5 ms·

There is no worse way to learn than through documentary films. They are free to be as inaccurate and emotive as they want, without the inconvenience of journali

by Blahah 13y ago

There is no worse way to learn than through documentary films. They are free to be as inaccurate and emotive as they want, without the inconvenience of journalistic ethics, and they very often are much more sensationalist than their textual equivalents (books). Something about the medium of TV makes people stupid. Some of the films in the list are just outright activist propagada. Others might be fine - I haven't watched them all. Want to learn something? Read.

RachelF 13y ago
Some are pretty good. You'll find that early documentaries tried to convey more information, I guess they figured out dumbing things down made them more entertaining. Take a look at this Feynman documentary from 1964 for a case in point: http://youtu.be/y3Vc-cL9lTM http://youtu.be/y3Vc-cL9lTM
nisa 13y ago
I tend to agree but take a look at Adam Curtis. He is not perfect but his documentaries give you a lot of insight and ideas to think about.
- zabuni 13y ago
  Adam Curtis is a prime example of what he is complaining about. Sure, he gives you things to think about, but he is fast and loose with said facts, and uses quick cuts, stock footage, and emotional music to try and sway opinion.
  - onebaddude 13y ago
    >Adam Curtis is a prime example of what he is complaining about. Adam Curtis has produced some of the best documentaries I've ever seen. It's like people in this thread can't appreciate art for what it is. Or that some of the topics here have been determined in absolute, and aren't open to interpretation, philosophizing or opinion. Malcolm Gladwell? Junk. Adam Curtis? Junk. Is nothing worth reading or watching unless it's an unstylized list of facts? I don't know about you, but all I ask from my personal entertainment are "things to think about".
  - ArkyBeagle 13y ago
    He does so absolutely. But he is also careful to identify conclusions as opinion, and you get to decide for yourself. He leaves you the framework for his conclusions, and you can continue to work on it. If you use him, Chris Hedges and Noam Chomsky as sources, then draw your own conclusions, my experience is that you'll get more and better answers. I disagree strongly with all of them at the level of conclusion, but will continue to reuse all the legwork they did to get there. It's a force multiplier. History is not a restaurant where you just send the food back; it's more like doing your own cooking. And my experience with Adam Curtis' stuff is that pulling one or two conclusions out does not cause the whole to collapse in a heap. His metaphors and narratives are sound.
lennel 13y ago
I agree with you 100%, reading is a much better way to absorb information with fewer emotional strings available for the plucking with yer brain in a more rational state. We all however know people who got through university without ever reading an inch of their set list, wrapped in a bubble of uncaring, who could do with a jolt again, a boost to remember why they want to be alive and that money is not the only reason to be alive. For these people, recommending a good documentary is your duty. It could kickstart a moral highground for a month or so in them!
- ArkyBeagle 13y ago
  Perhaps I've just surrendered to laziness, but I find that in trolling through BookTV to find books to read, I usually get more and better value from the discussion of the book than the book itself. Emphasis "usually" - some of the books are of much more value than the hour on air. BookTv is a drier setting than yer average TED talk or propaganda piece (documentary) film, so it seems less biased. You get the executive summary without having to invest all the time to read it. But the books that I actually read - where I was motivated to actually read the book - from BookTv have been very good.
alan_cx 13y ago
Dont quite see why none of that can't apply to books. Books can easily be inaccurate and emotive, if not more so. Authors are not bound by, what you very amusingly call, "journalistic ethics" at all. Then, it seems to me that, in general, that there is something about books which makes people arrogant and judgemental. And yes, there are plenty of examples of propaganda books.
- Blahah 13y ago
  I'm not saying it can't apply to books. I'm saying that the prevalence of bullshit is much greater in documentary films, making them in general a bad source of information. Of course I agree that there are many examples of propaganda, emotive and inaccurate books. Journalistic ethics do exist in print media, but the point is taken that they don't apply in many situations.
  - monkeynotes 13y ago
    Not all documentaries are subject to your sweeping judgement, just as not all books are bullshit. You have to seek out the good stuff, and that means occasionally watching some crap too.
- jerf 13y ago
  Books can't have a manipulative soundtrack. Books can't put a guy in front of you who triggers all your "this is a wise (wo)man and I should listen to whatever they're saying" brain routines, while the guy radiates honesty (which isn't that hard to fake). Books can't put together slick video presentations that gloss over all the problems while having nice special effects (or even merely "nice cinematography", an even lower bar). Books don't have access to any of a wide range of video-based manipulation techniques that I'm not listing here. Books have a much harder time reaching into your subconscious and bypassing your conscious mind with those techniques. I phrased that carefully. Books can sort of do those things, but it is much, much weaker. Books are generally much easier to engage on an intellectual, thoughtful level. Documentaries scare me, and I've nearly entirely cut them out of my intellectual diet. They are way too powerful, far out of proportion to the difficulty of making them or the assurance that they are even remotely connected to the truth.
danpalmer 13y ago
I mostly agree if you're talking about learning something in detail. But I'm never going to be a... marine biologist, for example, however, I enjoy documentaries about life in the sea because it gives me some basic knowledge that means I'm not totally ignorant of the issues, and could have a conversation with a marine biologist about their field, even if it is just me asking better questions rather than being able to hold up a scientific argument.
stiff 13y ago
If you are only interested in the hard facts, sure, but then most popular science books and even some textbooks are not much better either, in some sense I wish I could unread some of the stuff I read as a youngster about complex numbers, zeno's paradox, goedels theorem, various probability puzzles, physics etc. because in the shallowness of the description (and often the authors understanding) it was actively detrimental to understanding the topics. Full comprehension of complex topics requires years of sustained effort. Yet one still wants to get some sense of what is happening in different places of the world, to people in different disciplines or cultures, and you specifically do not want to get into too much detail, because nobody simply has the mental capacity to study every discipline out there, and this is mostly a form of reasonably intelligent entertainment, at its best an inspiration to get deeper in and read books etc.
- rmrfrmrf 13y ago
  I can't believe I'm reading a comment that brushes off "hard facts" like some kind of nuisance.
  - stiff 13y ago
    That's because you clearly are unable to read at all.
pedalpete 13y ago
Sadly, journalistic ethics have followed the path of documentaries.
gmoore 13y ago
Oh yeah good point - no one every wrote a book that was just "outright activist propagada[sp]"
brownbat 13y ago
Charlie Brooker once provided a nice demonstration of emotional editing techniques, albeit in the context of reality tv: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBwepkVurCI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBwepkVurCI Reality TV is just documentary filmmaking with a rapid production schedule and without the pretense of dignity. To crib from Bobby Shaftoe, it's really documentary filmmaking, but moreso.
Mikeb85 13y ago
Very true. The Zeitgeist films contain many horribly inaccurate 'facts' and outright lies (inaccurate understanding of the monetary system, complete lies/fabrications concerning Egyptian mythology in Zeitgeist 1), yet people believe them and hold them up as examples of 'good' documentaries... Edit - it also seems nearly anything that deals with mythology horribly misrepresents what the ancients actually believed and what we have discovered concerning their mythologies.
PavlovsCat 13y ago
Counter example: documentaries about nature or other countries. Sometimes, nothing can quite replace moving images and sound. I'll go further and claim that in theory, documentaries can be every bit as factual as books, but not the other way around.
- Blahah 13y ago
  I agree about some nature documentaries, though I've seen a good number that are clearly manipulative (in that they have staged a situation or misrepresented the facts). The BBC stuff is generally excellent.
Tycho 13y ago
Now and again I like to watch one of those crackpot alien contact or religious prophecy documentaries, just to be amused at all the same techniques being employed on a message that you can never take seriously.

