4 ms·

Same, but my understanding is that in the Netflix doc, some of the people on the agency side were claiming that they had no knowledge or involvement, which is i

Same, but my understanding is that in the Netflix doc, some of the people on the agency side were claiming that they had no knowledge or involvement, which is in question because they could have made the doc to distance themselves from the mess.

WrtCdEvrydy 8y ago
Then again, Hulu paid an undisclosed amount of money to Billy McFarland for an interview on a documentary after he scammed a whole bunch of people. Noone can throw the first stone here.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- mtrpcic 8y ago
  To be fair though, Billy basically didn't answer any questions during that interview (at least that were put into the final cut). Nearly every question asked of him was met with awkward silence and pursed lips, or canned "I have no knowledge.." or "I can't comment on.." responses. I don't know that his interview added any bias in terms of what was shown in the film.
  - eeeeeeeeeeeee 8y ago
    Yep, he didn't truly seem remorseful either. He was more interested in protecting himself from any further legal issues. I don't think it was ethical to pay for his interview whatsoever.
  - neaden 8y ago
    Doesn't that make it worse? They paid him money and didn't really get anything out if it means he just scammed someone else.
  - spatley 8y ago
    Which is likely a deliberate editing choice. Billy was paid to do the interview and then the director showed all that awkwardness to illustrate the depth of the grift.
- bduerst 8y ago
  It's not a competition - both docs can be biased or contain misinformation. The Netflix doc was accused of what I'm outlining.
- moate 8y ago
  Paying a scumbag for an interview is problematic in the sense that it shows a willingness to "fund bad people" in exchange for their stories. This does not create a conflict of interest, or the appearance of a bias. Having the scumbags who were responsible for producing the festival involved in producing the documentary can lead to a MASSIVE conflict of interest and screams of bias in the narrative. This is a false equivalency. One is good jurnos doing bad things to tell the story. The other could be bad jurnos doing a bad thing to spin a story.
- meowface 8y ago
  But they did grill him pretty hard in that interview, at least. I think the interview scenes reinforced he was a complete liar and charlatan. I was not aware they paid him for it, but I think it was valuable to present his side of the story (and knock it down if it was bullshit - which it was, and which they did).
- ulucs 8y ago
  Well, Internet Historian can. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBPg5ftCMv8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBPg5ftCMv8

WrtCdEvrydy 8y ago

Then again, Hulu paid an undisclosed amount of money to Billy McFarland for an interview on a documentary after he scammed a whole bunch of people. Noone can throw the first stone here.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
mtrpcic 8y ago
To be fair though, Billy basically didn't answer any questions during that interview (at least that were put into the final cut). Nearly every question asked of him was met with awkward silence and pursed lips, or canned "I have no knowledge.." or "I can't comment on.." responses. I don't know that his interview added any bias in terms of what was shown in the film.
- eeeeeeeeeeeee 8y ago
  Yep, he didn't truly seem remorseful either. He was more interested in protecting himself from any further legal issues. I don't think it was ethical to pay for his interview whatsoever.
- neaden 8y ago
  Doesn't that make it worse? They paid him money and didn't really get anything out if it means he just scammed someone else.
- spatley 8y ago
  Which is likely a deliberate editing choice. Billy was paid to do the interview and then the director showed all that awkwardness to illustrate the depth of the grift.
bduerst 8y ago
It's not a competition - both docs can be biased or contain misinformation. The Netflix doc was accused of what I'm outlining.
moate 8y ago
Paying a scumbag for an interview is problematic in the sense that it shows a willingness to "fund bad people" in exchange for their stories. This does not create a conflict of interest, or the appearance of a bias. Having the scumbags who were responsible for producing the festival involved in producing the documentary can lead to a MASSIVE conflict of interest and screams of bias in the narrative. This is a false equivalency. One is good jurnos doing bad things to tell the story. The other could be bad jurnos doing a bad thing to spin a story.
meowface 8y ago
But they did grill him pretty hard in that interview, at least. I think the interview scenes reinforced he was a complete liar and charlatan. I was not aware they paid him for it, but I think it was valuable to present his side of the story (and knock it down if it was bullshit - which it was, and which they did).
ulucs 8y ago
Well, Internet Historian can. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBPg5ftCMv8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBPg5ftCMv8