As we discussed in class, documentaries (and realtity television) have skyrocketed in popularity in recent years. This trend has emerged for several reasons - cheaper production costs, the transparency that today's media affords us, and the discovery of interesting and controversial topics that relate to a wide audience. Many documentary filmmakers have stayed objective in their movie-making; others have used the documentary genre to prove a point, persuade an audience, or promote a conspiracy theory. This has sparked a debate as to what the word "documentary" now means.For the blog, you will read the following article and write a 250-word response to the following question:
Should documentaries be objective? Does it matter if they are not? Can they be important and effective either way? Why?
Defining Documentary Film
Response due: Friday, December 14 by 2 p.m.
first :)
ReplyDelete@Abdullah
ReplyDeleteStop trying to be first. Thanks :)
To me, it doesn't matter if a documentary is objective. Should they be? Certainly. But do they have to be? No. It doesn't make them any less effective. After all a documentary is a compilation of film and ideas that the director wants you to see. The facts are still there, no matter what spin is put on them. It's up to the person watching the film to discern the facts for themselves. If that includes doing a little research, so be it. We grow too comfortable with not doing anything to learn, and believe any fact that we're told. The documentaries themselves open an interest in a subject, and can raise some interesting facts in the process. Unfortunately, people believe that documentary is synonymous with "absolute truth". Documentaries are just like all movies, opinions put on film. Take "Winnebago Man" for an example. The film is about the director’s search for a certain internet star, Jack Rebney. This movie comes from the point of view of a fan. He spent a lot of time tracking this man down. Do you think someone who wasn't a fan would take as much time? Definitely not. The movie takes the fan's side, and shows how this man deals with his internet fame. The film wouldn’t be the same if the director wasn’t intent on finding, talking to, and filming Rebney. Is that bias? Does that make the film less objective? Maybe. Does it make the film any less meaningful? Not at all. The film still shows us the facts, and presents them in a fun way. You know what else does that? Movies. In the end that’s all that documentaries are. They are movies made for entertainment, to watch and enjoy.
ReplyDelete-Mark Hedgeland
Documentaries are educational. I do not think that documentaries should be 100% objective or factual. there needs to be some subjective information so that each person can make their own point of veiw on the subject. If a documentary is all facts then it can promote learning, a subjective documentary can be used for persuasive uses more than learning.
ReplyDelete@melissapepinnn
i like pie mmmmmmmm
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, I don't think that documentaries have to be objective. However, they sould at least say whether this documentary is or isn't biased. It's one thing to to state facts, but when you say one side of the story and not the other, there is a huge difference. If you say one thing on one side of the story, the other side could have something to say that explains this reason, therefore it is better to do both sides. If you ask me, I think that the category "documentaries" should be sub-categorized into "subjective" and "objective," stating the number of sides they show.
ReplyDelete-Brian Petersen
I think that documentaries should be objected meaning that both arguments of the story should stated so that we can choose what we want to believed. I think that Fahrenheit 9/11 was bias because michael moore only stated one side of the story so that people could think that the republican are the bad one because he is a huge Democrats. I think michael moore is accusing president Bush for the incident that took place on 9/11 and that he could do better about the incident. cavar
ReplyDeleteI believe that documentaries should be objective meaning that both side of the argument are stated and that is it, there shouldn’t be anything biased towards one topic, person or idea. If documentaries do not clearly state both sides of an argument it could potentially change the opinions of the viewers watching. Documentaries are so influential these days due to the fact the majority of people will believe anything they see in a documentary because they believe that they are real facts. But the truth behind this is that producers of documentaries can make their movie one sided instead of both sided. By watching a documentary a viewer can clearly point out if it is objective or not by seeing if the movie is bashing a particular topic and not stating the good and the bad. If documentaries are not objective they can trick people into believing or siding with the facts presented from the movie. The technique of making biased documentaries can be effective because it can convince the viewer into believing facts that aren’t true. Producers present true facts and twist them to make them false, this is important when it comes to distinguishing what facts are true and what are false.
ReplyDeletetim
I think documentaries should be objective so that people wont be geting the wroung information. people will be thinking all tipe of stuff about Bush but if its not true then
ReplyDeleteyou would think that Bush could sued or something because thay are not giving out real facts
part 2 comin soon
Yes, documentaries should be objectives. The reason I say they should be objective is because so they won’t seem bias and it will show both sides of the story. Also people would spend their time watching it just knowing it tells both sides and they might find it really interesting. Documentaries are mostly nonfiction which tells true stories but are recorded very sarcastic to impress people. They edit all of the film and let the documentaries seems bad or good at times. Documentaries can be very important because they really don’t show everything on the news. I think that’s a good way to get the news or things that are being hidden from the public across. It also let you understand what the title of the documentary portray not just giving it a name without any meaning what to ever to the film. Yes, documentaries are very effective on our lives because it can be of good historic back ground, interpretation and narrative. Effective documentaries work the theme words directly into the script a number of times, especially in the introduction and in the conclusion. After watching some of these documentaries they let us feel bad and wanting to help. While others will just say ok and it doesn’t matter because it doesn’t affect our lives. But if it is really interesting, then people will take time to watch it and then learn something new or different.
