Given that most people are (or have been) subject to prodigal amounts of audio-video storytelling, much of it with a blessed or orthodox narrative, even getting a biased counterpoint serves a purpose.

Far better, as I've described below, to view documentaries critically. Again: the ability today to do fact-checking in an instant (I've pulled up a few dozen references to Mr. McRaney here) means that it's far, far easier to do critical reading and viewing than previously. Much of what I'm researching online currently has to do with material not of the immediate present, dating from 25 to 2500 years ago, roughly. Which I can now access in ways that simply weren't possible before.

I can also hit new commentary on old stuff. Such as, say, the significance (or not) of Adam Smith's "invisible hand":

This link shows the exploration of the concept:

https://plus.google.com/104092656004159577193/posts/FbXJLzny...

If you want the meat of it, Gavin Kennedy's done the scholarship:

"Adam Smith and 'The Myth of the Invisible Hand - A View from the Trenches'"

Gavin Kennedy, Heriot-Watt University - Edinburgh Business School September 6, 2012

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2142856

So: setting up a conflict between narratives does provide that consciousness-expanding opportunity for you to explore for the truth.

I absolutely do agree that humans generally have a trust bias: we tend to believe that a speaker is telling the truth, and that their story can be believed. Finding that this isn't the case is highly disorienting. I've had a few encounters with pathological (and/or psychopathic) lairs, and it's very disturbing (especially when you backtrack and find just how and when the lies started). What's similarly troubling is the amount of deception that occurs everyday in commerce, politics, religion, and even science (as well as the more typical hunting grounds of suspicious activity: mysticism, crime, etc.).