Documentaries are great way to communicate to the public, but they aren't data. If you just looked at a random 10hr of raw footage of wolves, you wouldn't be a

Documentaries are great way to communicate to the public, but they aren't data. If you just looked at a random 10hr of raw footage of wolves, you wouldn't be able to conclude anything. Most of it would be uneventful, only experts would even be able to recognize which wolf is which ,and it wouldn't be representative anyway (because it's much easier to capture wolves when they're doing certain behaviours, and because 10hrs isn't a large enough sample for rare but critical behavours). Documentaries must carefully select what shots to show, and provide voice-over explaining what is going on. This means they are really just using footage to explain the documentary creator's understanding, not proving or discovering anything.