Vice documentaries

Over the past few years I have been developing an interest in documentaries and many of my peers forward me films or info that they think i would find interesting. And i love this, i think sharing knowledge is one of the most important things we can do as peers. One phenomenon that i noticed fairly quickly is that many people around my age seem to rely on a singular source for their non fiction information. Many people i know have taken to VICE magazine as a credible source for non mainstream news happening around the world. Now don't get me wrong, i think what vice is does is pretty cool and very interesting but I have some strong criticisms which i believe make it somewhat of an non-credible news source.

One things that i notice in almost every vice doc is how much emphasis is put on the reporter going to do the story. Often, each documentary opens with a brief examination of the reporter and why they are going to do their work and so on and so forth. This usually ends up being the main narrative covered in the doc, and becomes part of the main story. A form of gonzo journalism if you will. The second thing that usually gets me is the over sensationalizing of the phenomenon. In each doc, the reporters usually find some eccentric young individual who helps show them the ropes and this individual often acts as a case study for the report. In the drug documentaries they often show users taking the drug, layered with religious sounding music to provide some sort of ironic dualism to the scene. And Last but not least is a question of how much footage are we not seeing. These documentaries usually run 20-30 mins long but take place over the course of at least a few days so it leaves me to wonder how long did they look for what they want to see and how much of what they see are we unable to see because it would detract from the stated purpose of the research.

This is merely one mans humble opinion and i ask other what are yours?