Desiree Lindsay

Featured

Instagram and the Rise of the Self-Help Guru

What happens when self-improvement is promoted through the exact platform that’s causing so much self-destruction?

The “self-improvement” industry has been under attack from professionals and psychologists for years now essentially on the basis of false advertisement and fraud. But now, we see a double edge sword has formed when “self-improvement” combines with a platform that is showing negative effects on mental health – social media. The biggest danger of them all is Instagram. So, what about self-improvement and Instagram makes this phenomenon so dangerous?

Today it seems that just about anyone on an online platform with a mediocre following and engagement rate portrays the ideologies that they’ve figured out the key to happiness and success and that you too, could live like they do. These “influencers” make their living preaching self-love and enlightenment while promoting a product or lifestyle in a seemingly effortless manner. But it’s more than that.

In 2016, a market data study showed the self-improvement industry was worth 10 billion dollars. That’s just in the United States! The self-improvement industry is expected to grow 6% each year and is estimated to be worth over 13 billion dollars in 2022.

Let’s combine the 10-billion-dollar self-improvement industry with the influencer marketing industry, which is expected to reach 10-billion-dollars by 2020. That’s over 20 billion dollars being thrown at consumers to influence them on a daily basis.

The double-edged sword is that we’re treading on dangerous territory when our primary access to this inspirational guidance is consumed through the exact platform that’s adding to the demise of our happiness, our self-love and our self-esteem. Social media, and primarily Instagram, is statistically showing a negative relationship to our well-being and mental health. Specifically, increasing anxiety and sleep deprivation and lowering self-esteem, self-confidence and self-perception.

7 Negative Effects of Social Media

If you follow anyone that’s an influencer on Instagram, you’ll get your daily fix of brand and product marketing, exotic locations, sexy photos and the positive cherry on top – a philosophical and inspirational quote or motivational comment that’s made to make you feel like it could all be yours.

My concern and question in this is how realistic is all this? We common folk look to these influencers that preach happiness and success and we internalize it whether or not we want to.

They preach diet and exercise and find the time to cook from scratch every meal of every day and tell you that you should too. They find the time to do their yoga and their meditation and lift weights and tell you how you should too. They have the resources to buy organic and take supplements and tell you should too. They’re beautiful with a natural and effortless vibe and they tell you can be too.

They have their own Instagram “verification badge”, their own websites, their own blogs, their own podcasts and their own stylists making their brand and expertise easily and readily available for you to consume. And they can balance all of this because they’re getting paid to preach to you. They’re getting paid to influence you.

The Psychology of Influencers

The reality is that these influencers get paid TONS OF MONEY to tell you how to better yourself. How to cook properly. How to work out properly. How to vacation properly. How to take supplements properly. How to style properly. How to make money properly. And they can do it in the effortless way they portray because that’s all they do.

Self-improvement guru’s and social media influencers have become a capitalistic commodity sold through social platforms leaving society to believe that it’s all theirs if they can buy whatever product or service they’re promoting and live in whatever exotic lifestyle they’re doing it in.

But can you really have it all if you do what they do? There have been numerous studies showing that social media can be damaging to ones’ ego mostly because it’s unrealistic. IT’S NOT REAL. People portray themselves in a specific and cultivated way, while telling you that you can too. They travel to lavish places, always seeming to have endless energy and money to do so. They can take time to enjoy leisure, hobbies and multitudes of other components to make it appear as if they’re living a fulfilling lifestyle. One that most of us can’t afford.

Influencers are taking important concepts of mental health and capitalizing them into a materialistic frenzy. “Self-care” is a practice that help’s maintain ones’ safety and health particularly during times of stress or trauma.

Aspects of what “self-care” truly entails.

However, if you look on Instagram’s – #selfcare has galvanized people into spending splurges, exotic travel, expensive spa packages and skin care products that now has over 12 million followers. People are enraged over this – myself included, because “self-care” DOESN’T COST MONEY.

This is an example of how promoting self-improvement and fundamental mental health concepts on a platform that functions through a photo-based, product-marketing, click-bait is misleading and unrealistic. Especially for our younger users who haven’t developed enough critical thinking skills to decipher what is real and what isn’t.

Why Instagram is the Worst Social Media for Mental Health

Self-improvement is an important concept – one that I believe as individuals we should all be working on. We should all be working on becoming a healthier and more content version of ourselves. However, not all of us have access to a therapist or other forms of support that can help navigate and teach us new methods of operating for our success. So what do you do?

