"There are two sides to every story and truth is usually somewhere in the middle." That's my version of the famous quote. No matter how honest the person telling the story, as a human being, he or she will almost inevitably choose to relate and interpret the facts in such a way that supports the speaker's point of view and will leave out or distort facts that might support the other point of view. I've never known a person to be completely honest and unbiased in explaining a controversy or relating an incident in which certain facts are in dispute. No matter who you are, your version of events will also be colored to some degree by your experiences, your memories, your perceptions or even your need to be right. Therefore, the factual, unvarnished, objective truth (assuming such a thing can be determined in a given situation) almost always sits somewhere between opposing points of view. So, the real question is, whether the real truth of the matter is closer to one position or the other. That's the question that needs to be answered by anyone trying to evaluate opposing arguments or differing versions of an event. The same question needs to be answered by anyone viewing a documentary with a clearly defined point of view, especially one on a controversial topic.
Take "Merchants of Doubt" (PG-13, 1:36) for example. Based on the acclaimed book of the same name by scientists and historians Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway, this movie tells the story of the scientists who have spoken out in favor of the predominant perspective of big business on whether tobacco smoking, acid rain, the hole in the earth's ozone layer and, especially, climate change, were real and/or harmful. The thesis of the book and the movie is that these scientists were essentially hired guns, blasting away at widely accepted scientific verdicts on each of those issues. The book's authors and the documentary's producers believe that these "contrarians" have been engaged in a deliberate campaign to muddy the waters regarding these issues in the hopes of derailing or, at least, delaying government intervention that would lead to increased regulation of business and a resulting decrease in profits for the companies and industries that would be forced to change their business practices to adhere to new government rules. In short, if these scientists are weighing in on these issues for the purpose of confusing lawmakers and the public, and are doing it for money, then they are Merchants of Doubt.
"Figures don't lie, but liars figure" is a good quote to summarize what the filmmakers feel these contrarians have been doing for decades. The documentary's descriptions of how scientists publicly denied that tobacco smoking, acid rain and the hole in the ozone layer were harmful are meant to establish a pattern of behavior leading up to more recent controversies over global warming and climate change. It's not that these aren't scientists. They are or they are, at least, men with science credentials, but not necessarily in the specific areas on which they are opining and commenting. Beyond that, the contrarians are doing little or no actual scientific research themselves. Rather, they are picking over the methods, data and conclusions of others in an attempt to twist the science to fit their own point of view. Or so the movie's theory goes. The film decides that these scientists are doing it for the money they receive (often secretly) from big business and also because these scientists see increased government regulation as a threat to free enterprise. In other words, these are scientists who, in previous decades, took sides in the Cold War, with its threats to the American way of life, and are now fighting an information war against some of those same threats. The irony, claims the movie, is that helping to delay government action to mitigate the harm caused by the aforementioned byproducts of the modern industrial age makes the problems worse and eventually leads to even more government intervention to deal with even more serious problems.
"Merchants of Doubt" benefits from the meticulous research done by the books' authors and brings their perspective to life by way of damning facts, numerous interviews, slick graphics, and even a magician, along with certain more questionable methods. The reputations of undeniably accomplished scientists are harmed by innuendo, certain facts are assumed to apply to all similar people and similar situations, and the contrarians, although their words do appear in the film, are never given the opportunity to directly refute the claims against them. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. Even though the facts and information this documentary presents make a compelling case that the truth is closer to the filmmakers' perspective, it is still not the whole truth. "B"
Take "Merchants of Doubt" (PG-13, 1:36) for example. Based on the acclaimed book of the same name by scientists and historians Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway, this movie tells the story of the scientists who have spoken out in favor of the predominant perspective of big business on whether tobacco smoking, acid rain, the hole in the earth's ozone layer and, especially, climate change, were real and/or harmful. The thesis of the book and the movie is that these scientists were essentially hired guns, blasting away at widely accepted scientific verdicts on each of those issues. The book's authors and the documentary's producers believe that these "contrarians" have been engaged in a deliberate campaign to muddy the waters regarding these issues in the hopes of derailing or, at least, delaying government intervention that would lead to increased regulation of business and a resulting decrease in profits for the companies and industries that would be forced to change their business practices to adhere to new government rules. In short, if these scientists are weighing in on these issues for the purpose of confusing lawmakers and the public, and are doing it for money, then they are Merchants of Doubt.
"Figures don't lie, but liars figure" is a good quote to summarize what the filmmakers feel these contrarians have been doing for decades. The documentary's descriptions of how scientists publicly denied that tobacco smoking, acid rain and the hole in the ozone layer were harmful are meant to establish a pattern of behavior leading up to more recent controversies over global warming and climate change. It's not that these aren't scientists. They are or they are, at least, men with science credentials, but not necessarily in the specific areas on which they are opining and commenting. Beyond that, the contrarians are doing little or no actual scientific research themselves. Rather, they are picking over the methods, data and conclusions of others in an attempt to twist the science to fit their own point of view. Or so the movie's theory goes. The film decides that these scientists are doing it for the money they receive (often secretly) from big business and also because these scientists see increased government regulation as a threat to free enterprise. In other words, these are scientists who, in previous decades, took sides in the Cold War, with its threats to the American way of life, and are now fighting an information war against some of those same threats. The irony, claims the movie, is that helping to delay government action to mitigate the harm caused by the aforementioned byproducts of the modern industrial age makes the problems worse and eventually leads to even more government intervention to deal with even more serious problems.
"Merchants of Doubt" benefits from the meticulous research done by the books' authors and brings their perspective to life by way of damning facts, numerous interviews, slick graphics, and even a magician, along with certain more questionable methods. The reputations of undeniably accomplished scientists are harmed by innuendo, certain facts are assumed to apply to all similar people and similar situations, and the contrarians, although their words do appear in the film, are never given the opportunity to directly refute the claims against them. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. Even though the facts and information this documentary presents make a compelling case that the truth is closer to the filmmakers' perspective, it is still not the whole truth. "B"