by Blahah 13y ago

RachelF 13y ago

Some are pretty good. You'll find that early documentaries tried to convey more information, I guess they figured out dumbing things down made them more entertaining. Take a look at this Feynman documentary from 1964 for a case in point: http://youtu.be/y3Vc-cL9lTM http://youtu.be/y3Vc-cL9lTM

nisa 13y ago

I tend to agree but take a look at Adam Curtis. He is not perfect but his documentaries give you a lot of insight and ideas to think about.

zabuni 13y ago
Adam Curtis is a prime example of what he is complaining about. Sure, he gives you things to think about, but he is fast and loose with said facts, and uses quick cuts, stock footage, and emotional music to try and sway opinion.
- onebaddude 13y ago
  >Adam Curtis is a prime example of what he is complaining about. Adam Curtis has produced some of the best documentaries I've ever seen. It's like people in this thread can't appreciate art for what it is. Or that some of the topics here have been determined in absolute, and aren't open to interpretation, philosophizing or opinion. Malcolm Gladwell? Junk. Adam Curtis? Junk. Is nothing worth reading or watching unless it's an unstylized list of facts? I don't know about you, but all I ask from my personal entertainment are "things to think about".
- ArkyBeagle 13y ago
  He does so absolutely. But he is also careful to identify conclusions as opinion, and you get to decide for yourself. He leaves you the framework for his conclusions, and you can continue to work on it. If you use him, Chris Hedges and Noam Chomsky as sources, then draw your own conclusions, my experience is that you'll get more and better answers. I disagree strongly with all of them at the level of conclusion, but will continue to reuse all the legwork they did to get there. It's a force multiplier. History is not a restaurant where you just send the food back; it's more like doing your own cooking. And my experience with Adam Curtis' stuff is that pulling one or two conclusions out does not cause the whole to collapse in a heap. His metaphors and narratives are sound.

lennel 13y ago

I agree with you 100%, reading is a much better way to absorb information with fewer emotional strings available for the plucking with yer brain in a more rational state. We all however know people who got through university without ever reading an inch of their set list, wrapped in a bubble of uncaring, who could do with a jolt again, a boost to remember why they want to be alive and that money is not the only reason to be alive. For these people, recommending a good documentary is your duty. It could kickstart a moral highground for a month or so in them!