ReplyDeleteShaneka Grant
Documentaries should be objective.There shouldn’t be just one side to a story.Theres always two sides.To me, It does matter if documentaries are not objective. The documentary would only be showing one side to it and not the other side to it. It would be leaving a lot out on what we should know. Either way being objective or not, they are both effective. Nonobjective documentaries will be bias and will persuade you into believing the facts they show. Nonobjective documentaries tell only one side and could make it negative or positive. Documentaries that describe both positive and negative or just the whole story, will take the interest of people. People want to know the whole thing and all the details about whatever subject it is.
ReplyDelete- Melina Giantomidis
Should documentaries be objective? In my opinion, it really doesn’t matter if they are or not. After all a documentary films are based on or re-creating an actual event that purports to be factually accurate and contains no fictional events. So it means that it’s all up to us how or what we should think about the event. So what I think is that in the film “Fahrenheit 9/11’ Michael Moore was bias because he only stated only one side of the story and not the other. Can documentaries be important and effective either way? Yes because it all depends on the person who watches the film. One person might agree with the facts in the film and the other person might not agree with it at all.
ReplyDeleteABDULLAH DAVRANMAKEL
i do think documentries should be objective, though what is being said should be factual. the point or "objective" of a doumentry is to educate someone on a certain topic. like in fahrenheight 911 Moore publicised information that most people didnt know about Bush. Obviously he portrayed bush as a bad president and had no good feelings fro him. clearly objective against Bush. The movie was packed full of information about bush's relationship with the Saudi's around that time making it seem like Bush was involved. Some of it does seem a little far fetched. making false accusations can deffinetly change someones feelings about something, which i think Michel Moore may have done this in this documentry. it doesnt matter if the documentry is objective or not it does matter that it is true though. they can be important either way. Fahrenheight 911 in a perfect example. it was important enough to change the view points of some americans about bush.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, Documentaries should be objective. The definition of Documentary is a film or show re-creating an actual event, era, life story, etc. that presents to be factually accurate and contains no fictional elements. Lately all the Documentaries I have seen do not fit that description completely. For example, all the films made by Michael Moore are not as factual as he wants his audience to believe. Like he does have facts in his film but sometimes he stretches the truth and / or changes a fact completely ( like he lies ). It does matter because all Documentaries should be educational and be completely true. It is not a good idea to feed people false information because it is not really fair to the innocent people that are being lied to. Plus those lies can spread rumors that could turn onto something worse in the long run. A Documentary could be important for many reasons. The can be important because they can educate people, they could change peoples point of views and they could feed people lies and they would not even know it. They can be effect too. Like they could make people believe anything as long as it sounds convincing and / or spread fear. Also it is effective because it can change people’s point of views on the subject.
ReplyDelete- Allie Piselli
Documentaries should definitely be objective, and get an overall view on the subject. There should be no opinion in a documentary because it’s supposed to be educational, so you should help people understand what really happened, and all the real facts. It affects the way the viewers see it. All they’ll be listening to your opinions on the situation. You can twist someone’s thoughts so they can’t think for themselves. In the movie Fahrenheit 911, Michael Moore made President Bush look like a bad guy by putting his opinion in the movie and keeping out the good things you should also know. If it’s an objective documentary then I think it definitely affects the way people see it and the outcome of some things. Either way it can be important, you just have to know the difference of something that is biased and something that’s not.
ReplyDeleteadriana p.
In my opinion all documentaries should be objective. Documentaries should contain both sides of whatever the issue is on to get an idea to where an individual stands. One documentary that I can recall is “Fahrenheit 9/11” by Michael Moore was far from being objective, it only elaborated on one side of the whole political situation. It does matter because only one point of view or side is being shown to the public. Both sides of the story should be shown to the public not just one. I’m not so sure on the importance part but I’m sure about the effectiveness. The effectiveness also depends on the audience. The best way I can analyze this is by using examples from “Fahrenheit 9/11”. Since Moore made the republicans look bad in his documentary that may lead people to believe that they are a bad political party that is of course if the audience has little or no knowledge of politics. ~Jamielle Jarrett
ReplyDeletei think all domcumentaries should be objective. documentaries should have both sides because you can say alot of things that happened and all these good things about yourself or the sitiation but usually when there is objective documentary it talks about the shady parts of the person and or situation. one example of objective documentaries is (Fahrenheit 9/11) by Michael Moore which was the opposing documentary that spoke down on George Bushs 9/11 Movie which said the good things he was doing for and during 9/11. so this is why there should be two sides to every story because everyone has thier own opinion.- Arthur Hill
ReplyDeleteThen the people that are hurt from 9/11 if they watch the movie (Fahrenheit 9/11) by Michael Moore they definitely will dislike George Bush because people aren't going to look in to it there just going to beleve what they see from the movie. I think George Bush should had somthing to say about the negative movie they made about him.. But is it all true? WHO Knows?
ReplyDeleteyoung Robinson//prettyboy!!
All documentaries should be objective. I think the main purposes of documentaries are to educate its audience with fact from both sides so the audience can understand fully what’s going on, and where they stand on the particular issue. Yes it does matter because both should be elaborated on so one can form their own opinion on the topic and also to let them know the truth. It’s effective either way because people now a days believe in everything that they see on television or the computer or anything that they hear on the radio. If one side is talked about in the documentary it may influence it’s audience to believe everything that was said.
