
otherindicatorslikethetotalnumberofscreenings,requestsfromeducators
tostreamafilm,ordownloadsofdiscussionguides.AccordingtoLicht,217Ibid.218Wasey,interview.
111
surveydataprovidesanecdotesthatrepresentimportantindicatorsof
success.“Therecanbeascreeningthatisfor10peopleinIowaandyouget
theseevaluationssaying‘ThisopenedmyeyesinX,Y,andZways’or‘I
alwayshateddocumentariesandnowIthinkthey'regreat.’Thatsortofstuff
wealwaysthinkisasuccess.Itdoesn'tneedtobethe5,000personscreening
oraCapitolHillscreening.”219Manyofthequestionsonthesurveysattempt
togaugehowmotivatedviewersaretotakeactionslikejoiningan
organizationthatisworkingonanissueinthefilm.
Tomeasureaudiencesformostofitsonlinecontent,POVusesGoogle
Analytics,butWaseyacknowledgesthatthissystemdoesn’talwaysmeasure
whatismostimportantaboutaproject.Numberslikeuniquevisitorsand
timeonsitearetreatedas“proxies”forthesuccessofsomethingandWasey
acknowledgesthat“howmanypeoplesawitisanimportantthing.”Social
mediaactivity,pressmentionsandmediaimpressionsareconsideredasa
“proxyforthequalityofconversation”generatedbyaproject.Giventhe
experimentalnatureofinteractivedocumentaries,however,Waseyalso
measuressuccessoftheseprojectsonamoreintuitivelevel,asking:“Didit
feelgood?Didwelikeit?Didwethinkthatweservedthecontentreally
well?”220
AlthoughPOVdistancesitselffrombothtakingactivistpositionsinits
outreachcampaignsandattemptingtousemetricstocorrelateitsfilmsto
specificsocialimpacts,LichtrecentlybeganworkingwiththeHarmony219Licht,interview.220Wasey,interview.
112
Institute–creatorsoftheimpactmeasurementtoolStoryPilot–toanalyze
impactdatagoingbackto2003.Thisincludesaudienceevaluationsfrom
screenings,informationonpartnerorganizations,companionmaterial
downloads,Nielsenratingsandwebsiteanalytics.Harmonyisplanningon
synthesizingthismaterialintoaresearchpaperandaddingsomeofthisdata
toStoryPilot.Lichtdoesn’tseethiskindofretrospectiveanalysisasawayto
comparetherelativesuccessorimpactofitsdocumentaries,butratherasa
waytocommunicatetheoverallimpactofPOV’swork.“IthinkthatPOV
needstodoabetterjoblettingfolksknowwhatwe'vedoneandhowwe've
doneit,”shesays.“We'regoodatpromotingourfilmsandlessskilledat
promotingourselves.”221
POVwasfoundedaroundtheideaofconnectingaudienceswith
independentdocumentariesthatbringnewvoicesandperspectivesintothe
pubicsphere,viabroadcasttelevision,andgenerateactivepublicdiscourse
aroundtheissuestheyraise.Theorganization’srecentdigitalexperiments
representanattempttotranslatethistheoryofchange–whatWaseycalls
“contentforconversations”–ontodigitalplatforms.AlthoughPOVhaslong
treatedtheWebasaplatformforbuildingconversationsaroundbroadcasts,
initiativeslikethePOVHackathon,KnightTechnologyFellowshipand
InteractiveShortsrepresentastrategicshifttowardsproducingmore
originalcontentfortheWeb,aswellasemergingplatformslikevirtual
reality.
221Licht,interview.
113
AsPOVundergoesthisdigitaltransition,itwillfacechallenges
adaptingitsbroadcastmodeltointeractivedocumentarybothintermsof
“content”and“conversations.”WhenPOVwasfoundedin1988,
documentaryfilmwasadecades-oldtraditionofstorytellingwitharobust
communityofindependentfilmmakersandaudiencesalreadyaccustomedto
thedocumentarygenre.Interactivedocumentary,ontheotherhand,despite
beingbuiltinpartonthefoundationsofcinema,isarelativelyunfamiliar
formwithasmallercommunityofindependentmakersandfewerresources
supportingtheirwork.AsPOVDigitaltakesstepstowardscommissioning
interactivework,thismayhelpdevelopindependentinteractivemedia
productionintheU.S.,givingindependentcreatorsgreateraccesstofunding,
legitimacyandaudiences.
Nowthat“everyonehastheWeb”,POVseesanopportunityto
produceinteractivedocumentariesthatreachthediverseaudiencesthat
publicmediaismeanttoserveandstimulatepublicdiscourseinnewways.
POV’sbroadcastaudienceisstillgrowingandwilllikelyremainthecoreof
POV’sworkfortheforeseeablefuture,butitsdigitalaudience,forbothlinear
andinteractivedocumentaries,isgrowingfaster.222Regardlessofwhether
POV’scurrentseriesof“interactiveshorts”betterservedigitalaudiences
comparedtolinearfilmsthatPOValreadystreamsonitswebsite,itsrecent
digitalinitiativesrepresentincrementalstepsofinnovationthatcanhelp
222Kilmurry,interview.
114
expandaccesstointeractiveproductionforindependentartistsandenable
POVtobuildcapacityfordigitalproductions.
115
CHAPTER4NewYorkTimes
Inthischapter,IwillexploretheconnectionsbetweentheNewYorkTimes’s
evolvingapproachtointeractivestorytellinganditscomplicated,shifting
relationshiptometricsandaudiencedevelopmentondigitalplatforms.Iwill
describetheapproachestoaudienceengagementandthevariousimpactsattributed
totwooftheTimes’smostsuccessfulinteractivefeatures–SnowFallandAShort
HistoryoftheHighrise.Bothprojectsmanagedtoattractlarge,engagedaudiences,to
bolstertheNewYorkTimesbrand,andtodeveloptheorganization’scapacityfor
interactiveproductionandnewformsofcollaboration.SnowFallalsoinfluencedthe
emergenceofawholesub-genreofinteractivestorytellingontheWeb.However,as
theTimes’s(leaked)InnovationReportreveals,thereisagrowingsensethatthe
organizationneedstopaymoreattentiontoimpactsandmetricsthatdrivebusiness
throughsubscriptionsoradvertisingrevenues.Thisculturalshiftawayfromastrict
separationoftheeditorialandbusinesssidesofthepaper–of“churchandstate”–
threatenstode-emphasizethesocialandcivicimpactsofalltheTimes’sjournalism.
Amidstthesetensionsbetweentheorganization’scommercialimperativesandits
publicinterestmission,itisunclearwhetherambitiousinteractivefeaturesattract
loyalaudiences,createsocialimpactsortellstoriesmoreeffectivelythantraditional
formats.DespitethesuccessesoftheinteractiveprojectsIdescribe–includingtheir
artisticcontributionsandinstitutionalimpacts–theyalsorequiresignificantly
116
greaterinvestmentsoftimeandmoneythanmostofthestoriespublishedbythe
Times.Therefore,itisstillunclearwhatroleinteractivedocumentariesmightplay
intheNewYorkTimes’scontentstrategyasitgraduallytransitionsfromaprint-
basedorganizationalculturetoa“digitalfirst”newsroom.
SnowFall
OnDecember21,2012,theNewYorkTimespublishedSnowFall,an
interactivemultimediafeaturethattoldthestoryofbackcountryskiersstruckbyan
avalancheinWashington’sCascadeRange.Thepieceseamlesslyblendedtext,
embeddedvideoandphotographicslideshowsusingaparallaxscrollinginterface.
Almostimmediately,itbecameasocialmediaphenomenon.Accordingtoamemo
publishedbyexecutiveeditorJillAbramsondaysafteritslaunch,SnowFallhad
attractednearly3millionuniquevisitors,whospentanaverageof12minuteson
thestory.“Atitspeak,”Abramsonwrote,“asmanyas22,000usersvisitedSnowFall
atanygiventime.Strikingly,aquartertoathirdofthemwerenewvisitorsto
nytimes.com.”Readersleftmorethan1,100comments–manyofthemglowing
reviewsoftheimmersivemultimediaexperience.EvenfortheNewYorkTimes,
whichhadbuiltalargedigitalaudienceandwasbeingcelebratedforitsdigital
transition,thesewereimpressivenumbersforasinglestory.AsAbramson
summarized:“Rarelyhavewebeenabletocreateacompellingdestinationoutside
thehomepagethatwassoengaginginsuchashortperiodoftimeontheWeb.”223
223Romenesko,“Morethan3.5MillionPageViewsforNewYorkTimes’‘SnowFall’Feature.”
117
PriortoSnowFall,theTimeshadalreadyspentmorethan10years
experimentingwithnewformatsforpresentingstoriesontheWeb,rangingfrom
multimediafeaturescombiningphotographyandaudio(liketheEmmy-winningOne
in8Million)toawiderangeofinteractivegraphicsandmaps.However,SnowFall
stoodoutbecauseitlookedandfeltunlikeanythingthenewsorganizationhad
publishedbefore.Comingafterfiveyearsoflayoffsandprecipitousdeclinesin
advertisingrevenuesacrossthenewsindustry,SnowFallappearedtodemonstrate
thepotentialforlegacynewsorganizationstoattractandengagereaderswith
qualitylong-formjournalismbolsteredbythemultimediaaffordancesoftheWeb.In
itssuccessfulnominationletterfora2013PulitzerPrize,theTimesstaffwrote
aboutSnowFall’ssuccess:“Forthosewhohadworriedaboutthefutureoflonger
formstorytellinginthedigitalage,thefuturehadsuddenly,spectacularly
arrived.”224WritingforTheAtlantic,RebeccaGreenfieldgushedthattheprojectwas
“sobeautifulithasalotofpeoplewondering—especiallythoseinsidetheNewYork
Times—ifthemainstreammediaisabouttoforgowordsandpicturesforawhole
lotmore.”225Theprojectusedvideoandaudiotocreateasenseofimmersionthat
madeitfeel,inGreenfield’sassessment,“morelikeaninteractivedocumentarythat
happenstohaveparagraphsthananewspaperstorythathappenstohave
interactives.”226
224“SnowFall:Nominationforthe2013PulitzerPrize.”225Greenfield,“WhattheNewYorkTimes’s‘SnowFall’MeanstoOnlineJournalism’sFuture.”226Thompson,“‘SnowFall’Isn’ttheFutureofJournalism.”
118
OthersmediacommentatorscontestedtheclaimthatSnowFallmight
representthe“futureofjournalism.”DerekThompsonpointedoutthattheproject
tookstaffwriterJohnBranchsixmonthstoreport,andmoreover,thedesignand
developmentoftheinteractivefeatures–whichwerecreatedindependentlyfrom
thepublication’scontentmanagementsystem(CMS)–involveda“graphicsand
designteamof11,aphotographer,threevideopeople,andaresearcher.”227He
concludedthat“thereisnofeasiblewaytomakesix-monthsixteen-person
multimediaprojectstheday-to-dayfutureofjournalism,noristhereaneedto.”228
Inthe2½yearssincethereleaseofSnowFall,interactivefeatureshavenot
reachedtheubiquitythatinflatedclaimsaboutthe“futureofjournalism”might
imply,buttheyhavecontinuedtooccupyasmallbutgrowingportionoftheNew
YorkTimes’screativeoutput.Attheendof2013,theTimespublisheda“Yearin
Review”ofitsinteractivestorytelling,including57projectsgroupedinto5sub-
genres.AninteractivemapofregionaldialectsintheU.S.titled“HowY’all,Youse
andYouGuysTalk”becamethemostpopularstoryof2013,despitebeingpublished
just11daysbeforetheendofyear.229Thefollowingyear,thenumberofinteractive
featuresmorethandoubledto123.ThesenumbersindicatethattheTimesisplacing
agrowingemphasisoninteractivemultimediafeatures–whatsomejournalistsnow
call“digitallongform”230–asawaytoattractnewaudiences,toholdtheirattention
andtoengagethemmorefullyinthekindofin-depthreportingonwhichlegacy
newsorganizationspridethemselves.227Ibid.228Ibid.229“BehindtheDialectMapInteractive.”230“TheFutureofLongform.”
119
Although“interactives”–asthey’resometimesnowreferredtointhenews
industry–comeinawidevarietyofforms,thetechniquesusedinSnowFallin
particularhavebecomesofamiliartoreadersontheWebthattheythepiecealmost
constituteanewgenreofdigitaljournalism.DowlingandVogandescribethis
phenomenoninthearticle“CanWeSnowFallThis?”,arguingthatsuchpiecesstand
outfromthevastquantityofotherwiseundifferentiatedarticlespublishedonthe
Web,helpinglegacymediaorganizationsliketheTimes“buildabrandedsenseof
renowninanincreasinglycompetitivemarket.”231
ImpactandInnovation
LiketheNationalFilmBoardandPOV,theNewYorkTimesexists–atleastin
part–toservethepublicinterest.Accordingtoitswebsite,thecompany’s“core
purpose”isto“enhancesocietybycreating,collectinganddistributinghigh-quality
newsandinformation.”232However,theTimesstandsapartfromgovernment-
subsidizedpublicmediaorganizationsintwoimportantways.First,theNewYork
Timesdefinesitscreativeoutputas“journalism”ratherthan“documentary.”