It’s natural to look to what’s readily and easily accessible in order to acquire new information but I warn you – don’t look to influencers. Don’t look to self-improvement guru’s. Don’t look to anyone who wants you to buy something or tells you that you need a product, a lavish vacation or a trip to the spa to feel better about yourself.

If you’re looking for guidance, look to those with a medical or psychological background. Look to those who share their knowledge or experience with no expectation from their viewers to buy a product or pay a membership fee. Look to those who don’t have marketing affiliations.

My personal advice – look to those who you don’t know what they look like. It’s a weird concept but ultimately, you want to follow someone whose more concerned with providing you thoughtful insight and not a picture of their face.

Libel and Racism in Local Court Sparks Controversy

Ugly lawsuit between a family court judge and a reporter raise questions about where the line should be drawn between accurate reporting and the need for public awareness

In a “debacle” in Charlotte, NC between a Family Court judge and a local reporter, claims of libel, racism and political motivation leave a city confused on what’s really going on, just a week before election ballots drop for this local judge.

Judge Aretha Blake, who has been serving in the county for over 15 years, had been residing as a Family Court judge and in 2018 left Family Court to move to Juvenile Court. The issue, according to WBTV reporter and libel lawsuit defendant, Nick Oschner, is that Blake left over 52 cases unresolved when she transferred to Juvenile Court grossly under-filling her duties as judge and leaving tons of families in limbo. Oschner made various other claims in his report such as, Blake’s severely short workdays despite large backlog of cases, Blake’s cases take years to resolve when most other cases are resolved within a year, lawyers fear of retaliation for speaking out, Blake’s refusal to respond to requests for interviews and failure to answer the public’s questions and even alluded to retaliating with monetary penalties to a party that requested a Writ of Mandamus from the N.C. Court of Appeals (in the amount of $500,000).

Claims of racism entered this controversy in February, making this issue even more convoluted, when the Black Political Caucus of Charlotte-Mecklenburg, including county Commissioner Vilma Leake went public defending Blake and claiming that the report lacked “journalistic integrity” and “due diligence” supporting Blake’s claim to a libel lawsuit. The Black Political Caucus also made blatant claims that the reporter was publishing false information due to race bias for Blake’s opponent. Blake not only filed a libel lawsuit against Oschner for defamation but also appealed to have a judge block Oschner’s upcoming story claiming that it would do “irreparable harm” to her reputation before the election. This type of content restraint request is virtually unheard of in the United States and poses an important question to the protections of the First Amendment and whether or not a judge is taking advantage of their power.

Blake’s attorney requested that the judge issue a “narrow” restraining order against Oschner to take place until the election is over. The judge ruled to dismiss Blake’s petition due to lack of sufficient proof of malicious intent, despite they were able to prove that both of Oschner’s reports of backlog cases (the original reported 52 cases and then the updated report of 35 cases) were inaccurate.

The issues in this case that stand out the most to me, is how many important people in this local government refused to answer questions or turn over documents to reporters, whether or not Oschner’s mis-reported number of backlog cases were reported with ill-intent and if so, is there anything legally wrong with Oschner’s clear disdain for Blake’s performance in her position as Family Court judge and reporting as such. It’s also important to note that Oschner claimed that Blake was under investigation for performance and has been reprimanded more than once, although it seems that Oschner has since, retracted those claims. Also alarming and perhaps not in the arena of media law, is the supported claims that Blake issued a half million dollar penalty to the party that appealed to the N.C. Court of Appeals to issue a Writ of Mandamus due to Blake’s severe lack of communication and resolution of a particular case. Who is responsible for investgating whether that is was an appropriate ruling?

On the plaintiff’s side of this case, I have concerns about claims of racism as a means to block publication of stories that are critical of public officials. I by no means support racism and bias in the media but I do have concerns about how to determine what is legal and if that’s fair or not. If Oschner’s probe and criticism of Blake is racially motivated, then that is absolutely an injustice to society but how would that be proven in court? And if it was racially motivated, does that legally matter if the claims are proven to be true?

I, by no means, am surprised that the judge dismissed Blake’s appeal to block publication of Oschner’s story. While I’m not entirely sure if this request would count as a prior restraint as it is virtually unprecedented but if it were, this appeal does not meet the requirements of a prior restraint. In order for a prior restraint to be constitutional it must prove to be sufficiently necessary in order to protect either; national security, prevent obscenity, prevent obstruction of military recruitment, prevent a foreseeable overthrow of government, prevent incitement and/or contain fighting words. Nothing Oschner nor WBTV has published or done meets any of these requirements. This would also not pass a strict scrutiny test as a content-based regulation despite Blake’s lawyers appeal for the block to be narrowly drawn because it does not serve a compelling interest in order to protect public health, safety and welfare.