ReplyDelete-Janiece
I don't think it matters if a documentary is objective or not, I definitely think that it should be factual. However, I think the person making it should be able to chose a side and have more facts backing up their side than the other side. Whoever is watching the documentary should be the one deciding whether or not they agree with what the movie is saying or not. Everyone has different opinions on things, and i think people should express what they feel, even if not everyone is going to agree because it still makes people think, and maybe it'll even make people switch their feelings on the subject. If a documentary isn't objective, i think it's just as important and effective as it would be if it was objective. Just because it's not objective doesn't mean its not true, the person making the film might just be leaving out other information because it would confuse more people on their side. Either way, i don't think a documentary should have to be objective, it might be better if it but it still makes the persons point.
ReplyDelete-Nicole Paquette
documentaries should be objective. it matters because you cant just tell one side to a story because what if you choose the wrong side and your informing everybody with the wrong facts. if you choose to inform people about both sides then the person watching it can pick what side they want to be on and what one seems more seasonable to them. the can be effective and important either way because somebody's watching the movie and making their own thoughts about it. i would say documentary should always tell the truth but not all of them do. i think it all depends on what side the person making the film is on.
ReplyDelete- alyssa jelliffe
I feel that the controversy on whether or not a documentary should be objective or not is Irrelevant because as long as the documentary truthfully presents information pertinent to the topic of the film and are able to back up that information with data or incontrovertible evidence it should not matter if the documentary depicts someone in a negative light because all of the accusations being made are true. They can be extremely effective without being objective more so than if they were objective because in the case of Michel Moore’s documentary “Fahrenheit 9/11” , Moore depicts Gorge W. Bush in an extremely negative light and gives no examples to his positive contributions to the United States of America during his presidency. If all documentaries were objective than it would be considerably more difficult to attempt to persuade voters to not vote for Gorge W. Bush as president because they would also have to present information that would not only contradict themselves but also work against their goal of persuading voters to neglect Gorge W. Bush as a respectable or capable candidate.
ReplyDelete-Garyd Boyd
Documentary should be objective because its always better to know the both side of stories.Sometimes people learn from the morals of stories but they can only learn if they know whats if they do somthing like that and whats going to be its result.In Fahrenheit 9/11 they didnt give the both stories, they blame Bush and his family for everything.After watching that flim if the people who don't know anthing about Bush want to kill him beacuse the flim only showed his bad or wrong sides not a good one.Thats true after showing the both sides people can pick which side they want to choose but like this only 10% of people will going to choose wrong side and those people will be the ones who don't care and if you only showing them one side they still will going to do what they want to do.But other 90% of people will going to learn from the result and a moral of story so why we should care about the 10% when we can save 90% of people.
ReplyDeleteMaria Ihtisam
I think that documentaries are very educational and factual, if the documentary it should not matter if the documentary is objective or not the documentary is to benefit whom ever is whatching it, as well as the author or who ever made it. Documentaries are beneficial because they let you know information that that everyone does not know. The video has good factual points that shines the light on the darkness of hidden secrets we as voters did not know or realize. If it was objective it would put a different focus for viewers. It would change everything viewer s/ voters will come to realize. People are going to feel and think what ever they want, if a viewer watches that documentary and they are a Bush fan they still might be a big Bush fan after what they watched. But me personally, even though I really never had an opinion of Bush, just by watching that documentary, that changed my whole views of Bush! A big difference it did for me!
ReplyDeleteYes, documentaries should be objective because you can’t just inform the people on one side of a controversial story. It needs to be both sides of the story. So that way people can make up their own minds. As it says in the story, most people define documentaries as this, "It is a type of film that is based on the real world and real people, depicting things as they are or telling about historical events in a supposedly truthful or objective manner." It matters if they are not, because movies like that persuade people to think a certain way. A movie can persuade people to act on the way they think. For example, Michael Moore made Fahrenheight 9/11 to persuade people not to vote for George W. Bush. So by slanting his movie he could actually persuade people not to vote for him. This could alter elections, making the better choice look like the worst choice. They can be important and effective either way because people still believe all the information shown and they don’t think about the other side of story. So either way the documentaries are going to make people think a certain way. That’s why it has to be true.
ReplyDelete-Mike Rodriguez III
I think documentaries are educational but only to a certain extent. For example, Super size me would be a good documentary to teach somebody about thepower of Mcdonalds and the short and long term effects it has on your body.In Fahrenheit 911, it was an attack on the President of The United States of America George W. Bush. The definition of “Documentary” is: based on or re-creating an actual event, era, life story, etc., that purports to be factually accurate and contains no fictional or bias elements. Although this film was very informative and consisted of real events, it’s hard to consider it a documentary due to Michael Moore twisting interviews and facts in favor of battering Bush. In order for Fahrenheit 911 to be a documentary, it would have to consist of hard facts with no type of biasness. Michael Moore had oblivious intentions to attack the Bush administration. He points out the flaws while in office and the wrong decisions Bush has made. Moore also did not mention the good things Bush has done.
ReplyDelete-Mitch Martin IV
Documentries main purpose sould be to educate the person who is watching it about the subject they are watching. Documentries should not be based on opinion only facts. Documentaries should be objective. Documentries need to show viewers only facts. they should not be made to try to minuplate the viewer in to believeing the person who made the documentry views. Docmentries are written to be educational by having the writters opinion it is no longer educational. when people watch a documentry they are loooking to find out the truth they want to know the facts about everything that happened. Docuentries should not be biased that defeats the whole purpose of what a documentry is for.
