It's like the opinion editor versus the daily beat editor. One is writing arguments and defending them, the other is trying to just present the facts of what happened.
No documentary in history has "just presented the facts of what happened". Footage is edited. Even documentaries that are exclusively interview footage are edited down from huge surpluses of material. When you choose the 1% of material to present, it is not possible to just present facts.
I thought that what you just wrote is literally the definition for journalist vs reporter. if all you do is reporting the facts since you are a daily beat editor, you aren't a journalist?
That doesn't change the definitions. Doing a terrible job (by neglecting to mention vital facts) doesn't change what reporting is (and/or should be) and how it differs from journalism.
> Micheal Moore movies have a built in point-of-view.... his. He doesn't hide this, it is part of the attraction.
One movie I saw of his was intentionally misleading to a high degree in my opinion so I don't watch any others from him. To me, a point of view is to do with your subjective thoughts and value judgements. This should never involve twisting, hiding or being selective about objective facts.
> To me, a point of view is to do with your subjective thoughts and value judgements. This should never involve twisting, hiding or being selective about objective facts.
You cannot avoid that, as subjective point of view cannot avoid impacting perception of the relevance and importance of objective facts (which directly effects selection and the perception of “hiding”), and also what the important relations between those facts are, which affects organization and thereby the perception of “twisting”.
> You cannot avoid that, as subjective point of view cannot avoid impacting perception of the relevance and importance of objective facts (which directly effects selection and the perception of “hiding”), and also what the important relations between those facts are, which affects organization and thereby the perception of “twisting”.
Even though it's hard to 100% avoid bias, you shouldn't lump all attempts at telling a point of view as being equal. There's clearly a spectrum with the far end being propaganda and intellectual dishonesty.
I value the opinions of people who can objectively present both sides as well as they are capable of and who separate out which parts are subjective and their opinion. If someone shows the facts that go against their point of view, that makes them more credible to me.
Yes, avoiding all bias is close to impossible but that doesn't mean all people are worth listening to or can be trusted equally.
> you shouldn't lump all attempts at telling a point of view as being equal. There's clearly a spectrum with the far end being propaganda and intellectual dishonesty.
Attempting to tell a point of view is propaganda, whether or not it is dishonesty.
> I value the opinions of people who can objectively present both sides
What “both sides”? There's one set of facts, and often as many set of viewpoints as observers, even if there are two dominant clusters in public debate.
> If someone shows the facts that go against their point of view, that makes them more credible to me.
Yes, that's a common perceptual bias that skilled propagandists exploit.
I guess you could argue it is really commentary more than documentary.