Blake’s libel lawsuit is still ongoing however, I do not believe Blake stands a good chance to win this case. In the plaintiff’s case for libel the burden of proof would fall on Blake. She should be able to sufficiently show prove statement of fact, publication and identification. When it comes to defamation, I believe she could stand a good chance to perhaps prove such injury to her reputation as the claims made were substantial and would lead a respectable minority to believe she is unfit for her job. What I do not believe she will be able to sufficiently prove is fault, falsity and damages. Due to Blake being a pubic official, she will have to prove that Oschner and WBTV acted with actual malice. I do not believe she will be able to provide a substantial amount of circumstantial evidence against Oschner. In order to prove falsity, Blake would have to prove that the report by Oschner was not substantially true. Because Oschner supported his report with court ordered documents supporting his claims about her lack of sufficient court time, interviews with lawyers who have been in her court and with proof that the N.C. Court of Appeals did indeed issue a Writ of Mandamus, I do not believe Blake will be able to prove falsity. I believe that Blake’s libel lawsuit against Oschner will be dismissed.

What I’m left with that seems to be unanswered and to which I do not believe there is a sufficient doctrine or precedent which tackles this issue, is cases of libel and defamation that are racially motivated. While Oschner’s report probably isn’t substantially false, there is evidence to support the claim that Oschner railed into Blake about issues many other judges face in that area. There does seem evidence that many other judges have case loads that take over a year to resolve and many other judges are also overwhelmed with their case loads. There is reason to question whether Oschner’s report on Blake was irrationally tough and whether or not that is due to racial bias. I would be hopeful that soon, a precedent is set to determine what would be fair for those who believe defamation against themselves is racially motivated and how to prove that in court.

Meet the Nun Standing Up to the Big Guns

For this Seattle native nun, September 25th, 2018, will stand out in her memory as a monumental triumph in her abundantly successful career as a faith-based activist.

Sister Judy Byron, who has committed her life to servitude and helping create systemic change and justice for all, reaches an unprecedented shift in her fight for corporate responsibility.

But, just how did this five foot tall, nun, force three of the largest gun manufacturers in the United States to publicly acknowledge and accept their responsibility in creating safer products amongst copious tragedies in the hands of their weapons.

Born in Everett, Washington sometime in the 1940’s – age and years to this nun seem to be ubiquitous facts for she declined to disclose the year she was born as she found it, “unimportant,” to her story- moved to the quaint town of Hoquiam, Washington when she was six years old.

Hoquiam, the infamous and out shadowed neighbor of Aberdeen, Washington home of the famous Kurt Cobain. It’s the quintessential and picturesque seaside town featuring

small, locally owned ice cream and burger stands, churches and in the the recent years, maybe a stop light or two.

Reminiscing upon her childhood in this town, Sister Byron recalls her upbringing as, “harmonious, peaceful and nurturing.” Her father was a local logger and her mother was a teacher. She’s the oldest of six and grew up in the Catholic grade school system.

Attributing her deeply rooted care and commitment for social justice to her upbringing, Sister Byron says she, “can’t recall a time where faith wasn’t a part of my life.” Being the child of a teacher and the church being a prominent aspect of her childhood, she believes this taught her, “empathy and holistic care for others,” at a young age.

Graduating high school in Seattle, WA, in 1960, she immediately went on to join the Adrian Dominican Sisters. This is when she selflessly committed herself to her faith, joining the sisterhood and beginning her future as a endowed nun to the, “common good.” Sister Byron said she, “had no second thoughts.”

Sister Byron chose to continue her education. She knew she wanted to be involved in local Parish schools, instilling in children those, “rooted beliefs” and “empathetic care” that was given to her as a child in the Catholic grade school community.

She received a Bachelors of Art in Social Science and a Masters of Art in Education. Soon after, she began teaching in 1966 at St. Annes in Seattle. She then went on to act as Vice Principal at Saint Louise in Bellevue and also acted as head Principal at Saint Anne in Seattle.

Sister Byron recalls her most valuable experiences during these years as those when she was teaching third graders. She reflects upon the, “genuine care these children had for others,” and their, “readiness to extend themselves to those less fortunate than themselves.”

