Yeah, I was critiquing the idea that any kind of top-down management of truth in science shows would make any sense. I assumed that the headline was asking the question of enforcement, as asking the intrinsic moral question seems silly and obvious…should science shows tell the truth? Yeah, they should tell the truth, but who doesn’t think that? The question of whether there’s anything to be done about it seems to be the more interesting question.
EDIT: I actually didn’t read/watch any relevant material to the question in the headline…the video for me alternated between instructions on how to do a a hyper-lapse and a crash message…so my comments are of the cf;dr; nature…
I watched a lot of documentaries as a kid (one of the few TV show types my entire family could agree on). We watched more factual documentaries, but we also watched docs on cryptozoology and UFOs. Leonard Nimoy’s “In Search Of” series was a family favourite.
But you know… I don’t remember Nimoy or any of the other presenters actually coming out and saying misleading stuff. They would ask a bunch of leading questions, sure – if I remember right, my parents used them as an example to teach us what a leading question was. But even with the strictly fact-based shows, there was a context of “until we learn more/better” to the material presented.
I once met someone who had done a film about local ghost stories for Discovery, and was disappointed to learn that they had altered and/or made up some of the stories they presented in the film. When I said so, the response was, “So what? There’s no such things as ghosts!”. Of course there’s no such thing as ghosts, but the point of ghost documentaries is to look at the local history which led to the ghost story, get into the psychology of guilt and fear which leads to the ghost sightings, look at the odd weather patterns/physical science which led to the appearance of supernatural phenomena, and so on, and so forth. If you’re just making up stuff, all that is lost.
So my line isn’t so much at The Truth/Not the Truth, but that facts vs. conjecture are clearly delineated. If it’s a case like the mermaid film, the filmmakers aren’t even trying to conjecture, so it fails. But a film that looks at the violent history of an old house and discusses various ghost stories surrounding said history… that’s fine.
I agree! There are I think a few crucial distinctions to be made. Many of the older paranormal/fringe weirdness shows had more actual content than many of the contemporary ones. Such as lengthier in-context interviews with witnesses, experts, and wannabe-experts. This told me more about the subject and let me make up my own mind about it. And, if I had the choice, I find letting an authentic kook talk more entertaining than somebody who knows better doing lots of re-enactments and graphics. The former give some understanding about folklore and psychology, while the latter should just pursue the fiction market they so desperately desire. I don’t think there’s any harm in discussing weird things that people believe, and asking “what if?”. It’s much different than claiming to present sensational answers.
