do documentary film makers need to shout at the viewer to get their message across?

[Beeblebrox]

Also, when you talk about journalists and media, in my opinion, they should be 'fair and balanced'. They should be accurate. They should be tell both sides or they are doing a disservice to the viewership. When they don't, this is how people don't know all the facts they need in order to vote in an informed fashion, regardless of what your opinion is....(

So if CNN does a story on astronomy and mention that the earth revolves around the sun, do you think they should give equal time to the theory that the earth is the center of the universe? If they do a story on the latest virus epidemic, do you think they should give equal time to the theory that evil spirits cause disease?

I hope not. Injecting creationism into similar stories on evolution, or injecting climate change skepticism into the global warming debate, is a time waster and a distraction from legitimate scientific questions on these issues.

 

[spinner]

So if CNN does a story on astronomy and mention that the earth revolves around the sun, do you think they should give equal time to the theory that the earth is the center of the universe? If they do a story on the latest virus epidemic, do you think they should give equal time to the theory that evil spirits cause disease?

No. If we are talking about journalism, both sides should be presented.

If its a documentary, you can give your own point of view. But I don't think it is irresponsible to at least give a nod to the other side. Documentary film and News to me are two different animals. That is probably why my opinions seem to fold back upon each other.....plus, I am still thinking.....

-- spinner

 

[Beeblebrox]

If we are talking about journalism, both sides should be presented.

So in a CNN story about a particular illness, you DO think that they should present every time that some people believe that evil spirits cause disease?

But I don't think it is irresponsible to at least give a nod to the other side.

Again, I'm not talking about a nod. I'm talking about presenting both sides as if they are equal and letting the audience choose as if both opinions are equally valid. The destructiveness of that approach is already manifest in the two issues I've mentioned. And there are many others.

 

[spinner]

So in a CNN story about a particular illness, you DO think that they should present every time that some people believe that evil spirits cause disease?

Again, I'm not talking about a nod. I'm talking about presenting both sides as if they are equal and letting the audience choose as if both opinions are equally valid. The destructiveness of that approach is already manifest in the two issues I've mentioned. And there are many others.

...well, hmmm...
That is what Jerry Farwell did, when he said that AIDS was punishment for homosexuality (that was Farwell, I think). When those idiots disrupt the funeral of an American soldier, isn't that what they are doing in a sense? However, the thing is that the general assertion is that "evil spirits" do not cause disease. Possibly the assertion should be reasonable? I won't give a YES/NO answer because it would be generally speaking, and there are too many situations where it would not apply.

If we are talking about Darfur, the opposite side is how and why things got the way the are. The other side is valid in order to understand the situation fully. I guess I think it depends on the situation, B.

I do know that in the big doc that I have had to put on hold, I will be giving my point of view. Its a point of view that I think most people don't have. I will be avoiding altogether that which people expect to hear because I feel that other side has already been told and the assertion assumed. I intend to give my point of view by poking holes in the opposite assertion, thereby giving the other side "the nod".

I give the 'vote' example because even though the media is supposed to allow all candidates (let's say Presidential) to be heard, the station where I worked it was made clear that the frontrunners would be given time to make their points. Were that not done then every small party would have overrun the station. Lyndon LaRouche has a big following, but rarely is his side heard or given any credibility.

I think it depends on the situation and whether or not the opposite side is reasonable. This is not a black and white issue. There are shades of grey.

-- spinner

 

[Beeblebrox]

I think it depends on the situation and whether or not the opposite side is reasonable. This is not a black and white issue. There are shades of grey.

I agree. But you started out saying that both sides should be presented. What I was getting at is that is not always the fair or objective course to take In many cases, the "other side" is either a fringe view (global warming skeptics) or utter fantasy (creationism) and presenting it equally is unfair to reality.

However, the thing is that the general assertion is that "evil spirits" do not cause disease. Possibly the assertion should be reasonable?

I agree. But you have people making similarly ridiculous assertions as the "evil spirts cause disease" theory that are arguing that their side should be given equal time in the media and/or documentaries about these subjects. And journalism and documentaries, to a large extent, are accommodating them. I regard this as irresponsible.

 

[spinner]

I agree. But you have people making similarly ridiculous assertions as the "evil spirts cause disease" theory that are arguing that their side should be given equal time in the media and/or documentaries about these subjects. And journalism and documentaries, to a large extent, are accommodating them. I regard this as irresponsible.

When I say both sides should be presented, I speak more of news than documentaries.

Documentaries have the luxury of giving a point of view without having to show the other side if they don't want to. Journalism is supposed to be objective. That means giving both sides a chance. I do not say that this is how it is anymore, but objectivity has at least been the goal of newsmakers and providers from the time the first newspaper was printed.

And the solution for the other side when talking about docs is, let the other side do their own documentary.

News/Journalism and Documentary filmmaking are two very different things.


..I said I was still thinkin'...

-- spinner

 

[Will Vincent]

I think in the case of the global warming issue there are actually three prevailing camps: The skeptics who deny it flat out, those who think it's our fault, and those who believe it was happening anyway.