Althoughtherehavehistoricallybeenmanyoverlapsbetweenthesetwotraditions
ofnonfictionstorytelling,thestandardsofjournalisticintegrityaretypicallybased
onfairness,accuracyandimpartiality,whereasdocumentarytendstoleavemore
latitudeforsubjectivepointsofview,creativerepresentationsofrealityandexplicit
advocacyofasocialcause.Secondly,asafor-profitcompany,theNewYorkTimes
231DowlingandVogan,“CanWe‘Snowfall’This?”.232“StandardsandEthics|TheNewYorkTimesCompany.”
120
operatesunderdifferentcommercialimperativesandincentives.Thenecessityof
returningaprofittoshareholdersinevitablyshapesitsrelationshiptothepublics–
oraudiences–whoseinterestsitpromisestoserve.WhereastheNFBisfunded
directlybytheCanadiangovernmentandPOVderivesitssupportfroma
combinationofaPBSbroadcastinglicenseandfoundationgrants,theNewYork
Timessupportsitsnewsroomoperationsprimarilythroughadvertisementsand
subscriptions.Asaresult,theTimesneedstobemoreresponsivetomarketforces
thanpublicmediaorganizations,producingenough“highqualitynewsand
information”tobothattractpayingsubscribersandsellitsaudiences’attentionto
advertisers.
Althoughthereisaninherenttensionbetweentheimperativesofdelivering
aprofittoshareholdersandmaintainingjournalisticintegrity,theTimesandother
legacynewsorganizationshavetraditionallytriedtoseparatebusinessconcerns
fromeditorialdecisionsthroughapolicythatiscommonlydescribedasaseparation
of“churchandstate.”However,asaudienceshavegainedmoreautonomyand
choiceinthemedialandscapeandadvertisersshifttheirspendingtodigital
platformsandproviderslikeGoogleandFacebook,theTimes’seditorialteamfaces
growingpressuretoadapttothechangingdynamicsofaudienceengagementonthe
Webandmobiledevices.
Thisproblemcamesharplyintofocusaftertheorganization’sinternally
producedInnovationReportwasleakedtoBuzzfeedinMay2014.233Thereportwas
arigorousstudyandcritiqueoftheorganization’sculturethatdemonstratedhow
233Tanzer,“Exclusive.”
121
fartheTimeshadtogoinitstransitionfromaprint-basedbusinessmodeland
journalisticculturetoatruly“digitalfirst”newsoperation.NiemanLab’sJoshua
Bentoncalledit“oneofthekeydocumentsofthismediaage,”observingthat“you
cansensethefrayednervesandthefrustrationatanewsroomthatis,forallits
digitalsuccesses,stillinmanywaysorientedtowardanoldmodel.”234Thereport
treateddigitalpublisherslikeBuzzFeedascompetitorsintheattentioneconomy.It
alsoreflectedtheTimes’anxietyaboutBuzzfeed’ssuccess,inpartbecauseoftheir
massivereachandsocialmediaengagement.
TheInnovationReport’srecommendationsattempttostrikeabalance
betweentheTimes’sneedtomaintainitspositionasanauthoritative,trustworthy
newssourcewhileadaptingtothechangingaudiencedynamicsontheWeb.
Reflectingthepaper’scommercialimperatives,virtuallyallthestrategiesitsuggests
focusongrowingitsdigitalaudience.Theword“impact”isusuallyusedalmost
synonymouslywith“reach”and“readership,”andthereislittlediscussionofother
formsofimpact.However,theconceptof“audienceengagement”figures
prominently,inpartbecauseofarecognitionofthegrowingimportanceofsocial
mediadistribution:
The newsroom needs to take on these questions of connection andengagement. We are in a subscriber-driven business, our digitalcontentneeds to travelon thebacksof readers to findnewreaders,andthereisanappetitetoknowthepeoplebehindourreport.WecancomeupwithaTimesianwayforconnectingwithourreadersonlineandofflinethatdeepenstheirloyalty.235
234“TheLeakedNewYorkTimesInnovationReportIsOneoftheKeyDocumentsofThisMediaAge.”235“NYTInnovationReport2014,”49.
122
Thoughthispreoccupationwithaudience“engagement”seemstomirrorthatofthe
NationalFilmBoardandPOV,thedefinitionimpliedhereemphasizestheneedfor
readerstosharecontentsothatitreacheswideraudiences,ratherthanthe
importanceofempoweringaudiencesorcreatingspacesforconstructivepublic
discourse.Thereportrecommendsthedevelopmentofan“impacttoolbox”with
strategies,tacticsandtemplatesthateditorscoulduse“forincreasingthereachof
anarticlebeforeandafterit’spublished.”236Analternativedefinitionof
“engagement”isofferedlaterinthereport,whentheauthorsrecommendopening
upmorechannelsforuser-generatedcontent,followingtheleadofotherpublishers
thatmorphedintoplatforms,likeHuffingtonPostandMedium.237Thereportnotes
that“anewgenerationofstartupsistrainingthenextgenerationofreadersto
expectparticipation,”butthattheNewYorkTimesbrandalso“promisesreaders
thateverything…hasbeencarefullyvetted.”238
Althoughtheemphasison“engagement”viadiscussionsonsocialmediaand
openingupitsplatformtomoreaudienceparticipationsuggestsmightpointtoan
interestinpublicdiscourseakintoPOV’s,reminderslike“weareinasubscriber-
drivenbusiness”indicatethattheauthorsofthereportaremoreconcernedwiththe
waysinwhichthistypeofengagementincreasesthereachanddrivesthe
company’sbottomline.
236Ibid.,47.237Ibid.,51.238Ibid.
123
AShortHistoryoftheHighrise
In2011,theNewYorkTimeshireddocumentaryfilmmakerandjournalist
JasonSpingarn-KofftoproducevideoforitsOpinionsection.Oneoftheeditors’
originalidea,asSpingarn-Koffdescribedina2014interviewwithRealscreen,wasto
publishvideosofPaulKrugmanandMaureenDowdreadingtheircolumns–ashe
joked,“theprintwayoflookingatit.”239Ratherthanfocusonrepurposingexisting
Timescontent,Spingarn-KofflaunchedtheOp-Docsseriesandbegan
commissioningshortdocumentariesfromindependentfilmmakers–“produced
withwidecreativelatitudeandarangeofartisticstyles”240–thatwerereleasedon
theTimeswebsite.AccordingtoSpingarn-Koff,theoriginalconceptwastocreate
“anoutletforindependentfilmmakersthewaytheOpinionpageisforindependent
writers,anditwouldbethevoiceofthepublic.”241
InthesamewaythatSnowFallpushedtheboundariesofthemultimedia
form,theOp-Docsfilmshavepushedtheboundariesofwhatreadersexpectedfrom
aNewYorkTimesvideo.Theserieshasincludedfilmsfromestablisheddirectors
likeErrolMorrisandLauraPoitrasinadditiontolesser-knownearly-career
filmmakers.Manyhavebeenshortfilmsthatwereadaptedfromissue-based
feature-lengthdocumentaries,buttheOp-Docsseriesalsoincludesmore
unconventionalworklike“SoloPianoNYC,”ameditationonapianodiscardedon
thesidewalk,and“YesWeChant,”amusicalmashupofthepresidentialdebate
239Ravindran,“Realscreen’sTrailblazers2014.”240“AboutOp-Docs.”241Spingarn-Koff,interview.
124
directedbytheGregoryBrothersthatusedauto-tunetodistortthevoicesofObama
andRomney.
Thoughfilmslike“YesWeChant”initiallyraisedeyebrowswithintheTimes,
theserieshashelpedattractnewaudiencestotheTimesopinionpageandgenerate
higheradrevenueswithpre-rollvideos.Ithasalsobecomeacasestudyof
innovationwithintheorganization,demonstratingthevalueofexperimentingwith
formatsthatfalloutsidetheTimes’straditionaljournalisticnorms.TheInnovation
Report’srecommendationtoexpandtheOp-Edsectionwasbasedinpartonthe
successofOp-Docs:“Thequalityofsubmissionsandaudienceinterestbothhave
beenextremelyhigh,makingOp-Docsoneofourmostpopularandpraised
verticals.”242CreatingmorespaceslikeOp-Docsforopinionatedvoicesanddebate,
thereportargued,would“helptheTimessolidifyitspositionasthedestinationfor
sophisticatedconversation.”243Thisassessmentpointstoarecognitionthat
experimentingwithnewformatsandexpandingthenumberofvoicesand
perspectivespresentedonitsplatformcanhelptheTimesachievethedesired
impactslikebuildingitsdigitalaudienceandmaintainingthe“sophisticated
conversation”thatiscentraltoitsbrand.
In2013,Op-Docsunitcontinuedthisformalexperimentationbyproducing
itsfirst(anduntilnow,only)interactivedocumentary.Duringaconveningatthe
MITOpenDocumentaryLab,Spingarn-KoffmetNationalFilmBoardproducerGerry
FlahiveandlearnedmoreaboutKaterinaCizek’sHighriseproject.“Op-Docswasstill
verynew,”saysSpingarn-Koff.“Iwaspersonallyreallyinterestedininteractive242“NYTInnovationReport2014,”52.243Ibid.
125
documentary.There'salwaysbeenasensethat[Op-Docs]isallabitofan
experiment,sojustkeeptryingnewthings.”244
AftermeetingCizek,Spingarn-Koffinvitedhertoproduceasingleshortfilm
aboutthehistoryofhigh-risebuildingsusingtheNewYorkTimesphotoarchives.
AlthoughOp-Docsbudgetforcommissioningwasstilllimited,Flahivemanagedto
getadditionalfundingfromtheNationalFilmBoardtoturntheprojectintoan
interactivedocumentarythatwouldbeaco-productionbetweenthetwo
organizations.Astheproject’screativeambitionsandbudgetgrew,sodidtheteam.
Spingarn-KoffrecruitedJackieMyint,theTimesinteractiondesignerwhohad
workedonSnowFall,andLexiMainland,EditorofSocialMediawithintheTimes's
InteractiveNewsdepartmentandaveteranofmultimediaprojectslikeOnein8
Million.CizekandFlahivealsoworkedwithHeliosDesignLab,thesameagencythat
hadproducedthewebdocumentariesfortherestoftheHighriseseries.245
Whenconceptualizingtheproject,Cizekdrewinspirationfromchildren’s
pop-upstorybooks,usingplayfulmotiongraphicsandnarrationspokeninrhyming
coupletstocompressa“2,500-yearglobalhistory”intoashort,entertaining
interactiveexperience.246Thecoreoftheprojectisalinearvideobrokenintothree
chapters–titledMud,ConcreteandGlass–eachofwhichcoversofadifferenteraof
architecturalhistory.Usershavetheabilitytopausethevideoand“divedeeper”
intospecifictopics–examiningadditionalphotographsfromtheTimesarchivesor
otherprimarysourcedocumentsthatactasannotationstoeachsection–before
244Spingarn-Koff,interview.245Cizek,interview;Spingarn-Koff,interview.246Cizek,interview.
126
returningtothevideo.Thisallowsuserstohaveeithera“leanback”linearviewing
experienceoramore“leanin”interactiveexperiencedependingontheirlevelof
interest.
Tocreatetheproject’sfourthchapter,MainlandusedtheTimes’ssocial
mediachannelstosolicitphotographsfromhighriseresidentsaroundtheworld.
ThiscallforparticipationwasissuedataliveeventatSXSW,helpingcreatevisibility
fortheprojectmonthsbeforeitsrelease.Cizektooktheseuser-generated
submissionsandeditedthemintoashortfilmthatworksasakindofpoetic
epiloguetotheproject’sfirstthreechapters.AlthoughtheTimeshadexperimented
withcallsforuser-generatedcontentinthepast,thiswasoneofthefirsttimesit
haddirectlyintegratedthatcontentintoaprofessionallyproducedproject.
Whilethisstrategyrepresentedanewformofaudienceengagementforthe
Times–andthereforeanewwaytocreateimpact–itultimatelyfedintothelarger
goalofreachingbroadaudiences.AsMainlandnotes,thiswasparticularly
importantforsuchanambitiousproject:
Themainquestion[we]hadfromthestart…sincethisisareallybigcommitmentfortheTimes,personnelwiseandmoneywiseandideawise,was‘Howcanwemakesurethatitfindsitsmaximumaudience?’andthatwedon'tjusthaveonemomentintimewhenit'sconsumed,butthere'sastrongleadup.247
247Mainland,interview.
127
EvaluatingImpact
Beforeitwasreleasedliveontheweb,AShortHistoryoftheHighrisehadits
officialpremiereinSeptember2013attheNewYorkFilmFestival–anunusual
venueforanewsorganizationandforaninteractivedocumentary.Cominglessthan
ayearafterthereleaseofSnowFall,theprojectrepresentedanotherimportant
momentofinnovationfortheNewYorkTimes.Itwasacreativelyandtechnically
ambitiousprojectthatintegratedinteractivevideo,usergeneratedcontentand
creativerepurposingoftheTimesphotoarchivesintoaformatthatwasunlike
anythingtheTimeshadpublishedbefore.
LikeSnowFall,theproject’snovelformhelpeditreachabroad,global
audienceandgeneraterobustdiscussionviacommentsandsocialmedia.The
projectwastweetednearly4,000timesandgeneratedmorethan100comments.
