Inaccurate Information

Can we believe everything we watch?

With social issue and activist documentaries making more appearances, there are currently greater risks of twisted information and inaccuracy. A defining feature of documentary is its dedication to truthfulness and has earned respect and trust because of this. Unfortunately, Netflix has a large catalogue of health and environmental films and it appears some are attempting to push change to the point that they have lost their truthfulness. 

There have been a large number of documentaries accused of skewing the truth, including Nanook of the North, Bowling for Columbine, Super Size Me, Frozen Planet, Cowspiracy, The Greater Good, Iranium and The Great Global Warming Swindle. But a recent film that has caused uproar amongst many nutritionists and the scientific community is Netflix documentary What the Health.  

Time Magazine investigated the film and debunked a lot of the facts. The documentary's agenda is to persuade the world that a vegan diet is key to sustainable and healthy living. While they have best interests at heart, they have pushed facts too far and have become inaccurate. Kip Andersen and Keegan Kuhn use documentary to inspire change but evidently don't believe that they can achieve this without bending the truth. 

With intensions of shocking the audience into ditching animal products, they make claims that eating eggs and processed meat are as bad for you as smoking cigarettes. They also link meat and milk with cancer and suggest that sugar is not that bad for you. 

As stated by Time, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) said in an explanation of its findings in 2015 that “processed meat has been classified in the same category as causes of cancer such as tobacco smoking and asbestos, but this does NOT mean that they are all equally dangerous”. Alexandra Freeman, executive director of the Winton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication at Cambridge University, told The Times that the claims about eggs are sourced from an "extremely controversial paper".

There is also numerous video content featuring interviews with expert professionals that discuss the credibility of the film's statements.

It seems that poor research could behind the inaccurate information in current documentaries. British documentary maker Sharon Woodward shared her opinion on the issue. 

Do you think there is an issue with inaccurate information in documentaries?
Sharon - Yeah definitely, because a lot of information online isn't necessarily true. With Skype interviews you get facts, stories and experiences straight from the horses mouth. So that worries me that people are going to skip on the research and go to the internet rather than directly to people. 

Does the act of production diminish truth?

What the Health is an example of where truth has blatantly been diverted but truthfulness in documentary is usually more of a grey area. 

“When I’m working on a doc, I try not to lie, but that doesn’t mean that I don’t bend the truth. If you’re a filmmaker you try to create a POV, you bend and shape the story to your agenda . . . Especially on a historical documentary, I keep to the facts. But if you want to really explore it, you have to shape and bend. It depends on the project.” - Sam Pollard

In this International Documentary Association article, Rachel Kamerman looks into the possibility of 'craft' outweighing truth. She says "filmmakers should be mindful of the fact that the cognitive or emotional leaps they require their audiences to take may allow the seams of their constructs to show". This highlights the compromise often made between craft and truth in documentary making. She references the maxim in filmmaking that "every cut is a lie", and with audiences now very aware of the filming process, it can be very detrimental to the truth claims of documentary. 

She talks about 'literal truths' and 'essential truths'. Both are true but the latter provides analysis and reveals human insights. She argues that the craft of documentary making is to provide the essential truths. 

"A movie composed of literal truths would be 100 percent true in the strictest sense, but also quite possibly the most bereft of real insight, while attaining, perhaps, complete unwatchability in its dogged pursuit of honesty" - Rachel Kamerman

She also makes the very valid point that "the documentary filmmaker in his or her element is still a storyteller, albeit one who deals in the real. But when has anyone ever regaled a crowd with a true story enjoyed merely for its precise and wholly accurate recollection of events?" It is the 'creative treatment of actuality' - as said by Grierson - that defines documentary and allows for artistic and impactful delivery of a film's message. 

Truthfulness in documentary is essential but as is story and human insight. A documentary maker must be wary of how far they are steering from literal truths to achieve essential truths and be mindful of the information that will lose them their credibility if proved inaccurate.