3 ms·
I think you've nailed the problem for me as well: possibilities and opinions are presented in the same style as facts. This is more like what is done by news re
by dpwm 9y ago
I think you've nailed the problem for me as well: possibilities and opinions are presented in the same style as facts. This is more like what is done by news reporters than history documentarians.
I am not happy when opinions and possibilities are promoted as though they are facts, but I only tend to pay attention when I do not agree with the position. Adam Curtis does this a lot to link things together that seem otherwise unconnected and the position he takes tends to be rather inoffensive to me.
This is made worse by being combined with archive footage: we tend to believe our eyes in a way we don't our ears. I don't feel qualified enough to confirm that the archive footage is even about the events which are being discussed.
Thinking about it some more, I would be outright hostile towards his methods if the narrative were to move into a position that I did find offensive.
- monocasa 9y agoBut ultimately I think that's a component of his overarching mindset. That sort of post modern 'there is no thing as objective fact', but instead a sea of conflicting opinions and intentions that a lot of times diverges from the popular viewpoint the more details you know.
- frabbit 9y agoThis was interesting to read. Especially the fantasy/thought-experiment about how I might feel if the narrative were to move to a position that I found offensive. But then I switch on 60 Minutes. Or read the NYT. And I realize that they do not even have the courtesy to make it possible to distinguish fact from opinion and possibly (and in the case of the NYT outright fabrications planted by the military). I do not take Adam Curtis as Truth. But his work has suggested that there are ways to stitch together narratives that suit different mindsets.