AlthoughSpingarn-Koffcan’trevealspecificaudiencenumbers,hefeltthe“views
wereverygood.”248However,hispersonalassessmentoftheproject’simpacthas
moretodowiththeideareflectedintheInnovationReportthattheTimesshouldbe
a“destinationforsophisticatedconversation”:
WithOp-DocsandOp-Ed,I'vebeentaughttogaugethesuccessoftenbytheimpactmorethanthenumberofviews,sowewantpeopletotalk about it and have something of substance to talk about. Thecomments are amajor waywemeasure success, like the quality ofthought that's going into stuff. It's not necessarily the number ofcomments.Whenapiecedoeshave400commentsonavideo that'svery,veryrareandweknowthat'samajoraccomplishment.249
248Spingarn-Koff,interview.249Ibid.
128
Althoughsomeofthisconversationrevolvedaroundthehistoryofhousing
andsocialrights,agreatdealofitwasalsodiscussionanddebateovertheproject’s
uniqueform–particularlytheuseofrhymingcoupletsbyanewsorganization
knownmoreforitsstricteditorialstandardsthanplayfulcreativeexperimentation.
ForCizek,theproject’suniqueformhadtheadvantageofboth“challengingolder
readers”and“reachingoutbeyondthat[loyal]readershiptosaytheTimesoffers
stufftopeoplethatdon'tnormallycometotheTimes.”250Thisraisesthequestion
thattheNationalFilmBoardhasgrappledwithinsomeofitsmostpopular
interactivedocumentaries:areaudiencesrespondingtotheformorthecontent?
Spingarn-Koffinsiststhat,giventheworkthatwentintobothdeveloping“an
interestingpointofviewandthesis”andthe“incredibledesignandpresentation,”
theteamideally“wantedpeopletorespondtoboth.”251
AShortHistoryoftheHighrisewasalsoconsideredasuccessbasedonthe
amountofparticipationitgeneratedfromglobalaudiencespriortoitsrelease.
AccordingtoMainland,theproject’sfinalchapterwasoneoftheTimes’sbiggest
successeswithuser-generatedcontenttodate,sincetheteamreceived
“submissionsfromeverywhere,includingCubaandplacesthatyoumightnotthink
you'regoingtogetsubmissionsfrom.”252Thesecontributionscreateimpactsby
expandingthenumberofperspectivesthatarereflectedintheproject,buttheyalso
helpredefinetherelationshipbetweentheTimesanditsaudienceatatimewhen
moreusersexpectsomeformofparticipation.
250Cizek,interview.251Spingarn-Koff,interview.252Mainland,interview.
129
BeyondthevariouswaysthataudiencesengagedwithAShortHistoryofthe
Highrise,theteampointstoavarietyofotherinstitutionalimpactsthatarejustas
significanttotheirownevaluationofitssuccess.InadditiontotheNewYorkFilm
Festivalpremiere,whichhelped“grounditinacertaintraditionofcinema”253and
distinguishitfromotherpiecesofinteractivejournalism–theprojectpickedup
Peabody,EmmyandWorldPressPhotoAwards,bringingprestigetothepaperand
theOp-Docsunitinparticular.AccordingtoSpingarn-Koff,thiscriticalsuccesshas
helpedfurtherlegitimizeOp-DocswithintheNewYorkTimesby“makingasplash”
andbrandingitasaspaceforambitious,innovativecreativework:
It'sgreatjustforraisingtheambitionandtheawareness[ofOp-Docs].Onerunawaysuccessfularticlewon'tdothat.Like,ifsomearticlegetsmillionofviews,that'snotgoingtoreshapethewholedirectionoftheunit.Butsomethinglikethis, I thinkit's likemakingafeaturefilminitscomplexity.Itshowsthatwecanshepherdthingsthroughthatareambitious,thatworkonatimescaleofayearandahalf.254
Thisindustryrecognitionmayhelpopenthedoortomoreambitiousinteractive
documentaryproductionsattheTimesinthefuture,butfortheteamitwasalsoa
validationofthecreativerisksthattheprojecttook.“Weencouragedthistobean
artisticwork,”saysSpingarn-Koff,“andthatwasveryrisky.Wechosesomething
thatthenewsroomcouldn'tdo.I'moftenproudwhenIfeellikewe'vedone
somethinganewsroomcouldn'tdo–orshouldn'tdo.”255
Perhapsmostsignificantly,theexperienceofproducingAShortHistoryofthe
HighrisewasalearningprocessthathasthepotentialtoexpandtheTimes’scapacity
forinteractiveproductionandcollaborationwithotherorganizations.AsMainland253Spingarn-Koff,interview.254Ibid.255Ibid.
130
putsit,“youcanjustlearnsomuchbydoingdifferentthingsthatyou'veneverdone
before.I'msureifweweretoapproachaprojectofthisscaleorkindthenexttime,
wewouldhavelearnedalot…Ifeellikethat'stheultimatereasontodoit.”256Jackie
Myint,theinteractiondesigneronbothSnowFallandAShortHistoryoftheHighrise,
pointsouthowthiskindofinstitutionallearning,inashortperiodoftime,has
beguntotransformtheproductionprocessesattheTimes:
Two or three years ago, the multimedia design and graphicsinteractive teams would come in at the very end. The story hasalreadybeenwrittenorthevideohasalreadybeenproduced.Attheend[wewereasked]‘howcanwemakethisinteractive?’There'snotenough time or it's something that's just tacked on. Now we'rebrought in much earlier so we can work with the reporter or thevideographer or whoever to think about the possibilities ofinteractivity in the project and why it makes sense…We've gottenmuchbetteraboutthat.257
Thesubstantialinvestmentoftimeandmoneyrequiredbyinteractive
documentariescanalsocontinuetoreturnvaluetoorganizationsbymakingit
easiertoproducesimilarprojectsinthefuture.AlthoughShortHistorywasdesigned
andcodedfromscratch,itcouldbetranslatedintoatoolortemplatethathelps
translateitsexperimentalformintoareproducibleformatratherthanexpensive
one-hitwonders.AsQuartzeditorKevinDelaneyisquotedsayingintheInnovation
Report:“I’dratherhaveaSnowFallbuilderthanaSnowFall.”258Agoodexampleof
thiskindofinstitutionalimpactisD3.js,anopensourceJavascriptlibrarydeveloped
byTimesemployeeMikeBostockandcolleaguesatStanfordUniversitythathas
256Mainland,interview.257Myint,interview.258“NYTInnovationReport2014,”36.
131
enabledthecreationofcountlessinteractivedatavisualizationsbothinsidethe
organizationandout.AnotherexampleisFOLD,apublishingplatformdevelopedat
MIT’sCenterforCivicMediathatallowsauthorstoaddannotationsthatbranchout
fromatext-basedarticlesinasamewaythatAShortHistoryoftheHighrisecreatesa
nonlinearviewingexperiencebyannotatingvideo.259TheauthorsoftheInnovation
Reportarguethatwhilelessglamorous,suchtoolsandtemplates“cumulativelycan
haveabiggerimpactbysavingourdigitaljournaliststimeandelevatingthewhole
report.”260ThesekindsofinstitutionalimpactsarecriticalsincetheyhelptheTimes
overcomestructuralchallengesthatareimpedimentsinitstransitiontoa“digital
first”newsoperationanditsabilitytoproduceotherformsofimpactinthelong
term.
AswesawintheexampleofSnowFall,itcanbetemptingtospeculateabout
whatroleinteractivefeatureslikeAShortHistoryoftheHighrisemightplaythe
futureofjournalism–oratleastthefutureofjournalismattheNewYorkTimes.
Bothprojectsseemedtofitallthecriteriathatnewsorganizationsarelookingforin
successfuldigitalinnovation:theyattractedlargeaudiences,generatedengaged
discussionsinthecommentssectionandonsocialmedia,broughthomeawardsand
criticalacclaim,andhelpedfosternewcollaborationsandinstitutionallearning.
However,suchcreativelyandtechnicallyambitiousprojectsaregenerallycostlyand
time-consumingcomparedtomostjournalismproducedbytheTimes.
Meaningfullyevaluatingthesevariousdimensionsofimpactandtheir
associatedcostsbecomesfurthercomplicatedwithinalarge,complexnews259“FOLDWantstoKeepYoufromTumblingdownLinkRabbitHoles.”260“NYTInnovationReport2014,”36.
132
organizationthatpridesitselfonaseparationof“churchandstate,”orbusiness
concernsfromeditorialdecisions.Inmanyways,theNewYorkTimeshasbeen
madeupoftwoorganizationalcultures,eachwithdistinct–andnotalways
compatible–goals,relationshipstoaudiences,definitionsofwhatconstitutes
impactandhowtomeasureit.Thislongstandingpolicyhasensuredthatthe
editorialsideofthepapercanremainatarmslengthfromcommercial
considerationslikeaudiencemetrics,focusinginsteadonproducing“highquality
newsandinformation”thatservesthepublicinterest,ideallybygeneratingpositive
socialandcivicimpacts.Thebusinesssideofthepaper,ontheotherhand,has
traditionallyfocusedonattractingsubscribersandadvertisers–essentiallysellinga
productthattheydon’thavecontrolover.
OneoftheresoundingthemesintheNewYorkTimesInnovationReportis
thatthisseparationcanbeanimpedimenttotheorganization’sdigital
transformation,particularlywithinanincreasinglycompetitive,fast-changingand
“user-centered”mediaenvironment.Thepeoplewiththebestunderstandingof
audiencesgetisolatedfromthepeopleproducingcontentforthem.Asaresult,one
ofthereport’scentralrecommendationswasforgreatercommunicationbetween
theeditorialandbusinesssideofthepaper,particular“ReaderExperience”units
liketheConsumerInsightGroup,which“spend[s]eachdaythinkingaboutand
talkingtoreaders.Buttheyhavefocusedalmostexclusivelyonissueslikehowto
increasesubscriptions,largelybecausethenewsroomhasrarelycalledonthemfor
help.”261
261Ibid.,62.
133
InFall2014,theTimesheededthisrecommendationwhenitformedanew
AudienceDevelopmentteam,consolidatingvariousaudience-facingrolesthathad
previouslybeenfragmentedacrosstheorganization.AccordingtoaDigidayarticle
profilingthegroup’sleader,AlexMacCallum,thenewsroom“hadn’tbeenlookingat
numbers”priortoAudienceDevelopmentteam.“Therewasasocialteamthatran
Twitterforthenewsroom,butFacebookandYouTubewerehandledbymarketing.
SEOwashandledbytheproductteam,whileanalyticsfellundertheconsumer
insightsteam.”262OnNovember28,lessthantwomonthsaftersheassumedthe
role,MacCallumsentamemotothepaperhighlightingtheteam’ssuccesssofar:
Lastmonth64millionvisitorsreadourjournalismonourwebsiteandapps, topping our previous best month by more than 10 millionvisitors.Moreimportant,ourreadersdidn'tjustshowup.Theystayed–twiceaslongonaverageasatTheWashingtonPost,threetimesaslongasatTheWallStreetJournalandalmostfivetimesaslongasatTheGuardian.”263
MacCallum’sassessmentsuggeststhatthemetricsthatstillmattermosttotheTimes
arethosethatsupportitsbottomline:thenumberofvisitorstothesiteandthe
amountofattentiontheydevotedtothecontentonit.AstheTimesbecomes
increasinglydependentonrevenuesfromdigitalsubscriptions,MacCallumpointsto
“developingreaderhabits”asamajorpartofherjob.“Itisn’tchasingclicks,”she
says.“It’smakingpeopleloyaltotheTimesspecifically…sustainingthatbusiness
dependsonpeoplecontinuingtofindvalueinthepaper.”264
TheNewYorkTimesAudienceDevelopmentteamissymptomaticofa
broadercultureshiftinattitudestowardsaudiencemetricswithinlegacynews262“InsidetheNYTimes’AudienceDevelopmentStrategy.”263“MemofromNewYorkTimes’AlexMacCallum|CapitalNewYork.”264“InsidetheNYTimes’AudienceDevelopmentStrategy.”
134
organizations.Ithasbecomeharderfortheseestablishedplayerstoignorethe
successofdigitalnativepublicationsliketheHuffingtonPost,BuzzfeedandGawker,
allofwhichusemetricstobetterunderstandtheiraudiences,shapesocialmedia
distributionstrategyand,inmanycases,guideeditorialdecisions.Inher
ethnographicstudyofmetricsinnewsrooms,CaitlinPetrepointsoutthat“even
legacynewspaperslikeTheWashingtonPosthavescreensshowingtrafficnumbers
inthenewsroom.”265
Thedangeroftheseculturalshiftsisthattheybegintoconsolidatethe
competingdefinitionsandmeasuresofimpactandengagementwithin
organizationsliketheTimes.Giventhepressuretoattractloyaldigitalsubscribers
andhigheradvertisingrevenues,audience-basedmetricssuchasuniquevisitors,
timeonsiteandsocialmediaactivitymaybecomethedefault.Thelanguageinthe
NewYorkTimesInnovationReport,forexampleusestheword“impact”almost
exclusivelytomeanaudiencereach.“Engagement”isdefinedintermsofcomments
andsocialmediaactivity.Arguablythisdefinitionof“engagement”hasasmuchto
dowithextendingreachasitdoeswithfosteringpublicdiscourse,sincethereport
openlyacknowledgesthatitsdigitalcontentmust“travelonthebacksofreadersto
findnewreaders.”266
Fromthisperspective,thekeyquestionforambitiousinteractiveprojects
likeSnowFallandAShortHistoryoftheHighriseiswhethertheycanbecomepartof
NewYorkTimesreaders’habitsorconvincethemtopurchasedigitalsubscriptions.