Recognizing that the majority of those children came from good homes with resources available enough to give to others, she still remains, “humbled by the generosity of children,” when exposed to justice issues at a young age.

Since Sister Byron’s career in education and social justice began in the mid sixties, her engagement in activism is vast and impressively encompassing of minorities and other, largely oppressed groups of individuals.

She became the Director of Engagement at the Adrian Dominican Sisters in the seventies, during the peak of the Vietnam War. Advocating for an end to the war and a safe return of thousands of vets, she remembers feeling perplexed by the, “intertwined complexity,” of the war, the government and large corporations.

After all, this was the beginning of Capitalism and she started to recognize the, “impact and influence corporations had within our institutional systems.” She believes this is around the time she started to see the dire need for, what she calls, “corporate responsibility.”

She became involved with the Intercommunity of Peace and Justice Center in 1998, whose focus was and still is, systemic change. Immigration became the forefront of local and national justice issues and soon after, she became assistant director of this organization.

Sister Byron became the voice of this organization – actively helping lead the prodigious and comprehensive immigration reform in the early 2000’s. From here on out, she became the faith-based lead for “actively engaging,” executives and board members of large corporations.

Unusual dynamic for a nun whose described by long time colleague Patty Bowmen, as “restrained and compassionate,” however, it is just this characteristic of Sister Byron that allows her to infiltrate profit-focused multinational giant corporations.

Her quiet, “methodical and persistent nature,” according to Margaret Weber, director of the Congregation of St. Basil, pays off when she walks into a boardroom of millionaires, presenting opposing ideas to some of those in high ranks and wealth. Weber says, “She’s not very complicated. She’s just genuine, strong and solid.”

It is her compassion and non-threatening faith based persona that is naturally disarming enough to get executives to let their guard down enough to see a different perspective. Sister Byron says she is often met with challenges, such as, “being equated to a religious activist causing trouble.”

Unseemingly as it may be to find a balance between faith coexisting inside the political atmosphere, Sister Byron says it’s this aspect that, “motivates me the most…my religion wasn’t just about God and me; my religion called me to be concerned about others, and to work for the common good.”

And her successes seem to speak for themselves. From fighting corporate giants in many industries from Gilead Sciences (HIV/AIDS medication developers) and Exxon Mobil to her current battles on Wall Street against gun manufacturers, Sturm and Ruger and American Outdoor Brands; Sister Judy Byron keeps showing she is one revolutionary nun, not to be underestimated.

When all is said and done, Sister Byron says she, “hopes to leave behind a legacy that shows I was committed to promoting the common good and I have great hope for the young people that with the right resources, they can make the world a better place.”

Social Media – the Nuke in Modern Warfare and Politics

As those in power start to recognize the weaponization of social media, what happens when it’s used against us?

It is no surprise anymore how much of an impact social media has on our daily lives. Social media addiction, new founded careers based entirely on platforms – i.e. “influencers”, marketing companies with a whole department dedicated to social media and for our younger generations – a primary and sole source of news gathering.

Social media has also served as a major player in social justice movements. These platforms have been instrumental in uniting users into communities to fight and address oppression in the forms of racism, sexism, police brutality, sexual harassment, gun violence and so, so much more.

Cartoon showing how cell phones and social media has been key in capturing police brutality

But perhaps, a less discussed and acknowledged aspect of social media in the mainstream is its role in war and oppression. This phenomenon – the weaponization of social media, is one that I fear will be soon lost.

Social media has been fruitful in uniting people to rally and fight back in oppressed regimes. Starting with the Arab Spring back in 2010, social media was the driving force of this revolution and served as a platform to ignite the uprisings of anti-government backlash in many countries primarily; Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Syria and Bahrain.

Protestor holding sign in Egypt in 2012 – Arab Spring Protest

Facebook was key to citizens posting and sharing uncensored videos of abuse and protests. At the time, Facebook wasn’t seen as a challenge to the dictators and was left uncensored. Videos went viral bringing awareness to other parts of the world and allowed a forum for people to rise up, creating and organizing protests and actions plans.

In the crisis in Venezuela, social media again, was the driving force in uniting the oppressed with an outlet to plan and assemble protests against a dictatorship regime. The virality of student protests launched an entire movement in just a few short months and served as the foundation of what’s morphed into a civil war.

Social Media and the Uprising in Venezuela

However, the cat’s out of the bag and no longer are governments viewing social media as negligible. In Venezuela Maduro’s regime is calling on Facebook to follow censorship laws and block back channels for access and they’ve succeeded. In the ongoing battle in the Arab world, blocks have also been prohibiting certain access to news and forums for citizens to unite and arrange protests.

