Discovery Channel "Documentary" is Shameful

kellyb said:
You know, if the Discovery channel were to air the Blair Witch Project or Loose Change as factual documentaries, I think most JERFers would take issue with that, too.
Click to expand...

OK, now you're verging on almost self-satirical (if not comepletely deliberate) density.

The Blair Witch Project, films in that subgenre, and more generally mockumentries are marketed in a way so as make to distinguishing them from reality extremely difficult, if not downright impossible. Where there is "obvious" parody or satire, the film is presented in such a way that it is clearly meant to appeal to those viewers who style themselves as sophisticated--that is to say, in a way that is immediately obvious to every viewer. Where there is no "obvious" parody or satire, the film is presented as portraying "real" events.

The whole issue is that, if people are meant to be taken as autonomous agents, they, at some point, have to be assumed to be responsible for their own belief formation, and if they can't be bothered to pay attention to the the-following-is-satire-f***face or the-preceding-was-fiction-dip***** disclaimers, "skeptics" and "critical thinkers" can't compel them form their beliefs in a fashion that "skeptics" and "critical thinkers" want them to. Moreover, the righteous indignation at DiscoChan's airing of the "documentary" seems a bit counter-productive as it can be easily spun as look-at-what-the-Establishment-doesn't-want-you-to-know.

Overall, the goals of "skeptics" and "critical thinkers" would be better served teaching people to look for disclaimers and explaining why a network might have to put a disclaimer in the front- or back-matter of a show.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
I see, you simply don't understand what critical thinking actually means.
Click to expand...

So Wildcat doesn't think that a fake documentary showed on Discovery is a horrible sin. This does not mean he's opposed to critical thinking. Nothing about the subject requires that we all be appalled by little hoaxes like this.

In fact, I tend to disagree with Wildcat. I think it's pretty reprehensible that a documentary channel allegedly devoted to science and such shows a fictional program in this devious way, sure to confuse and deceive many viewers, all for the sake of ratings. It's a cynical and horrid ploy.

But that doesn't mean that WC's a traitor to the hallowed topic of critical thinking. It just means we disagree.
 
phiwum said:
So Wildcat doesn't think that a fake documentary showed on Discovery is a horrible sin. This does not mean he's opposed to critical thinking. Nothing about the subject requires that we all be appalled by little hoaxes like this.

In fact, I tend to disagree with Wildcat. I think it's pretty reprehensible that a documentary channel allegedly devoted to science and such shows a fictional program in this devious way, sure to confuse and deceive many viewers, all for the sake of ratings. It's a cynical and horrid ploy.

But that doesn't mean that WC's a traitor to the hallowed topic of critical thinking. It just means we disagree.
Click to expand...
The mission of the JREF is to promote critical thinking, not just be a critical thinker yourself. If nothing that has the opposite effect matters because, hey after all it's free speech, then just when does one who feels an affinity for the JREF community think it is appropriate to care about a program that does damage like this one?


So what Mr better than everyone knew the program was fake? So did most of us, and if not, we certainly heard it was fake within a short time of the broadcast. That is not the issue. I doubt anyone here is annoyed they themselves were misled.

The point is this program further blurs the line between real science and fake crap for a large segment of the population.

On the positive side, the fact everyone is upset will go a long way to educating the public to the complete falsehoods they are bombarded with on TV. But we have to say so loudly for the most people to hear the message.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
The mission of the JREF is to promote critical thinking, not just be a critical thinker yourself. If nothing that has the opposite effect matters because, hey after all it's free speech, then just when does one who feels an affinity for the JREF community think it is appropriate to care about a program that does damage like this one?

So what Mr better than everyone knew the program was fake? So did most of us, and if not, we certainly heard it was fake within a short time of the broadcast. That is not the issue. I doubt anyone here is annoyed they themselves were misled.

The point is this program further blurs the line between real science and fake crap for a large segment of the population.

On the positive side, the fact everyone is upset will go a long way to educating the public to the complete falsehoods they are bombarded with on TV. But we have to say so loudly for the most people to hear the message.
Click to expand...

I might agree with you that this program is in conflict with the express aims of JREF.

It is not inconsistent with a healthy respect for critical thinking itself.

The problem with the program is that it blurs the line between fact and fiction. It is likely to mislead people. But I can see someone who values basic skills in reasoning and a healthy respect for skepticism being none too concerned about the program. Let the viewer beware! Not a bad lesson, from certain perspectives.

As I've said, I think Discovery should be criticized. I only take issue with your claim that WC's lack of censure shows that he lacks respect for critical thinking itself.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
The mission of the JREF is to promote critical thinking, not just be a critical thinker yourself. If nothing that has the opposite effect matters because, hey after all it's free speech, then just when does one who feels an affinity for the JREF community think it is appropriate to care about a program that does damage like this one?
Click to expand...


I love JREF and all. But, I sure would hate to be hectored that I'm not representing your idea of JREF's mission.