ReplyDelete- Amanda Viscount
I think documentaries should be mostly objective, if not completely objective. I think this about documentaries because if you add your personal feelings to the documentaries you aren't giving the facts of the subject and you could make people just follow what you say instead of believing what they want to believe. In the "Farenheit 9/11" "documentary" Michael Moore puts more of information about what he believes will make people hate Bush. I think it does matter if they are because if they aren't then i don't think it will be a true documentary because its not completely facts that let people form their own opinion about things. They can be important and effective either way because they are getting what they belive out there if the "documentary" is objective and documentaries that aren't objective get all the facts out there so people can decide what they believe for themselves.
ReplyDelete-Brandon Dubicki
Documentaries are tricky when it comes to making them. You can question or not if fahrenheit 9/11 was an actual documentary or not. This is not a documentarie in my eyes because Michael Moore throws information out there about mostly Bush because he doesnt like him. This isnt a documentarie because that is opinion based and thats what a documentarie is. So yes I think that they should be objective because its not supposed to be opinion based. Even if the documentarie is some opinion based it still has plenty of information like in fahrenheit 9/11. He makes a lot of points about Bush but also has ones that are very important points for the war and his video. The opinion based points he makes on Bush could be up in the air for if they are actually true or not but there not actual points because there opinion based. They could be real but have to be proven cause we have no clue on what was actually going on in Bush's head.
ReplyDeleteBy- Randy Allain
After reading that article documentaries should be objective. Its not fair to inform your audience on one side of the story. Both sides need to be shownin order to form an opinion. Most people define documentaries as "a type of film that is based on the real world and real people, depicting things as they are or telling about historical events in a supposedly truthful or objective manner" Movies have a lot of influences on people. So a powerful documentary would have a lot of influence on individuals who don't know a lot about the situation like myself. When i first watched Farenheit 9/11 I thought that Bush was an awful president. But then I realized Michael Moore made him look bad. They could be important and effective either way because documentaries do let out the truth but not the whole trust and they persuade people into believing the wrong thing.
ReplyDelete-Joey Bannon
Ideally documentaries would be a completely unbiased depiction of an event in history, but unfortunately I don’t think this is possible with most films. If a documentary isn’t objective, it would be boring. Although one of the main points of a documentary is to depict what happened, another point is also to entertain and make a profit. As the article said, showing the events in an uncut “fly on the wall” manner wouldn’t be interesting to people. If directors don’t take an objective point of view, their film likely wouldn’t see a mass theatre release due to the lack of interest and profit it would make.
ReplyDeletePeople should be aware of this when they go to see a documentary, and know that the director will likely be using the events to portray some kind of moral or message, instead of just a play by play of the events. As long as movie goers are aware of this, I don’t think it matters if documentaries are objective or not.
They can be important and effective either way, because people learn from history. If a documentary is just a depiction of historical events, people will learn from them. If a documentary is objective and has a message, the message is usually something positive that people can learn from. Either way people will learn something, which is what’s important. Furthermore, if there is someone taking one point of view of an event, it will be likely that another person will take the opposite point of view, which will allow people to easily see both sides of the event. As long as people think critically and skeptically about what they’re watching, objectiveness shouldn’t be a problem for documentaries.
- Tyler C.
Mike Moore Should really edits this documentary again and put in both sides of the story. I believe that he only had one side of the story including his own opinion. The whole “documentary” makes George Bush look like an idiot when he runs the country as president. If the documentary wanted to be true or as accurate as possible it would have shown George Bush’s positive and negative sides as president. Throughout the video Mike Moore was doing things that made the government look unfair or one-sided when talking to the people. Mike Moore personal beliefs did have a part in this “documentary” to make Bush like a Devil. Even though Bush Didn’t makes the greatest choices for the country sometimes or didn’t take action quickly on 9/11 he was not the worst president the United States of America ever had. The documentary was directed, produced, written, and starred Mike Moore so he really had the most control over the video and was able to edit or add anything he pleased. Overall, the documentary wasn’t true or on point it only showed one side of the argument and didn’t have anything positive only negative comments to say about George Bush.
ReplyDelete_Jack Mihalov
i feel like mike moore was documenting his own opinion. He trys to make bush look like a anti american in the documentary. he did not show one good thing bush did i would of liked the documenty more if it was 50 50. i feel like when mike moore interviewed people he only showed the people that had negitive things to say and were against bush on the documentary and cut out the people that were with bush.even though bush wasnt that great of a prsident he still did what had to be done. overall documentary was not true and was basically was mike moore roasting ex president bush.
ReplyDelete-james carbone
Mike Moore Shouldnt edit this documentry and just keep it as it is. he was telling us what really happen in the 9/11 . i feel about this is that bush was a good president and he did do what a president had to do as a president but why was he keeping alot from us ? theres probably two sides to the story and i think mike more should of put it instead of making bush look all bad but he told us the importnat things that need to come out on the table. i also think if they was going to argue about the situation everything from bush should of come out and everything else that happen from the 9/11 attack .
ReplyDeleteI think Michael Moore should leave his documentary the way it is but not have it be called a documentary because it was basically him stating his opinion. Although Moore made Bush seem like a lousy president he did prove a lot of good points with the 9/11 attack. I think Bush honestly had something to do with the terrorist attack and watching that documentary only made me more positive.