We’re continuing to be shocked at the power of social media as more evidence surfaces in the Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election. Evidence is showing that the Kremlin manipulated Facebook and Twitter with an online army of trolls and bots.

How Russia used Social Media to Divide Americans

Artificial intelligence is a serious concern for many countries as the power of social media is becoming blatantly obvious. The Chinese government is now demanding seats on boards of social media, a move that can only be assumed as to maintain power over citizens.

As the “watch dog” government invests a vast amount of money in developing big data monitoring software to help implement its Orwellian strategy of a “social-reliability” rating it seems obvious that the aim of current dictatorships will be to limit citizens access to social media and freedom within it.

As many people who are writing and considering this growing challenge, they believe that those power view democracy itself as the enemy and social media is the enemy’s tool. As Daniil Andreev calls this, “psychological operations” he further believes that these “same tactics during Brexit, Crimea, the 2016 U.S. election and the divisiveness after Charlottesville.”

The time has come to discuss what happens when social media – once used as a means to unite the oppressed against its oppressor is hijacked from us. And worse, once stolen will be turned to targeting citizens and forcing them into isolation and complacency.

World War III is already here and it’s gone viral. It’s crucial we start discussing how we will fight back.

Founding book chronicling the development of Social Media into a weapon

For more information read: War Goes Viral

Sexist Advertising is Kickin’ Rocks

As the ASA in the U.K. bans sexist advertisements, we can see the fight for realistic beauty ramp up in other avenues

Are you beach body ready? In case you didn’t know – Protein World’s “beach body ready” advertising campaign failed utterly hard in the UK. This ad and the immense back lash received back in 2015 sparked serious debate abroad and forced authorities of the media to get involved. And now we’re starting to see some success in equality in the realm of advertising, media and beauty standards.

Outrage over “Beach Body Ready” campaign forces rebranding

The UK’s Advertising United Standards Authority (ASA) and the Committees of Advertising Practices (CAP) engage and regulate media setting parameters around ethical practices in media. In December of 2018 the CAP and ASA passed a new regulation that bans ads from depicting “harmful gender stereotypes”.

Examples of these harmful gender stereotypes include themes such as; a women’s inability to park a car, a man unable to figure out how to change a diaper, women’s primary role as the homemaker and a mother who cares more about her physical appearance than her emotional well-being.

As most would predict there’s been a lot of backlash and debate around this ban. This regulation is the effect of many, well-backed complaints of sexism over the years to the ASA and CAP. After careful studies and much thought the regulation was passed and is set to start implementation in June of 2016 and apply to both broadcast and non-broadcast media.

ASA representative Ella Smillie said, “we don’t see ourselves as social engineers, we’re reflecting a changing standard in society.” As one of the creators behind the regulation – this is a really important note to consider. She also highlighted the real, quantitative effects of unfair standards such as; gender pay gap and lack of women in STEM fields. Even more curious, she points out the issue of men and struggles with mental health which is often always portrayed by a women.

While the UK is making some serious steps to battling sexism in media, other campaigns are being launched to help navigate some headway in other areas of advertisement and media portrays. “The Women We See” campaign was launched in 2018 to address issues of inaccurate diversity representation in the media.

Another campaign, “Bridging the Confidence Gap” is a movement to address ageism in advertisements and media. Seeking to empower women of all ages and challenge women to rise up against men in professional settings and has now galvanized internationally.

While the U.S. doesn’t have a regulatory board such as the ASA or CAP – we can see these standards of culture shifting here, too. Perhaps the original pioneer of realistic body image advertisements was Dove starting back in 2004. Remember?

However, thinking back to Smillie’s comment on reflecting a changing society standard, just because we don’t have a regulatory committee here doesn’t mean as a society we can’t push to make these changes happen. And it’s working. Even fashion icon Vogue is adopting a ‘real beauty’ campaign.

Vogue photographer’s “Real Beauty” campaign

In our capitalistic culture, uprising and backlash are certain avenues to take in order to cultivate the change we seek. Recently, Victoria’s Secret’s “Perfect Body” campaign flunked hard forcing them to rebrand the campaign and this just goes to show that our voices can be heard. THANK YOU SOCIAL MEDIA. THANK YOU BOYCOTT.

And because we are a profit seeking society the best way to make change is to ruin profits. As the marketing industry is recognizing, there’s “new rules” in advertising and they’ll have to adhere or face social media backlash and pay lots of revenue to increasing PR in order to constantly apologize for faulty campaigns.

