4 ms·

In my experience, the majority of documentaries have, at a minimum, a major slant or bias towards a particular message or outcome and will usually hide that bia

In my experience, the majority of documentaries have, at a minimum, a major slant or bias towards a particular message or outcome and will usually hide that bias and present themselves as objective truth. They should be consumed as entertainment and probably shouldn't shift your priors very much on the state of the world. Some of them are probably exactly what they convey themselves as (relatively unbiased, informative, etc.), but if you are not already an expert in the topic, you can't tell the difference between those ones and the ones that are basically propaganda.

myself248 3y ago
The suggestion in the article, to simply label these things as sci-fi, seems reasonable.
- MostlyStable 3y ago
  My issue with labeling is the same weak link as ever: it relies on trusting the labeler. I think the consumer having a general rule of thumb of "treat this as entertainment and not educational" for all documentaries is the safer, more broadly applicable solution. I don't know about you, but I don't really trust Netflix to consistently find the line between documentaries that are honest purveyors of truth vs. ideological cheerleaders.
  - The_Colonel 3y ago
    This attitude "if we can't do it perfectly, we should just give up" is very frustrating. Yes, it's impossible to correctly classify all video productions, and you won't ever get a guarantee that everything said in a "documentary" is correct, but labelling clear examples of pseudo-science as just that will slightly improve the situation, it won't make it worse.
    - MostlyStable 3y ago
      The fact that you don't see the problems in labeling expressive content/speech by the group that is hosting the content shows we have markedly different world views and/or priorities. Which isn't a problem, but it does indicate we probably won't have a useful conversation on the topic. I will just say that the problem lies in what you think is "clear" vs. what the person/group doing the labeling thinks is "clear". That determination is usually anything but "clear".
      - The_Colonel 3y ago
        > I will just say that the problem lies in what you think is "clear" vs. what the person/group doing the labeling thinks is "clear". That determination is usually anything but "clear". Scientific community has a pretty strong consensus that this is not science. It's pretty clear cut. We're not even talking about cancelling it, just about showing the contextual information that the information presented is in a stark conflict with the scientific consensus.
        MostlyStable 3y ago
        The "Scientific community" is not the one doing the labeling (nor is that even a coherent enough thing that one could hypothetically trivially ask it; it's an inherently organic, diffuse, grass roots concept). Netflix (or similar) is. If the last 3 years have taught me anything, it's that I don't trust organizations like Netflix etc. to decide what it is the scientific community has or does not have consensus on (which is also a much murkier question than you seem to believe that it is). Sometimes, the scientific consensus is obvious. Sometimes it's obvious that there is no consensus (yet). And other times, some people or groups think that there is (or is not) consensus when the opposite is true.
        The_Colonel 3y ago
        > Netflix (or similar) is. Indeed, it's Netflix who is doing it. And has been always doing it. It's in a way a strawman to discuss whether they should be doing it or not, because they've been always evaluating what they're distributing. They do have to make calls on what is Nazi propaganda and what isn't. It's possible that they got it wrong a couple of times, but it doesn't seem to be a systemic problem in the case of Nazis. The push here is whether they should make a better job at labelling or not. > Sometimes it's obvious that there is no consensus (yet). So, do you think there's no scientific consensus on Ancient Apocalypse being pseudo science? In what ways would labelling it as pseudo-science on Netflix make the world a worse place?
- brightball 3y ago
  Labeling as sci-fi is also a stretch. He's videoing and documenting real sites that exist around the world. The origin and timeline around those sites is speculation, but that certainly doesn't make it sci-fi.
  - mc32 3y ago
    Science-Speculation, then. SciSpec.
    - gigglesupstairs 3y ago
      It can be a great category on its own right if done correctly.
brightball 3y ago
Yep. My wife and I watched all of Ancient Apocalypse and it was really interesting as well as fun to talk about. Definitely some interesting points included as well. Made us want to visit the Scablands in Eastern Washington, which we didn't even know existed. It's worth a watch if nothing else. Ultimately, nothing in the documentary is going to change your life but it is very interesting all the same. The response from Graham Hancock is an interesting read. https://grahamhancock.com/hancockg22-saa/ https://grahamhancock.com/hancockg22-saa/
- roywiggins 3y ago
  I found this lengthy, point-by-point takedown of the Ancient Apocalypse thing both entertaining and informative. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-iCIZQX9i1A https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-iCIZQX9i1A
vanjoe 3y ago
Treating something as entertainment does not prevent you from learning from it, or taking what it says as fact. I learned a lot about the structure of the US government from reading Tom Clancy. No one is mistaking that as a documentary but he is still able to insert a lot of his biases into it.
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> will usually hide that bias and present themselves as objective truth A decent filter is the conspiracy test. The stronger the claim of a cover-up, the more scepticism is warranted.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

myself248 3y ago

The suggestion in the article, to simply label these things as sci-fi, seems reasonable.

