Maggie's Farm

"Huh? If the guy is hopeless about facts and truth, why does he bother worrying, and why doesn't he simply call his own stuff "fiction"?"

Well, as someone who has done a fair amount of investigative reporting (and a miniscule amount of documentary-making), I can relate. It is not possible for human beings to be completely objective, and ironically the harder we try, the more we come to understand that. Conversely, the LESS we are concerned about objectivity, the easier it seems to slap the word "documentary" on something that is really "propaganda".

"Al Gore, Michael Moore, Oliver Stone: all fully-conscious propagandists seeking to mess up the minds of the ignorant for their own purposes."

I suspect those are the kinds of people the author has in mind, yes. This is a real problem for serious documentary makers, actually. People used to be more or less willing to suspend their natural cynicism when presented with a "documentary". Now, thanks to Moore and others, "documentary" is just a mask for, as you say, "propaganda". And that devalues and undermines the work of filmmakers who are really struggling to go after truth.

'Are those polar ice caps really melting? How do we know that's really unusual? Is this interview all there really is to this story, or is it completely out of context?' That's what audiences think now, not wanting to get sucked in to the documentary-maker's world. Nothing is real, nothing is honest, nothing is believable. Might as well make a fictional film, since we live in a world where no one trusts anyone or anything.

"I know at many colleges it is now taught that true documentaries don't exist because objectivity is impossible. The fruits of postmodernism."

Indeed. You know, when Edward R. Morrow showed up on the TV, people use to think, "Here comes the truth about (whatever)". Same with Mike Wallace in his early days. Check out these interviews from the 50's:

http://mistersnitch.blogspot.com/2008/04/window-into-lost-world.html

You get a sense, when watching these, that Wallace felt some responsibility about getting his facts straight. People were counting on him. (The irony is that he was STILL misleading them - check out the heavy sell re smoking. Wallace didn't know about cancer, of course, but he DID know it was an addictive product. So, see how we compartmentalize our 'honesty' for our own convenience.)

Those days are gone, audiences have lost their innocence. Trust is like virginity... no matter what you try, you really don't get it back.