It seems that many documentaries contain shots which are either not what they purport to be, or which have been altered for dramatic effect. A couple of examples: 1. Footage of a World War I bombardment which is accompanied by a sound track containing explosions. Since newsreel sound technology did not exist in 1914-1918, the explosions must have been added. 2. A documentary on the history of the 1920's which uses black and white footage from gangster films such as Little Ceasar while discussing the rise and fall of Al Capone. In both cases the inaccuracies added to the interest of the documentaries. Both were true in the sense that WWI bombardments caused explosions, and Capone's gangsters did use machine guns, etc. But it is also true that these enhancing devices were not indentified as such. Hence my questions: How accurate should a documentary be? Who decides how much "poetic license" is permissible? Thanks for your thoughts. Peter Latham ---- Online resources for film/TV studies may be found at ScreenSite http://www.tcf.ua.edu/screensite