265Petre,TheTrafficFactories:MetricsatChartbeat,GawkerMedia,andTheNewYorkTimes.266“NYTInnovationReport2014,”49.
135
Althoughbothattractedlargeaudiences,somequestionedwhethertheirappealhad
moretodowiththeirinnovativedesignandinterfaceratherthantheircontent.
CommentingonthesuccessofSnowFall,HamishMcKenzienoted:
Itislikelythatalargeproportionofthose3.5millionpageviewscamefrom people who were curious about the multimedia adventure,peoplewho,urgedonbymouth-agapereviews,clickedthroughfromTwitter or Facebook to see what all the fuss was about and thenmoved on. Whether or not the story was read 3.5 million times isanother story.Howmany of those visitorswould keep coming backtimeandtimeagaintosuchstories,which,remember,alsotakeaverylong time to read? How quickly would the novelty wear off oncereadersgotusedtotheconstruction?267
IftheNewYorkTimeswantstouseinteractivedocumentariestoattract
readersthatcanbeconvertedintoloyalsubscribers,theywillneedtolookbeyond
pageviewsanddeterminetowhatextentinnovativetechnologyanddesignfactor
intothepopularityofhigh-budgetinteractiveprojects.InthecaseofAShortHistory
oftheHighrise,theseinsightscanbepartiallyfoundinonlinecommentsaboutits
rhymingnarrationornonlinearstructure.Theycouldalsobereflectedinmetrics
likeGoogle’s“timeonsite”orChartbeat’s“attentionminutes,”particularlyif
comparedtotext-basedarticleswithsimilarcontent.
FocusingexclusivelyonmetricsthatsupporttheTimes’sgoalofattracting
subscribers,however,risksoverlookingthepotentialsocialandcivicimpactsof
interactivedocumentaries.Forexample,parsingcommentsormeasuringpage
viewsandreaders’attentiondon’tnecessarilycapturetheextenttowhichthe
project’sinteractiveinterfaceaffectedreaders’narrativecomprehension,whetherit
267“Sorry,‘SnowFall’Isn’tGoingtoSavetheNewYorkTimes.”
136
madethepieceabetterprimeronurbanissuesorgeneratedmorediscussionthana
text-basedarticleonthesametopicwouldhave.Thesequestionsaremoreeasily
answeredwithqualitativeresearchlikeusersurveysorinterviewsthanthe
quantitativemeasuresprovidedbymostdigitalanalytics.
Ofcourse,manyofthemostimportantsocialandcivicimpactsoftheTimes’s
workcancomefromraisingwidespreadawarenessaboutissue,particularlywith
hard-hittinginvestigativejournalismliketheTimes’sMay2015seriesonthe
exploitationofworkersinnailsalons.268Thesetext-basedarticlescreatedapublic
outcryandtangiblepoliticalchange–withintwoweeks,MayorBilldeBlasio
declareda“NailSalonDayofAction,”recruitinghundredsofvolunteerstoinform
thecity’ssalonworkersabouttheirrights.269However,asEthanZuckermanpoints
outina2011blogpost,“audiencedoesn’tnecessarilyequalimpact.”270Zuckerman
arguesthatappropriatemetricsforcivicimpactsmighthelpbalancetheinfluenceof
analyticslikepageviewsandhelpnewsorganizationsbetterservethepublic
interest.Hewarnsthatfocusingontraffic-basedanalyticslikepageviewsand
uniquevisitorsmaymakenewspapers“lookmorelike…contentfarmsandlesslike
thecivicguardianswewantandneedthemtobe.”271Theblurringoftheboundaries
between“churchandstate”–orbetweeneditorialjudgementandcommercial
considerationslikemetrics–comeswiththeriskthatthetwosidesofthe
organizationarenotjustsharingnumbers,butdefinitionsofimpact.
268Nir,“ThePriceofNiceNails.”269Nir,“HundredsofVolunteers,ArmedWithFliers,TellNailSalonWorkersofTheirRights.”270Zuckerman,“MetricsforCivicImpactsofJournalism.”271Ibid.
137
AlthoughtheOp-DocsserieshasbecomeoneoftheTimes’s“mostpopular
andpraisedverticals,”creatingaspaceforpoint-of-viewdocumentarystorytelling,
andAShortHistoryoftheHighrisewasdeemedasuccessonmultiplefronts,it
remainsuncertainwhethertheorganizationwillseevalueincontinuingto
experimentwithsimilarlyambitiousinteractivedocumentaries.Tobesure,the
Timesisproducinginteractivefeaturesatanincreasingrate,althoughthemajority
ofthesefallintomorefamiliarsubgenreslikedatavisualizations,interactive
graphicsandSnowFall-stylemultimediafeaturesthatmaybetterserveinstitutional
purposes.Asafor-profitcompany,theTimeshaslesslatitudeoverallforformal
experimentationthantheNationalFilmBoardandPOV,anditsinvestmentin
interactivestorytellingwilllikelybedrivenmorebyaudiencereach,loyaltyandcost
ofproductionratherthanartisticortechnologicalinnovationforitsownsake.
Nevertheless,eveniftheseexperimentsininteractivestorytellingdon’t
becomethe“day-to-dayfutureofjournalism,”theycancreateimportantlong-term
institutionalimpacts,notonlyfromtheprestigeandbrandingthatcomeswith
PulitzerandPeabodyAwards,butalsointhewaysthatinteractivedocumentaries
helpsfosterandtestnewproductionprocessesandcollaborationswithinthe
organization.AsAmyO’Leary,oneoftheleadauthorsoftheInnovationReport,
remarkedinaninterviewwithNiemanLab,theTimes’sdigitaltransformationmay
bea“thirty-yearmarathon”thattheorganizationisonlyhalfwaythrough:
Noonehasreallyfiguredoutthesecrettomasteringwhatitmeanstobeamediaorganizationinthedigitalage.SothecriticalthingisthatplaceslikeTheNewYorkTimesdiveheadfirstintoastrongcultureofexperimentation.AndbythatIdon’tmeanthrowingeverythingtothewallandseeingwhatsticks.Imeanrigorous,studiedexperimentation,
138
where new ideas are tried with excitement and with ease and arestudiedtolearnwhatworksandwhatdoesn’t.Imeanthattakingrisksandtryingnewthingsarecelebratedevenwhentheymayseem,attheoutset,likeafailure.Andthatthedefinitionofsuccessforanewideashouldbewhetherornotwelearnedanythingfromit,notwhetherornotitbecamethefutureofmedia.272
IftheTimesishalfwaythrougha30-yeartransformation,asO’Learysuggests,itis
criticalthatitsmetricsfor“whatworksandwhatdoesn’t”reflectsocialand
institutionalimpactsinadditiontothosethatsupportitsbottomline.
272“AmyO’LearyonEightYearsofNavigatingDigitalCultureChangeatTheNewYorkTimes.”
139
CONCLUSIONADecisionatEveryTurn
ThethreepublicinterestmediaorganizationsthatI’veprofiledinthisthesis
–theNationalFilmBoardofCanada,POVandtheNewYorkTimes–sharea
commoninterestinexperimentingwithdigitaltechnologiestoengageaudiences
withnewformsofdocumentarystorytelling.Theseexperimentshavedrawnon
manydifferenttechniquesormodesofengagement,allofwhicharetypically
grouped(atleastforthepresentmoment)underthebroadterm“interactive
documentary.”
ManyoftheindividualprojectsI’vediscussedusethenonlinearnatureofthe
Webtoexplorethepossibilitiesofnonlinearnarrativestructuresandmultimedia
interfacesthatallowuserstoexploredatabasesofdocumentarycontent.Compared
totraditionalstorytellingformslikedocumentaryfilmsortext-basedarticles,these
interactiveformsgiveuserssomedegreeofcontrolovertheorderinwhichthey
experiencecontent,theamountoftimetheyspendwithit,orthedepthwithwhich
theyareabletoexploreagiventopicornarrativethread.Incontrasttoafilm,in
whichtheauthororganizesthenarrativeelementsinasequential,temporal
manner,theseinteractivedocumentariesareoftenconstructedwithamorespatial
logic,allowinguserstoexploreimmersive“storyworlds”basedontheirinterests
andavailabletime.
140
Anothercommontechniqueininteractivedocumentariesisinvitingusersto
participateintheco-creationofthenarrativebysubmitting“user-generated
content”ortakingpartinamoreorchestratedparticipatoryprocesssuchasCizek’s
experimentswithcommunity-basedinterventionistmedia.Thisapproachharkens
backtothetheoriesofchangedevelopedbytheNFB’sChallengeforChange,which
werebasedontheideathatpeoplecouldbecomemoreactivelyinvolvedinanissue
byproducingmediaaboutitratherthanjustconsumingmedia.However,thereisa
strongdistinctionbetweenweb-basedprojectsthatsolicituser-generatedcontent,
inwhichthereisstillaseparatebetweenproducerandaudience,andCizek’s
strategies,whichinvolveddirectengagementwithsubjectsthatismoreclosely
alignedwiththeChallengeforChangemodel.
Arelatedsetoftechniquesattempttopersonalizedocumentarycontent,
adaptingtoauser’sbackground,interestsorcontext,usuallyinawaythatrequires
feweractiveinputsfromtheuser.AswesawintheexampleofDoNotTrack,this
formofinteractivitycanbeintegratedintoanessentiallylinearnarrativestructure.
Finally,theexampleofFortMcMoneyshowshowgamemechanicscanbeusedto
incentivizeuserstoexplorenonlinearstoryworldsandparticipateindialogue
abouttheissues,whilesimulationcanpotentiallyenableuserstodevelopgreater
understandingofcomplexsystemsliketherelationshipbetweenthesocial,
economicandenvironmentalimpactsofoildrilling.
Ihavealsooutlinedarangeofinstitutionalmotives,incentives,anxietiesand
“theoriesofchange”thathavedrivenexperimentationwithdigitalstorytelling,
someofwhicharebasedonlong-standingorganizationalmissionsinheritedfroma
141
massmediaera,whileothersrepresentreactionstoarapidlyshiftingnetworked
digitalmediaenvironment.
Attheircore,eachoftheseorganizationsstillexiststocreatemediathat
servesthe“publicinterest.”Yet,like“impact”and“engagement,”thisisatermthat
canhaveawidevarietyofmeaningswithindifferentinstitutionalcontexts.The
bedrockprinciplethatisreflectedinthemissionsofallthreeorganizationsis
closelyrelatedtotheoriginalpurposeofthepublicintereststandardin
broadcasting:to“ensurethatbroadcastingservestheeducationalandinformational
needs”ofcitizens.ThisreflectsthelegacyofWalterLippman,JohnGrierson,John
Reithandotherswhosawthatmassmediacouldofferavehiclenotonlyfor
entertainment,butforanewkindofpubliceducationthatwascentralizedand
controlledbytheeducatedelites.Thisinformationalfunction–theideathatmedia
canraiseapublic’s“awareness”aboutimportantsocialissues–isstillseenasoneof
thecentralpurposesofdocumentaryfilmstoday.
Buthowshouldwedefinethe“educationalandinformationalneedsof
citizens”–andbeyondthat,whatconstitutesthe“publicinterest”–inthedigital
age?Interactivedocumentariesofferpossibleanswerstothisquestion,sincethey
deployanewsetofstrategiesforconveyinginformationandstorythat,insome
casesatleast,attempttomovebeyondthedidactic,paternalistic,one-to-many
approachestopubliceducationofthepastbyallowinguserstoactivelyexplore
differentdimensionsofanissueorcontributetheirownperspectivewithina
fragmented,networked,many-to-manymedialandscape.
142
Beyondinformingaudiences,anothercommonfactorunitingallthree
organizationsisthedesiretousenonfictionstorytellingtocatalyzeorimprove
publicdiscoursearoundimportantsocialissues.Thisgeneralobjectivecanbe
brokendownintoanumberofmorespecificgoals.Onegoalistocreateaspacefor
newvoicesandperspectivestoenterintoapublicdiscourse.ForPOV,thismeant
creatingaplatformforindependentdocumentariestoreachmillionsofviewerson
broadcasttelevision.FortheNewYorkTimes,thelaunchoftheOp-Docssimilarly
presentedanopportunitytoexpandthenumberofperspectivesrepresentedonthe
OpinionsectionofitswebsiteandensuretheTimesremaineda“destinationfor
sophisticatedconversation.”273Anotherwaythatdocumentariescanaffectpublic
discourseisbyinfluencingthewayothermediaoutletscoveranissueorby
attractingthecoveragethemselves–therebygeneratingdiscussionaroundissues
thatextendbeyondaudiencesforthedocumentariesthemselves.POV’sThe
WhitenessProjectandtheNFB’sDoNotTrackareexamplesinteractive
documentariesthatreceivedpresscoverageandhelpedintroducenewperspectives
tothebroaderdebatesoverracialissuesandthewebeconomy,respectively.
