Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 RiTides wrote:

The particular issue here was Michael Moore bashing all solutions to the problem (in a dishonest / non-credible way)... not the fact that there is a problem that needs dealing with.

I admit, i have not watched it. However, this line illustrates to me how sticky of a wicket this issue will be.

There are tons of possible solutions, but they are all bad and will cause pain. Therefore, no one is willing to do any of them.

That's why everyone has been content to make it a "consumer" problem instead.

Bran Dawri wrote:
And not only in climate change denial. The infamous Vaccines Cause Autism study originated from and was debunked in the same way.

The media are possibly partially to blame for some of this, I think. Reporting on science is, frankly, terrible because most journalists don't really understand the subject well enough either in a particular field or in general terms. They prefer soundbites over substance, which isn't great for reporting on anything complex. It's also a much better headline to say "Vaccines Proven Bad" than it is to post a follow-up headline that says "Science Right All Along". I think that can contribute to perpetuating misinformation in a lot of ways.

Of course, confirmation bias is still the biggest offender. It's not really difficult to show the anti-vaxxer stuff is rubbish, but it is ever-so-slightly more inconvenient.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 gorgon wrote:
...that if you eat only at McDs and eat only the worst foods in the very largest sizes, it's pretty unhealthy for you.

Not that I disagree with your overall point but it was part of the rules of his experiment that he only ordered the larger sizes when asked whether he wanted them by the servers and he kept a tally of how many times and where he was asked that question.

Which is a valid point to make as the server asking that question is a psychological manipulation tactic to increase the likelihood of you ordering it.

That is just upselling. Every business that sells things does that, trying to specifically fault McDonalds for it smacks of intellectual dishonesty and is a great example for why I dislike documentaries in general. I've yet to see one that doesn't pull crap like that.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
That is just upselling. Every business that sells things does that, trying to specifically fault McDonalds for it smacks of intellectual dishonesty ...

Yes, and no. I believe the point that he was trying to make here is that in this specific case upselling is directly harmful. It's not the same as a store trying to sell you, say, an extended warranty on the device you just bought.

 insaniak wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
That is just upselling. Every business that sells things does that, trying to specifically fault McDonalds for it smacks of intellectual dishonesty ...

Yes, and no. I believe the point that he was trying to make here is that in this specific case upselling is directly harmful. It's not the same as a store trying to sell you, say, an extended warranty on the device you just bought.

Paying for an extended warranty one does not need with money they do need to pay rent next month is pretty harmful. Selling a super size meal to someone who is healthy and will compensate for the extra calorie intake later in the day is not harmful. See what I mean?

I didn't say that it was a particularly good point. But when you're making a documentary on the harmful effects of a given product, it's not unreasonable to point out when the company selling that product is actively trying to sell you larger quantities of it.

But it IS unreasonable; any company selling you something is going to try to sell you more of it because that is how sales work. Making that out to be something unique about a specific company is, quite frankly, insulting to the intelligence of the viewer.

Which goes back to the topic at hand; every documentary I have seen has been like that, to the point where I am no longer interested in viewing them unless provided evidence it will play out otherwise. Planet of the Humans does not seem to be any different.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
But it IS unreasonable; any company selling you something is going to try to sell you more of it because that is how sales work. Making that out to be something unique about a specific company is, quite frankly, insulting to the intelligence of the viewer.

Which goes back to the topic at hand; every documentary I have seen has been like that, to the point where I am no longer interested in viewing them unless provided evidence it will play out otherwise. Planet of the Humans does not seem to be any different.

I think in the case of Supersize Me it's not unreasonable at all. Yes, upselling is something every company does and an argument could be made about buying things you don't need with money that could be spent elsewhere, but that's something that's applicable to all upselling anyway (and seems a little extreme). In the specific case of McDonalds the point was that this upselling is harmful to your health as well as potentially harmful to your wallet. In that sense I see a big difference in the two things. That's not to say Supersize Me doesn't have problems with how it presents its arguments and even the basic premise of course.

But it is not inherently harmful to one's health; eating a supersize meal is not harmful unless the person does not compensate for that in their diet overall. On its own, one meal being supersized means exactly nothing--it is the total that matters. It is a fundamental twisting/ignorance of logic that in my experience is pervasive in the documentary scene.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
But it is not inherently harmful to one's health; eating a supersize meal is not harmful unless the person does not compensate for that in their diet overall. On its own, one meal being supersized means exactly nothing--it is the total that matters. It is a fundamental twisting/ignorance of logic that in my experience is pervasive in the documentary scene.

