Can these powerful video opinions launch civil discussions among strangers? The series’ track record is as interesting as it is impressive.
Several new Op-Docs appear in the Opinion section each month. Often their creators are prize-winning documentary fi lmmakers. Emerging artists also appear, as does the work of video journalists on the scene of breaking news. Can these powerful video opinions launch civil discussions among strangers? The series’ track record is as interesting as it is impressive. The Op-Doc called “Dismantling Detroit” draws us—for five compelling minutes—into the desperate nighttime work of scavenging scrap metal from Detroit’s dismantled buildings. The young men who ferret out and sell the metal to eager global buyers are trying to survive Detroit’s destiny, to support themselves in an uncompromisingly bleak landscape. Readers’ reactions are stunningly thoughtful: They pose questions about the future of our cities; they argue about globalization; they show a historical context for making money from detritus. The online commenters explain their reasoning, follow up on one another’s remarks, and suggest different ways of looking at things. A person’s quick decision to click “view” can turn into a much fuller, shared consideration of difficult issues. In the same time window, we can witness the full, raw scope of “Waiting for Health Care” in the emergency room of Highland Hospital in Oakland, California. Sights, sounds and human situations are as relentless as the flow of people in this video. We feel something of the hours’ long wait that is routine for hundreds of uninsured or low-income people, whether or not their needs are acute and serious. Lost work time and mounting pain are almost palpable. We’re amazed by dedicated staff managing an overwhelming scene. Providers move from rescuing trauma victims to administering patients—the majority—with straightforward, non-acute care. Readers bring the fire and emotion of the health-care issue to their commentary on this piece. They share dire personal histories that drive them to certain conclusions. They explain and question; they compare, contrast and argue—about health care in Europe, the “real” cause of our national problem, or the roles that different stakeholders play. Providers offer insight drawn from their life labors. Some responders are short on patience; others urge compassion and responsibility.
8 Milton Magazine
If energy in the exchange is any measure, this discussion taps a need. Readers even seem to set the bar for what a national conversation should be—if we had one. They declare a range: this should be on the table; that should be off the table. For many people who join in these online discussions, their politicians have failed them. Readers make it clear that simplification of the issue won’t work and doesn’t satisfy anyone. For instance, one writes: “No matter the outcome of the Supreme Court’s decision on the individual mandate to buy health insurance, the Affordable Care Act remains flawed because it will leave at least 26 million people uninsured and does nothing to reduce healthcare costs.” Another writes: “It annoys me every time I hear or read that ‘Medicare for all can’t be done.’ This attitude persists although the great majority of Americans approve of Medicare, and many of those who are ‘against Obamacare’ are against it because it isn’t as good as Medicare.” Readers also seem upset with predictable ideology, from all points on the political spectrum. “Conservatives seem to believe that if you’re sick, you brought it on yourself,” one person writes. “If you’re poor, you don’t work hard enough; if you can’t afford to see a doctor or buy medicine, you should do what Grandma did and drink alfalfa tea until you’re well again. They don’t see any evidence that illness often strikes without any obvious reason (even nonsmokers get lung cancer), there aren’t enough jobs that can pull families out of poverty, and medical costs in the modern world are simply beyond the reach of anyone who isn’t a Wall Street CEO or a Powerball winner. And yet they think of themselves as ‘realists.’” These commenters read each other’s posts and respond point for point. The Op-Docs commentary lives and moves in different ways on multiple platforms, such as Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Google+, and New York Times blogs. According to Jason, the backand-forth generated by some pieces sustains itself for weeks. Traditional documentaries aren’t the only videos that stimulate conversation. Jason has been “working to create an outlet that’s diverse in subject matter but also style,” he said in an interview with Indiewire.com. “It has a distinct feel from most news. Here we’re working with indie filmmakers, animators, artists to create films that can spark dialogue around topical and historical subjects.” Readers are surprised, Jason thinks, to find snappy satire on the site. “Satire is a contemporary take on opinion,” he explains, “and one of the top forms for cultural commentary today. This is part of the language young people are speaking.” “Mitt Likes Music,” by the Gregory Brothers, is a musical video satire that threads together what Mitt Romney “likes” from video clips of many campaign stump speeches. The Gregory Brothers’ production became a favorite among visitors to nytimes.com. “The piece overlaps entertainment and newsworthiness” Jason says. Catching this kind of video on a newspaper opinion page is