Finding a truly curious person has never been easy. They are those rare humans who feel a constant urge to challenge their beliefs instead of clinging to them. They are able to put aside their prejudices, to actually listen, regardless of the source. They are aware of the limits of their knowledge and therefore don’t pursue an absolute Truth but a fluid possibility of a truth, always open for revision.
Today’s virulent identity politics makes the search for a curious person all the more difficult. At its most fundamental level, identity politics refers to people evaluating (political) issues through the lens of their association with a specific group. This in itself isn’t problematic: humans are a tribal species with a fundamental need to belong, therefore forming bonds based on ethnicity, religion, political beliefs, mutual interests or other commonalities. Our group identity forms our map of the world and frame of reference, shaping our beliefs and actions in ways we may not even realise. This is an inevitable aspect of humanness that is unproblematic, if indeed we regard each other with respect and curiosity. However, today’s fragmentation of society, its breaking down into increasingly narrow and competitive groups, obstructs the path to genuine curiosity.
American lawyer and writer Amy Chua explains in her book Political Tribes: Group Instinct and the Fate of Nations: “When groups feel threatened, they retreat into tribalism. When groups feel mistreated and disrespected, they close ranks and become more insular, more defensive, more punitive, more us-versus-them.” She goes on to say that in the western world today, every group feels this way to some extent: “Whites and blacks, Latinos and Asians, men and women, Christians, Jews, and Muslims, straight people and gay people, liberals and conservatives – all feel their group is being attacked, bullied, persecuted, discriminated against.” This gives rise to a political landscape shaped by highly polarised activism. Voices are loud and devoid of nuance; differences remain unresolved and curiosity dies first.
Exclusionary narratives are detrimental in themselves but they are particularly damaging within the media. Because when these narratives permeate the media, its essence – curiosity – is irrevocably lost. The New York Times’ editorial-page editor, James Bennet, faced severe backlash for publishing an op-ed by Republican senator Tom Cotton amid national unrest surrounding the death of George Floyd. Cotton advocated for military intervention in riots, sparking outrage among liberal New York Times’ staff and on social media. Three days later Bennet was forced to resign by the newspaper’s publisher. Bennet later said in the Economist: “The New York Times’ problem has metastasised from liberal bias to illiberal bias, from an inclination to favour one side of the national debate to an impulse to shut debate down altogether. All the empathy and humility in the world will not mean much against the pressures of intolerance and tribalism without an invaluable quality: courage.”
Similar to the newspaper industry, documentary filmmaking faces challenges from identity politics. Although documentary differs from journalism it nevertheless incorporates journalistic techniques to convey information. Yet, the threat posed by identity politics to documentary filmmaking is not about compromising objectivity, a guiding principle of journalism, which, in any case, doesn’t even truly exist in documentaries. However, when filmmakers prioritise identity politics, there is a tendency to skew narratives to fit preconceived ideologies, thereby reducing documentaries to echo chambers of chewed out thoughts and viewpoints. Such a narrowing of focus detracts from the richness of documentary filmmaking as an art form, which thrives on exploring the multifaceted human experience and presenting a wide array of perspectives.
Michael Moore’s Academy Award-winning Bowling for Columbine exemplifies identity politics in documentary filmmaking. Moore, a staunch opponent of guns, skillfully uses his camera and editing techniques to convey his stance. From the outset, it’s evident that Moore regards his progressive and liberal ideologies as superior, often portraying the predominantly white, gun-loving American populace in a less favorable light. The New York Times wrote: “The most disappointing – and the most likely – response to Mr. Moore’s disturbing, infuriating and often very funny film would be uncritical support from his ideological friends and summary dismissal from his foes.” Unfortunately, the film did exactly that. Moore’s self-congratulatory demagoguery, at best, resulted in a shouting match and, at worst, led to both supporters and opponents of gun ownership in the United States retreating to their respective trenches.
And what to think of critical darling An Inconvenient Truth (2006)? According to British newspaper The Guardian the documentary is a “filmed record of former US vice-president Al Gore’s (Democratic Party) lecture road-show about the coming environmental catastrophe”. The Guardian gave the film four out of five stars. Yet, did the film manage to reach out to people who did not already support the theory of global warming? Why did it choose to present its facts on climate change with moral indignation and strong partisan conviction. Take a country like the Netherlands. In a general election last November its electorate gave hard-right candidate Geert Wilders, who wants to put the current global climate accords “through the shredder”, 23.5% of the vote. Eighteen years after the release of An Inconvenient Truth a very large number of people, in what used to be one of the most progressive countries in the world, is still not convinced global warming is a clear and present danger.
Today, in Western democratic societies, media that openly favour certain ideologies are numerous and they play a complex role. They offer benefits, such as the representation of marginalized viewpoints and political engagement but they also pose significant risks, including increased polarization, the spread of misinformation, and challenges to journalistic standards. Interestingly, the dangers of ideologically driven news are often recognized only by representatives of the opposing ideology. Consider, for example, TikTok and the efforts in the United States to impose a ban on the social media app and its Chinese owner, ByteDance. The West considers TikTok a threat to its users’ society. This concern is attributed not only to its Chinese ownership but also to the app’s use of specific algorithms that deliver content catered exclusively to users’ particular preferences, based on user behaviour and demographic characteristics.
TikTok’s coverage on the current conflict between Israel and Gaza appears predominantly pro-Gaza. The critical question is whether this coverage is manipulated or a result of its users being largely pro-Gaza. Parents in the West often advise their children who use TikTok to be more media savvy and to also seek information from more trustworthy news outlets. Yet, which outlets are these? The Guardian, The Washington Post, Le Figaro, Frankfurter Allgemeine, or Israel’s Haaretz? Liberals quickly disqualify Fox News for being biased, but how objective are the BBC or PBS? Upon closer examination of the (trusted) sources that inform us, newspapers, magazines, public broadcasters, streaming platforms, museums, film festivals, it becomes evident that we each inhabit our own, personally crafted ideological TikTok bubble.
During the 2023 edition of The International Documentary Film Festival Amsterdam (IDFA) Steve McQueen’s and Bianca Stigter’s documentary film Occupied City premiered. A film on the city of Amsterdam and its involvement in the Holocaust. What was supposed to be a festive occasion turned into an embarrassment because the festival’s director Orwa Nyrabia decided to conspicuously not attend the premiere. Occupied City is a documentary film which, over the course of a whopping 4 hours and 26 minutes, indiscriminately presents all the places in the city of Amsterdam where Jews were deported during the Second World War. Nyrabia chose to oppose the premiere most likely because of Israel’s brutal and unhinged response to the massacre of 1200 Israelis. However, the object of his ire was one of the most unpolitical films his festival showcased in 2023. That is unless Nyrabia considers the Holocaust itself a political statement. As the director of the world’s largest documentary film festival, he wielded identity politics primarily to amplify voices aligned with his own beliefs.
In today’s world, visual imagery has become a predominant force in shaping public perception of truth and falsehood. Social media platforms amplify this effect, allowing for rapid dissemination of visual content, regardless of its veracity. The power of visual imagery to influence beliefs underscores the need for media literacy, encouraging individuals to approach visual content with scepticism and to verify information before accepting it as true. Most media enterprises feel no obligation to foster a media-literate viewership. Instead, journalists, editors, documentary filmmakers and film fest directors bear the responsibility to counter identity politics and enrich their audiences with innovative ideas, diverse viewpoints, and, ideally, a variety of interpretations of truth. It takes courage to be curious.