Can anyone name a documentary that DOESN'T have a point of view?

The canard that documentaries are supposed to "be objective" is now being introduced into discussions of F911 and _The Hunting of the President_, a meme that has been picked up by even such lightweights as Judy Woodruff (on her June 17 show) and Matt Lauer (June 18 _Dateline_, excerpted and promoed on _Today_.)

Have REAL documentaries ever been "objective"? Roger Ebert thinks not:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/eb-feature/cst-ftr-moore18.html

You are absolutely right; because they are fake documentaries!

I had to do a double take on that!

or whether "objectivity" even exists.

(My blog accompanies a print publication.)

We both came to the conclusion that nobody who is paying attention doesn't have bias. The problem doesn't come from bias -- the problem comes from when we refuse to admit it. That's why I'm upfront about my loyalties. (If I'm writing about any congressional candidate that I've given money to or helped in any way, I'll put that -- "Caveat: I helped Chet Bell with some of his initial press.")

Or, while adimitting it is a very difficult thing to achieve, is presenting the news in a balanced and fair manner worth trying to do?

Or is there any difference between Rush Limbaugh and Dan Rather (to pick a member of the news medium somewhat at random)?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

It's like making a case to the court. Moore is a prosecuting attorney, and he's presenting his evidence (the words and pictures) and making an argument formed around the facts (through his own narration and through choices he makes with music, editing, and sound) and we're the jury. We watch, and we make up our minds.

We've heard CNN and the NYT's argument about what's going on in the world for the last 20 years, and we're going to compare and contrast it with Moores (who uses the documentary form only because he doesn't have a billion dollars to start a cable company and a newspaper).

I have to say that I don't think CNN's version of the world is particularly well-argued.

their lack of objectivity.

...couldn't present the "real" life because of things like voice over narration, editing, score, lighting, etc, always interfered to tell lies.

So he made a documentary which had none of that. He just pointed a camera at the story he wanted to tell, and let the camera roll.

I think he admitted (and at least audiences and critics agreed) that the project was a failure becuase, as everyone acknowledged, the simple fact that you chose to point your camera at something is an editorial decision. The only way you could put something together in a way that even formed a story people would sit through (ie, EVERY editing choice you make, even if it's not lap dissolve, or whatever) was to form a narrative and to editorialize.

Another good example of this is those hours long Warhol movies of buildings. Even he's saying something with that. It's an argument about culture.

So, the answer is no. All representation has a point of view and an argument that it's trying to make.

To criticize Moore for having an argument and a point of view is absurd beyond belief. It's an argument for dumbing down America. It's a subtle way to tell people they shouldn't think and shouldn't care.

He filmed and never voiced over. Problem is that he had to edit, and in doing so has to instill some bias into his films. Moore is in your face. He isn't trying to be objective. He has a point of view, and here it is. Where was the right when falwell was selling his swill video tapes about Clinton, drugs, and murder? The truth of those tapes were dicussed, not whether they were objective. Let Moore's movies fall along those same lines, if the right can dop that.

--IMM

...are making an argument about art and culture.

Moderators, please delete this. The site hiccuped.

He filmed THAT guy, doing THAT activity. Why? Well, he had a purpose, I'm sure. (Maybe it was just to prove that he, Andy Warhol, was a pretentious wanker, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.)

As AP said above, even the decision to point a camera at something is an editorial bias of sorts. Even the decision to point your eyes at something is a bias, in fact. All living things have biases; bacteria, to choose the most primitive of lifeforms, have a bias towards "things that are food", and a bias against "things that are harmful".

In short, there is no way to do anything without some sort of bias. Certainly, no way for a human to have any thought without bias. Integrity and fairness comes from admitting one's biases and working with them, not denying them. Denying one's biases is simply self-deception.

Of course, self-deception, hypocrisy, and the like are par for the course from the right wing. So, really, we should expect this from them. (There, see? I made a biased comment!)

The real question is whether or not what's in the documentary is true or untrue.

If someone wants to go through and point out stuff that was omitted to support the point of view of the documentarian, and thus show that what they were saying was untrue, that's one thing. But I don't really see a lot of that here.

Seriously, the only ones I can think of are some of those crappy educational films they made you sit through in school.