Man-on-the-street interviews should record the entire footage for transparency, without any cuts, for transparency, so that the audience can know which opinions were kept and which were removed.
Reminds me of a movie I saw as a kid. Can't remember the exact situation. But some celebrity, super-hero or whatever got asked by a journalist something ala "why did you say you hate this city?" and they answered "I have never said 'I hate this city'". Then what was aired was the last of that sentence, only the 'I hate this city' part.
Should, but nobody will watch that unless they themselves are investigative journalists. It adds a lot of noise to something that's already low on signal.
Eventually they'll figure out at what street corner to stand to find people with the leanings they want to film, if they're intent on coloring the reporting. At some point you'll also have to let go and trust the reporter or the outlet they work for, which admittedly is an increasingly challenging decision, these days.
They don't need to do that. Interviewing people on the street already selects for the kind of people who wander around shopping malls in the middle of a weekday, ie those who don't work 9-5, very much not a cross-section of society. The sooner vox pops disappear altogether the better.
I got interviewed for one of these man in the street things for a local newspaper. I had just completed jury duty and was about to grab an early lunch and head into work. The reporter paraphrased my words very slightly when it went to print but the intent and meaning was the same so no complaints from me.
so that the audience can know which opinions were kept and which were removed.
Let's be honest, you already know that just from the context of the question and which show is doing the interview. If the audience is deceived it's only because they want to be.
Most people answering a 2014 poll (hopefully uniformly sampled) could not locate Ukraine on a map of the world, with many placing it in Africa, East Asia, Greenland or even the US; but the more interesting part was that the farther from its actual location was people's guess, the more they were supportive of US military intervention in Ukraine.
In my less pessimistic moments I like to think that many are not quite that uninformed and the interviewers find enough by sheer numbers interviewed.
What gets me is how easily inexperienced people are led to saying exactly what the interviewer wants. And it is blatant: they don't even pretend that isn't what they are doing on live news anymore.
It's not needed for everybody to watch this footage, summary video can be presented. It just should be linked somewhere for those who want to see the results and verify summary themselves.
It might be enough. Like open source - not everybody needs to read the source code, it is enough when one knowledgeable person does that and makes a stink when they find something fishy.
Very much this. "The average person won't ..." is a huge fallacy. This also applies to repair (that knowledgeable people are able to do it is enough because they can sell it as a service at economically viable prices).
The footage is for verification only. No one will watch the whole thing, but people can scan through it and notice if the conclusion most people are giving different from the edited shorter final production video.