But the issue is that people don't compensate in their diet. Sure, eating your recommended daily calorie intake in one meal (fries - 600 calories, non-sugar free soda - 400 calories, plus burger (540 calories for a big mac, 720 for a double quarter pounder with cheese) or salad (440 calories for Bacon Ranch Grilled Chicken Salad, 670 calories for Southwest Buttermilk Crispy Chicken Salad) and potentially sauces for the fries) might not be harmful if you are exercising and eat nothing else all day. But most people are not exercising enough to offset such a huge meal and are not only eating that meal all day.

Offering such huge portions is detrimental to the public health because it ignores the reality that not everyone is living a lifestyle in which that meal will not have a harmful effect.

I don't think there's that big of a disagreement here... i.e. I kind of agree with you both

I also found that documentary technique kind of transparent and not very convincing. As NinthMusketeer says, literally every retail establishment uses upselling...

At the same time, pointing out that the portions were too large and getting an even larger one was a bad thing was obviously useful.

What happened to "Planet of the Humans" though guys

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
But it is not inherently harmful to one's health; eating a supersize meal is not harmful unless the person does not compensate for that in their diet overall. On its own, one meal being supersized means exactly nothing--it is the total that matters. It is a fundamental twisting/ignorance of logic that in my experience is pervasive in the documentary scene.

But the issue is that people don't compensate in their diet. Sure, eating your recommended daily calorie intake in one meal (fries - 600 calories, non-sugar free soda - 400 calories, plus burger (540 calories for a big mac, 720 for a double quarter pounder with cheese) or salad (440 calories for Bacon Ranch Grilled Chicken Salad, 670 calories for Southwest Buttermilk Crispy Chicken Salad) and potentially sauces for the fries) might not be harmful if you are exercising and eat nothing else all day. But most people are not exercising enough to offset such a huge meal and are not only eating that meal all day.

Offering such huge portions is detrimental to the public health because it ignores the reality that not everyone is living a lifestyle in which that meal will not have a harmful effect.

I feel that people carry the responsibility for consequences of what they buy, unless the seller was deceptive about what was being sold. The way you phrase this seems to me like it hinges on the logic 'people buying the meal are not responsible for their own diet', which is the sort of upside-down logic I am faulting documentaries for. I have a feeling I may be misinterpreting though, please correct me if I am wrong.

Yeah, a good documentary is like a good news story. It should lay out the fact without misreprenting them and in context, then let the viewer decide how they feel about it.

Bran Dawri wrote:
Yeah, a good documentary is like a good news story. It should lay out the fact without misreprenting them and in context, then let the viewer decide how they feel about it.

Pretty sure the 1980's killed that idea dead!

A good presentation needs a narrative; it makes it more interesting and easier to follow.

However, that doesn’t mean you should ignore evidence that contradicts your narrative and it certainly doesn’t give you licence to distort evidence to fit your narrative.

Looks like good old corporate censorship takes this movie seriously.

https://news.yahoo.com/planet-humans-ep-michael-moore-003114966.html

 Matt Swain wrote:
Looks like good old corporate censorship takes this movie seriously.

https://news.yahoo.com/planet-humans-ep-michael-moore-003114966.html

Not sure if it's that sinister/malicious. According to the article the copyright strike was from a single individual (a photographer who had some footage used in the documentary) rather than a corporation trying to silence the movie. That could all be a smokescreen of course, and it may well have been "corporate interests" acting through this individual that made the infringement claim. Regardless, the article sensationalises things a little and the response from the filmmakers is a little overblown even if I can understand their frustration. This is just the way YouTube works, sadly. If a copyright infringement claim is made they immediately take down the video and inform the creator. Only if the creator appeals do they then actually bother to look at the specifics of the case. In this situation, assuming the article is accurate, I can't see how the footage doesn't count as fair use, though there are some nuances to that caveat that mean it's not always as straight forward as people think to use that defence.

I do think the YT system is massively open to abuse. It has been abused many times for many different reasons but I also don't know what a better solution would begiven the sheer volume of content that gets added to YT every day. Google are liable for copyright infringement in material they host on their sites so it's in their own corporate interest to err on the side of caution when it comes to copyright claims.

I highly doubt that any corporate interests care enough to go to, or that Youtube's copyright system is stringent enough to require, such levels of subterfuge.

It is just the photographer who disagrees with his footage being used in such a way.

Corporate interests getting involved would give this documentary far more legitimacy than it has on its own.