Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke
Well...See thats the problem with Editorial control. We cant really know that.
The show focused on some of Jordan's warts, you're right, but really only the ones already widely known about.
I'm not saying that we need some sort of no-holds-barred investigative expose or anything but there isnt much point in a focused documentary if the subject of that focus controls the content.
Its not as though there were cheerleaders with pom-poms cheering Jordan on....wait...there were....thats not really the point though.
Its just not showing us anything that wasnt already known, in which case it really is just a puff piece, albeit an interesting and well put together one.
My favourite part of the entire thing has been:
"Barack Obama: Former Chicago Resident"
I think hes known for having done some other things since then. I cant quite put my finger on what exactly, but things...
|
All of this, plus Jordan being given the chance to explain everything away. What about others sides to these stories and his attitude and how it affected them? Michael's PR person, Estee Portnoy, was the executive producer for chrissakes. Horace Grant comes out today and say the documentary was BS. It was entertaining and frankly ahead of its time to have that much inside footage day to day in an era where this wasn't normal. However entertaining, it was still the equivalent of a Michael Moore documentary. I definitely found the more affectionate moments very well done - Michael and Kerr's fathers, the security guards.
What I found interesting was how "journalists" were buddy buddy with Jordan. To see Michael Wilbon, David Aldridge, and Ahmad Rashad either gushing over him, or some footage where they're just chilling, is annoying to see. I don't expect Larry Brooks combativeness, but at least keep an arms length from the people you report on. These guys came across as just dying to be in Michael's inner circle.