Charlie Brooker's Screenwipe - Reality TV Editing

I used to love watching documentaries but the more you watch them the more you see how most often they are biased and edited to show the authors / producers point of view. How a documentary is edited can mean the same facts and interview being used to show something being positive or totally negative. I guess it's true for all media but I've found this especially true for a lot of recent ones I've seen (last was Bikram yoga predator). Btw here is an awesome video that shows how editing can do wonders for how we perceive things(1). Though this one is about reality tv, I've seen the same done in a lot of recent documentaries too. (1) [this video]

> the more you watch them aka Media literacy. > the more you see how most often they are biased What's the alternative? > ...here is an awesome video that shows how editing can do wonders for how we perceive things ... [this video] That's quite good. Nice point about how better gear enabled the reality TV format. I did some radio and TV stuff as a kid. (A vocational tech program. Student radio, cable public access, job shadowing, "journalism", etc.) Transmuted me into a "Kill your television" type crank. I can't watch "the news" without yelling at the TV. As a counterpoint: Robert X Cringley's NerdTV had the radical notion of sharing all of the source footage. Viewers could watch his edit, highlight reels, and teasers. And then they could also make their own. Sadly, this format hasn't caught on. Anyway. It seems to me that Zoomers will prove to be the most media literate generation. And so therefore the least susceptible to ham-fisted narrative techniques. Certainly compared to Boomers.

Charlie Brooker's Screenwipe demonstrates this perfectly, using the same footage and completely flipping the tone: [this video] The prologue of This American Life episode 458, "Play the Part" provides good testimony about this process from someone who worked in editing. [link] Chuck Klosterman's "Sex, Drugs, and Cocoa Puffs" has a chapter on the Real World, "What Happens When People Stop Being Polite." It'd probably be the most work to seek out, but it's my highest recommendation, well worth it. He's a pretty entertaining writer, and has some great insights here. He tracks down one of the early stars and points out a few frightening ways that real life interactions mimic reality television shows.

David Attenborough does not make the same style of programming that Curtis does. Curtis has a very specific world view, or world vibe, let's say whereas Attenborough does have views about the world but not much else beyond visual grandeur. His earlier stuff is definitely better than his more recent work, but I refer specifically to the hypernormalization documentary because it's absolutely full of "Syria this", "Assad this", "[large country or company] decided to do [remarkably simple thing]". Maybe it's right, but the point is that it's structured and edited in a way where he wants to make you feel his argument that the world is being forced into a state of inaction, not convince you that his argument is correct. In this specific documentary, he is undeniably flying extremely close to the sun in how he presents his argument versus what he is arguing against. He argument is all about the "theys" and the men in palaces, and obviously some decisions are, but some inference one makes in this mindset are simply the result of being fooled by randomness. Don't get me wrong, I like listening to Adam Curtis docs while I'm working, I just think that he goes too far. When he is covering identifiable flaws he is absolutely brilliant, e.g. his piece on Nick Leeson is really nicely done, when he is kind of mumbling about some kind of incompetent conspiracy to do [something] he is often charismatic but shallow. Also (a point about documentary filmmaking in general) the use of interviews is