Exactly. When the audience needs to observe the trick by proxy, because it's not practical to have everybody touching the object, standing on stage, or being in the TV studio, that proxy must be honest.
If I can't trust that to be the case, I'd only be interested in a trick if I can be the one on stage touching the object. No more global audience for you, cheating magician.
Right. It's the same with audience plants, unless there's also something specifically interesting about the way the audience plant operated. If the magician just picks a stooge from the audience, says "the number you're thinking of is 17," and the stooge says "wow, how did you read my mind?" that is not a remotely legitimate magic trick in my view. Likewise, if you're watching a guerrilla magic television special (e.g. David Blaine: Street Magic) and it turns out it's just a completely staged, fictional production using post-production visual effects, paid actors, etc., then in my view that's not remotely legitimate.
This is why Fool Us is what it is. P&T put magicians on TV but they put themselves in the audience so the TV audience trusts that it isn't just video editing like so many TV magic shows.
But Fool Us does edit out "tells" that you could see by freeze-framing the recording but wouldn't notice in real life.
If I can't trust that to be the case, I'd only be interested in a trick if I can be the one on stage touching the object. No more global audience for you, cheating magician.