February 11, 2022

Jamaica for Spring Break

Call it a working vacation 🙂

I’ll be working with two professors in the Department of Geography, Geology, and Planning at Missouri State University to document a long-running water-quality study. The resulting video won’t be a documentary really. But the purpose is to explain what they are doing and the benefits to the community.

I’ll also be on the lookout for other stories.

I’ll post updates and behind-the-scenes photos here and on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.

February 7, 2022

Media Ethics, Power, and My Use of Spotify

I introduce two questions in this podcast episode. First, what is this “media” in media ethics? That question is supposed to eventually get my students thinking about the power relationships in media organizations and where the burden of making ethical decisions lands. The second question comes at the end. I produce this podcast with Anchor. Spotify owns Anchor. I am fully capable of producing and syndicating this podcast on my own. I use Anchor because it’s easy.

Should I take the Rogan situation into account in my choice to produce this podcast with Anchor?

Podcast Transcript

I asked my media ethics students to ponder a question for our Wednesday evening class. Classes, however, have been canceled for a second day because of the big winter storm. So I’ll discuss it here.

What is this “media” we talk about in media ethics?

OK, there are a few, first easy and obvious answers. In class discussion, after exhausting all the obvious stuff, I point out that “media” are not conscious beings with a concern for making ethical decisions. In other words, calling it media ethics does not mean we are identifying organizations that make ethical decisions, we are identifying individuals who are a part of media organizations making ethical decisions. 

Light bulbs usually begin to ignite about now because what I’m getting at are the power relationships within organizations and, sometimes, outside of media organizations in the public sphere. Calling it media ethics sounds like there are multiple lists of rules and clearly identifiable norms of behavior floating around out there, and one merely taps in and acts accordingly.

Well, no.

Part of the problem is that decisions about what we ought and ought not do are made by individuals and groups of individuals within larger structures. These larger structures usually hold all the power. The hive mind of those structures would like to keep individuals thinking that ethical decisions within an organizational context are a matter of individual choice.

What this does is lets the organization off the hook when things go wrong, i.e. someone makes a decision deemed unethical, that someone is punished, and the organization is ethically cleansed by punishing the problem person.

For a good example of placing the burden of ethics on individuals, check out the code of ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists. Go to spj.org. You’ll see a link to the code. They’re quite proud of it.

One of the striking features of this otherwise reasonable and rational code of ethics is that it places the ethical burden squarely on the people in the typical news organization with the least power – reporters.

Now for the real-world stuff. One of the reasons I enjoy teaching media ethics is that the media provide a constant source of examples of what to do and not to do. And these situations are gloriously complicated and messy.

Which brings me to Joe Rogan and Spotify.

I’m not going to talk about the specifics of this case. I promised to keep these episodes short. Instead, I’ll give you listeners and my students something to ponder.

First, for a quick overview that treats this situation in something like its proper complexity, check out the column in the New York Times entitled “What the Joe Rogan Situation Reveals About How We Handle Misinformation.” The author is Spencer Bokat-Lindell.

Now consider that I produce this podcast on Anchor – a production app and site that makes producing and publishing podcasts easy. Spotify owns Anchor. So this podcast is carried by Spotify and is also indexed by Google and Apple. Perhaps an important note: I am fully capable of producing, publishing, and syndicating this podcast without using Anchor.

The first question is not: should I stop using Anchor and Spotify? The first question is: Should I take the Rogan situation into account in my choice to produce this podcast with Anchor?

So when next we meet, I’ll have the class start there.

I’ll ask them about my power in this situation.

And, yes, we’ll also discuss what the people with the power at Spotify ought to do regarding the Rogan question.

An important reminder: Ethics is about what we ought and ought not do. Law is about what we can and cannot do. These two things are very different. Just because you can doesn’t mean you should.

February 5, 2022

Introduction to Rhetoric for Nonfiction Video

As promised, here’s the script for my podcast episode introducing the rhetoric to my students in MED412 Documentary Storytelling. I’ve done some minor editing. For the full experience, listen to the episode instead. Note: I rely on scholars James Berlin and Lloyd Bitzer for much of this theory.

Podcast Transcript

I beg your indulgence. What’s about to happen is a swing through my intellectual passion as it intersects with my artistic passion: rhetoric and documentary filmmaking.

This is part 1 starting with a general introduction to rhetoric. I’ll keep all of this connected to making nonfiction videos as I go.