Finally,mostdocumentariansandotherpublicinterestmediaproducers
strivetogenerateconversationanddebateamongaudiencesthemselves.Forthe
threeorganizationsI’veprofiled,thishasincluded“offline”discussions(suchas
afteracommunityscreeningorduringaparticipatorymediaworkshop)aswellas
onlinediscussioninchannelsrangingfromAOLchatroomstocommentsectionsto
socialmediaplatforms.Thiskindofactiveresponseintheformofconversationis
273“NYTInnovationReport2014,”52.
143
oftenusedtodefineandmeasureanaudience’s“engagement”withastory,sinceit
representsoneoftheprimaryaffordancesofinteractivemedia.Inmostcases,this
formofengagementhappens“outside”thetextitself,whenavieweroruserdecides
toshareaprojectorcommentonitviasocialmedia.Insomeinteractive
documentaries,suchasFortMcMoneyorImmigrantNation,aparticipatory
discoursecanbebecomeacentralpartoftheinterfaceandtheexperienceofthe
projectitself.TheexamplesofChallengeforChangeandCizek’sFilmmakerin
ResidenceandHighrisealsodemonstratethewaysinwhichaparticipatoryprocess
ofdocumentarymediamakingcreateslocal,communityleveldiscoursethatisoften
independentfromthecompletedfilmsorothermediaartifactsthatresultfromit.
Increasingly,fundersandproducersalikearelookingatthewayspublic
interestmediacanmoveaudiencesfromawarenesstomoretangiblecivicactions
thatextendbeyondmerelydiscussinganissueonline.AsIdescribedinChapter1,
muchofthisemphasisonmediaimpactistiedtothegrowinginfluenceof
foundationsinthepublicinterestmediasectorandtheriseof“outcome-oriented,”
“evidence-based”and“data-driven”strategicphilanthropy.WhiletheNationalFilm
Board,POVandtheNewYorkTimesalltakeprideincertaindocumentariesor
articlesthatmovetheiraudiencestotakeconcreteactions,allthreeorganizations
stopshortprescribingspecificactionsorpursuingoutcomeslikebehaviorchangeor
policychange.
Mostofthesocialimpactsattributedtopublicinterestmedia–whether
raisingawareness,stimulatingdiscourseorinspiringaction–relyonconnecting
theirworkwithaudiences,typicallyonanationalorinternationalscale.The
144
NationalFilmBoardofCanadaandPOVwereestablishedwiththeintentionof
servingCanadianandAmericanpublics,respectively.TheNewYorkTimes,asa
profit-drivenbusiness,needstoattracttheattentionofthebroadestpossible
audiencebasisinordertoselltheirattentiontoadvertisersandconvertloyal
readersintopayingsubscribers.ThemigrationtotheWebandotherdigital
platformsistakenforgrantedasastrategicimperative,allowingorganizationsto
reachyoungerandmoreglobalaudiencesatatimewhenaudiencesforlegacy
platforms–includingbroadcasttelevisionandprintnewspapers–areagingand
generallydeclining.Asaresult,oneoftheprimarygoalsofexperimentationwith
interactivedocumentaryhasbeentodevelopaudiencesondigitalplatforms.
SinceaudiencesontheWebtendtoconsumemediafromawidevarietyof
sources,thereisalsoastrongneedtodevelopcontentthatencouragesloyalty,
creatingwhatPerlmuttercallsan“authentic,engagedrelationship”withaudiences.
Althoughthenotionthatbiggeraudiencesarebetterhascarriedoverfromthemass
mediaera,digitalplatformsrequireorganizationstopursuemoretargeted
strategiesforaudiencedevelopment,emphasizingqualityof“engagement”over
quantityof“eyeballs,”particularlyatnewsorganizationsliketheTimes,which
increasinglyreliesondigitalsubscriptionstocompensatefordecliningadvertising
revenues.
Foreachoftheselegacymediaorganizations,developing“authentic,engaged
relationships”hasmeantadaptingbothnarrativeformsanddeliveryplatformsto
thewaysinaudiencesarealreadyengagingwithdigitalmedia.InBrianChirls’s
words,mediamakersarenowforcedto“meettheaudienceontheirturf.”Since
145
users’experiencesontheWebareinnatelyinteractive,nonlinearandparticipatory,
publicinterestmediaorganizationshaveattemptedtointegratethesefeatures
directlyintotheexperienceofnonfictionstories.However,thisrequireschanging
notonlycreativeforms,butproductionprocesses,collaborativeteamsand
organizationalstructure.
Asinteractivedocumentarieshavebecomemorecommon,anecosystemhas
developedaroundthesedigitalstorytellingexperiments,includingawards,
exhibitionsandconferencesthatprovidegreaterindustryexposureforprojectsand
helptheseinstitutionsdeveloptheirbrands.Forindividualsmakinginteractive
documentaries,thiskindofindustryrecognitionofartisticinnovationrepresents
importantextrinsicrewardsofcreativeexperimentationwiththeinteractive
documentaryform.
Onamorepracticallevel,producerswithintheseorganizationsviewthe
productionofinteractivedocumentariesasacriticallearningprocessthathelps
themadapttonewworkflowsrequiredbyinteractivedigitalmedia.Thisincludes
developingcollaborationsbetweensoftwaredevelopers,designersandstorytellers
accustomedtoworkinginlinearforms,suchasdocumentaryfilmmakersor
journalists.Suchinnovationsinartisticformandprocessareoftenimportant
motivesforproducinginteractivedocumentaries,inadditiontobuildingaudiences
orachievingthevarioussocialimpactsIhavediscussed.Throughoutthisthesis,I
havearguedforanexpandeddefinitionof“impact”thatincludes“institutional
impacts”suchasstimulatinginnovation,creativeexperimentation,organizational
restructuringandbranding.
146
Thewiderangeofgoalsandincentivesforproducinginteractive
documentariesillustratestheextenttowhich“theoriesofchange”arounddigital
innovationarecomplicatedandattimescontradictory,mixinggoalsofaudience
developmentandsocialimpactwithcreativeexperimentationandstrategic
imperativeslikebrandingandorganizationalrestructuring.Theyalsoreflectthe
complexchallengesofevaluationinanascentfieldthatWaseycomparesto
“Pasteur’sQuadrant”–aspacewherethe“basicscience”ofexperimentingwitha
newcreativeformoverlapswiththe“appliedscience”ofspeakingtoaudiencesand
servingthepublicinterest.
FromtheperspectiveoftheorganizationsI’veprofiled,interactive
documentarieswouldideallyaccomplishallofthesegoalsatonce–pushingthe
boundariesofartisticformandhelpingfacilitateaprocessofdigitaltransformation
whilesimultaneouslybuildingloyal,engagedaudiences,improvingpublicdiscourse
andevenmovingaudiencesfromawarenesstoactiononimportantsocialissues.
Yet,aswehaveseen,thisisnotalwaysthecase.Therefore,tofullyevaluatethe
impactofinteractivedocumentaries–inthebroadestsenseoftheword–itis
necessarytoseparatesocialimpacts,audiencedevelopmentandinnovation.
AsZuckermanpointsout,“audiencedoesn’tequalimpact.”Ifadocumentary
isseenbytherightaudiences–say,asmallgroupofpolicymakersorhospital
nurses–itcanhavesignificantimpacts,regardlessofitsreach.(Thiswasoneofthe
primarylessonsofChallengeforChange,althoughonethatwaslargelymissed
becauseitdidn’talignwiththeone-to-manylogicsofmassmedia.)Bythesame
token,innovationdoesn’tnecessarilyleadtoaudiences–ormaydosoonly
147
temporarily.ThesuccessesofprojectslikeWaterlife,Highrise:OneMillionthTower,
andSnowFalldemonstratehowaudiencescanbedrawntointeractive
documentariesbecauseoftheirunusualformanduseofnewtechnology.Yet,since
itisnotfinanciallyviableformostpublicinterestmediaorganizationtoconstantly
“pushtheenvelope”ofcreativeformandtechnology,thisislikelyanunsustainable
strategyforlong-termaudiencedevelopment.Finally,innovationdoesnottranslate
automaticallyintoshort-termsocialimpacts.Interactivedocumentariesmaybe
designedwithmoreelegantinterfacesandinvitemoreactive,participatory
engagementswithdocumentarystories,butit’snotyetclearhowthese
engagementsmighttranslateintoimpactsontheindividualorsocietallevels.
Withintheseoverlappingmotivesofsocialimpact,audiencedevelopment
andinnovation,publicinterestmediaorganizationsmustdecidewhether
interactivedocumentariescreateenoughvalue–social,artistic,financialor
otherwise–tojustifyinvestmentinthem.Andgiventherangeofdifferentformsof
impactthatI’vedescribed,whichonesshouldbeprivileged–andhowshouldthey
bebalanced–inordertoevaluateandguideinstitutionalinvestmentsininteractive
documentary?Thisdecisionisfurthercomplicatedwithinorganizationsthatare
stillproducinglinearformsofstorytellingthathavemoreestablisheddistribution
channels,revenuemodels,formalconventions,audienceexpectationsand
precedentsforimpact.
ForeachoftheorganizationsI’veprofiled,someoftheeasiestandmost
straightforwardmeasuresofsuccessaretheindustryrecognitionthatcomeswith
awards,filmfestivalexhibitionsandotherformsofcriticalpraise.Inthecaseofthe
148
NationalFilmBoard,thesehavehelpedreachnewaudiences,branditselfasadigital
innovatorandvalidateinvestmentsinboundary-pushinginteractivework.They
alsocreatechannelsthroughwhichinteractivemediaexperimentscaninfluencethe
workofothercreatorsandorganizations.Inthelongterm,thismaycontributeto
thedevelopmentofwhatTomPerlmutterdescribesasthe“birthofanentirelynew
artform.”274FortheNationalFilmBoard,thiskindofartisticinnovationand
“culturalleadership”isgiventhesameimportanceasitspublicinterestmission.
Thoughtheseinstitutionalimpactscouldbeevaluatedbasedsolelyonthenumber
ofawards,exhibitionsorpositivereviews,organizationscouldalsotracktheextent
towhichnewinteractivetechniquespioneered(oratleastpopularized)byspecific
projectswerepickedupbyotherinteractivedocumentaryproducers.
Measuringtheinternalorganizationalchangesthatresultfromproducingan
interactivedocumentaryisamorechallengingtask,particularlyifitinvolvessubtle
internalculturalshifts.However,individualscollaboratingoninteractive
documentariesoftenaccumulatesmalllessonsfromprojecttoproject,suchasthe
NewYorkTimesinteractiveteamslearningtostartconversationsbetween
reporters,designersandtechnologistsearlierintheprocessofdevelopingastory.
Evenunfinishedprojects,suchastheprototypesthatresultfromthePOV
Hackathon,canhaveimportantimpactsbyexpandthefield,creatingopportunities
formoreproducerstoexperimentwiththepossibilitiesoftheinteractive
documentaryform.
274Perlmutter,“TheInteractiveDocumentary.”
149
Althoughcommercialandpublicinterestmediaorganizationsalikeare
increasinglyinterestedinthequalityof“engagement,”thesizeofanaudienceisstill
animportantmetric–particularlyinretrospectwhenevaluatingprojectsthat
achievedscalelikeWaterlifeandSnowFall.Tomeasuretheaudiencesfor
interactivedocumentaries,mostorganizationsstillrelyonthesamequantitative
digitalanalyticsthatareappliedtolinearmassmediaformslikefilmsandtext-
basedarticles.GoogleAnalyticsisusedtotrackmetricslikeuniquevisitors,
pageviews,bouncerateandaveragesessionduration,aswellasbasicdemographic
informationaboutusers–suchasagerange,genderandlocation.Thesedatacan
giveorganizationsanapproximatesenseoftheamountof“exposure”aproject
receivedandtheextenttowhichitcapturedtheattentionofaudiencesindifferent
demographicgroups.Theycanthereforebeusedasproxyindicatorsforthelevelof
awarenessaninteractivedocumentarycreated.
However,suchaggregatemeasuresalsoobscuretherangeofdifferent
experiencesthatuserscanhavewithaninteractivedocumentary.Forexample,as
wesawintheresultsofStoryCode’sinformalsurvey,usersof“immersivemedia
projects”spentanaverageof5minutesonthesesitesandconsumed20%of
availablecontent.Thesenumbersdon’ttellushowmanyusersspend20minutes
versus2minutesonaproject,orwhetherthe20%ofavailablecontentencountered
bytheaverageuseraddeduptothekindofstoryorexperiencethattheauthor
intended.Abetteranalyticssystemforinteractivedocumentariesmightbreakthese
averagesdowninmoredetail,suchasbydisplayingsessiondurationandpageview
numbersinahistogramviewtorevealthedistributionofdifferentlevelsof
150
attentionandengagementacrossallusers,orbetweendifferentdemographic
groups.Interactivedocumentaryproducerscouldalsoadapt“telemetry”toolsused
invideogameanalytics,whichcanrecordthepathsofthousandsofusersthrougha
gameandanalyzeevery“event”oruseraction.Thesemightgiveproducersabetter
understandingofwhereusersget“stuck”orbegintoloseinterestinaninteractive
documentary.
