Wiseman's ethical obligation?

After watching Titicut Fallies, I felt like Wisman should have stopped those wardens from endlessly harassing Jim, but I understand that documentarians are trying to shed light on controversial topics, doing so by removing themselves from the lives of their subject matter. However at what point must a filmmaker remove himself from ultimately a selfish endeavor and stop harrasment? Or is it just enough to document indiscretions and show them to the world?

My opinion is that Wiseman should simply document indiscretions because he won't be there forever to protect inmates. Perhaps it's better just to be a fly on the wall and hope someone watches, listens, and understands the reality of the situation in hope of reformation.

Controversial documentaries tread a fine ethical line that sometimes makes me wonder if the documentarian is just exploiting the subject matter or if they really have an ethical obligation to protect it. What if the inmates were lined up and shot? Is murder the line in the sand?

These are some movies of mine. Enjoy!
http://www.youtube.com/lanser87