Quick note: If you hear me use the word “language,” please understand that I mean to indicate all the ways humans communicate, not just speaking or writing.

For the nonfiction video maker wishing to move hearts and minds, a familiarity with rhetoric will help in achieving the goal by suggesting possible answers to these questions:  What is the situation of the video I’m making? Who is the audience? What arguments and appeals are likely to sway them? How might one achieve the proper tone, or eloquence, for the given situation?

Eloquence isn’t a word normally associated with nonfiction video. But it’s a good one nonetheless. The complex choices we filmmakers have in telling stories make our jobs challenging. But adopting the concept of eloquence, seems to me, at once combines so many visual and audio elements toward a worthy goal.

The quality of a rhetorical performance can be anything from sublime to insipid, so it is important for the filmmaker to understand the rhetoric necessary to persuade.

Humans do not spontaneously communicate. If you’re making a nonfiction video, you’re trying to communicate. Even if it’s a home movie. Further, you’re wanting the audience to do or think or feel something in regard to your message – even if that’s just being informed or entertained.

Rhetoric has meant many things to many people over the past two millennia. I often use the term to mean: 1) an academic discipline; 2) a socio-political skill in language use; 3) persuasive, stylistic features in all kinds of communication, and; 4) a form of “energy” in language. Or, our case, energy in nonfiction filmmaking 

Allow me for a moment to geek-out on meanings of rhetoric. First, as an academic discipline, rhetoric is the theory, practice, and critique of effective communication. As a socio-political skill in language use, rhetoric is the use of certain discourses in certain contexts with certain audiences for the purpose of persuasion. As the persuasive features of language use, rhetoric is the theory, practice, and critique of the persuasive effects of language features, i.e. how various features persuade. As the energy of language, “rhetoric is the ever-present, pre-linguistic source of our ability to understand the persuasive intent of a message.”

When we make nonfiction videos, we employ rhetorics. This means, at some level, we are engaging in socio-political action with/for/against others. The ‘s’ appended to “rhetoric” indicates that there are more than one, and each arises based on the socio-political needs of a given person, group, or culture.  

Scholar James Berlin says, a rhetoric “has at its base a conception of reality, of human nature, and of language… [It] is grounded in a noetic field: a closed system of defining what can, and cannot, be known; the nature of the knower; the nature of the relationship between the knower, the known, and the audience; and the nature of language. Rhetoric is thus ultimately implicated in all a society attempts. It is at the center of a culture’s activities.”

I understand the rhetorics of nonfiction video – especially documentary filmmaking – as transactional. These rhetorics are “based on an epistemology that sees truth as arising out of the interaction of the elements of the rhetorical situation” (a concept I’ll cover shortly):  an interaction of subject and object or of subject and audience or even of all elements–subject, object, audience, and video language–operating simultaneously.

I like the social-epistemic nature of transactional rhetorics. These rhetorics locate truth in all the elements of the rhetorical situation. Language grounds all human experience and is “implicated in all human behavior. All truths arise out of dialectic, out of the interaction of individuals within discourse communities.”

I think transactionalism is the most useful way to begin understanding how and why documentary films persuade. I think transactionalism helps nonfiction filmmakers understand how to use cinematic art to move hearts and minds. But also how to use the cinematic art to encourage the audience to help us along the way. Call it engagement.

That last bit. There’s nuts-n-bolts to that. Practical stuff. I promise we’ll get there. Just not in this episode.

OK, time to examine this thing we call the rhetorical situation.

Lloyd Bitzer described the concept of the rhetorical situation in his essay of the same name.  The concept relies on understanding a moment called “exigence,” in which something happens, or fails to happen, that compels one to communicate.

These are the elements of the rhetorical situation:

Exigence: What happens or fails to happen? Why is one compelled to speak out? What, for example, compelled Morgan Spurlock to make Supersize Me?

Persons: Who is involved in the exigence and what roles do they play? Think about the role of the children in Zana Briski’s Born Into Brothels. They play dual roles – at first subjects of the film evolving into creators of content for the film.

Relations: What are the relationships, especially the differences in power, between the persons involved? The latest controversy involving the film Jihad Rehab is instructive.

Location: Where is the site of discourse? Location can mean where you film and what that says about the subject. It can also refer to where your audience sees your film. Does your film have a distribution deal or are you having to settle for Vimeo pay-per-view? 

