The article discussed some project details that must have been embarrassing for Burns. It appears Goldman is funding the project. The article also asserted that Goldman has editorial control over what appears in the finished product. The investment firm, for its part, claimed that the documentary is solely intended for internal use.
These now-public details have aroused the ire of some other documentary film makers, who view Mr. Burns' acceptance of Goldman's conditions as profoundly jeopardizing the project's integrity. In fact, l'affaire Burns tarnishes the PBS-blessed documentarian's reputation. The Goldman project's terms also mock the independence that documentary film makers in the United States (including Ric Burns' more famous brother Ken) have leveraged to create outstanding work over the past decade. Their efforts often explored subjects MSM news departments (including PBS) either did not want to touch or were too compromised to truthfully depict.
The Wall Street Journal story, for reasons I cannot understand, did not discuss Ric Burns' other Goldman-funded venture. The firm, according to promotional material from Film Forum/New York, bankrolled Burns' documentary on Andy Warhol. The Journal story, had it bothered to truly care about Mr. Burns' "independence," would have wondered how his perspective was influenced in Burns' 2003 television project "celebrating" Columbia University's 250th anniversary as an institution.
Instead, Goldman Sachs was a nice, juicy, currently unpopular target. It's fair that Burns' relationship with the firm, and the terms of the project, enter a public forum. However, it's fatuous to be implicitly critical of Burns and Goldman without taking the trouble to examine and present a reasonably complete story.
This flaccid style of journalism, as well as a willingness to play fast and loose with documentary integrity, would have rankled Daniel Schorr. A one-time prominent CBS News reporter, Schorr came from the old school. His journalistic outlook was formed through experience covering the Soviet Union, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, George H.W. Bush, and other hard cases. Schorr passed away a few days ago, and one wonders who will pick up his torch. Mr. Burns, for all his Emmys and PBS accolades, hardly seems a worthy candidate. Mr. Burns should read the obituaries on Schorr, and internalize why the late reporter was such a good, though not always simon pure, journalist. The reading and reflection might improve Burns' work.
I'm skeptical that Burns will go against type. However, should the unlikely occur and Burns endeavor to create work based on fact, I have a suggestion for the subject of his next project: Daniel Schorr. I think he'll strike gold with it.
No comments:
Post a Comment