ReplyDelete-Amber Fortini
I beliave any documentary should have both sides of the story and should not be biased at all so people actually hear the truth not what one guy beliaves. Michael Moore did a realy good job making Bush look like a total a** even tough he already was it made him look even worse then he was. Even tough Moore did have couple good points this should not be called documentary becasue its more of an oppinion then a documentary.
ReplyDelete-Yagiz Ogulturk
The fact that they compared lady gaga and Rebecca black is absurd. If you ask me Rebecca black has about as much musical talent as a dead skunk. In other words her music stinks. Media can make a person with absolutely no music talent a pop sensation. Rebecca is just another example that media has a big influence on the world for better or worse. I also think that it’s unfair that her parents paid for her to have someone put together a music video that’s not really deserving of being on top is not fair to people that become famous on internet from the bottom with nothing . I don’t think that Rebecca black does not deserve any of the fame and recognitions that she's getting. She needs to drop dead on Friday that way she would do every one a big favor and stop the torcher. Another person they compared her to is Justin Bieber I will give it to him he has talent and is deserving of the fame and the glory because he worked for it ever since he was a little kid. I honestly feel that Rebecca black had nothing better to do so she bitched and moaned until her parents were annoyed to the point where the just said forget it and gave in to her demands of paying someone to make music video . I truly believe that a two year old could have made a better song than that monstrosity called Friday.
ReplyDelete-Riyadh Shelton
In my opinion, I believe documentaries should not be objective but they should tell whether the story is bias or not. I do think it does matter if they are objective or not because the documentary should include both sides of the story and not just one because if the documentary only talks about one side, the other side might be able to explain what was talked about. And even though there are facts being said in the documentary, it should still explain both sides of the story because the facts of one side can lead to the other part of the story which they might not talk about. To me, they can be important and effective either way because if one documentary share both sides of the story then they are telling the viewers that they aren’t bias and that they’re showing both sides and not just one. But if another documentary only shows one side of the story, they can still be effective because they will be including facts and statistics but for only one side. Only showing one side of the story does not make the movie less objective, it still shows the viewer’s the facts but more opinions are involved. While showing both sides of the story, it makes it more truthful for the viewers because they know that they aren’t just showing one side and keeping the other side a secret. Most people want to know both sides of the story and everything in aspect.
ReplyDelete- Taylor Doran
Michael Moore the creater from the so called documentary i disagree on this moivie for even being considerd as a doucumentary this moivie was so one sided i've never seen anything else like it.The movie was all about what bush had to do with 9/11.MichaelMoore only showed one side of the story all the facts that bush was behind 9/11 none of them of why he wasnt. It was clear that Michale Moore intensions was to bash Bush and not support him in anyway what so ever.I believe that Michael Moore hated bush for what he has done and he took advantage of the situation that this country was in the people that lost there love ones need someone to blame and Michale Moore was smart enough to figure it out,he blamed the easist person to blame the president because he is the leader of the country and when there is a crisis the people believe the leader should be responsible so they pick on Bush and blame him for what another country 300,000 miles away. So therefore this movie was not a doucmentary. A doucmentary is suppose to contain both sides of the story and the movie only contained the reasons to blame bush and nothing to help support why he had nothing to do with it. Michale Moore is horrible at creating documentarys but a very smart man capitializing on the situation but a scumbag.
ReplyDelete-Jimmy Marron
Documentarys are educational and they play an important roll in these days. People now look at documentaries for the truth. Most people believe that all documentarys tell both sides of the story. Well some documatarys now a days only show one side of the story to prove a point or to persuade an audience or even to spark a conspirasy theory. Micheal moore is a good example of this. He made bush look like a really bad president and made it seem like he was behind 9/11. There has been a debate on what documatries really are. I say documentries should be viewed before released and they need to show both sides all the facts and nothing but the truth. Documentries shouldnt be for presuading or making someone look bad, they should be for education and knowledge. I hope they make laws or rules on how a documentary should really be.
Delete-ryan bannon
i agree he never talked about anything he did right and made it look like it was all his fault that those soilders were dead -yagiz
DeleteYes documentaries are educational but not all of them educate you in the right way. Like a biased documentaries for example Fahrenheit 9/11 which has no educational purpose what so ever. The whole point of this documentary was to make bush look bad and give people an opinion of bush instead of letting them form their own. There are documentaries that are educational like the ones on the history channel that talk about things like the titanic and other historical events to inform you on how they went down and what caused them to go down. The point of a documentary is to educate a person using facts and interviews. On the other hand some people make documentaries purposely for educational purposes. Anyone can throw together thoughts and call it a documentary but it doesn’t make it one. I am not a big fan of documentaries because they are boring and usually casting Morgan freeman narrating whose voice always seems to make me want to go to sleep. All in all everything that they speak on is all statements that can be support with evidence. Michael Moore is one who does his documentaries on his own opinion. Me personally, I don’t really watch documentaries but I wouldn’t believe anything that Michael Moore puts in his documentaries .
