What Is A "Documentary?" Pt.2 "News, Current Events and the Dreaded Long Form Infomercial"

                                    

  We're going to be taking a deep dive into what makes a documentary a documentary. Which, as we write this, we're realizing it's not as easy to put to words as it is to know one when you see one.

 In the broadest sense of the word, a documentary is any audio/visual media meant to document an occasion or to inform the viewer on a given subject. That much we can say for certain. There are as many ways to achieve this end as there are subjects to inform the viewer about, and the objective truth is not always the aim. So let's take a look at a few types of documentaries so we can start to get closer to the heart of what makes a documentary a documentary. 


Part 2. News, Current Events and the Dreaded Long Form Infomercial.

  For nearly as long as we've had moving pictures, current events shorts/newsreels/infomercials have been around. The moving picture was a clever way to get ideas and news across to people who may not have known how to read, or to inform those who simply didn't. Newsreels before a movie became commonplace in the mid 1910's to inform the viewer about news-worthy events; whether it was to show the progress of their loved ones caught up in WW1, or to simply showcase a new technology that you all of a sudden "could not live without." Audiovisual media has always been at the forefront of the newest technology, pushing the definition of "Breaking News" to its now near instantaneous iteration. 

 Along with the newsreel came the opportunity for companies to advertise or to push a particular political ideology or narrative with pizazz that only moving pictures coupled with compelling narration could offer. For instance; the crash of the Hindenburg likely wouldn't be more than an obscure piece of trivia, if not for the incredible footage and heart-wrenching real-time reaction of the reporter. This was not lost on industrialists or politicians. Adolf Hitler made sure to know what made him look and sound tough, and he used it to chilling effect. Henry ford knew that while everyone didn't NEED an automobile, he'd be able to make every person WANT an automobile through relentless advertising. 

The age of multimedia propaganda and hyper consumerism had arrived. 

 If you look at documentaries like "Bowling for Columbine," or "Super-Size Me" with a critical eye, you know in your deepest recesses that what you're seeing ultimately has a good message, but that they also used imagery that plays more to your emotions than it does to your rationality. That's where you, the viewer, need to have the ability to separate fact from fiction, or more to the point; to not let your emotions guide you to what you "FEEL" to be the truth. Michael Moore knew damned well that going to Kmart's Corporate headquarters to "return the bullets" those poor children had lodged in their bodies was not going to elicit any response other than "that's not exactly OUR fault." In fact, when they pledged to discontinue handgun ammo within 90 days, he flatly admits: "That's a lot more than we expected." While it's compelling, it's not quite the "gotcha" moment that he certainly thought it was going to be, and it's clear that he used those children solely to emphasize a well known fact. (That fact being: a retailer (not even manufacturer) of a potentially lethal product has no legal liability should that horrible thing come to fruition) Similarly, not a single person (hopefully) who watched "Super-Size Me," believed there was any other outcome from eating three meals a day at a fast food restaurant aside from a complete and total breakdown of one's health. Again, that's where the viewer must be able to detect the message, yet detach themselves from what's being shown on the screen... That's IF you don't want to be taken for a fool every time you turn on the TV.  I know, a lot of people seemed to have lost that ability as of late; so where does that leave us? 

 Does a documentary NEED to focus on the objective truth? Well, no, as I've already pointed out. So, what is one to do? How does one know that the message being presented to them is free from the directive of guiding one's emotions to an inevitable conclusion? The easiest way to be sure, is to know a little bit about the subject at hand, so you can sort fact from fiction. Obviously, the point of many documentaries is to inform the viewer from scratch, so the next stop is to find out who produced the documentary, and then ask: "Does the creator of this media have something to gain by making it?" If the documentary is about something you can easily fact check (i.e. "Do elephants really live in the Sahara?) then you can feel relatively at ease that the information the media is providing is factual, at least to the best of their abilities. On the flip-side of that; if the ideas being presented are more abstract, for instance: political ideals, pseudo-science, supernatural happenings, religious beliefs, etc; then you're best to watch with an open, but highly skeptical mind. If the producers of the latter are using emotional queues to get you onboard with their way of thinking, then it'd be best to do a little digging and find out more about the creator/s. Are you watching a documentary about the effectiveness of traditional/natural cures? Best make sure it wasn't produced by HerbaLife. Likewise, the best place to get your information about a political candidate might not be from "The committee to reelect Said Candidate."

 While there will always be a bit of subjectivity to any given documentary, the impetus is upon you to fact check anything you learn from said documentaries before spouting said "facts." And that goes with most everything in life. Check your facts, then check them again; if there's any shred of doubt, you'd be best served by saying "it's of my opinion," rather than "I saw this on a documentary, so it must be true."