I don’t know about you folks, but I’ve noticed, over the years, that it seems like Canada puts out more than its fair share of documentaries, and they’re often quite good. But Canadian documentary industry worker Christina Clark, on The Line, says things are going downhill:
Somewhere along the way in my career, I became part of what we call in Quebec a “machine à saucisse” — a sausage factory — churning out content to fit predetermined narratives to please public broadcasters who don’t actually have to satisfy their audience to earn revenue. In the last few years, I’ve noticed a not-so-subtle shift in the documentary industry: we have begun to tell stories that serve ideological narratives, instead of telling stories that enlighten curious audiences.
Many of the stories now told through documentary skew the truth by reinforcing the viewpoint du jour. Interviews and scenes that break with the chosen narrative, that offer something other than a black-and-white approach to society and the complexities of humanity, happen off camera or end up on the editing room floor. This is all in an effort to promote diverse voices and the political opinions that allegedly support them. But when we lay claim to a singular viewpoint or dismiss a perspective because the creator’s or the subject’s skin tone or gender does not fit the narrative of inclusion, we are actually removing diversity from the storytelling equation. And what we’re left with are one-sided storylines that reinforce an echo chamber of virtue signalling.
Why?
Through these experiences, I slowly learned that the stories we fund for public broadcasting also cater to the biases of people living in Canada’s wealthiest cities. The divide between issues that matter to rural populations and those that matter to urbanites is growing, across Canada and the United States. By comparison, there is little room for Canadians to openly debate issues of public importance because there is no major platform here that has managed to avoid this callow, creatively stifling ideology. This is another consequence of having state-run and state-funded media that decides for us. Important, nuanced stories — stories that speak to all Canadians — remain untold.
It would not be hard to write a rant about how the free market system would not permit this sort of thing to happen, and that the documentaries would not lose their edge of excellence. It would have a lot of validity and help focus on the problems that critical theory causes for wokeness.
But I think there’s an important counterpoint that would be obscured in the wake of the hypothetical rant, and it’s this: Despite the old REASON Magazine slogan of Free Minds, Free Markets (which seems to have disappeared off their website, so it must have been retired; I may have it backwards, too – hah!), a free market does not necessarily lead to free and, implied, morality-optimized minds. Markets, after all, serve people, they do not lead people, they do not improve morality. Only if a mass moral defect leads to a profit deficit, can be recognized as so, and the suppliers are more worried about their own moral deficit and profit deficit than the potential anger of customers, can free markets lead people to moral improvement.
But, on the other hand, whether or not documentary makers should be out in front, trying to lead, is a bit of a question. Think of the old Horse to water chestnut – you can try to improve the horse, but sometimes it just can’t run faster. I think, in a way, I haven’t quite found a stable point in my reasoning on this subject that rebuffs both sides in the question. So the following may be regarded as tentative and subject to refinement or even retraction.
As time passes, the dictatorial focus on wokeness will generally deteriorate the quality of organizations who utilize it. I think – and it won’t be easy – the successful organizations will focus on race-blind excellence measures during the hiring and retention processes, with perhaps some minor tweaking if racial balances happen to occur through the potential statistical quirks.
