[B The recent postings about documentary on this list suggest that whether it is called "ethics" or some other "tag" there may be a renewal brewing in our thinking and research about documentary. From the postings of the past few weeks I get the impression that part of the current lack of progress in examining documentary comes about because the discursive context for the discussion of it is very limited. Perhaps a better way to put this is to suggest that like aesthetic film theory and history only some of the most prominent features of documentary film history and theory have been mapped out or noted. In other words, we seem to be able to see the high points of documentary cinematic *texts* (i.e., "masterpieces") and to associate them with great communicators (i.e., "film artists") but our concentration on individual works, creators, and techniques causes us to miss the larger communicative contexts in which documentaries exist, particularly the economic and social ones. In many cases our shortsightedness appears to be intentional. For example, in an essay which is otherwise exceptional for covering the contemporary discourse about documentary theory, the author, Jay Ruby, dismisses study of the audience with these words, "This essay has not dealt with the complexities of audience." (Journal of Film and Video 44.1-2, p.58) Perhaps I have overstated this case, for what Ruby does after that statement is to concentrate on the television medium as a force for cultural centralization which may make media diversity unlikely. This part of his essay *is* an examination of a larger communicative context. However, unless I am mistaken, there is not much of this type of inquiry. Your reactions to these observations will be appreciated. exit