After the documentary

The <Story of Stuff>

  After watching the <Story of Stuff>, many viewers might have thought about the pollution, and the problematic causes of manufacturing.

According to the documentary, many commodities that we use are the result of the toxic manufacturing which used to contaminate the whole environment. The creator of the animation also supported her idea with various statistics. At first glance, her idea was viewed as really convincing. However, this documentary has two main problems for its credibility. Documentary’s statistics and opinions are not really convincing.

  First of all when we use statistics, it is crucial to verify the standard of the statistics or the survey. For example in the animation, there is a part that creator claims that ‘about 40% of the original forest have destroyed’. Although it seems quite ‘correct’ statistics, however, it does not verify what ‘original’ really means. Original can be interpreted differently. Someone can understand the original forest as before the industrialization, and other might understand it as the pre-historian era. Like this when using a statistic as a supportive material it is crucial to maintain the critical standard. Also, there is another factor that can bring error to the statistics. We have to know that most statistics are based on survey. During the survey, they make a sample for the survey. (Usually the sample for the survey is the group of people) The problem is that when the sample for survey is inclined to extreme direction, (For example, survey for approval rating in the region that most of people are conservationist.) the outcome cannot be used as actual represent. Furthermore, it can be very dangerous to use as a supportive material.

  These things are called as errors of survey. The documentary that we had seen was highly connected with these errors when it used statistics. So it is hard to believe the whole things in this documentary.

  Secondly, the teacher in the documentary is too aggressive for her opinion. We have to consider that this material is for education not for sensationalism. For education, the most important purpose should be delivering information that is not biased. However, lecturer in the animation held her opinion too strongly. She blamed the government as a pet of firm, and always had a negative position toward manufacturing. In fact, however, there are many positive aspects in government, and manufacturing also. The learners, students have to know what is positive and what is negative. Both of them are required to nurture student with unbiased basement for their knowledge. Without this effort, they will have only biased information. This is not the correct role for documentary, and for education. It is true that <Story of Stuff> has some difficulties in delivering their opinions. However, we have to point out the important fact from it. What I'm trying to say here is the shocking things the shocking video told us about are hardly believable. Furthermore it is true that there are many exaggerations. But, the ability which is needed for us is not rejecting it but, filtering. In other words we have to differentiate what is the reality and what is the exaggeration. Sadly, most of the media does not give us ‘always truth’ news.

 To avoid from sensationalism, and hardly believable errors of statistics, it is crucial to nurture the ability for differentiate what is fact and what is not.

 And here are my topics for debate.

THB strong regulations are needed for manufacturing.

THB teachers should educate the knowledge without their opinions.

THB historical analysis should avoid the opinion of historians themselves and only depends on the fact itself.