ReplyDelete-Riyadh Shelton
I personally think that a documentary should be as objective as possible. I believe it should be because they should only tell the truth. I don’t watch a documentary to see more of a reality scene id watch it to learn all the real facts of the things I don’t already know. If I wanted to watch something that was a reality scene I would watch jersey shore. And I think they should show both sides of the story because Michael only showed one side of the story and convinced me to believe that bush was such a bad guy but in the movie where another guy made it showing all the opposites that Michael shown made re think what I was thinking before about bush and had me thinking maybe he’s not such a bad guy. I really think it does matter if there objective or not because if they weren’t what was the whole point of making the movie? It can be effective either way because by it telling all the truth it can hook more people in by wanting to know all of the truth of the person there trying to learn about but it can be twice as more effective the other way because it could be attracting more people if it was more of a reality type of film since most people think that the people in them are so stupid but that’s what keeps you hooked and wanting to watch. But over all I believe all documentaries should be stating all the facts about whoever were trying to learn about even if it’s good or bad
ReplyDeleteCarissa Benoit
hi
DeleteThe definition of a “documentary” is: Movies, TV shows based on or re-creating an actual event, era, life story, etc., that purports to be factually accurate and contains no fictional elements. Therefore I believe that all documentaries should be objective, that way it’s fair to all that watch it. You can not try to get someone to believe something that is not the truth, that is unfair. If you make a documentary it should be all truth and both sides. It shouldn’t be bias because then you’re only showing everyone just one side. I think it does matter if they aren’t all factual because then you are getting people to believe a story that is based off of false things, which gives the people watching the wrong idea about the film. If a documentary is bias and shows only one side of something then yes, it can still be important and effective. It is still showing true facts and the true story of what really happened. They just don’t mention the other side and tell the other sides story. I wouldn’t want to watch a documentary that only showed one side and that wasn’t all true facts. I would only watch it if I knew it was all true and it showed both sides, because then I would get to understand and pick which side I would want to take.
ReplyDelete-Gina Chipello :)
Fahrenheit 9/11 is an example of a documentary that can be debated to be that exactly. I say this because the author of this film was more than focused on the negative aspects of our earlier president, George Bush. Although I can say I don’t disagree with what was portrayed, the film was beyond clear to be bias at every point. Michael Moore, the author of Fahrenheit 9/11, showed how instead of working diligently for his country, he was on vacation for the beginning of his election which could’ve been why he wasn’t able to pay attention to the terrorist report he was handed and later tossed aside. Due to him overlooking it, this could be one of the reasons why we’ve lost more Americans then we should’ve. Another aspect that Moore focused on was the clueless actions of Bush when the towers were attacked. If he was focused 100% on his job and planning ahead instead of being on vacation and living in the moment, I believe his decisions would have been much better and we could be even further into the rise of our nation. So when it comes to answering the question if documentaries or bias films are educational… I would say yes, of course, in every way. They might not show both sides of the educational purpose like documentaries should always do, but, that doesn’t mean that it’s not educational in the end. It’s clear that Michael Moore had a statement that he wanted to make with his film and he certainly did exactly that. In the end, his film taught us some of an earlier president’s mistakes which is educational to different types of audiences.
ReplyDelete-Steve Robles
Documentaries should be objective but often times are filled with bias. In the case of fahrenheit 9/11 Michael Moores personal opinions didnt go unnoticed, many even questioning the legitimacy of the documentary. Moore went directly at the Bush administration questioning many decisions he made. Although documentaries should be nuetral and tell both sides of the story most do not. At the end it should be up for the viewer to decide and form their own opinion on the topic. Unfortunately most people are uneducated and only believe what they see and hear and thats where bias can corrupt a documnetary. However, they can be informational either way but mostly youre getting facts from only one side. For example Michael Moore used tons of facts but they were all against Bush. So unless a documenatry is objective you cannot truly learn about the other side. Even when a documentary is objective they still only provide information the director wants you to see. In order to correctly form an opinion on a topic you must do proper research as watching a documentary gives only a broad viewpoint on a subject. Brian Jackson
ReplyDeleteDocumentaries should be objective because they inform you about certain events. If it’s just a documentary on different topics with different points you wouldn’t know what you’re learning. It matters because it’s supposed to be a factual report about a topic. The documentary Fahrenheit 9/11 takes a critical look at George W Bush’s presidency and the war on terror. This was a very effective documentary because it made Bush to be a bad persona and president. It was effective because many people saw this it was the top grossing documentary of all time. It also caused a lot of controversy over dispute of accuracy. So you can see it was very effective. Documentaries like this one could be very effective and important because people will see this and base opinions on this. So if it doesn’t show both sided and every fact about the event or topic. It could be dangerous to the public with misinforming the public. There is controversy over if Fahrenheit 9/11 was true documentary because off the facts it provided. I think it was a documentary because it just pegged Bush. Like everything that happen was his fault. I don’t think he was the best president but then again I based that of what I heard. It didn’t explain every fact didn’t contain both sides of the story. So it’s a very effective documentary and all the attention it gets doesn’t help.
ReplyDelete-Andres
Michael Moore's purpose for creating the documentary Fahrenheit 9/11 was to make George W. Bush Jr. look like the enemy after what happened on September 11,2001. I think that documentaries should show both sides of the story so that at the ened of the film the viewers aren't changing their opinion on certain situations. I'm sure that a good portion of the viewers that watched change their political parties. I believe that documentaries can be effective even if they are only one sided because the person is getting their point across but i still think documentaries should be two sided so that you get two different opinions and no negative opinions on the documentary.
ReplyDelete- Ryan Bucko
Documentaries should be objective for many reasons. They inform you on current event in a way that people would want to watch. There are many different types of documentaries out there. An example is Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 911. Michael was trying to inform the nation and world about the events that have been occurring in the united states and also over seas while at war. He puts his personal spin on everything making the audience believe that George Bush basically sucks. He uses many different techniques to make you think what he is thinking in his own head. Both sides of the arguement should be shown in the film but usually is not because if it is then there may be no point made. In my opinion if you are going to make a documentary make it the right way.
