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

2

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

4

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/.

168

Zimmermann,PatriciaRodden.StatesofEmergency:Documentaries,Wars,Democracies.UofMinnesotaPress,2000.

Zuckerman,Ethan.“MetricsforCivicImpactsofJournalism.”MyHeart’sinAccra.AccessedJuly16,2015.http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2011/06/30/metrics-for-civic-impacts-of-journalism/.