Not that it matters really, but I find myself part way between the latter two -- I'm willing to agree that in part it is probably our fault, but for the most part naturally occurring (as the pollutants from a single volcanic eruption dwarf the effect man has on the ozone) that's irrelevant to this discussion other than to say that if this view point were completely omitted from the "Inconvenient Truth" (which I can't say as I've not seen it) then that too would be "unfair to reality" as you put it. Since there is "scientific fact" to support both of those views.

I write it as "scientific fact" with the quotes because largely much of this is subject to interpretation, and since there is no way to measure certain aspects such as historic levels of ozone depletion, it is largely theoretical and as such not definitively factual. wow do I sound like a politician

 

[Beeblebrox]

When I say both sides should be presented, I speak more of news than documentaries.

So we're back to you believing that the news should present evil spirits along side germs as two equally valid cause of disease?

Journalism is supposed to be objective. That means giving both sides a chance.

My argument here is that treating two sides as if they are equal when they aren't is not objective. It gives far more credence to the evil spirit theory of disease than is warranted or deserved and in no way reflects objective reality.

I do agree with you, however, that documentary filmmakers are under no obligation to present both sides. I mentioned that earlier in the thread. I'd say the only obligation they have is that what they do present is substantiated truth. For example, in the documentary I mentioned earlier that presents IDers as a persecuted minority, they are arguing that ID is a valid scientific theory on equal or better footing than evolution. So my issue with that film is not that it presents just one side of the debate, but that the premise of the film is demonstrably false.

 

[Beeblebrox]

I think in the case of the global warming issue there are actually three prevailing camps: The skeptics who deny it flat out, those who think it's our fault, and those who believe it was happening anyway.

This is my problem with the faux balance of the media and with certain documentaries. In fact, there are not three prevailing theories. There is one prevailing theory and that is that global warming is happening and that humans are a significant contributor. There are scientists with legitimate doubts as to the human contribution, but they are a minority.

And the only deniers are a handful of fringe scientists (not counting the non-scienctist American political conservatives).

The American media has created the inaccurate perception that there is still a prevailing doubt about climate change among scientists. There isn't. But by mistaking balance for objectivity, they have done a disservice to the issue.

This is what I mean when I say that faux balance is irresponsible.

I write it as "scientific fact" with the quotes because largely much of this is subject to interpretation, and since there is no way to measure certain aspects such as historic levels of ozone depletion, it is largely theoretical and as such not definitively factual.

In science, there is no such thing as definitively factual because nothing can ever be proven absolutely. Even the theory of gravity does not enjoy such lofty status. Germs as a cause of disease is "largely theoretical" as well, that doesn't mean it's not true. "Theory" in science is different from the common use of the word.

The doubts about global warming are ENTIRELY media-driven. They do not come from any significant portion of the main stream scientific community, especially not those versed in climate change.

Global warming is a theory with mounds of evidence to back it up. It has been peer-reviewed by thousands of scientists and verified and tested over and over again. The same climate scientists have theorized with nearly as much certainty (again, without proving absolutely, which is impossible) that humans have contributed significantly.

 

[Will Vincent]

There are scientists with legitimate doubts as to the human contribution, but they are a minority.

I disagree that they are a minority -- I think there are many more than we could possibly know about, but it's not relevant to this thread, and I really don't have the energy for an argument today..

 

[spinner]

So we're back to you believing that the news should present evil spirits along side germs as two equally valid cause of disease?

It looks to me that you want a yes or no answer. I am not going to give it to you.

Evil spirits are not a resonable argument to science 99.9% of the time. Until such time as an exorcism can be considered a viable alternative to treating cancer, the argument is moot. No one is going to seriously consider evil spirits valid. They are not and equal side because they are an irrational argument. I have yet to see you give an example outside this evil spirit thing to help prove your point, however, I can give at least 3 that will repeat what I have been saying. The side should be reasonable in order to be considered valid. For most people, evil spirits are not resonable.

I also notice that you had nothing to say about the fact that Farwell said that AIDS was God's punishment for homosexuality, nor did you have anything to say about the protestors at the funerals of soldiers saying more or less the same as Farwell and being disrespectful. This is the same thing for the most part, and you better believe that they got ALOT of press. Whether or not you think they should be able to do this is a matter of opinion, but treating it as valid is what has happened regardless of the result of the presentation of the story.

So the yes or no answer does not apply.

-- spinner

 

[spinner]

My argument here is that treating two sides as if they are equal when they aren't is not objective. It gives far more credence to the evil spirit theory of disease than is warranted or deserved and in no way reflects objective reality.

I did not anywhere in my posts say that they should be treated as equal. I did say that it couldn't hurt to give the other side a nod. YOU said equal.

Dictionary.com:

5. not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
6. intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.

"...and furthermore..." she said, finger in the air, (heehee!) It has been the goal of news providers to present a fair look at any subject. It is still like that from Hearst to your local television news station. That is why it is such a travesty when FOX News claims to be "fair and balanced" when they obviously have an agenda.

