3 ms·

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 amusi

by 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.
- rwl4 13y ago
  I completely agree. Documentaries will barrage you with facts and "facts" then start building logical cases on the information they have just given you while you haven't had a chance to evaluate whether the initial facts are really true. I'd love to see some sort of crowd sourced service pop up where people can contribute to a video overlay that you can watch simultaneously with documentaries that debunk or validate the presented facts visually via on screen annotations at the moment they are presented. I still wouldn't rely on documentaries for my facts but it would be great for those friends and family of mine who insist on them.
- Blahah 13y ago
  This articulates what I meant much better than I did.

by alan_cx 13y ago

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.

rwl4 13y ago
I completely agree. Documentaries will barrage you with facts and "facts" then start building logical cases on the information they have just given you while you haven't had a chance to evaluate whether the initial facts are really true. I'd love to see some sort of crowd sourced service pop up where people can contribute to a video overlay that you can watch simultaneously with documentaries that debunk or validate the presented facts visually via on screen annotations at the moment they are presented. I still wouldn't rely on documentaries for my facts but it would be great for those friends and family of mine who insist on them.
Blahah 13y ago
This articulates what I meant much better than I did.