Media often finds itself in a strange paradox: it is simultaneously blamed for manipulating audiences and criticized when it fails to convince them of a particular viewpoint. This contradictory expectation reflects the complex relationship between creators and consumers, where audiences demand to be informed, yet frequently hold creators accountable for their interpretations of the material. Nowhere is this more evident than in documentary filmmaking, a genre that walks the fine line between presenting facts and telling a story.
This is where the contradiction arises.
If a film, book, or article does not lead them to the "correct" conclusion, they fault the creator for not making a stronger case. In reality, this expectation undermines the very principle of critical thinking they claim to value.
Media creators have a responsibility to present information accurately, contextually, and thoughtfully. However, they are not responsible for controlling how viewers process or react to that information. The danger of overstepping this boundary is the creation of propaganda—media that explicitly seeks to manipulate rather than inform.
In Dirty Coin, for example, the goal was to present Bitcoin mining within a broader context of energy, economics, and technological innovation, not to force audiences into believing it is “green” or ecologically perfect. The critic who called the film a "catastrophe" failed to understand this distinction. The purpose was not to convince but to explore, question, and offer a fresh perspective on a misunderstood topic. By rejecting persuasion as the primary goal, the film respects its audience's intelligence and autonomy.
When audiences demand that media "convince" them, they shift the burden of critical thinking away from themselves.
This is dangerous.
It assumes that media should provide neatly packaged answers, absolving viewers of the responsibility to wrestle with complexity, ambiguity, or nuance.
It is far easier to either accept or reject a narrative wholesale than to engage with it thoughtfully. This trend reflects a broader societal problem: an aversion to intellectual discomfort. Many prefer to consume content that reinforces their preexisting beliefs, and when confronted with something that challenges them, they either attack the work for failing to persuade or accuse it of attempting to manipulate them.
The solution lies in fostering media literacy, not expecting creators to bear the sole burden of audience interpretation. Media literacy involves understanding the intent behind a piece of content, recognizing bias, and critically analyzing information.
It requires viewers to step into the role of active participants in their intellectual journey rather than passive consumers waiting to be convinced.
For creators, this means continuing to take risks and present challenging ideas, even if some audiences resist or misunderstand them. For viewers, it means embracing the discomfort of ambiguity and learning to think independently.
The tension between accusations of "brainwashing" and demands for persuasion exposes a fundamental inconsistency in how audiences engage with media.
peace,
h