Tounderstandthesocialimpactsoftheirwork,theorganizationsI’ve
profiledoftentolookatsignalsofaprojects’abilitytogenerateconversationand
publicdiscourse,suchasinfluenceoncoverageofanissuebyothermediaoutlets
andsocialmediametricslikethenumberofcomments,sharesandtweets.Social
mediadatasetscanprovideimportantinsightsintothe“sharability”ofan
interactivedocumentaryoranyotherpieceofmedia,buttheydon’tnecessarily
capturethequalityofonlineconversationoritsabilitytocrossdemographicor
ideologicalboundaries.Forexample,alisticlethatgetstweetedthousandsoftimes
doesn’tnecessarilyreflectthekindofrobustpublicdiscoursethatthese
organizationsstrivetocreate.Thisalsoraisesthecomplicationthatsocialmedia
havebecometheprimarydistributionplatformsforcontentontheWeb,which
meansthatsocialmediametricsareusedasproxiesfortheamountofattentiona
projectreceivedasmuchastheyareindicatorsofactivediscourse.Bettermetrics
forpublicinterestmediamightusenaturallanguageprocessingtodifferentiate
between“shares”onsocialmedia,commentaryby“trolls”andmorethoughtful
commentaryordebate.Ortheymightusesocialnetworkanalysistodetermine
151
whetheraninteractivedocumentarygeneratespoliticaldebatebetweenuserswith
differentideologicalperspectives,asFortMcMoneyattemptstodo.
Thelackofaudiencemetricsdedicatedtosocialimpact–combinedwiththe
availabilityofvasttrailsofdataleftbehindbydigitalmediausers–aretwoofthe
majorreasonsthatfoundationsinterestedstrategicphilanthropyhavesupporteda
spateofresearchreports,frameworksandtoolsformeasuringimpact.Toolslike
ConText,StoryPilotandTheParticipantIndex(TPI),whichIdescribeinChapter1,
attempttomeasurenotonlytheawarenessgeneratedbypublicinterestmedia,but
theextenttowhichtheymotivateaudiencememberstoparticipateinpublic
discoursearoundanissueortakeconcreteactions,suchassigningpetitionsor
joiningprotest.InthecaseofTPI,thismeanslookingatcognitiveandemotional
effectsofdocumentaryfilms,andinferringtheirabilitytocreatelong-termattitude
orbehaviorchangesinindividualviewers.
Someaspectsofthesetoolscouldcertainlybeappliedtobetterunderstand
thesocialimpactsofinteractivedocumentaries.Forinstance,the“semanticnetwork
analysis”onwhichConTextisbasedmighthelporganizationsunderstandtheextent
towhichdebateswithinFortMcMoneyreached“beyondthechoir”ofthosealready
interestedorinvestedinthesubjectmatter.ThesurveydatathatispartofThe
ParticipantIndexmightbeusedtomeasuretheemotionalinvolvementofusersin
SnowFall,Bear71orTheWhitenessProject.
Thatsaid,amajorlimitationofthesetools–andtheframeworksformedia
impactthattheyarebasedupon–isthattheywereeachdesignedwithlinear,non-
interactiveformsinmind.Asaresult,theygenerallydefine“engagement”interms
152
oftheviewer’sresponsetoadocumentaryfilmafterwatchingit.Muchlikethe
digitalanalyticsthattheyareintendedtoaugment,thisnewbreedofmetricsalso
capturesimpactprimarilyinabstractquantitativeterms,makingithardertouse
themtounderstandthenewengagementsrequiredbyinteractivedocumentaries.
Theymaymeasuresomeaspectsofwhatauserisdoingduringandafteran
experiencewithaninteractivedocumentary–suchaspageviews,commentsor
tweets–buttheycan’tmeasurewhythatusermadecertaindecisionsortook
certainactionswithinaninteractivedocumentary.
InordertobetterunderstandwhatPerlmuttercallsthe“cognitive,emotive,
psychologicalandphysicalforcesatworkintheinteractiveexperience,”275
organizationsproducinginteractivedocumentariesneedtosupplementquantitative
digitalanalyticswithmorerigorousqualitativeuserresearchandtesting.Inmost
cases,“engagement”withlinearmediaisdefinednarrowly–describingthingslike
attention,socialmediaactivityorloyalty–andfilmmakersgenerallyassumethat
theirviewerswillwatchafilmfromstarttofinish,eithersittinginadarktheateror
athomeontheircouch.Interactivedocumentaries,however,expandthese
definitionstoincludenewengagementswiththeformitself,anddifferentuserscan
havevastlydifferentexperienceswiththesameproject.Therearealsoawide
varietyofengagementsacrossdifferentinteractivedocumentaryprojects,since
eachoneexperimentswithadifferentinterfaceordifferentstrategiesforinviting
userparticipation.Finally,achallengethatinteractivedocumentariessharewithall
formsofdigitalmediaisthattheyareencounteredinabroaderrangeofdifferent
275Ibid.
153
contextsthatinevitablyshapetheuser’sexperienceofthem.Forexample,auser
maystumbleacrossaninteractivedocumentaryviasocialmediainthemiddleofa
workdaywhiletheyhave20tabsopenintheirbrowser.Oritmaycome
recommendedbyafriendwhosuggestsdedicatinganhourtoexploring.
Sincemanyinteractivedocumentariesdon’tworkiftheaudiencedoesn’t
interactorparticipate,itisimportanttoinvestigatethesenewformsofengagement
–ornewdimensionsoftheuserexperience–inordertodeterminewhenthese
techniquesareeffectiveandwhentheyarenot.Theproblemwithinteractive
documentariesisnotonlythatitisdifficulttoattracttheattentionofaudiencesin
thefirstplace,butalsothattheiractiveengagementsrequireaqualitatively
differentkindofattentionthanlinearforms,onethatcomeswithmorecognitive
costsandbarriers.Ratherthanfocusingsolelyonexistingmetricstoevaluate
audienceresponsetointeractivedocumentaries,publicinterestmedia
organizationsshouldbeginaskingbasicquestionsabouttheformitself.
Tobetterunderstandtherelationshipbetweenformandcontent,they
shouldask:Istheinterfaceintuitive?Doesitdistractfromthecontentorhelpit
resonatemore?Doestheuserfeelincentivetoexplorefurther?
Tobetterunderstandtheeducationalpotentialofinteractivedocumentaries,
theyshouldask:Doesinteractivityhelpusersdevelopadeeperunderstandingofa
complexstoryorsystem?Doesitallowinformationtosinkinmoredeeply?
Tobetterunderstandtheaffectiveexperienceofinteractivedocumentaries,
theyshouldask:Doesinteractivityorparticipationmoveusersemotionally,foster
greaterempathyoramakeastorymorememorable?
154
Finally,tobetterunderstandhowvariousinteractivestorytellingtechniques
mighttranslateintosocialandcivicimpacts,theyshouldask:Doestheopportunity
tointeractwithdocumentarycontentorparticipatetoitscreationencourageusers
togetmoreinvolvedinissuebeyondtheirexperiencewithintheprojectitself?
Thesequestionstesttheassumptionthatuserswanttointeract,participate
orimmersethemselvesindocumentarystory–astheNFB’sJeanSebastienDefoy
putit,makinga“decisionateveryturn”–asopposedtohavingamorepassive,“lean
back”viewingexperiences.Theymayfindthatcertainformsofinteractive
documentaryaren’tyetaccomplishingtheirsocial,educationalorartisticgoals,or
theyonlydosowithcertainaudiences.Likemanyqualitativeresearchquestions,
theyareunlikelytosurfacedefinitive,generalizableanswers,buttheycanhelp
addressgapsinunderstandingbyputtingquantitativeaudiencedataingreater
contextandguidingthedesignoffutureinteractivedocumentaries.Itwillalwaysbe
difficulttodirectlycorrelateorattributeaspecificsocialchangetoaspecificpieceof
media,butqualitativeresearchcantellusmuchmoreabouthownewformsof
documentarycontributetoindividualsandcommunitieschanginginincremental
ways.TheorganizationsI’veprofiledcouldaskthesequestionsusethemethodsof
usabilitytesting,suchassurveys,interviewsandobservation.However,these
methodsareoptimizedformorefunctional,utilitarianpurposesandwouldneedto
beadaptedtobetterunderstandthecomplexitiesofanarrative-drivenproject.
Itisalsoimportanttoreiteratethatnotallinteractivedocumentary
techniquesareaudience-facing.AsCizek’sworkdemonstrates,digitaltechnologies
presentanopportunitytoexplorenotonlynewartisticforms,butnewmethods,
155
ethics,andrelationshipstothedocumentarysubject.Giventhechallengesof
developingaudiencesontheWeb,therealpotentialofinteractivedocumentaries
maybefoundnotsomuchintheirabilitytoattractwidespreadattention(which
oftenrestsontheirnovelty),butintheopportunitytogivevoiceandagencyto
subjectsandcommunities.Thisrequiresshiftingouremphasisfromtheimpactofa
mediaproducttotheimpactsofaparticipatoryprocessandfundamentally
rethinkingtherelationshipbetweenstoryteller,subjectandaudience.Video
activistsintheChallengeforChangegenerationapproachednewtechnologylikethe
Portapakcamerainthisway.Whiletheirworkdidnotreachmassaudiencesand
createimpactintheGriersoniantraditionofpubliceducation,itdidcreatetactical,
observable(buthardertoquantify)impactsbyactivatinglocalcommunitiesand
creatingnewchannelsofcommunicationbetweencitizensandtheirgovernment.
Howinstitutionsmeasureaudiencesandimpactinevitablyaffectsboththe
formandcontentofmediathattheyproduce.Inthecaseofinteractive
documentary,thismeansthattheearlydevelopmentofthefieldandtheformitself
maybeaffectedbywhatismostmeasurablysuccessfulorimpactful.Mostlegacy
mediainstitutionsstilldefaulttomeasuringimpactbasedonaudiencereach,
attentionandlimitedformsofengagement.Ifweadaptmassmediaerametricsfor
impact(orsimplyaugmentthembymeasuringengagementintheformofsocial
mediaactivity),wemayriskmissingsomeofthemoreradicalpossibilitiesthat
interactivemediatechnologiesallowortheimpactsthatdon’tfitwellwithexisting
institutionalagendas.IfwefollowGrierson’slineofquestioningandfocusonthe
affordancesofthemediawealreadyknow("WhatwasthevalueofthefilmoffFogo
156
Island?Wasitgoodfortelevision?Massmedia?WhatdiditsaytoCanada?Whatdid
itsaytotheworld?"orrelytooheavilyonwhatLowcalled“statisticalevidence”of
change(“ForXdollarsyoureachYpeoplewithZimpact”),wewillconstrainthe
possibilitiesofwhatinteractivedocumentarycanlooklikeandthesocialpurposesit
canserve.
Metricsarenotsimplytoolsforretrospectiveevaluationofspecificprojects.
Theyrepresentawaytotestassumptionsduringthecreativeprocessandina
broadersensetheycanhelpcrystallizeasetofaspirationsfortheinteractive
documentaryfield.Inthatsense,theyarecriticalinatransitionfromthe
traditionally“author-centered”creativeprocessinlineardocumentaryfilmmaking
tothemore“user-centered”approachesofinteractivedocumentary.These
aspirationsshouldattempttointegrateaspectsoftheGriersonianmodelofpublic
educationandtheChallengeforChangemodelofparticipatorymediamaking,but
theyshouldalsotakeaccountofwhatJanetMurrayidentifiedasthe“unique
propertiesofdigitalmediaenvironments”andaddresstheimpactsthatarepossible
whendocumentarystorytellingbecomesprocedural,participatory,spatialand
encyclopedic.276Inordertorealizethepotentialofthesenewformsofstorytelling,
publicinterestmediaorganizationsneedtomovebeyond“vanitymetrics”like
pageviewsandtweets.Instead,theyshouldembraceopen,flexibleframeworksand
definitionsforwhatconstitutesimpact,aswellasmethodsandtoolsfor
measurementthatarebettersuitedtotheevolvingmodesofactiveengagement
requiredbyinteractivedocumentaries.Ultimately,frameworksandtoolsfor
276Murray,HamletontheHolodeck,71.
157
measuringimpactwillonlybeusefuliftheycanbeusedtogenerateinsightsthat
informcreativedecisionsorguidestrategicinvestments.
Atthisearlystageintheirdevelopment,interactivedocumentariesmaynotbea
singularsolutionforpublicinterestmediaorganizationstryingtodeveloployal,
engagedaudiencesondigitalplatforms.Techniqueslikenonlinearnarrative
structureorprojectsbasedentirelyonuser-generatedcontentmayevenresultin
deadendsforinteractivedocumentary.Ontheotherhand,projectslikeAShort
HistoryoftheHighriseorBear71thatcombinealinear“leanback”userexperience
with“leanforward”interactiveengagements,mayofferaclearerpathforward–
particularlyatatimewhenaudiencesofallagesstillconsumealargeamountof
linearmedia.Regardlessofhowtheformevolves,theprocessofmakinginteractive
documentariesgivesorganizationsanopportunitytoexperimentwithnew
relationshipstobothaudiencesandsubjects–andnewtheoriesofchange.
