PBS on Political Docs
The Independent Television Service, which funds a lot of PBS documentaries, just sent out their newsletter which talks about why political documentaries are becoming so popular.
A key impetus for most of the films discussed here, and Uncovered, Hijacking [Catastrophe] and Bush’s Brain, in particular, is getting information and points of view to the American people that have been ignored by the mainstream media in general and television news in particular. Increasingly, moviegoers are looking to documentary filmmakers for the kind of investigative journalism and behind-the-scenes reports that were once the province of the networks. Relying on grants and television funding but in no one’s employ, independent filmmakers uncover and pursue stories without worrying about upsetting advertisers, embarrassing a board of directors or violating prime-time or parental guidelines.
Michael Fox argues that a lack of investigative reporting from the broadcast television news has helped spurned the latest wave and success of political docs.
I came to the same conclusion and asked Bill Plante of CBS news if he thought that the success of Fahrenheit 9/11 had anything to the lack of coverage of complex issues by the broadcast television news:
ECP: So, talk about issues that are very complex, do they just not get covered? There's got to be a way to do it. It's what I'm trying to do in a way.
PLANTE: Covering complex issues means that you either have to, for television, break them down into their simplest elements, and then try to illustrate those, preferably with something graphic. Or give yourself a great deal of time, something we don't have in commercial television, and lay it out and hope that you can hold the audience's interest. This is a big if. ...
ECP: Have you seen Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11?
PLANTE: I have.
ECP: It seems like he could -- with his kind of looser view on objectivity -- he seemed to be able to do it. Is that something that -- there seems to be that the success of that film -- that people are really hungry for these complex ideas to be tackled?
PLANTE: I don't know that I'd take that out of it. I mean, Michael Moore's view of objectivity is more or less non-existent. He's arguing a point of view. He's a skillful filmmaker. But he's a little loose with the facts, and a lot of cheap shots. That's fine. I mean, that's what he chose to do. And it is entertaining. But -- It's an argument. And that's fine. So he captures -- He captures the audience's attention, and they either like it or don't like it. But I wouldn't characterize it as a rigorous look at any -- it's not a rigorous argument.
ECP: But if you look at the success of the film, there seems to be a lot of people who are hungry for that. Would you agree?
PLANTE: I, you know -- Sure, people want to be entertained. He can entertain you. But in the process of that, does it change your mind? Depends on what you bring to the film. Not so much on the skill of the filmmaker, but on the mindset you bring to the film. If you're a committed anti-Bush person, you're going to love it. And if you're skeptical, you may find the film a bit iffy. And if you love Bush, you're going to hate it.
Plante doesn't seem to want to attribute the success of F911 to the failings of the media at all, but I and Michael Fox agree that it probably has something to do with it.
