They don’t even read it in the order the pages were printed.

I can’t recall the name but I recall a European movie (I saw it on cable television) where celebrities sell their skin to be grown in labs to be sold as meat for people to eat. The main character would go around finding sick celebrities, stealing their DNA and infecting themselves with the same illness.

He probably thinks it is about Barbra.

You know that oath you pledged, that goes “do no harm”? Do you remember that?

I read this in the voice of Mr. Witherspoon from Bojack Horseman, which was Stephen Colbert.

This was early 2000s.

Back in my day, we just discussed what wrote in The Jungle. They didn’t have us read it.

The Matrix

So the universe is a trans allegory?

E Pluribus Anus?

Howdy.

How is d?

Who is d?

No, that’s character played by James Urbaniak on The Office named Rolf. You’re thinking of Thomas Rolph, cricket player.

We don’t know that they developed space travel and left Earth either.

Spider-Bomb, Spider-Bomb

Does what ever a… AH! GET THAT THE FUCK AWAY FROM ME!

But who is collecting the troll toll?

He’s enter boys hole’s now?

Do you even earn money for solving?

Whelp… I’m going to special hell. At least it is ironic in a good way.

Especially with true crime, the way things are presented could alter how the content is perceived. For example, Making a Murder took time to walk the audience through the entire trial (I’m not going to debate the perception the film makers left out important facts that influence the narrative).

On the flip side a more recent series like This Is the Zodiac Speaking, only focused on one suspect, never questioned the testimony of the children as being faulty memories or fact checked well known details about the crimes mentioned. My point is, this documentary was on a subject that was better well known and didn’t aim to present the children as telling their own side of events; it straight up makes the assumption what they said must be true because they personally knew ALA. On top of this, they featured Robert Graysmith, the author of the book Zodiac which is well known for being factually inaccurate, and doesn’t challenge his research. And at the end, the film makers failed to get the DNA test results for a test they commissioned. What deadline existed that they couldn’t tell the viewer what the result was?

Sorry, that documentary in particular irritates me for how factually inaccurate and onesided it was. My overall point is that true crime in particular seems to just be looking for whatever will get views. Not a lot of the documentaries that have come out in this period have produced well made series or ethically honest content. Is it entertainment or is it bringing awareness to what occurred or the people affected?

The problem I have is the quality of the film making. Regardless of the content, if it isn’t well made, probably wouldn’t see through the whole thing.