I just watched The Crime of the Century and was totally blown away by the quality of the documentary on this shocking truth about how US elites like to treat their people (there are many more examples), so I decided to dig into more of his documentaries.
But this one both blows and sucks. First of all, it has a 100% Hillary Clinton bias, therefore it doesn't qualify as journalism.
Second, the only interesting part was the insights on the Russian troll factory, which essentially revealed that what Russia is doing there is what soooo many others, mostly P. R. firms, have been doing since as far back as I can remember the internet (2001). So, it is unethical, but nothing special or particularly evil. I highly doubt that it had enough influence to change the election.
Third, what he could at least have mentioned was that the country with the largest and oldest official troll factory is Israel, followed by the US, the UK, and Ukraine - all very official. Since he fails to mentioned these fine little details, it also fails to qualify as unbiased journalism.
Fourth, just for historical context, he could also have mentioned about how the US has meddled in Russian elections in 1995 (0r was it 1996?) to guarantee Boris Yeltsin another term. Again, failure for unbiased journalism.
Fifth, the narrating style and cinematography was really good.
But this one both blows and sucks. First of all, it has a 100% Hillary Clinton bias, therefore it doesn't qualify as journalism.
Second, the only interesting part was the insights on the Russian troll factory, which essentially revealed that what Russia is doing there is what soooo many others, mostly P. R. firms, have been doing since as far back as I can remember the internet (2001). So, it is unethical, but nothing special or particularly evil. I highly doubt that it had enough influence to change the election.
Third, what he could at least have mentioned was that the country with the largest and oldest official troll factory is Israel, followed by the US, the UK, and Ukraine - all very official. Since he fails to mentioned these fine little details, it also fails to qualify as unbiased journalism.
Fourth, just for historical context, he could also have mentioned about how the US has meddled in Russian elections in 1995 (0r was it 1996?) to guarantee Boris Yeltsin another term. Again, failure for unbiased journalism.
Fifth, the narrating style and cinematography was really good.