Quote:
|
Originally Posted by cthulu23
Sounds like we're back to objectivity here. Anyway, "factual" can mean a lot of things. "Facts" are in the eye of the beholder.
|
I would take issue with this. It is my opinion that facts are facts. The
interpretation of those facts is open to debate, but not the facts themselves. Hence the use of the term "fact". But then I am a pretty literal type of guy and admit to being pron to splitting hairs sometimes. Not sure English should have been my first language as I tend to like more detail than English naturally lends itself to.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by cthulu23
There's the problem...to you, the term "documentary" confers credibility.
|
Freely admitted. I think a lot of American does the same thing. I have taken an unscientific poll of those I work with (about 30 in my office here) and the term lends credibility in and of itself to 2 out 3 I talked to. All of those I talked to were surprised to find, as was I, that propaganda is considered a form of documentary. Most here are highly interested in politics and educated above the average in America.
I realize that this does not in and of itself prove anything but I think it sort has to make you stop and think. If most misunderstand what a documentary is and is not, then cannot that be used to lend false credibility by a guy with the intelligence and motive of Moore?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by cthulu23
It's not just Hollywood that qualifies some propaganda as worthy of the title "documentary," it is a standard idea in the study of cinema. Pehaps your personal ideas don't jibe with the standard school of thought? There's nothing wrong with that, of course, but don't act surprised when F9/11 is described as a documentary because, well, it is.
|
Again agreed. You would be correct in this. But as I stated above, I think my thoughts are perhaps more in line with mainstream American thought. And no, I will not be surprised again but that does not mean I will agree or approve either.