MostlyStable 3y ago
My issue with labeling is the same weak link as ever: it relies on trusting the labeler. I think the consumer having a general rule of thumb of "treat this as entertainment and not educational" for all documentaries is the safer, more broadly applicable solution. I don't know about you, but I don't really trust Netflix to consistently find the line between documentaries that are honest purveyors of truth vs. ideological cheerleaders.
- The_Colonel 3y ago
  This attitude "if we can't do it perfectly, we should just give up" is very frustrating. Yes, it's impossible to correctly classify all video productions, and you won't ever get a guarantee that everything said in a "documentary" is correct, but labelling clear examples of pseudo-science as just that will slightly improve the situation, it won't make it worse.
  - MostlyStable 3y ago
    The fact that you don't see the problems in labeling expressive content/speech by the group that is hosting the content shows we have markedly different world views and/or priorities. Which isn't a problem, but it does indicate we probably won't have a useful conversation on the topic. I will just say that the problem lies in what you think is "clear" vs. what the person/group doing the labeling thinks is "clear". That determination is usually anything but "clear".
    - The_Colonel 3y ago
      > I will just say that the problem lies in what you think is "clear" vs. what the person/group doing the labeling thinks is "clear". That determination is usually anything but "clear". Scientific community has a pretty strong consensus that this is not science. It's pretty clear cut. We're not even talking about cancelling it, just about showing the contextual information that the information presented is in a stark conflict with the scientific consensus.
      - MostlyStable 3y ago
        The "Scientific community" is not the one doing the labeling (nor is that even a coherent enough thing that one could hypothetically trivially ask it; it's an inherently organic, diffuse, grass roots concept). Netflix (or similar) is. If the last 3 years have taught me anything, it's that I don't trust organizations like Netflix etc. to decide what it is the scientific community has or does not have consensus on (which is also a much murkier question than you seem to believe that it is). Sometimes, the scientific consensus is obvious. Sometimes it's obvious that there is no consensus (yet). And other times, some people or groups think that there is (or is not) consensus when the opposite is true.
        The_Colonel 3y ago
        > Netflix (or similar) is. Indeed, it's Netflix who is doing it. And has been always doing it. It's in a way a strawman to discuss whether they should be doing it or not, because they've been always evaluating what they're distributing. They do have to make calls on what is Nazi propaganda and what isn't. It's possible that they got it wrong a couple of times, but it doesn't seem to be a systemic problem in the case of Nazis. The push here is whether they should make a better job at labelling or not. > Sometimes it's obvious that there is no consensus (yet). So, do you think there's no scientific consensus on Ancient Apocalypse being pseudo science? In what ways would labelling it as pseudo-science on Netflix make the world a worse place?
brightball 3y ago
Labeling as sci-fi is also a stretch. He's videoing and documenting real sites that exist around the world. The origin and timeline around those sites is speculation, but that certainly doesn't make it sci-fi.
- mc32 3y ago
  Science-Speculation, then. SciSpec.
  - gigglesupstairs 3y ago
    It can be a great category on its own right if done correctly.

brightball 3y ago

Yep. My wife and I watched all of Ancient Apocalypse and it was really interesting as well as fun to talk about. Definitely some interesting points included as well. Made us want to visit the Scablands in Eastern Washington, which we didn't even know existed. It's worth a watch if nothing else. Ultimately, nothing in the documentary is going to change your life but it is very interesting all the same. The response from Graham Hancock is an interesting read. https://grahamhancock.com/hancockg22-saa/ https://grahamhancock.com/hancockg22-saa/

roywiggins 3y ago
I found this lengthy, point-by-point takedown of the Ancient Apocalypse thing both entertaining and informative. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-iCIZQX9i1A https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-iCIZQX9i1A

vanjoe 3y ago

Treating something as entertainment does not prevent you from learning from it, or taking what it says as fact. I learned a lot about the structure of the US government from reading Tom Clancy. No one is mistaking that as a documentary but he is still able to insert a lot of his biases into it.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> will usually hide that bias and present themselves as objective truth A decent filter is the conspiracy test. The stronger the claim of a cover-up, the more scepticism is warranted.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]