It's timely this should come up as I've been on a bit of an Adam Curtis binge lately, having recently watched half of HyperNormalisation and then the entirety o

It's timely this should come up as I've been on a bit of an Adam Curtis binge lately, having recently watched half of HyperNormalisation and then the entirety of the 'The Power Of Nightmares' series. I'm looking forward to watching the rest of his work. One question I have for those that have seen his stuff - a recurring criticism I see of Curtis' work is that he states his opinions as if they are historical facts and heavily editorialises, leaving out important chunks of history because they don't support the view he's trying to push. Are these accurate criticisms? I don't want to feel like I'm learning about history when in actuality I'm being fed something that's inaccurate (thanks 'King of Kong' for ruining my trust in documentaries, but I digress!). For example after watching 'The Power Of Nightmares' I feel like I know much more about what was going on in the world of geopolitics in the 80s and 90s, but I'd hate to think that I've just picked up a series of falsehoods (doubt this is the case though).