IBC
article here
Investigative documentary filmmakers take broadcasters and streamers to task for being complicit in the rise of authoritarianism and muzzling the Palestinian experience in Gaza.
Ronan Farrow, the Pulitzer prize-winning journalist, documentarian and podcaster, has condemned the “false equivalence” of political reporting that enabled Trump to win power.
Speaking at Sheff DocFest he said, “Journalists, including myself, were obsessed with the performance of fairness. The false idea that the media was dominated by a persistent liberal bias and that conservative voices were being drowned out created a situation where good reporters who cared about being perceived as fair began treating unusual things happening on the far right as usual.
“Increasingly, we normalised fascist things that were eroding democratic rights because there was a need in newsrooms to balance left with right. The false equivalence created a space in which authoritarianism has flourished.”
His words were echoed across the festival where the fight to make documentaries that hold truth to power was a running theme. Several filmmakers accused the British broadcasters of muzzling coverage of Gaza by British broadcasters and of the far right.
“Impartiality is being misused,” said director Havana Marking, who says she was required to interview far right spokesperson Tommy Robinson by execs for her film Undercover: Exposing the Far Right. “You can't be impartial about racism. That is not negotiable.”
Unscripted filmmakers are facing funding challenges for projects outside of true crime, celebrity and sports genres while American broadcasters and platforms have all but pulled the plug on buying anything politically left leaning in order to appease the White House.
Farrow, speaking on video link, expressed his deep concerned at the situation. “Any cursory study of the history of fascist authoritarianism reveals how pivotal disinformation is as a tool of oppression and repression. We are seeing that play out now in several places around the world, but it is in a very acute nadir in the United States.
“If you deny a democratic population access to facts it's much easier to manipulate events and manipulate people. That's why, like clockwork, one of the first steps that strong men take is to try to demonise the press and to cut off the access of the press.
He continued, “People wanting to seize power for their own benefit and to control others in an undemocratic way do not like the free flow of information. That's why the free flow of information is explicitly protected in the Constitution. It’s a cornerstone of our democracy.
“It's gravely concerning to be living through a time when so many people have lost trust and confidence in the media through a combination of self-inflicted problems. Cable news did descend into partisan shouting but the [problem exacerbated] through bad faith attacks from people trying to consolidate power by discrediting the media.”
He said he envied broadcasters like CBC and the BBC, “where governments subsidise serious news while maintaining their editorial independence,” he said, acknowledging that “Public funding for truly adversarial independent watchdog news is something the United States has very little appetite for. The gutting of PBS and NPR has been devastating.”
“Now, I avoid that kind of performance when the facts don't merit it and strive to be fearless even in the face of accusations and partisanship. I had to essentially stop being afraid of being branded a liberal propagandist and just report the facts.”
He urged journalists and documentary makers to tell stories across platforms, as he did with Harvey Weinstein investigation Catch and Kill which began as a series of articles in The New Yorker before versioning into a book, a podcast and TV series for HBO.
“Where media consumption is so fractured we need to be able to tell stories across audio, video, and print. Diversification across media is a partial solution to a big problem which is that the business model is dropping out of investigative journalism.”
Impartiality in the way of truth
Broadcasters and streamers came under fire in the session ‘Too Hot to Handle: The Future of Political Documentaries’ for their failure to tackle the conflict in Gaza.
Prash Naik, Co-Founder, Creators Counsel, spoke of “the chilling effects of the climate of fear and how that's impacting of filmmakers and funders.”
He said, “The authoritarian U.S administration is hostile to any media that it perceives as a little social progressive. Therefore, the streamers have taken the line of least resistance. Anything that is politically sensitive [is avoided or cancelled] and as a result of that, they return to True Crime and celebrity docs.”
Traditionally, doc makers almost certainly required a US distributor or coproducer partner to make their projects but these avenues have dried up.
James Jones (Producer/Director, Jones Films - Antidote & On the President’s Orders) said, “We believe there is a strong appetite in the US for films that are politically sensitive [about Putin or Gaza or trans rights for example] but Apple and Amazon are not going to touch it and Netflix instinct is to go with what the algorithm tells them works.”