ReplyDelete- Sam DaSilva
Yes documentaries are educational but not all of them educate you in the right way. A biased documentaries for example the documentary made by Michael Moore Fahrenheit 9/11 which has no educational purpose what so ever. The whole point of this documentary was to make bush look bad and give people an opinion of bush instead of letting them form their own. There are documentaries that are educational like the ones on the history channel that talk about things like the titanic and other historical events to inform you on how they went down and what caused them to go down. The point of a documentary is to educate a person using facts and interviews. On the other hand some people make documentaries purposely for educational purposes. Anyone can throw together thoughts and call it a documentary but it doesn’t make it one. I am not a big fan of documentaries because they are boring and usually casting Morgan freeman narrating whose voice always seems to make me want to go to sleep. All in all everything that they speak on is all statements that can be support with evidence. Michael Moore is one who does his documentaries on his own opinion. Me personally, I don’t really watch documentaries but I wouldn’t believe anything that Michael Moore puts in his documentaries .so to answer the question that I got for this question is yes and no documentaries are only educational if the use the right information in the right way
ReplyDelete-Riyadh Shelton
To me, documentaries are extremely important. They can show our history and where we come from. They also can show us and teach us things we never knew about. For example, the documentary Super-Size Me. This showed America the negative effects of fast food and that if we all keep eating like this that we will all get very sick. The documentary Fahrenheit 9/11 shows what George Bush did WRONG for our country. It did not say anything about what he did well. Now a-days, documentaries are usually made to get at people. It shows what they do badly, nothing that they did well. I think documentaries should show good in our country and bring back the historical and factual part of our country.
ReplyDelete-Curtis Cocco
As long as a documentary has a specific purpose and gets it's point across then it can be considered educational. A lot of documentaries however are biased, like anything involving Michael Moore. Let's make a film about completely critiquing your issue and tearing you down a few pegs. When we watched Farenheit 9/11 his whole point was to make Bush look like a tool, not disagreeing with that he was a horrible president, but still. Bias is expected it some documentaries but this one was completely one sided. Documentaries in opinion are only educational if you learn something meaningful from watching it. Michael Moore is just the wrong type of person to make a documentary, he gives information but most of it is so biased you can't tell if it's fact or opinion. Bush wasn't the best president, not by a long shot but doesn't give Moore the right to smear his reputation; he can do that by himself. A documentary is educational depending on what type of film it is and what it's trying to teach the viewers. Documentaries can be used by a teacher to show or connect their students with a topic in class or just one they think will relate. In Mass Media we just watched that documentary on smoking cigarettes which was a little controversial,"We don't want this boy to die because then we would be losing a valued customer". People that have that way of thinking should be locked away, no chance of parole.
ReplyDelete- Joseph McMahon
I think that documentaries can be educational but I think they should have more than one objective, because sometimes focusing on one objective can become boring. But they should have an assortment of related subjects that also pertain to the main objective. Sadly most documentaries forget to real back the viewers after a long segment of just up facts, so having a side subject could and would most likely bring the viewer of the film, show, or presentation of the main subject. The creator of the documentary could turn the topic the film or media subject into a docufiction which is a combination of a fiction film and a documentary. Therefore by having a docufiction you can have both facts and fiction working together to keep the viewers occupied. But on the other hand you might lose the viewer in the fictional part of the documentary. So in some ways having another part in the documentary could distract the viewer. Then again if it was another educational in the film than that part it might draw the viewer back in better than the fictional part of a docufiction. By having two related facts or factors presented the viewer that then could make film more interesting to watch. Also you aren't stuck on one boring subject that you are stuck watching for more than the period of the documentary. So in my opinion yes documentaries are educational, they can just boring for the viewer just to be stuck on one subject.
ReplyDelete-Mark Mierzejewski
Certain Documentaries should be Objective, but others don’t have to be. It does definitely matter if it is because people need to know if it is all facts. I think the Documentary should state if it is an objective or subjective so people will know the right information. Documentaries are more factual if they are Objective because they use real facts and real proof of what they are saying. They are more helpful and they can persuade you with real facts. Subjective isn’t as convincing because it is someone’s personal thoughts and feelings. Documentaries are becoming more popular because they are coming up with more interesting topics, and certain subjective documents are telling people untrue things. An example of an Objective Document is Fahrenheit 9/11. It told the story of what actually happened. It showed peoples thoughts and feelings, and gave actual facts that they can back up. An example of a subjective document is “Mermaids, The body found”. This is a documentary that tells the story of evolution and has a lot of facts, but also adds in a story, because later you find out it’s not completely real, all they are trying to do is convince you as to why it is possible for Mermaids to exist, and when I watched it I completely believed them, they are really good at proving facts. Documents should be objective most of the time but it wouldn’t be too bad if a document had certain subjective views for the reader to make the article more interesting.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous May 8,2013,
ReplyDeleteI think that documentries are good. I think that we should watch documentries because we can learn from them. Sometimes people make documentries that are one sided and eventually they will be called out on it but most documentries are very good and you can learn from them.
