At first the passage appears to side with critics who say that documentary objectivity is impossible because every shot and edit reflects a choice, since selection, framing, sequencing, and omission shape the apparent evidence. It then acknowledges why defenders of the established view continue to claim that a documentary is objective if it avoids an explicit narrator or stated conclusion: viewers are not directly instructed what to think. The apparent reversal is not a retreat but a second qualification. The inevitability of choice does not make all documentaries equally responsible or all claims equally unsupported. Because a filmmaker can disclose selection criteria, preserve contrary evidence, and distinguish observation from reconstruction, the passage ultimately argues that objectivity is better treated as a practice of accountable representation than as the absence of perspective.