Justasthefirstgenerationofdocumentaryfilmmakersattemptedtoexpandthe
artisticboundariesandpoliticalpossibilitiesofcinema,today’sinteractive
documentarymakersaretryingtoexpandthepotentialsoftheWebanddigital
platformsforaestheticexpressionandtheformationofpublicsaroundsocial
problems.Therefore,“pushingtheboundariesoftheform”andbuilding
institutionalcapacityshouldbeconsideredimportantimpacts,sincetheyrepresent
importantsteppingstonestowardswhatevercomesnext.Atthesametime,
institutionalimpactsshouldalwaysbecounterbalancedbyabetterunderstanding
ofimpactsonaudiencesandsubjects.Otherwise,manyinteractivedocumentaries
158
mayfindthemselvesrelegatedtothe“avant-garde”ofdigitalstorytelling,while
organizationsruntheriskof“innovatingforinnovation’ssake.”
Forpublicinterestmediaorganizationsthataretryingtostayafloatandadaptto
adigitalmediaenvironmentwithlimitedresources,itisimportanttostepbackand
asksomebasicexistentialquestions.Whatarethecorepurposeswe’retryingto
servethroughdocumentarystorytelling?Dointeractive,participatoryand
immersiveformsofdocumentaryservethosepurposesbetterthantheonesthat
camebeforethem?Ifnot,cantheyinthefuture?Ordotheyservenewpurposesthat
requirearedefinitionofthebasicgoalsofpublicinterestmedia?
Itislikelythattheoriginalpurposeofdocumentaryfilmandpublicinterest
media–educatingandinformingaudiences–willremaincriticalformanyyearsto
come.However,thethreeorganizationsthatIhaveexaminedhavelessexclusivity
inthatrolethantheydidinthepre-digitalera,sincepublicsincreasinglyhave
accesstotoolsandplatformsthatenablethemtoformandinformthemselves,
sharinganddiscoveringvastquantitiesofnews,informationandothernonfiction
media.Legacymediaorganizationsthereforehavelesscertaintythattheir
productionswillreachwideaudiencesondigitalplatforms,forcingthemtofocusas
muchonthequalityof“engagement”withmediacontentastheyusedtoonthe
quantityof“eyeballs”thatwereexposedtoit.
IntheAmericanUniversitywhitepaper“PublicMedia2.0:Dynamic,Engaged
Publics,”authorsJessicaClarkandPatriciaAufderheidearguethatpublicmediaina
networked,digitalenvironment“maylookandfunctiondifferently,butitwillshare
thesamegoalsastheprojectsthatprecededit:educating,informing,andmobilizing
159
itsusers.”277Elaboratingonthesegoals,theydescribethemissionof“PublicMedia
2.0”as“mostfundamentallytheabilitytosupporttheformationofpublics—thatis,
tolinkustodeepwellsofreliableinformationandpowerfulstories,tobring
contestedperspectivesintoconstructivedialogue,toofferaccessandspacefor
minorityvoices,andtobuildbothonlineandofflinecommunities.”278
Althoughthesegoalshaveremainedconsistent,wehavewitnesseddramatic
changesinthetoolsavailabletoproduceanddisseminateinformationandstories,
aswellasthenetworkeddynamicsthatshapesthewayaudiencesfindand
experienceinformationandstories,createcommunitiesandparticipateinpublic
dialogue.Thefirstgenerationofinteractivedocumentariesproducedbypublic
mediaorganizationsrepresentawidevarietyofexperimentswiththesetools,
examininghowtheycanbeusedtotellpowerfulstories,create“publicspaces”or
dialogueandcommunity,orinsomecases,attempttoachievebothgoals
simultaneously.
Itcanbeeasytogetseducedbytheaffordancesofanewsetoftools,butthereis
inevitablyagapbetweenthepotentialsthatareprojectedontothesetoolsandthe
waystheyaredeployedandusedintherealworld.Justasitwouldhavebeen
impossibletopredicttheaestheticpossibilitiesofcinemaoritssocialimpacts
duringtheearlyyearsofthatmedium,contemporaryexperimentswithinteractive
documentarystorytellingdon’tnecessarilyreflecttheirlong-termpotentials.As
mobiledevicesbecomesmorepervasiveandnewplatformslikevirtualrealityand
wearabletechnologiesemerge,ourworldisbecomingmediatedinwaysthat277ClarkandAufderheide,“PublicMedia2.0,”2.278Ibid.,29.
160
increasinglypermeateoureverydaylives–includingouridentities,our
relationships,andourrolesascitizensandcommunitymembers.Amidstthisever-
changingmedialandscape,weneedtotestinteractivedocumentariesagainstthe
corevaluesthathavemotivateddocumentaryfilmandpublicinterestmedia,while
alsoacknowledgingthecircuitousprocessandgenerationalnatureofchangesinour
mediasystems.Bykeepingallthesethingsinmind,wewillbeabletofindthebest
waystoharnessdigitaltechnologyandsteertheevolutionofthedocumentary
traditioninthedigitalage.
161
Bibliography“AboutOp-Docs.”TheNewYorkTimes,January22,2015.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/22/opinion/about-op-docs.html.Adams,Don,andArleneGoldbard.“TheP.O.V.OnlineExperiment,”n.d.Aitken,Ian.FilmandReform::JohnGriersonandtheDocumentaryFilmMovement.
Routledge,2013.———.TheDocumentaryFilmMovement:AnAnthology.EdinburghUniversityPress,
1998.“AmyO’LearyonEightYearsofNavigatingDigitalCultureChangeatTheNewYork
Times.”NiemanLab.AccessedJune5,2015.http://www.niemanlab.org/2015/01/qa-amy-oleary-on-eight-years-of-navigating-digital-culture-change-at-the-new-york-times/.
Anderson,AndreaA.“TheoryofChangeasaToolforStrategicPlanning:AReportonEarlyExperiences.”TheAspenInstitute,2004.
Aston,Judith,andSandraGaudenzi.“InteractiveDocumentary:SettingtheField.”StudiesinDocumentaryFilm6,no.2(June2012):125–39.doi:10.1386/sdf.6.2.125_1.
“AudienceDevelopmentWhitepaper.”Chartbeat,n.d.http://lp.chartbeat.com/audience-development-whitepaper.html.
Barrett,Diana,andSheilaLeddy.“AssessingCreativeMedia’sSocialImpact.”TheFledglingFund,2008.
Barrett,Diana,SheilaLeddy,andEmilyVerellen.“FledglingResponsetoImpactMeasurementDebate.”TheFledglingFund,September2,2014.http://www.thefledglingfund.org/resources/fledgling-response-to-impact-measurement-debate.
“BehindtheDialectMapInteractive:HowanInternCreatedTheNewYorkTimes’MostPopularPieceofContentin2013|KnightLab|NorthwesternUniversity.”AccessedJune5,2015.http://knightlab.northwestern.edu/2014/01/20/behind-the-dialect-map-interactive-how-an-intern-created-the-new-york-times-most-popular-piece-of-content-in-2013/.
Benkler,Yochai.TheWealthofNetworks:HowSocialProductionTransformsMarketsAndFreedom.YaleUniversityPress,2006.
Boyle,Deidre.“O,Canada!GeorgeStoney’sChallenge.”InChallengeforChange:ActivistDocumentaryattheNationalFilmBoardofCanada,editedbyThomasWaugh,MichaelBrendanBaker,andEzraWinton.McGill-Queen’sPress-MQUP,2010.
———.SubjecttoChange.OxfordUniversityPress,n.d.BRITDOCFoundation.“TheImpactFieldGuide&Toolkit.”AccessedMarch21,2015.
http://impactguide.org/.Carpentier,Nico.“TheBBC’sVideoNationasaParticipatoryMediaPractice
SignifyingEverydayLife,CulturalDiversityandParticipationinanOnlineCommunity.”InternationalJournalofCulturalStudies6,no.4(2003):425–47.
162
“ChartingtheDigitalBroadcastingFuture.”Washington,DC:AdvisoryCommitteeonthePublicInterestObligationsofDigitalBroadcasters,1998.http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/piac/novmtg/.
Chirls,Brian.“AVirtualCameraforInteractiveDocumentaries,InspiredbySide-ScrollingVideoGames|POVFilmsBlog|POVBlog|PBS.”POVBlog,June30,2015.http://www.pbs.org/pov/blog/povdocs/2015/06/a-virtual-camera-for-interactive-documentaries-inspired-by-side-scrolling-video-games/.
———.“HowAnyoneCanCreateAVirtualRealityExperienceWithOneLineofCode.”POV’sDocumentaryBlog,February19,2015.http://www.pbs.org/pov/blog/povdocs/2015/02/how-anyone-can-create-virtual-reality-experiences-with-one-line-of-code/.
———.Skypeinterview,May11,2015.Cizek,Katerina.“FilmmakerinResidence-IWASHEREResearchProposal,”n.d.———.“ManifestoforInterventionistMedia-BecauseArtIsaHammer.”Accessed
July15,2015.https://www.nfb.ca/playlists/katerina_cizek/manifesto-interventionist-media-bec/.
———.Skypeinterview,March2,2015.Clark,J.,andB.Abrash.“SocialJusticeDocumentary:DesigningforImpact:Center
forSocialMedia,”2011.http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=16250432990022525989&hl=en&oi=scholarr.
Clark,Jessica,andPatriciaAufderheide.“PublicMedia2.0:Dynamic,EngagedPublics,”2009.
Clinton,Katie,RaviPurushotma,AliceJ.Robison,andMargaretWeigel.“ConfrontingtheChallengesofParticipatoryCulture:MediaEducationforthe21StCentury.”MacArthurFoundationPublication1,no.1(2006):1–59.
Cohen,Hart.“DatabaseDocumentary:FromAuthorshiptoAuthoringinRemediated/RemixedDocumentary.”CultureUnbound:JournalofCurrentCulturalResearch4,no.3(December15,2012):327.
Dansereau,Fernand.“Saint-Jérôme:TheExperienceofaFilmmakerasSocialAnimator.”InChallengeforChange:ActivistDocumentaryattheNationalFilmBoardofCanada,editedbyThomasWaugh,MichaelBrendanBaker,andEzraWinton.McGill-Queen’sPress-MQUP,2010.
Davenport,ThomasH.,andJohnC.Beck.TheAttentionEconomy:UnderstandingtheNewCurrencyofBusiness.HarvardBusinessPress,2013.
Defoy,JeanSebastien.Skypeinterview,February25,2015.“DocumentaryFilmmakersandSocialChange:ASurveyofTrue/False2014
Filmmakers.”Aggregate,July2014.http://www.whatisaggregate.com/truefalse-survey/.
Dowling,David,andTravisVogan.“CanWe‘Snowfall’This?”DigitalJournalism3,no.2(March4,2015):209–24.doi:10.1080/21670811.2014.930250.
Driscoll,Dan.“CanWeEvaluateChallengeforChange?(1972).”InChallengeforChange:ActivistDocumentaryattheNationalFilmBoardofCanada,editedbyThomasWaugh,MichaelBrendanBaker,andEzraWinton.McGill-Queen’sPress-MQUP,2010.
163
Druick,Zoë.“MeetingatthePovertyLine:GovernmentPolicy,SocialWorkandMediaActivismintheChallengeforChangeProgram.”InChallengeforChange:ActivistDocumentaryattheNationalFilmBoardofCanada,editedbyThomasWaugh,MichaelBrendanBaker,andEzraWinton.McGill-Queen’sPress-MQUP,2010.
Dufresne,David.Interview,January15,2015.Ellis,JackC.JohnGrierson:Life,Contributions,Influence.SIUPress,2000.Evans,Gary.IntheNationalInterest :AChronicleoftheNationalFilmBoardof
Canadafrom1949to1989/GaryEvans.Toronto :UniversityofTorontoPress,c1991.,1991.
Finneran,Patricia.“WhatIsinaNumber?ThinkingabouttheParticipantIndexandtheRecentNewYorkTimesArticleAnnouncingItsLaunch.”STORYMATTERS,July9,2014.http://storymatters-patriciafinneran.blogspot.com/2014/07/what-counts-thinking-about-participant.html.
“FOLDWantstoKeepYoufromTumblingdownLinkRabbitHoles.”NiemanLab.AccessedJuly16,2015.http://www.niemanlab.org/2014/07/fold-wants-to-keep-you-from-tumbling-down-link-rabbit-holes/.
Ford,Sam,JoshuaGreen,andHenryJenkins.SpreadableMedia:CreatingValueandMeaninginaNetworkedCulture.NYUPress,2013.
“FunderPerspectives:AssessingMediaInvestments.”MediaImpactFunders,January2015.http://mediaimpactfunders.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/MIF_Funder-Perspectives.pdf.
GovernmentofCanada,NationalFilmBoardofCanada.“MissionandHighlights-NationalFilmBoardofCanada,”July21,2012.http://onf-nfb.gc.ca/en/about-the-nfb/organization/mandate/.
———.“OurCollection-NationalFilmBoardofCanada,”October11,2012.http://onf-nfb.gc.ca/en/our-collection/.
Graves,Lucas,JohnKelly,andMarissaGluck.“ConfusionOnline:FaultyMetricsandtheFutureofDigitalJournalism.”TowCenterforDigitalJournalism,ColumbiaUniversityGraduateSchoolofJournalism.Onlineat:Http://www.Journalism.Columbia.edu/system/documents/345/original/online_Metrics_report.Pdf,2010.
Greenfield,Rebecca.“WhattheNewYorkTimes’s‘SnowFall’MeanstoOnlineJournalism’sFuture.”TheWire,December20,2012.http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2012/12/new-york-times-snow-fall-feature/60219/.
