Bringing footage "closer to reality?"

The Las Vegas casino shooting on the Poynter site is an example of audio manipulation I have never previously considered. The description of the video leads me to believe it turned out looking vaguely like an “Unsolved Mysteries”-style re-enactment. Not only is it ethically questionable, but also I honestly can’t fathom how it could look professional enough to warrant airtime. Furthermore, the link within the text that directs you to an accompanying article from the Las Vegas Review-Journal provides an interesting subtext to the situation. John Gilbert, the reporter responsible for the video in question, was quoted as saying “In my opinion, we just brought (the footage) closer to reality.” Not to sound pretentious, but that comment is laughable. Ironically, it suggests that the footage isn’t entirely a “reality,” when adding the sound (in my opinion), actually removes it further from reality. I agree with the Columbia University Journalism Professor who raises the question: what did it add to the viewers’ understanding of the story? Likely not much, and definitely not enough to pacify all the fire Gilbert met.

In regard to what the Poynter site outlines, I believe all issues of ethics are somewhat of a grayscale. I agree whole-heartedly that journalists should strive to maintain accuracy and never deceive their readers. However I was surprised when they raised issues such as audio sliding; I believe it’s questionable whether or not the practice should be labeled “deceitful.” Does this include overlaying different audio cuts? Like so many other decisions in journalism, I’d imagine there will always be discrepancies.