I haven’t seen the film. But I’m curious: How does one distinguish “a documentary in the truest sense” from propaganda? What degree of myths, fibs, lies, omissions, etc would have to be present or absent in order to make that determination. Or does it just depend on the subject matter and the bias and knowledge/ignorance of the viewer? I…
I haven’t seen the film. But I’m curious: How does one distinguish “a documentary in the truest sense” from propaganda? What degree of myths, fibs, lies, omissions, etc would have to be present or absent in order to make that determination. Or does it just depend on the subject matter and the bias and knowledge/ignorance of the viewer? I dunno. But you might be interested in this:
I haven’t seen the film. But I’m curious: How does one distinguish “a documentary in the truest sense” from propaganda? What degree of myths, fibs, lies, omissions, etc would have to be present or absent in order to make that determination. Or does it just depend on the subject matter and the bias and knowledge/ignorance of the viewer? I dunno. But you might be interested in this:
https://open.substack.com/pub/elderofziyon/p/the-lies-behind-oscar-winner-no-other?r=2hmx9&utm_medium=ios