I am avoiding those new "reveling" documentaries, especially on Netflix but also elsewhere. There are so many cases where they are painting a picture instead of telling me all the facts (which may be impossible) that I'm afraid to get a one-sided narrative. They are basically entertainment at the moment and should be considered fiction.
Same goes for certain writers books. They are getting paid to write books and then pick something that sells and paint a narrative. And then people think this is true, wholly true or useful whereas it may not.
You say "new" as if there was a time when documentary makers didn't have a message
There is always a message and the line between fiction and nonfiction isn't always clear. Who is making the media and why, who did the research, who funded the project, etc.
What's sad and scary is that media literacy and critical thinking isn't a top priority for teaching in schools.
Nothing fundamentally new, but it's particularly painful in this documentary (or "docu-fiction") though. Couldn't watch more than 10 minutes due to how biased it was, but friends were raving about how great this story was...
In the current era, I think we've lost confidence and taste for balanced narratives, neutral depictions and such. Journalism is storytelling. Every headline, choice of picture or example is a narrative selection made by an author. Objectivity is a delusion, best discarded.
That "postmodern" take might be true. It's hard to argue against, honestly. That said, untruths can and do play a role. There's a difference between a world where objectivity is a sham and one where objectivity is not even a sham.
Either way, It's hard to go back. Documentaries and books today are making an argument, not depicting one neutrally... They're not even pretending to. That may make the endeavour more honest, depending on your POV. Regardless, no one owes the whole truth anymore and no one expects it. It's up to you to synthesize yourself a makeshift whole.
Has it been getting worse? like actually? I've seen some journalism from the past and it doesn't seem any less sensationalist. In the past perhaps a bit more formal english was used in media.
Accounting for that so much misinformation, propaganda and opinions have been published in the media even back then, the outrage that "these days" things are worse feels a bit short-sighted.
Thomas Jefferson even wrote 200 years ago “ To your request of my opinion of the manner in which a newspaper should be conducted, so as to be most useful, I should answer, ‘by restraining it to true facts & sound principles only.’ Yet I fear such a paper would find few subscribers. It is a melancholy truth, that a suppression of the press could not more compleatly deprive the nation of its benefits, than is done by its abandoned prostitution to falsehood. Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knolege with the lies of the day. I really look with commiseration over the great body of my fellow citizens, who, reading newspapers, live & die in the belief, that they have known something of what has been passing in the world in their time; whereas the accounts they have read in newspapers are just as true a history of any other period of the world as of the present, except that the real names of the day are affixed to their fables. General facts may indeed be collected from them, such as that Europe is now at war, that Bonaparte has been a successful warrior, that he has subjected a great portion of Europe to his will, &c., &c.; but no details can be relied on. I will add, that the man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them; inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods & errors. He who reads nothing will still learn the great facts, and the details are all false.”
IDk if journalism was better in the past. People in the best definitely thought it was bad too.
I'm talking about the way we even structure the question today. There's no expectation of neutrality, and trying to appear neutral will seem like hypocrisy. If you buy a book on an intellectual topic, you expect to get one half of an argument, not the whole.
>In the current era, I think we've lost confidence and taste for balanced narratives, neutral depictions and such.
Probably because the notion that we've ever had "balanced narratives, neutral depictions and such" is a bald-faced lie, per, "Negro lynched for assaulting white woman," et al.
The media landscape has balkanized enough that attempting to declare A Single Truth from on high (however fact-based, or not, it actually was) is no longer possible. To those constantly thrown under the steamroller of Stability and Civility, this is a good thing. At this point, people have to choose between convenience or truthz because a convenient truth is unattainable.
Journalism gets paid for people reading/viewing, not for telling the truth. Telling an interesting story is more important than getting the facts right (from a financial perspective).
There is literally nothing (except defamation/libel laws, which is why all the characters are invented) that says any story presented as true by a publisher has to actually be true. There is no penalty for lying, or presenting a fictional story as true.
Any expectation that anything a publisher produces is even vaguely related to actual events is based on a now-outdated set of principles in journalism that are no longer followed.
most of his rants are well justified in my opinion
my issue with his narrative and he doesnt really offer any viable alternatives execept suggesting government regulation (which is usually responsible for whatever situation he's ranting about in the first place)
More like the entire political spectrum. Regulation causing problems? Was the regulation trying to solve a problem for my tribe? Regulation needs to be fixed. Is it trying to solve a problem for the enemy tribe? Clearly the regulations need to be axed.
This is not only incomplete but also misses that the American right is also largely defined by Christian conservatives who see being "tough on crime" as the solution to everything.
The only discernable difference to me is that the American left usually wants laws that regulate businesses whereas the American right usually wants laws that regulate individuals. Except of course the Democrats are just as dependent on wealthy donors and business deals as the Republicans so the regulations passed by them end up being pretty toothless and easy to circumvent. Both parties (but especially the Republicans) also perpetually increase military and police spending, which is only a "small government" policy if you think the only role of the government is enforcing private property rights.
Ironically, anarchists (who are far left) want to abolish this enforcement of private property rights and only support regulations in so far that they limit the use of those rights against individuals. Anarcho-capitalists (who are not on the left) want to abolish everything BUT this enforcement.
Same goes for certain writers books. They are getting paid to write books and then pick something that sells and paint a narrative. And then people think this is true, wholly true or useful whereas it may not.
So sad, so scary.