Can documentaries on political movements ever be unbiased?

[jackfaire]

I understand that everyone has political beliefs of some kind or other but why does a documentary about a movement that looks at it frankly and honestly have to become propaganda.

I watched a new documentary on Occupy that talked about the less savory aspects of the movement, crimes committed against other people in the camps that were according to camp members "to be handled internally" rather than letting the police do their jobs, vandalism committed and obvious provocation of the police to try and get a violent response so that they could say, "See we are the victims here"

Yes there were some bad things to come from the movement most of all the fact that the movement never had a clear agenda or seemed to know what exactly they were protesting. That being said why does the first documentary I see on it that is willing to discuss these aspects of it suddenly have to be a "see this is why the liberal left suck this is what they all want"

It isn't just that one either on both sides documentaries of movements almost always seem to take the time to say "and this is why that side sucks"

It's why I dislike many documentaries it's not purely political ones either. Really any documentary that rather than showing me "here is the truth of what happened and our theories make of them what you will" want to say "this is what happened and by the even though you agree that these people are bad that doesn't matter your side sucks cuz you want this kind of behavior"

That would be like saying the sports team that has an angry sports parent that behaves badly and was banned by the other parents is encouraging the angry parent style behavior.

No we abhor the bad behavior and speak out against it stop lumping us all in.

[Greenday]

That would be like saying the sports team that has an angry sports parent that behaves badly and was banned by the other parents is encouraging the angry parent style behavior.

No we abhor the bad behavior and speak out against it stop lumping us all in.

Well wait a second. Wouldn't you now be attacking parents who just really get into their kid's games?

Really, there are always two sides to this and it'll always come off attacking one of the sides.

[Kheldarson]

Overall, yes, documentaries on political movements or topics can be near unbiased.

Will you ever get a completely unbiased documentary? No. You'd have to have a robot running the show. Any person who's making a documentary, even as fairly as they can, is still going to end up revealing their base position.

But you can counter it, and good documentaries should. You go and deliberately find the opposite argument of what you stand for and give them a fair hearing and give them fair support.

But that takes time and takes being fair and who has time for that?

[Panacea]

Bias is always a part of reporting; it is human nature.

Responsible reporting/documentaries, tell the reader what the biases are.

Irresponsible ones don't, hoping to fool the viewer with misinformation.

[bara]

I dont think its possible to ever be completely unbiased. It would be nice, but we all have our beliefs and agendas and it shows in our speech and body language.

[Pixilated]

Kheldarson put it very well. (I was going to say you'd need a Martian to make the documentary ... ) Anybody who claims they have no biases is either deluded, lying, or just emerged from under their rock six seconds ago.

The best anyone can do is try extra-hard to keep your biases from being flamingly obvious. The best way to do that is to try your hardest to give both sides equal time.

Just out of curiosity: if the first source you went to for the opposing side sounded like a babbling, bumbling baboon, would you go hunting for one or more other sources, trying to get a reasonably sane spokesperson for that side?

[Kheldarson]

Kheldarson put it very well. (I was going to say you'd need a Martian to make the documentary ... ) Anybody who claims they have no biases is either deluded, lying, or just emerged from under their rock six seconds ago.

Danke ^^ I seem to recall an anecdote that said that it was impossible for anybody from Earth to do an unbiased documentary on WWII for how charged it was and still is. Can't remember if I found it online or a prof shared it, but it always helped me remember about bias!

Just out of curiosity: if the first source you went to for the opposing side sounded like a babbling, bumbling baboon, would you go hunting for one or more other sources, trying to get a reasonably sane spokesperson for that side?

Well, if ALL the sources I kept getting were bumbling, babbling baboons...I might have to go with the first one! :P

[HYHYBT]

Bias is always a part of reporting; it is human nature.

Responsible reporting/documentaries, tell the reader what the biases are.

Irresponsible ones don't, hoping to fool the viewer with misinformation.

Being up-front about your biases is one honest approach. Compensating for them by doing all you can to present all sides in a fair manner (which does not necessarily require giving equal time, nor would necessarily be satisfied with that) is another. Also worth considering: there is bias not only in how a story is told, but in which are told at all.