Speaker: Who is compelled to communicate? Are you a famous director or a newbie? Who backs your film? Whose voice is strongest in your film?

Audience: Who does the filmmaker and or subject address and why? Who do you want to watch your nonfiction videos, and what do you want from them?

Method: How does the filmmaker choose to address the audience? I’m a fan of certain sorts of direct cinema. I want fewer formal interviews and as little of me as possible. To the extent possible, I want subjects to tell their own stories. There are many other choices, and each says something different to the audience.

Institutions: What are the rules of the game surrounding and constraining all of the above.

Analyzing the rhetorical situation (which, at its most fundamental, means identifying and thinking about the elements above) can tell us much about filmmakers and their persuasive intentions. And it can help us make better nonfiction videos.

I’ll pick this up again soon. And I promise to bring all of this into practical discussions about making your nonfiction video better. And by that I mean: Helping you figure out how to say what you want to say in such a way that your audience is down with it. The more you know about the back end, the better your work will be on the front end.


Berlin, James A. Writing Instruction in Nineteenth-Century American Colleges. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 1984.

_____. Rhetoric and Reality. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 1987.

Bitzer, Lloyd F. 1968. “The Rhetorical Situation.” Rhetoric: Concepts, Definitions, Boundaries. William A. Covino ed. Boston: Allyn and      Bacon: 1995.

February 4, 2022

Meaning, Intention, Rhetoric, and Kuleshov

I had my students watch A Vietnam Peace Story for this week specifically to introduce them to the rhetoric(s) of documentary filmmaking. Unfortunately, the big winter storm has closed school for several days. I didn’t get to finish. I’ll be posting some thoughts on the Dr. Cline’s Peripatetic School of Media podcast soon.

I’ll edit the (way too) long script and post here soon.

(Side note: I use Anchor which belongs to Spotify. So you might also want to catch my episode about media ethics in which I briefly discuss this situation.)

Until then, check out the trailer and the obvious use of the Kuleshov effect.

A Vietnam Peace Story from Carbon Trace Productions on Vimeo.

Except, the effect, in my opinion, really just identifies effective editing (i.e. IMO effective use of the language of cinematic art) (also, not making any claims about the editing of this trailer; that’s for others to decide). Cuts between shots, seems to me, always create juxtapositions with meaning. The question for me is: Are you creating for the audience the meaning you intend?

It’s getting that intention on film that is a big part MED412 Documentary Storytelling.

February 1, 2022

Rhetoric and the Documentary Voice

These four are generally considered the characteristics of the documentary voice1 – that which makes documentary film distinct from fictional cinematic art and the documentarian’s voice and product different from the fiction filmmaker’s voice and product. The four characteristics come from Bill Nichols, but the glosses are mine.

Indexical documentation: This is the characteristic of the photographic image made by pointing a camera at “reality” with no more purpose than to record what is in front of the lens “accurately.” The quote marks indicate these concepts are not objective. A photo does not equal the reality it portrays. But, just as a biomedical photographer produces an image useful to medical professionals, the documentary filmmaker produces an image corresponding to reality in useful ways for the audience. Example.

Poetic experimentation: A documentary filmmaker is trying to say something (see “rhetorical address” below) about the reality in front of their lens. At its most basic level, this experimentation may be seen in the angles and camera movements the filmmaker chooses. This is the space documentary film shares with cinematic art. Example.

Storytelling: Full disclosure: I would not separate storytelling from rhetorical address because, from my particular theoretical perspective, storytelling is a powerful form of rhetorical address. Here’s something to keep in mind: Humans tend to apply a narrative structure to ambiguous events in order to create a coherent and causal sense of events. Another way to put this: Storytelling is the superpower of our species because it’s a useful way to explain our relationship to reality. Documentary film, then, can be said to be the application of narrative order to a particular situation by way of the filmmaker’s art.

Rhetorical address: No one makes a documentary film unless they have something to say and something they want an audience to do or think in regard to it. Rhetoric in documentary film is (borrowing a bit from Aristotle) the discovery and application of the available means of persuasion of cinematic expression.

I’ll be drilling down soon. The rhetoric of documentary film is my topic of discussion this week in MED412 Documentary Storytelling.

1Nichols, Bill. Introduction to Documentary. 2017

Next Posts →← Previous Posts

Powered by: Wordpress