I do agree with you, however, that documentary filmmakers are under no obligation to present both sides. I mentioned that earlier in the thread. I'd say the only obligation they have is that what they do present is substantiated truth. For example, in the documentary I mentioned earlier that presents IDers as a persecuted minority, they are arguing that ID is a valid scientific theory on equal or better footing than evolution. So my issue with that film is not that it presents just one side of the debate, but that the premise of the film is demonstrably false.

I have to log off for a while, I'll be back.....

-- spinner

 

[cibao]

I'm dropping out of this argument for two reasons...the first and foremost reason is that this was a general moral and ethical question from someone making a documentary. But as too often happens, this has drifted off to become a I'm right and your wrong, primarily about global warming. Well Beeblebrox, no it isn't a fact. No, the majority of scientists have not bought off on it. And no, just because you say it's so doesn't make it so.

How about leaving your politics off of this simple question of morals and ethics about if a filmmaker should sensationalize his story in order to get viewers.

Chris

 

[knightly]

I think the strength of the arguments here is important in showing how highly this issue can affect people. As filmmakers, our goal is to affect people. The simple act of editing in and of itself is purely manipulative, how we use that tool is what is at stake in this thread. Journalism is documentary with a stress on apparent fairness to all sides of an issue.

As a narrative filmmaker who has to sell to an audience, I find that more than 2 sides to an issue becomes cluttered storytelling. Although the world is in colors and grays, we humans don't want to be presented data in that fashion, we want a or b, x or y, this or that. The media therefore gives us what will get them eyeballs which in turn gets them advertising dollars to pay the FCC for their license and buy helicopter camera mounts to get cool shots of buildings burning and the aftermath of terrible catastrophes...which gets more eyeballs...lather rinse repeat.

Here is an article on the media's coverage of scientific issues:
http://cjrarchives.org/issues/2004/6/mooney-science.asp

As for the topical debates in this thread, these come up because the media and other interested parties have brought them to our attention, without their help, we would almost certainly have no clue of the implications or even existance of any of these topics unless we or someone we know is directly involved with them.

My personal bias (as we all speak from the point of a given bias). Big oil spends tons of money on scientists to make claims to balk at the standard scientific rhetoric of hypothesize and test and peer review and replication of results. I don't believe humans are even mostly responsible for global warming...although we certainly play a part as do farting cows and seismic activities in the ocean opening fissures releasing heated gas (of course all three play differently sized parts in the process), U just think that our orbit and relationship to the sun has more to do with our temperature than anything we can produce...remember the ice ages and the worldwide tropics?

Me neither, but I've read about them. That being said, if the media gets legislation passed to reduce pollution with this rhetoric, I say I'm personally responsible for tons of ozone depletions as I was a teen in the 80's with big hair! Make the car manufacturers and industry make our air breathable again.

JFK was assassinated by one guy
The moon landings were real
There is a plesiosaur family alive and well in Loch Ness
Aliens took the towers for anal probing.

 

[Will Vincent]

JFK was assassinated by one guy
The moon landings were real
There is a plesiosaur family alive and well in Loch Ness
Aliens took the towers for anal probing.

That's a lot of probing.

 

[spinner]

Hey, guys! Wait a second!

I am not fighting! I think that there are many points of view on this subject. But I don't think Beeblebrox is an idiot for his views. I hope he doesn't think I am an idiot for mine.

"This is just where we differ, my friend"

So, unless he is pissed at me, hey, Beeblebrox! I ain't mad atcha! Everything is cool...

-- spinner

 

[clive]

Can I say in advance I've only skimmed this thread... and I wanted to respond to the initial question, rather than step into the fray.

My understanding is that documentary film making and journalism are two separate disciplines that sometimes overlap... sometimes pretend to give the illusion of overlapping and sometimes don't overlap at all.

In its finest moments journalism is a presenting a balanced and unbiased presentation of the facts... it is about reporting.

Documentary, however merely uses "real world" footage and incidents to create or present a point of view. Documentaries have always been partisan... which is why TV companies always saw them as different from news footage.

And, documentaries don't even have to take a particular political stance... wild life films are documentaries and many of them take no position on the environment... they just show how bears, or wolves or salmon live their lives.

The idea that docos are only fly on the wall, politically charged rants is taking a very narrow view of the genre. Where for instance does Disney's Wild Kingdom Series or Mark Frost's American Chronicles fit in that definition.

Like any form of film making, film makers decide what story they want to tell... they tell that story and it either resonates with the public or it doesn't.

Regardless of what people think of Michael Moore he's been incredibly successful at putting across his POV... and the fact he has a massive audience for his opinions I think is significant. In many respects it doesn't matter whether he is right or wrong... whether he lies or tells the truth... because he's not a journalist, he's the modern day equivalent of the 18th Century pamphleteers... and, he's surviving in the market place.

Oh and... JKF was killed by the Mafia, the CIA and Cuban extremists, who hired one of the Roswell surviving aliens to use his futuristic gravo-ray to make one bullet go through three different people and change direction four times... men never landed on the moon, they were really on Mars... because the moon is populated by the space faring descendents of the Loch Ness Monster... and I AM Lord Lucan!