[jackfaire]

Will you ever get a completely unbiased documentary? No. You'd have to have a robot running the show. Any person who's making a documentary, even as fairly as they can, is still going to end up revealing their base position.

I don't mind revealing "this is my stance on the topic" that's to be expected.

But every single political documentary I have seen in the last 10 years has been less "this is my take on things" and more "this is why that side is flat out evil the enemy and they hate America"

Always demonizing the other side instead of simply acknowledging a difference of opinion.

Hell talk about some bad stuff that some people on the other side did but don't immediately tell me that because I agree with a point that side is making that I am also a demonic bastard that wants people that disagree with me to die.

[BlaqueKatt]

Always demonizing the other side instead of simply acknowledging a difference of opinion.

human nature, beliefs, and sometimes a "difference of opinion" shouldn't be acknowledged. Opinion=/=fact. Not all opinions are based in fact, and not all of them have equal value.

"You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts." And everyone is entitled to think your opinion is hogwash if they so choose.

If I ask my physician about a medical treatment option, and then ask Aunt Sally(who for the purpose of this argument has no medical training beyond watching general hospital)-are those "opinions" with equal value? Should I just acknowledge the "difference of opinion", and not say mention that Aunt Sally's opinion of "sleep with the physician, it'll cure you", is a bit out of touch with reality?

Sometimes you have people that use emotional manipulation, and knee jerk reactions instead of facts and research to form their opinions(which can be both dangerous and detrimental to society*). Should their case be presented the same as actual researchers and people that have facts to back them up?

*In my opinion(not really, just trying to prove a point), since everyone who has ever contracted cancer drinks water, water causes cancer. We should therefore ban water, and all drink brand Q cherry cola.

[TheHuckster]

I watched a new documentary on Occupy that talked about the less savory aspects of the movement, crimes committed against other people in the camps that were according to camp members "to be handled internally" rather than letting the police do their jobs, vandalism committed and obvious provocation of the police to try and get a violent response so that they could say, "See we are the victims here"

Was that the focus of the documentary, or was it just one part of an overall unbiased documentary?

No matter what, documentaries are going to move people. Just because a documentary shows bad (and good) things about a movement or an event and changes someone's view or opinion of said subject doesn't mean it's biased. A good documentary which shows all of the facts in an objective way has to have some kind of conclusion that people will come to.

I don't know if I'd find this specific documentary biased, since I haven't seen it, but it's something I think about when I see any documentary. It's a shame that because documentaries have to be edited for time it means there's a committee who has to pick and choose what gets cut and what stays, which can introduce a lot of bias, even if it's unintentional or subconscious.

And, of course, some documentaries are going to have an overt agenda or thesis. Is that a bad thing? I don't think so, as long as it's clearly understood that the producers have an idea to say and they are simply defending their opinions with the footage they include. It's no different than a visual essay where someone needs to detail an idea and defend it with facts and evidence.

[jackfaire]

Was that the focus of the documentary, or was it just one part of an overall unbiased documentary?

They kept coming back to it. The documentary was supposedly to show the bad actions of a protest group and another side of how things went but they kept coming back to

"See liberals don't really want to improve the country they want to destroy it and tear down what we have they want power they want to dominate us all"

Was repeated in various ways throughout the documentary by multiple people that were interviewed for it.

If it had been just one of them or some passing remark that would be one thing but they kept coming back to it like that was the major point even tying the whole thing into the protest movement in the 60s as further proof that "these people" want to destroy the American way of life and virtually enslave us all.

[Kheldarson]

Then it was a bad documentary.

The major things with documentaries is you have to take them like you take any source. 1) Identify their bias, 2) identify their facts, 3) identify how their bias relates to the facts.

Obviously, in the case of the film you saw, their bias was that Occupy was a bad and dangerous movement; their facts were the events that highlighted the major dangerous sections of the movement; and their bias twisted those facts to be the be all and end all portrayal.

If I were doing a paper on Occupy and including some of the negative things that had happened, I'd probably use the footage as my fact with a qualifier explaining that I do not agree with the biased nature of the documentary as a whole.