Director Ben de Pear was particularly forceful. His film, Gaza: Medics Under Fire one of a handful shot entirely inside Gaza, has been shelved by the BBC despite being cleared by BBC legal teams, pending the result of an investigation into controversial doc How To Survive a Warzone which aired on the BBC without disclosing the potential involvement of Hamas.
“The best journalists in the world are working inside the BBC and they are being silenced,” De Pear said. “They are being forced to use language they don’t recognize. They are not describing something as it clearly is [because of impartiality].
Excepting Channel 4, which he praised as an example to follow (De Pear is a former editor of C4 News) said UK broadcasters had been “stymied by the very powerful lobby.
“Paranoia has got inside the head of commissioners. They are far more worried about offending the [Isreal] government than they are offending our own. A different standard applies to [stories about Gaza] than any other story I can remember.
He contrasted the “hundreds of thousands” of videos of events filmed from inside Gaza on social media with national news reporting.
“Everybody in the world can see what's going on and there is a huge black hole at broadcasters and platforms. It’s flipped that whole fear that social media would somehow undermine journalism. Journalism has undermined journalism.”
He also criticised the justification used by the BBC and other broadcasters of having no sanctioned access to report on the ground from Gaza as “a big excuse.”
“Of course, you can [report on what is happening]. Why can't you speak to a Palestinian about their experience? It's racism. The BBC says it cannot enter Gaza so instead they speak to a representative of the ‘Hamas run health ministry’ and immediately the audience questions if they can trust the person or not.”
He said, “The people that are experiencing the death of their families right now can't be introduced as witnesses because they live in a place that is apparently controlled by Hamas.
He added, “The fear of being labelled anti-semitic has become more important than telling the truth.”
Nor was Netflix spared his scathing attack. “If Netflix released a film about Gaza it would probably be the most watched in the world because it is the most engaged subject in the world,” De Pear said. “Netflix should be funding films that reflect the world that's going on. Netflix should be making films about war zones. Netflix should be taking risks. They shouldn't just be taken safe bets on environmental films with Attenborough.”
Indies turn to crowdfunding
As funding becomes increasingly narrow or risk-averse, indie producers are turning to crowdfunding their projects. This is where filmmakers attempt to drum up funds from the general public either by way of straight donations or by offering incentives such as merchandise or a mention in the film’s credits.
Although its use in film and TV has been around for over a decade, “crowdfunding still feels like a really exciting and radical option for combating the disaster that is documentary funding at the moment,” said Charlie Phillips, a producer, commissioner, programmer, and consultant. “Grassroots crowdfunding offers alternative funding models that bypass traditional gatekeepers and put power directly in the hands of communities.”
Dan Edelstyn turned to crowdfunding as a last resort when the costs for his feature documenting attempts to turn a London residential street into a renewable energy source spiralled.
“Crowdfunding can be embarrassing if it goes wrong but we had no choice,” he said. “In a perfect world broadcasters would realise what an amazing project this was and give us the finance to make it but they are struggling, their ad revenue is down and we are fighting against a very conservative broadcasting system.”
He and producer / partner Hilary Powell slept on the roof of their house for 23 nights as a stunt to raise £100k. That proved so successful they made three further crowdfunding rounds, including one in the form of a bond, which together raised £450k.
The film Power Station debuted at Sheff Docfest. The filmmakers have £100k of debt from the bond issue which they hope profits from sales will pay back. “We believe we can achieve that,” he said.
If done right – such as by building a community interested in the project via email lists and social – then momentum can mushroom from one campaign to the next.
Paul Sng raised £74000 on the platform Indiegogo to crowdfund his film about the punk artist Poly Styrene: I Am a Cliché. He offered t-shirts and tote bags and thank you credits as rewards. “The process is nerve-wracking but without it there wouldn't be a film, so I’m always really thankful to the people that supported it.”
Crowdfunder UK offers match funding from corporates, local authorities, trusts and creative bodies. “If someone pledges £250 then we can source match funds which quickly raises the total amount,” said Max Upton, Head of Campaigns. “This has the benefit of increasing the average amount of donation. It’s psychological; if people see the average donation is £70 rather than £40 they are more likely to donate that themselves.”
He said the platform was seeing more documentary teams coming to them wanting to support a social cause.
“People who feel strongly about a certain issue will get behind the film because they want to see the story told.
No comments:
Post a Comment