Grierson,John.GriersononDocumentary.UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1966.Hall,PeterDobkin.“AHistoricalPerspectiveonEvaluationinFoundations.”
FoundationsandEvaluation,2004,27–50.Henry-Sanchez,Brenda,andAnnaKoob.“GrowthinFoundationSupportforMedia
intheUnitedStates.”MediaImpactFunders,November13,2013.“Imagine,Engage,Transform:AVision;APlan;AManifesto(2013-2018).”Strategic
Plan.NationalFilmBoardofCanada,June2013.March21,2015.
164
“InsidetheNYTimes’AudienceDevelopmentStrategy.”Digiday.AccessedJune5,2015.http://digiday.com/publishers/inside-ny-times-audience-development-strategy/.
Karlin,Beth,andJohnJohnson.“MeasuringImpact:TheImportanceofEvaluationforDocumentaryFilmCampaigns.”M/CJournal14,no.6(November18,2011).http://journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/article/view/444.
Kaufman,Anthony.“TransmediaDocumentariesAreSexy,ButWho’sWatching?”Indiewire,June24,2013.http://www.indiewire.com/article/transmedia-documentaries-are-sexy-but-whos-watching.
Keller,Michael,andBrianAbelson.“NEWSLYNX:AToolforNewsroomImpactMeasurement.”TowCenterforDigitalJournalism,ColumbiaUniversityGraduateSchoolofJournalism.,2015.http://towcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Tow_Center_NewsLynx_Full_Report.pdf.
Kilmurry,Simon.Skypeinterview,May7,2015.Lear,Norman.“IsPBSNeglectingItsMission?”TheNewYorkTimes,April7,2015.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/07/opinion/is-pbs-neglecting-its-mission.html.
LearningforAction.“DeepeningEngagementforLastingImpact.”Bill&MelindaGatesFoundationandtheJohnS.andJamesL.KnightFoundation,October2013.
Lesage,Julia.“FeministDocumentary:AestheticsandPolitics.”ShowUsLife”–TowardaHistoryandAestheticoftheCommittedDocumentary.Metuchen,NJ&London:TheScarecrowPress,Inc,1984,223–51.
Licht,Eliza.Skypeinterview,July7,2015.Low,Colin.“GriersonandChallengeforChange.”InChallengeforChange:Activist
DocumentaryattheNationalFilmBoardofCanada,editedbyThomasWaugh,MichaelBrendanBaker,andEzraWinton.McGill-Queen’sPress-MQUP,2010.
Low,Colin,andBillNemtin.“FogoIslandFilmandCommunityDevelopmentProject.”Canada:NationalFilmBoard,1968.http://onf-nfb.gc.ca/medias/download/documents/pdf/1968-Fogo-Island-Project-Low-Nemtin.pdf.
Mackay,WendyE.,andGloriannaDavenport.“VirtualVideoEditinginInteractiveMultimediaApplications.”CommunicationsoftheACM32,no.7(1989):802–10.
Mainland,Alexis.Interview,February27,2015.McLaughlin,Rob.Skypeinterview,February25,2015.“MemofromNewYorkTimes’AlexMacCallum|CapitalNewYork.”AccessedJune5,
2015.http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/media/2014/12/8557509/memo-emnew-york-timesem-alex-maccallum.
Morris,Peter.“Re-ThinkingGrierson:TheIdeologyofJohnGrierson.”Dialogue:CanadianandQuebecCinema3(1987):21–56.
Murray,JanetHorowitz.HamletontheHolodeck:TheFutureofNarrativeinCyberspace.SimonandSchuster,1997.
Myint,Jackie.Interview,February27,2015.
165
Napoli,PhilipM.AudienceEvolution :NewTechnologiesandtheTransformationofMediaAudiences/PhilipM.Napoli.NewYork :ColumbiaUniversityPress,c2011.,2011.
———.“MeasuringMediaImpact.”TheLearCenterMediaImpactProject,2014.Nash,Kate,CraigHight,andCatherineSummerhayes.NewDocumentaryEcologies:
EmergingPlatforms,PracticesandDiscourses.PalgraveMacmillan,2014.“NFBStrategicPlan2008-2009to2012-2013.”StrategicPlan.NationalFilmBoard
ofCanada,June2013.March21,2015.Nichols,Bill.IntroductiontoDocumentary.IndianaUniversityPress,2001.Nir,SarahMaslin.“HundredsofVolunteers,ArmedWithFliers,TellNailSalon
WorkersofTheirRights.”TheNewYorkTimes,May21,2015.http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/22/nyregion/hundreds-volunteer-to-educate-nail-salon-workers-on-their-rights.html.
———.“ThePriceofNiceNails.”TheNewYorkTimes,May7,2015.http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/10/nyregion/at-nail-salons-in-nyc-manicurists-are-underpaid-and-unprotected.html.
Nisbet,Matthew.“Introduction:UnderstandingtheSocialImpactofaDocumentaryFilm.”DocumentariesonaMission:HowNonprofitsAreMakingMoviesforPublicEngagement,2007.
“NYTInnovationReport2014.”Scribd.AccessedMarch21,2015.https://www.scribd.com/doc/224332847/NYT-Innovation-Report-2014.
O’Reilly,Tim.“WhatIsWeb2.0:DesignPatternsandBusinessModelsfortheNextGenerationofSoftware.”SSRNScholarlyPaper.Rochester,NY:SocialScienceResearchNetwork,August22,2007.http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1008839.
“OurHistory.”NationalFilmBoardofCanada.AccessedMarch21,2015.https://www.nfb.ca/historique/about-the-foundation.
Pack,Sam.“IndigenousMediaThenandNow:SituatingtheNavajoFilmProject.”QuarterlyReviewofFilmandVideo17,no.3(2000):273–86.doi:10.1080/10509200009361497.
“PaulaKerger:KEEPPUBLICTVPUBLIC.”Change.org.AccessedJuly16,2015.https://www.change.org/p/paula-kerger-keep-public-tv-public?just_created=true.
Perlmutter,Tom.“TheInteractiveDocumentary:ATransformativeArtForm.”PolicyOptions,November2014.http://policyoptions.irpp.org/issues/policyflix/perlmutter/.
———.Skypeinterview,March6,2015.Petre,Caitlin.TheTrafficFactories:MetricsatChartbeat,GawkerMedia,andTheNew
YorkTimes.TowCenterforDigitalJournalism,ColumbiaJournalismSchool,2015.http://towcenter.org/research/traffic-factories/.
“POVDeliversaRevolutionaryApproachtoStorytellingwithSixNewInteractiveDocumentaryShorts.”POV’sDocumentaryBlog,September15,2014.http://www.pbs.org/pov/blog/pressroom/2014/09/pov-digital-interactive-shorts-revolutionary-approach-to-storytelling/.
“POVHistoryTimeline.”P.O.V.AmericanDocumentary,Inc.,2014.
166
“POV:FifteenYearsofDocumentaryTelevision.”P.O.V.AmericanDocumentary,Inc.,2003.
Ravindran,Manori.“Realscreen’sTrailblazers2014:JasonSpingarn-Koff.”AccessedJune7,2015.http://realscreen.com/2015/02/18/realscreens-trailblazers-2014-jason-spingarn-koff/.
Renov,Michael.TheorizingDocumentary.PsychologyPress,1993.Romenesko,Jim.“Morethan3.5MillionPageViewsforNewYorkTimes’‘SnowFall’
Feature.”JIMROMENESKO.COM,December27,2012.http://jimromenesko.com/2012/12/27/more-than-3-5-million-page-views-for-nyts-snow-fall/.
Rosen,Jay.ThePeopleFormerlyKnownastheAudience.PressThink,2006.Rosenthal,Alan.“YouAreonIndianLand:AnInterviewwithGeorgeStoney.”In
ChallengeforChange:ActivistDocumentaryattheNationalFilmBoardofCanada,editedbyThomasWaugh,MichaelBrendanBaker,andEzraWinton.McGill-Queen’sPress-MQUP,2010.
Rouch,Jean.“TheCameraandMan.”PrinciplesofVisualAnthropology1(1975).Search,Jess.“BeyondtheBoxOffice:NewDocumentaryValuations.”BRITDOC
Foundation,May2011.http://britdoc.org/uploads/media_items/aninconvenienttruth-beyondtheboxoffice.original.pdf.
Sefton,Dru.“NewYork’sWNETtoPullDocumentaryShowcasesfromMondayNightsonMainChannel.”Current.org.AccessedJuly16,2015.http://current.org/2014/12/new-yorks-wnet-to-pull-documentary-showcases-from-monday-nights-on-main-channel-producers-say/.
Sherry,Andrew.“AmericanDocumentarytoDevelopNewInnovationsinDigitalStorytellingthroughItsAward-WinningPBSSeries,POV.”KnightFoundation.AccessedJuly11,2015.http://www.knightfoundation.org/press-room/press-release/american-documentary-develop-new-innovations-digit/.
Shirky,Clay.“LastCall:TheEndofthePrintedNewspaper.”Medium,August19,2014.https://medium.com/@cshirky/last-call-c682f6471c70.
Simon,HerbertA.“DesigningOrganizationsforanInformation-RichWorld,”1971.“SnowFall:Nominationforthe2013PulitzerPrize,”n.d.
http://www.pulitzer.org/files/2013/feature-writing/branchentryletter.pdf.“Sorry,‘SnowFall’Isn’tGoingtoSavetheNewYorkTimes.”PandoDaily,May13,
2013.http://pando.com/2013/05/13/sorry-snow-fall-isnt-going-to-save-the-new-york-times/.
Spingarn-Koff,Jason.Interview,February27,2015.“StandardsandEthics|TheNewYorkTimesCompany.”AccessedJuly16,2015.
http://www.nytco.com/who-we-are/culture/standards-and-ethics/.“StorytellingMatters:MeasuringtheSocialImpactofEntertainmentonAudiences
(KeyFindings).”ParticipantMedia,n.d.Swann,Paul.TheBritishDocumentaryFilmMovement,1926-1946.Cambridge
UniversityPress,1989.Tanzer,Myles.“Exclusive:NewYorkTimesInternalReportPaintedDireDigital
Picture.”BuzzFeed,May15,2014.
167
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mylestanzer/exclusive-times-internal-report-painted-dire-digital-picture.
“TheFutureofLongform.”ColumbiaJournalismReview.AccessedJune5,2015.http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/longform_conference.php.
“TheLeakedNewYorkTimesInnovationReportIsOneoftheKeyDocumentsofThisMediaAge.”NiemanLab.AccessedJune6,2015.http://www.niemanlab.org/2014/05/the-leaked-new-york-times-innovation-report-is-one-of-the-key-documents-of-this-media-age/.
“TheNewDigitalStorytellingSeries:KaterinaCizek.”FilmmakerMagazine.AccessedJuly24,2015.http://filmmakermagazine.com/70273-the-new-digital-storytelling-series-katerina-cizek/.
“TheReconstructionofAmericanJournalism.”ColumbiaJournalismReview.AccessedJune14,2015.http://www.cjr.org/reconstruction/the_reconstruction_of_american.php.
Thompson,Derek.“‘SnowFall’Isn’ttheFutureofJournalism.”TheAtlantic,December21,2012.http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/12/snow-fall-isnt-the-future-of-journalism/266555/.
VanWert,WilliamF.“ChrisMarker:TheSLONFilms.”FilmQuarterly32,no.3(April1979):38–46.doi:10.2307/1212205.
Wasey,Adnaan.Skypeinterview,December11,2014.“Waterlife.”Jam3.AccessedApril16,2015.http://www.jam3.com/work/waterlife/.Waugh,Thomas.“ShowUsLife”:TowardaHistoryandAestheticsoftheCommitted
Documentary.Metuchen,NJ:ScarecrowPress,1984.Waugh,Thomas,EzraWinton,andMichaelBrendanBaker,eds.Challengefor
Change:ActivistDocumentaryattheNationalFilmBoardofCanada.McGill-Queen’sPress-MQUP,2010.
Webster,James.TheMarketplaceofAttention:HowAudiencesTakeShapeinaDigitalAge.MITPress,2014.
Whiteman,David.“OutoftheTheatersandintotheStreets:ACoalitionModelofthePoliticalImpactofDocumentaryFilmandVideo.”PoliticalCommunication,21,no.1(2004):51–69.
Wiesner,PeterK.“MediaforthePeople:TheCanadianExperimentswithFilmandVideoinCommunityDevelopment.”InChallengeforChange:ActivistDocumentaryattheNationalFilmBoardofCanada,editedbyThomasWaugh,MichaelBrendanBaker,andEzraWinton.McGill-Queen’sPress-MQUP,2010.
Winston,Brian.ClaimingtheReal:TheGriersonianDocumentaryandItsLegitimations.BritishFilmInstituteLondon,1995./citations?view_op=view_citation&continue=/scholar%3Fhl%3Den%26start%3D20%26as_sdt%3D0,22%26scilib%3D1%26scioq%3Ddocumentary%2Bgames&citilm=1&citation_for_view=ZLYOWUUAAAAJ:4DMP91E08xMC&hl=en&oi=p.
“WNETAndPBSAgreementKeeps‘POV,’‘IndependentLens’inPrimetime.”Variety.AccessedJuly16,2015.http://variety.com/2015/tv/news/pbs-wnet-pov-independent-lens-1201478442/.