ArkyBeagle 13y ago
Perhaps I've just surrendered to laziness, but I find that in trolling through BookTV to find books to read, I usually get more and better value from the discussion of the book than the book itself. Emphasis "usually" - some of the books are of much more value than the hour on air. BookTv is a drier setting than yer average TED talk or propaganda piece (documentary) film, so it seems less biased. You get the executive summary without having to invest all the time to read it. But the books that I actually read - where I was motivated to actually read the book - from BookTv have been very good.

alan_cx 13y ago

Dont quite see why none of that can't apply to books. Books can easily be inaccurate and emotive, if not more so. Authors are not bound by, what you very amusingly call, "journalistic ethics" at all. Then, it seems to me that, in general, that there is something about books which makes people arrogant and judgemental. And yes, there are plenty of examples of propaganda books.

Blahah 13y ago
I'm not saying it can't apply to books. I'm saying that the prevalence of bullshit is much greater in documentary films, making them in general a bad source of information. Of course I agree that there are many examples of propaganda, emotive and inaccurate books. Journalistic ethics do exist in print media, but the point is taken that they don't apply in many situations.
- monkeynotes 13y ago
  Not all documentaries are subject to your sweeping judgement, just as not all books are bullshit. You have to seek out the good stuff, and that means occasionally watching some crap too.
jerf 13y ago
Books can't have a manipulative soundtrack. Books can't put a guy in front of you who triggers all your "this is a wise (wo)man and I should listen to whatever they're saying" brain routines, while the guy radiates honesty (which isn't that hard to fake). Books can't put together slick video presentations that gloss over all the problems while having nice special effects (or even merely "nice cinematography", an even lower bar). Books don't have access to any of a wide range of video-based manipulation techniques that I'm not listing here. Books have a much harder time reaching into your subconscious and bypassing your conscious mind with those techniques. I phrased that carefully. Books can sort of do those things, but it is much, much weaker. Books are generally much easier to engage on an intellectual, thoughtful level. Documentaries scare me, and I've nearly entirely cut them out of my intellectual diet. They are way too powerful, far out of proportion to the difficulty of making them or the assurance that they are even remotely connected to the truth.

danpalmer 13y ago

I mostly agree if you're talking about learning something in detail. But I'm never going to be a... marine biologist, for example, however, I enjoy documentaries about life in the sea because it gives me some basic knowledge that means I'm not totally ignorant of the issues, and could have a conversation with a marine biologist about their field, even if it is just me asking better questions rather than being able to hold up a scientific argument.

stiff 13y ago

If you are only interested in the hard facts, sure, but then most popular science books and even some textbooks are not much better either, in some sense I wish I could unread some of the stuff I read as a youngster about complex numbers, zeno's paradox, goedels theorem, various probability puzzles, physics etc. because in the shallowness of the description (and often the authors understanding) it was actively detrimental to understanding the topics. Full comprehension of complex topics requires years of sustained effort. Yet one still wants to get some sense of what is happening in different places of the world, to people in different disciplines or cultures, and you specifically do not want to get into too much detail, because nobody simply has the mental capacity to study every discipline out there, and this is mostly a form of reasonably intelligent entertainment, at its best an inspiration to get deeper in and read books etc.

rmrfrmrf 13y ago
I can't believe I'm reading a comment that brushes off "hard facts" like some kind of nuisance.
- stiff 13y ago
  That's because you clearly are unable to read at all.

pedalpete 13y ago

Sadly, journalistic ethics have followed the path of documentaries.

gmoore 13y ago

Oh yeah good point - no one every wrote a book that was just "outright activist propagada[sp]"

brownbat 13y ago

Charlie Brooker once provided a nice demonstration of emotional editing techniques, albeit in the context of reality tv: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBwepkVurCI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBwepkVurCI Reality TV is just documentary filmmaking with a rapid production schedule and without the pretense of dignity. To crib from Bobby Shaftoe, it's really documentary filmmaking, but moreso.

Mikeb85 13y ago

Very true. The Zeitgeist films contain many horribly inaccurate 'facts' and outright lies (inaccurate understanding of the monetary system, complete lies/fabrications concerning Egyptian mythology in Zeitgeist 1), yet people believe them and hold them up as examples of 'good' documentaries... Edit - it also seems nearly anything that deals with mythology horribly misrepresents what the ancients actually believed and what we have discovered concerning their mythologies.

PavlovsCat 13y ago

Counter example: documentaries about nature or other countries. Sometimes, nothing can quite replace moving images and sound. I'll go further and claim that in theory, documentaries can be every bit as factual as books, but not the other way around.

Blahah 13y ago
I agree about some nature documentaries, though I've seen a good number that are clearly manipulative (in that they have staged a situation or misrepresented the facts). The BBC stuff is generally excellent.

Tycho 13y ago

Now and again I like to watch one of those crackpot alien contact or religious prophecy documentaries, just to be amused at all the same techniques being employed on a message that you can never take seriously.