Truth vs reality, a war between fact and perception. the nature of truth to me can be slippery, it has been discussed originally the purity of the truth went fundamentally hand in hand. 20 years ago, documentaries were screaming truth, a way of being educated and informed of the pure “truth”.
Modern-day society believe in what is said, what we hear is what we visualise the world around us, what we see reality as. Modern day Documentaries are proposed to reveal reliable content and a truthful version of sources, recently however underneath these decencies they create unnoticed flaws, an unbalanced weight of the “whole truth” they do not reveal. Causing people to believe , “the directors point of view on gun laws, vaccines and political issues”, as I mentioned before, our perspective on the world is dependent on what we hear. the negative impact of this, is the perception that we cannot depict the true version of reality by not seeing the “whole truth”. Truth vs reality.
Argument 1 (documentaries corrupting purity of truth)
Rudy Giulian stated “Truth isn’t truth” no more. So what is truth, Contextual, time dependant and relied upon our perceptions. How can we define what is with certainty what truth really is, when directors and producers of documentaries are qualified and trusted of telling the truth, their particular agenda but are deceiving others through revealing a one-sided “part truth”.
Oprah employed a phrase “speaking your truth and THE TRUTH’, there was only ever one truth, that wasn’t entitled to peoples opinion on their truth and interpretation. “A Riotous Affair - Cronulla riot”, an embedded documentary 60 minutes released in 2015, where they show a notorious look upon the destruction of Australia day. Was a complete One sided film based on “their truth”. An innocent Australian Man and future wife were suddenly attacked of the streets off Cronulla by a dark-skinned mob. Although the innocent man was severely injured, The Mob’s perspective were never shown. My point is basically this film did not reveal the “whole truth” and 60 minutes accused the mob of destruction, where originally any dark skinned person were badly hurt and or murdered in Cronulla for weeks, dreadful. It is clear producers or directors are so obsessed with “their “perception of the truth to be thoughtful of “the truth”, An impure truth.’ the perception that we cannot depict the true version of reality by not seeing the “whole truth”
(argument 2 – Directors using documentaries for their own benefit)
“bowling for columbine” a documentary showing a controversial look upon American gun laws, was completely based on the director “Michael mores” perception. Where Michael more visits the shocking ease of accessibility to guns in America. Exposing the audience to just how easy it is to access guns in the state. Misleading scenes where Michael receives a gun through him creating a bank account, this was further shown when Michael was staged to undergo a background check and had to travel to a nearby gun store to collect his “fire Arms”. This shows moor’s triumphant attempt of basing the entire film off his insights, more in depth it revealed he didn’t care about His states guns laws, he cared for the fame of himself “Michael Moore”. This clearly represents misleading information that the directors and producers of film are further obsessed with the fame and personal interpretation of “Michael Moore’s” Insights.
Truth vs reality is a concept that 20 years ago the way we perceived truth was pure, and that it seemed like reality. It was once discussed that truth and reality once went essentially hand in hand. Modern-day documentaries have twisted “their truth” entirely to appear like “the truth” and have manipulated our innocent minds to think otherwise. The issue is the perception that we cannot depict the true version of reality by not seeing the “whole truth”, Concept of truth vs reality. In which documentaries are concerned to reveal “their truth” Benefitting the directors and producers. Now, I am not saying that all documentaries are misleading and punish our innocent minds, exemptions of realty are demonstrated throughout many documentaries, for example, David Attenborough. Do you think this man who has 32 honorary degrees, the highest a man to ever hold would be lying to us concerning the behaviour of the wildlife, No. Yes, there are documentaries that uphold the value of truth, however over the years more directors of are reconstructing the meaning of a documentary.