In today’s world, how much of Netflix “documentaries” are rigorously researched and how much just made up, to save time and money? It is not like Netflix is going to get in trouble, legally or in public opinion…
The problem is, this story is probably a fabrication.
Thunderfoot showed how misleading it was: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsdLDFtbdrA
I don't know enough about, e.g., the JFK assassination, to be sure that a dramatization of it isn't going to fill in the gaps and make me think I do know something that turns out to be serving the agenda of others, or simply wrong.
And yes I recognize that "history" is just the consensus version of "historical fiction", and that consensus is local at best, and often also serving an agenda!
It’s not misleading to take artistic liberties in a work of fiction designed to entertain, even if based on true events. That would be damming for a documentary, but this was not one.
But some number of people get POd when not everything is literally true.
"This story is based on true events, except the parts that aren't".
Can't think of any examples at the moment, but I've noticed it quite a bit.
Then there's the TV Series Fargo, which is made out of whole-cloth but starts with a claim that it's a "true story", which I think is great.
By pandering to irrational fears about nuclear power, 'Chernobyl' and similar works have consequences that translate, more or less directly, into fossil-fuel pollution.
I'm inclined to be more forgiving towards a Borges manqué who uses his talents to defraud hipster travel websites than I am towards people who are successful enough at spreading FUD and bullshit that they make the world an objectively-worse place.
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-chernobyl-podcast/...
It's sort of like, once you make a name for yourself by pointing out what is wrong, suddenly everything becomes wrong.
But when has he been wrong, in a way that would cause you to call his credibility "dubious"? When has he called out an Infinite energy machine, or a "pull water out of the air in a desert" machine, or an Elon project, and been wrong?
Do you have examples? Does that include whole memeplex about the Nazis being somehow far better at advanced technology than the Allies?
Don't forget the entirety of the "Clean Wehrmacht" myth, that the whole Nazism thing was mostly contained to Hitler and the SS and the normal German army was mostly clean from the desire to gas all the jews.
> ...
> Don't forget the entirety of the "Clean Wehrmacht" myth, that the whole Nazism thing was mostly contained to Hitler and the SS and the normal German army was mostly clean from the desire to gas all the jews.
Thinking about this a bit more, couldn't that even be thought of as history being written by the victors? In this case the victors (Allies) wanting to write history to rehabilitate the losers (Germany) to fight the next enemy (the Soviets), and allowing defeated elements of the German forces (former Wehrmacht generals) to do so?
IIRC, there was an period where the Allied consensus was to reduce Germany to a nation of disarmed farmers, but that was quickly reversed once the Americans realized they needed a reasonably powerful Germany to oppose the Soviets.
The stories without corroboration, not that much, particularly if they sound too dramatic.
Personally, I'd never convict anyone where the evidence was nothing more than he said she said.
And paradoxically I trust new religious manuscripts even less. In the context of the modern world they just seem like obvious hoaxes.
Well... I mean, you'd think so, but not so much, it turns out.
But, that wouldn't fit the, "Christianity bad" narrative.
Pointing out that atheism and scientism are making up and embellishing their own history is more of a controversial take in these circles.