Last night I recorded a three hour block of programming on the Discovery channel about the origin of the world/universe and whether or not God was responsible.
I haven't watched it yet and will probably hack away at it during my lunch breaks this week and next. But I'm very curious about how they handle the topic, which experts they select to interview and what kind of material surfaces after the editing process.
I was telling my wife yesterday that it's a little scary how much stock we put into the stuff we see on Discovery, National Geographic or The History Channel. I sometimes have to remind myself that no matter how boring the documentary or how serious and smart-sounding the narrator is, I am not getting an unfiltered look at the issue being covered. There are journalists picking the experts they think are best (or sometimes that they just think will fit their vision for the final product), editors choosing which words will be heard and which will not and producers and network execs trying to sell sponsorship slots with interesting content. And since controversy is entertaining and therefore equals ratings, we get a healthy dose of opinions mixed in smoothly with facts.
I'm convinced that, even though channels and documentaries like these can be helpful in stimulating conversation or initiating a search for truth, the actual hard work of fact-checking and investigation must be left to the individual. Especially in controversial matters. TV, Wikipedia, chat rooms and message boards might play a role in stimulating our interest or passion, but they are poor substitutes for genuinely seeking out truth.
No comments:
Post a Comment