Wildcat's view of this documentary is absurd, but it's not quite skeptical sacrilege. It's just his opinion.
 
dudalb said:
For my money the best Shark Documentary ever done is was "Blue Water, White Death" done back in the 1970's.
Click to expand...

I remember that... saw it in a movie theater when I was young. Thanks for the reminder, I remember being very impressed (but I wonder what I'd think of it now).
 
phiwum said:
I might agree with you that this program is in conflict with the express aims of JREF.

It is not inconsistent with a healthy respect for critical thinking itself.

The problem with the program is that it blurs the line between fact and fiction. It is likely to mislead people. But I can see someone who values basic skills in reasoning and a healthy respect for skepticism being none too concerned about the program. Let the viewer beware! Not a bad lesson, from certain perspectives.

As I've said, I think Discovery should be criticized. I only take issue with your claim that WC's lack of censure shows that he lacks respect for critical thinking itself.
Click to expand...
If you go back and re-read the beginning of the exchange, I asked, "Do you hang out here just to troll and complain, or do you actually have an interest in the subject of critical thinking?

Just curious."

It was a legitimate question. He never answered it.


hgc said:
I love JREF and all. But, I sure would hate to be hectored that I'm not representing your idea of JREF's mission.

Wildcat's view of this documentary is absurd, but it's not quite skeptical sacrilege. It's just his opinion.
Click to expand...
Like I said, I simply asked a question.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
If you go back and re-read the beginning of the exchange, I asked, "Do you hang out here just to troll and complain, or do you actually have an interest in the subject of critical thinking?

Just curious."

It was a legitimate question. He never answered it.



Like I said, I simply asked a question.
Click to expand...

With due respect, that wasn't intended as a question at all. It was simply an accusation posing as a question.

Now, are you going to admit that others can disagree while still bowing down before critical thinking, or will you persist in this silly tirade?

(Just another example of an accusation posing as a question, purely for pedagogical purposes.)
 
phiwum said:
With due respect, that wasn't intended as a question at all. It was simply an accusation posing as a question.

Now, are you going to admit that others can disagree while still bowing down before critical thinking, or will you persist in this silly tirade?

(Just another example of an accusation posing as a question, purely for pedagogical purposes.)
Click to expand...
Yeah, well with due respect, it was a question.

Anything more is mind reading on your part.
 
phiwum said:
I think it's pretty reprehensible that a documentary channel allegedly devoted to science and such shows a fictional program in this devious way, sure to confuse and deceive many viewers, all for the sake of ratings. It's a cynical and horrid ploy.
Click to expand...
I agree with your sentiment but the reality is that Discovery and its group of channels (Animal Planet, TLC, Science, etc.) are no longer documentary/science channels. Discover got a new CEO a few years back from NBC and they've "re-branded" which is code for "enough of this science junk let's just churn out reality crap and fake documentaries". They play off their prior history of when they used to have some credibility. TLC doesn't even stand for The Learning Channel anymore (really).
 
Does the general public still view DiscoChan as a reputable outlet for for popular science programming?
 
phiwum said:
But I can see someone who values basic skills in reasoning and a healthy respect for skepticism being none too concerned about the program. Let the viewer beware! Not a bad lesson, from certain perspectives.
Click to expand...

Give me a damn break. Or should you or any critical thinker be none too concerned with Long Island Medium or Montel Williams feat. Syliva Browne, or Ghost Hunters, or Bigfoot Lives. Or of course the Talmud, Bible, Koran, etc.

"Let the viewer beware! Even if he's just five years old and his parents are too stupid to recognize that the program they're watching or book they bow too is BS!"

What is this, some kind of skeptical Darwinism? Only the most skeptical should be skeptical? Do you care at all about what BS programs children are watching and what it does to their faculties? What crap.
 
Dragoonster said:
Give me a damn break. Or should you or any critical thinker be none too concerned with Long Island Medium or Montel Williams feat. Syliva Browne, or Ghost Hunters, or Bigfoot Lives. Or of course the Talmud, Bible, Koran, etc.

"Let the viewer beware! Even if he's just five years old and his parents are too stupid to recognize that the program they're watching or book they bow too is BS!"

What is this, some kind of skeptical Darwinism? Only the most skeptical should be skeptical? Do you care at all about what BS programs children are watching and what it does to their faculties? What crap.
Click to expand...

First, I'll repeat that it isn't my opinion I'm representing here.

But, yeah, I can understand someone drawing a distinction between fakes like John Edwards and a fake documentary that includes a (brief, nigh invisible but still extant) disclaimer. The former is a con artist, fleecing the stupid. The latter is a simple hoax, along the lines of the War of the Worlds broadcast, but somewhat more intentionally deceptive.
 
luchog said:
A disturbingly large segment of the general public view Fox News as a reputable outlet for science programming.
Click to expand...

I will say (without any sense of irony or sarcasm) that I am often surprised to see well-and detailed science stories on the FOX news website.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom