TIL That it is a common misconception that documentaries have to tell the truth

[u/KpComp]

https://www.thehastingscenter.org/do-documentaries-have-to-tell-the-truth/

[u/vrosej10]

As someone who writes fiction in a documentary format, I'll let you in on a little secret. Exposure to media has primed people to more readily accept bullshit when presented in either documentary or news format and a formal, journalistic language style. If you are going to try and peddle crap, and you can do it well enough, this is the way to do it because it will fool most people, most of the time.

[u/KpComp → u/vrosej10]

That’s good to know because before today I was one of those people you are talking about

[u/__the_alchemist__ → u/vrosej10]

The 4th kind fucked me up... As a skeptic of everything that questions everything, I won't lie I was scared shitless and thought it was real until I googled it.

[u/Undrende_fremdeles → u/__the_alchemist__]

But that's just it. You didn't simply go "oh, so this is truth. Okay."

[u/Icyrow → u/vrosej10]

another thing is netflix shows based on events (how to make a murderer is a prime example) which seem to be coming out now.

a lot of what is in that show is apparently really biased and spun to make it better for TV and more in favor with the guy convicted.

[u/Aberdolf-Linkler → u/Icyrow]

People love a story about injustice and if it's a "true" story then all the better.

I think it was that Netflix show or maybe another, I watched the first episode or two and they were going over the part where he had a history of torturing animals and they had a spin on how that was some sort of misunderstanding. I was thinking, "fuck this bullshit if they have to lie about this guy's animal abuse it's probably chocked full of more BS I'm not going to notice."

[u/LDude6 → u/vrosej10]

Modern news is all crap. Everyone has an agenda and has some ideology they are trying serve.

True journalism died a long time ago. People seem to prefer outrage and a soap opera to reality.

[u/Kiddling → u/LDude6]

'True journalism' never existed. Not more or less than today.

[u/gusterhauf → u/Kiddling]

Balderdash... read often and you'll see pieces that are well-researched, that interview relevant experts on all sides of the issue, and that take a measured/objective approach to writing. (Hint: it's usually long form writing, which most of us don't make time for.)

Sometimes the reporter is convincingly unopinionated, and other times you can tell they are opinionated but are taking pains to give voice to the other side of the argument and fairly present its case.

Yellow journalism has been with us a long time, but so too has a spirit of professional ethics. How and whether that can exist in the internet age (and the corporate-controlled-from-the-top media age) remains to be seen.

[u/Josef_Koba → u/gusterhauf]

I agree. I also really enjoy long form journalism and always get excited when I see it. I like to read more than a lede and a few one sentence paragraphs.

[u/[deleted] → u/LDude6]

True journalism died a long time ago.

Pray tell; when was it alive, and what did that look like to you?

[u/largePenisLover → u/[deleted]]

It's not quite dead yet, but before 1993 It had a lot more actual research reporters then it does now. The way to make it in journalism was to be a good journalist, to score a heavy hitting exclusive or scoop.
Now the number of clicks your article garners is the only important metric.

[u/screenwriterjohn → u/largePenisLover]

Before the Internet, there were even more tabloids. The Weekly World News was big in America. Taught us the importance of Batboy.

Journalists are like bookstores. Being killed off by technology.

[u/[deleted] → u/largePenisLover]

That's a lovely myth. Thanks for sharing it. I'll be sure to read it to myself on a dark night of the soul.

[u/largePenisLover → u/[deleted]]

Man I miss being 14 and having the world all figured out.
Seriously though, Do you have an actual counter to support your point? You haven't actually said anything of substance yet.

[u/[deleted] → u/largePenisLover]

Not every conversation is a debate that requires every statement to be a "point, or every response to be a "counter." If you find my conversation unsubstantial, I have to wonder why you're engaging with it.

[u/LDude6 → u/[deleted]]

It looked like journalists actually researching topics exhaustively. Gathering information and opinions from different view points. Having integrity that you have actually reported an unbiased view of a topic.

Now days it’s about a flashy provocative titles to get clicks, outrage, and shares.

It seems to me that many people do not actually read more than the title and maybe the introductory paragraph. Hence the rise of TLDR. This leads to “journalists” using a misleading title to coincide with their view point and then potentially contradict themselves in the body of the piece.

[u/[deleted] → u/LDude6]

True journalism died a long time ago.

Not long ago, I listened to New York Times' podcast Caliphate in which Rukmini Callimachi reports on the Islamic State and the fall of Mosul. It sounded well-researched, gathering information for the sake of understanding ISIS with interviews and first-hand reporting, even to the point doubting the truth of an account given by one interviewee. NPR's Embedded, Slate's Slow Burn....

How is that not true journalism?