Frank Musante
i think depending on the topic and source of the documentarty, all of them are educational in their own way. because educational doesn't always have to be related to school. it means if it has information and teaches you something it has its own education behind it which makes documentaries cool to watch or read. because you're not forcing yourself to learn, its all there
ReplyDeleteI believe that documentaries should be objective, however everyone has their own opinion on what objective is. A documentary should be a film that reflects on true events or about a person. It should show both sides if there are sides, but it could be a film about whatever you want if it is factual. Documentaries can be effective either way. People will watch and agree or watch and understand what happened. It has a huge effect on the viewers. It could change someones opinion or make someone hate it even more.
ReplyDeleteKrystal Finney
Documentaries should only tell the truth and the facts if they say they are a true story. Because it might confuse people and people might think the wrong things. Yes it matters because they can make people believe things that are ontrue. People can turn crazy because they think things are goin to be different from what the truth is. The Documentaries can on cover bad thing that are going on that are bad. It can make people support the issue.
ReplyDeleteThis is Damaris writing that
Deletei think that documentaries do need to be objective and based off facts. because documentaries can make or brake someones opinion on someone or something so therefore it dose matter because it wouldn't be fair to the viewer for you to throw them off to agree with your believes if the facts were false.ether way they can be important and effective because they reveal things that people didn't know about the topic like in Fahrenheit 9/11 the purpose is to bash on president bush for his job and what hes done wrong and by using facts it was a well done job to change a viewers opinion on him before election day.
ReplyDeleteThere should be no opinion in a documentary because it’s supposed to be educational, so you should help people understand what really happened, and all the real facts.The documentary would only be showing one side to it and not the other side to it. It would be leaving a lot out on what we should know.. Documnetaries can make or brake someones opinion on someine or sometinf like renard said it wouldnt be fair to the viewwer.
ReplyDeleteStephen Gonza
i think documentaries should be objective because if they're not you're just getting one side of a story, argument, etc. Take Fahrenheit 911 for example, Michael Moore only told the bad things Bush did as president but didn't show any of his accomplishments. I feel documentaries can be objective or not because either way they still have a point to get across and either way its still important and you can learn a lot for them.
ReplyDelete-Alex Garcia
Wow this kid really deserves some extra credit^
ReplyDeleteYou know what that kid deserves, pancakes.... pancakes. Slacker! Game, blouses!
ReplyDeleteThe Documentaries are used to make people think that it happen in real life. It what the Documentares say to keep you watching it. It does not work on other people do not belive it
ReplyDeleteI believe that whether a documentary is objective or not doesn't matter and the decision should be left up to the filmaker. Given how broad the definition of a documentary is, I think that objectivity isn't the deciding factor in whether or not a documentary really is a documentary or not. A filmaker should be able to present his thoughts and ideas however they want to. Having said that, I believe that for a documentary to be truly informative, it should be unbiased and show every side of the issue. A documentary with a biased opinion can still be important because they can show how different people think and why they disagree on certain issues. These films still follow enough criteria to be a documentary without really being objective.
ReplyDelete-Claudio Everett
Should documentaries be objective? I personally believe that documentaries should most definitley be objective.That doesn't mean that they always are. Some probably go off topic and you don't want a documentarie that goes off of the topic. If they do not stick on to the topic, the documentarie IS effective, but in a negative way filling more heads with more nonsense. - Rich Brunetto
ReplyDeleteDocumentaries should be objective because documentaries are supposed to have a point and purpose and in that it should be research done for both research on wither its good or bad but both most be stated if not the film is bias. Yes it does matter because documentaries can change a person way of thinking so if its one way its basically brain washing people to think that sort of way. One way documentaries are effective because it you don't have to debate with your self it tells one way facts. real documentaries that show both opinions and facts can be effective because the people are making their own decision and most likely will keep it.
ReplyDelete-Brandon Williams
Michael Moore and his one sided documentaries makes him kind of a soulless cold hearted person that purposely uses people discretingly behind there to purposely exploit there problem in his movie Fahrenheit 9/11, well not to that his facts are wrong I'm just saying he is a backstabbing SOB with no soul and he uses people like tool. Aaron Haynal
ReplyDeleteMichael Moore makes it seem like he is the right all the time and he is someone to look up to. His documentry was all about the war and he talked about how the president was wrong for what he did and this is why documentries should be objective so the viewer can see both sides of the story.To me personaly i do not care if the documentries are debatable and show 2 sides but some people think diffrent and they want to see hear things from a diffrent perspective.They can be effective either way because they show a story no one has ever seen before
ReplyDelete-Jeffrey Rohrig
Documentaries should definitly be objective. This is because it is explainning something usually non-fiction so there should be facts and both sides of the story. You need both stories to form your own opinion. Michael Moore seemed to only throw out his opinion on how the President and Gov went wrong but you need more than that. If he just tells you everything he thinks then the documentary wont be educational. It should be more based on the facts and not opinion. This would make it more educational to learn. Theres nothing to learn from opinions, Although they can be helpful to piece together a documentary./SeanFarrell
ReplyDeleteA Documentary should be based on facts and not opinions. Because if people just say their opinions the truth never gets told/revelaed.
ReplyDeleteI think that documentaries can be educational depending on the source of youre information. If youre really trying to educated your self and are looking for awsners i would suggest you do youre own research at home. Dont always trust your eyes,they can deceive you. As for michael moores documentary i thought that it was pretty good actuall facts it would of been better if he didint use that poor woman to his advantage, that just makes him a hypocrite.