Agreed. All good documentaries are meant to change someone's opinion or behavior towards something, and that always creates winners and losers.
That's excessive paranoia. Take a documentary about the holocaust - ohmigosh it's an agenda for the Jews to make them look good and Nazis look bad!
Documentaries SHOULD point out a lot of things that are 'good and bad' when that's the topic, and it's accurate. They SHOULD have the agenda to tell you the truth.
The bigger problem would be some overly 'neutral' agenda that has to make both sides look equally good no matter the truth. Why, Nixon's critics were just as flawed!
I do really dislike when documentaries do anything dishonest. Sometimes they do it to 'tell a larger truth' and I have some sympathy but generally do not like it.
One of the famous documentaries is 'The Thin Blue Line'. And that one did turn out to get an innocent man freed from prison. Not familiar with much false in it.
Another, I can't remember the name, but was about the hysteria of public suspicion of mass deveil worshipping child abusers among child care providers, telling the horrific story of what one family went through - including both some terrible abuses by prosecutors as well as leaving some gray area where people might have done wrong.
Or Spinal Tap. A very fair 'Rocumentary'. OK, nevermind that one.
Apparently virtually all 'nature documentaries' stage things rather than show you the lack of things they could film normally. I'm not sure about the granddaddy of them - Planet Earth (the granddaddy because Americans are allergic to supporting public television like the English do with the BBC), but that could still be good documentary, unless it's something like the Disney 'lemmings' disaster.
Ken Burns' documentaries seem to hold up pretty well as far as I know, but aren't much about political or controversial topics.
Some people here also seem to pretend that even a documentary with a lot of errors can't also have a lot of good and valid info.
As a rule, some tv documentaries seem to get a lot right. 60 Minutes has had a couple of bad incidents but generally is great in 99% of the cases. Frontline and Vanguard are good.
Dan Rather has a show on axs.tv, which isn't exactly a documentary series but pretty close, and also seems to be really good, I'd recommend checking it on itunes.
It's possible to agree with the 'point' of a documentary, but find that the documentary has flaws. People are often tempted to overlood the flaws to support the message.
Mogran Spurlock's documentary might fall into that category, based on the link here. I'm a bit suspicious of him - he seems to have a lot of 'showman' for a documentarian. It wouldn't be hard for me to believe that he falsifies things to make 'for a good show'. He had a series, '30 days', putting people of opposite views in the same home for a month; no doubt much of what happened was real, but could some have been staged or encouraged? Who knows, but I wouldn't be shocked, to 'provide a good show'.
I don't think it's fair to lump documentaries together for some documentaries' flaws.
Documentaries are a very important product for society, and we should demand accuracy, but appreciate the good ones, which get all too few viewers, leaving people ignorant.
We see the polls of how large percentages of people are very misinformed - documentaries could help with that.
And we've seen some documentaries of injustices that are very valuable.
If people arent going to simply be ignorant and acccept the messages of those with money whatever the harm, documentaries are a big part of how to inform people.
We need a lot more of them. Good ones. Not just educational like Planet Earty, but with issues especially.
There's one about the Koch brothers that has a kickstarter, if anyone cares to donate.
They're two of the most powerful men in American politics, and the documentary was approved by PBS for funding and airing until the president of the PBS station, knowing one of the brothers was then on the board and that millions of dollars in their donations - the Kochs have fought for decades for shifting PBS funding away from the public and to donors like themselves - were threatened, he reversed the approval to make the Kochs happy.
This is a time when ironically, for most Americans information is actually descreasing. The internet and tv news rely largely on newspapers' investigations at a time when newspapers' investigative staffs are being guttted if not eliminated. 90% of media is owned by 4 or 5 companies. News and information is an entertainment for-profit product and advertisers don't want to sponsor 'controversial' shows.
There never has been a great age for these things, from 'yellow journalism' manipulating opinion a century ago to Edward Murrow getting drummed out for telling the truth about Joe McCarthy; today I think we have the best information available perhaps but a less than 2% audience for it. So this day many Americans think Saddam was involed in 9/11. Worse, probably far more Americans don't care if he was or not while supporting war. What happened when the 'WMD' issue was found to be lies? Nothing but a re-election.
Has there ever been a great documentary about, say, the issue of the country being lied into war in Iraq? Not really. Most would agree Farenheit 9/11 wasn't that great documentary. I like Rachel Maddow, and she made the most-watched ever documentary on the topic on MSNBC, but I wasn't that impressed (it was just too limited, not false).
We can't even get public agreement on an issue like climate change - despite the efforts of Al Gore in the documentary 'An Inconveneint Truth' which did get the issue much more attention from the public. But far more money is spent to disinform the public than to inform it - just as with healthcare, where half a billion has been spent to propandize the public against the Affordable Care Act.
Where's the good documentary about the ACA, including the positives and what I think would be the much smaller negatives?
And isn't it sad how many Americans are propagandized that if a documentary told the truth and was mostly positive about it, they'd simply ignorantly attack it?
This is one more area where we can't let money control the issue, where he who spends the most has his positions accepted, while honest documentaries are wrongly attacked.
That would cause more issues like 'we're not sure if tobacco is bad for you', an issue the tobacco already delayed public acceptance of by decades while they profited, by funding 'scientists don't agree' type propaganda - until infamously in the 1990's you had that Congressional hearing where tobacco CEO's lied that nicotine isn't addicting.
But the film of that row of CEO's lying that way was helpful in turning public opinion against them - an example of where 'documentary' is important for public opinion.
Save234