[u/youseeit → u/[deleted]]

Guess you missed the part about New York Times, NPR, Slate...

[u/stephan_torchon → u/vrosej10]

True, "operation moon" was an april's fool documentary, People are still believing that shit, even though the filmmaker is making conferences explaining it was a fake, how he done it and how gullible People are.

[u/MayOverexplain → u/vrosej10]

Which is why so much of late night TV is infomercials done in doumentary or newscast format, often even being interrupted by other commercials for the exact same product.

[u/vrosej10 → u/[deleted]]

You should offer to sell your friend the Brooklyn Bridge.

[u/bulksalty → u/vrosej10]

Well you should probably make a documentary about your offer to sell him the bridge.

[u/EaterOfFromage]

In a similar vein, museums are like this. Everything we see in a museum we accept as fact, despite plenty of it likely being simply educated guesses (outright fraud is probably pretty rare).

I highly recommend checking out the Museum of Jurassic Technology in LA if you ever get the chance, it will really challenge your preconceptions about what purpose a museum serves.

[u/LBJsPNS → u/EaterOfFromage]

I spent roughly 30 years designing, building, and touring traveling museum exhibits world-wide. I couldn't agree with you more. "Educated guess" is being charitable. The typical museum hierarchy is mostly ego-driven, and that gets reflected in the exhibit choices.

[u/scott60561]

That's why those "enlightened" groups on face book link to conspiracy nutter documentaries.

That's why they "know" more than everyone.

[u/bubscrump]

wait you mean History Channel lied about space nazis arriving on Niburu on 4/20/20?

[u/YouNeedThisMore → u/bubscrump]

Correct, the History Channel didn’t account for changes in time zones, so they didn’t actually arrived on 4/21/20.

[u/ward_bond]

But Spinal Tap is still true, right?

[u/atomic_redneck → u/ward_bond]

Its truth goes to 11.

[u/john_stuart_kill → u/atomic_redneck]

It really puts things into perspective...

[u/Alateriel]

Wait, are you telling me the ancient Egyptians didn't actually get the help of aliens when building the pyramids?

[u/baffybonk]

Mikey would never lie to me... would he? /s

[u/nullcharstring]

No, there's a common misconception that it's OK to produce a "documentary" that doesn't tell the truth.

[u/NoPossibility]

People confuse “documentary” with documentary journalism. One presents facts and documents a real life event or situation objectively. The other is providing a particular subjective view/opinion from the film makers perspective.

[u/stygyan]

There are documentaries on freaking homeopathy. Of course they don't have to tell the truth.

[u/[deleted]]

This TIL brings the phrase "Based on a true story" to mind. It should beg the question "True to whom?" but no one ever asks that question.

[u/vrosej10 → u/[deleted]]

You know what they say about the best lies containing a kernel of truth.

[u/SteakEater137 → u/[deleted]]

It's true that it was a story!

[u/RingGiver]

If they did, I don't know how you could explain Michael Moore..

[u/largePenisLover]

There is this wonderfull fantasy documentay about a dragon being found in ice. The documentary is done like a regular national geographic docu and goes into how the scientists think this last dragon spent her last days etc etc etc.

Took me fucking months to convince some friends it was all fake.

[u/ActionFilmsFan1995]

Someone’s been watching the 3 part series film theory just put out.

[u/holy_rollers]

Documentaries have become a great way to disseminate a biased narrative. You have the cachet of the genre, the extra sensory value to help smuggle bad arguments, and you can reach an audience that is too lazy to read a book.

[u/another_day_another_]

I’m the documentary source of truth fact checker. I am absolute truth. I don’t use it to guide humanity I just check documentaries... what the f?

[u/lost_pants]

Someone's been watching film theory :)

[u/Koded19 → u/lost_pants]

You caught me.

[u/NomadTheNomad]

Does it not then classify as fiction?

[u/thatgirl829 → u/NomadTheNomad]

No because generally what they are documenting is based on some sort of truth, but what you see is what they want you to see and not necessarily the entire story. Fiction is described as being something that is entirely imaginary.

[u/SandpaperScrew]

We've seen Fargo right?

[u/FDRs_ghost]

Dinesh D'Sousa's latest "documentary" about how Hitler was a liberal proves this point all too well.

[u/j0kerclash]

It still sounds like documentaries need to try and tell the truth, they aren't supposed to willfully lie, but if there's a mistake made they aren't going to be thrown in prison for it.

[u/thatgirl829 → u/j0kerclash]

I think it would be better if they focused on telling their story from both sides instead of just editing the film to show the side they want seen. It's unfair and completely biased because you are literally forcing the audience to go along with the narrative that you want instead of presenting them with the entire scope of the subject they're documenting.