manofunreal wrote:There wouldn't be too many doco's out there the are completely fair and balanced though would there? The majority of film makers would set out to make one with some kind of agenda in mind and I think with Should I Smoke Dope (and others by the same lady), she just wanted them to be entertaining. IMO she succeeded.
This is why kids in school should be taught to consume all forms of media in a very analytical way. Just look at how many people look at ACA as an actual real current affairs show (rather than an advertorial show with an agenda to push prejudice mentalities) or look at the Herald Sun as an actual news paper. There really isn't anywhere to go for absolute truth so doco's are no different.
/end rant
True, but there was something particular about her doco, evident in the title, that seemed to try and purport a fair appraisal. Plus, this is a BBC documentary, they usually have a higher standard. And it's articles like this that belie the sensationalism, obscured by the token "what we need is a debate":
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7314812.stm
Super Size Me, for example, is done in a very different tone, it's quite clear that it's main goal is to be humorous rather than informative. This doco has a very different tone.
Of course one should always be critical, but journalism, especially from publicly funded sources, has a responsibility to provide accurate information, and to make it clear when it's not.
I just think it's taking advantage of an ignorance for the sake of ratings. If she had taken 20 shots of booze and thrown up, everyone would call her an idiot.