So, while the UK might be leading the war in realistic beauty standards and media the U.S. too, is finding its’ way in this battle. It’s time to seek profit through enrichment and acceptance of the people and their bodies instead of fear and insecurity of the people and their bodies and U.S. brands are starting to campaign for the same things.

U.S. brand Aerie – “Real Me Collection” campaign

Little Women: Dallas – Voyeurism and Exploitation

Little Women: Dallas – bringing awareness or fetishizing?

Ok, let’s talk Little Women: Dallas for a moment. When I first heard of the Little Women series, I instantly thought exploitation and dehumanization and acquitted the show to a subtype of reality television I attempt to avoid like the plague – ones that target and objectify a minority culture for a sport like spectator viewership.

A friend watched the first couple episodes and had told me about a hierarchy of dwarfism in the little people community and my internal voyeuristic curiosity had peaked. So far, we really only see little people in Hollywood media playing roles of borderline demeaning humility in satirized comedic capacities. Roles such as; Verne Troyer who played “Mini Me” in Austin Powers, Tony Cox “Marcus” from Bad Santa, Jason Acuña in Jackass and Martin Klebba in Pirates of the Caribbean and Scrubs.

I started to consider that maybe I had been viewing little people’s roles in film and television the wrong way – perhaps because I was foreign to this community I had internalized and perceived their roles as such because I was simply ignorant to this group of people. What if reality television based around an oppressed and relatively ignored community could have positive benefits such as bringing about awareness and normalizing a community that has unique qualities to offer that thus far have been overlooked and pushed to borders of the page?

Long story short: I watched the entire two seasons over a course of a few weeks (I have that terrible habit of letting the television run while I do homework) and ultimately think that the show was partly disgraceful and majorly predatory considering a multitude of layers including; the age of the girls (all barely under 21 and some under) and the sensitive content that comes along with this age, the sexualized and racialized undertones which at times were at the forefront of the episodes there to purely stimulate drama and chaos and the disrespectful portrayal of those in the little people community. Hollis Andrews, who was going to be one of the first in Little People: LA and eventually walked away from the series due to her belief in the mistreatment of little people in Hollywood, and I have to say I 100% agree with her stance.

Brichelle Humphrey’s first appearance in Little Women: Dallas

Maybe I’m not the only one tired of seeing one person of color in an entire series of white people who in her first appearance in episode 4 starts an all-out brawl of little and average size people and isn’t even in the opening sequence, credits or thumbnails and happens to be at a much significantly older age then the others. Plus, isn’t this show in Dallas? I find it highly unrealistic to have to an entire show based in Dallas sans of color in the cast. Throughout the rest of the episodes, Brichelle Humphrey makes appearances usually to start and create drama and even at times appears “uninvited” to events with the others and it just screams, “Producers, we need more views – where’s the angry black women?” Way too racially stereo-typed for my preference and again, obviously staged for drama.

One last major bone to pick with this series – the sexualization of young women with dwarfism in the sensitive and difficult “coming of age” stage of their lives. You have Bri and Emily who are known as “Left Cheek” and “Right Cheek” who make their living twerking at clubs because as a society, we clearly have a fetish for twerking and what’s more enticing than twerking – little people with big butts doing it. Now, don’t get me wrong – I love the idea that these women love their bodies and want to show it, I completely support that. However, I don’t like that throughout this show these women were pigeon hold to the idea that that’s their only talent or their only way to make money. I would have loved to see self-discovery encouraged more throughout this and can imagine how difficult that is when you have a nation encouraging you to shake your ass in out of a perverse interest.

Another concept of overt sexualization throughout this series is Caylea (who is the youngest and only 20 during the first episode) and her struggles with relationships and love. Her dad, which I can see as only his love for her, has clearly implanted the idea that little people are fetishized in the average sized world and that the average size men romantically interested in her are only interested in her because of that. I can relate to an extent because I am 5’1” and have experienced this nature of the male species to be obsessed with petite women so I can only imagine that she experiences that as well, only tenfold.

However, I would have loved to see her friends step in and support her more throughout this difficult phase, or see the internet step up and bring awareness and support to those who experience this unfortunate yet true phenomenon of the heterosexual male and his obsession with tiny and the fear that is culturally engrained in small women’s’ minds that men prey on them and only want them to fulfill some fantasy of theirs. Caylea wasn’t the only example of this throughout the series. Our cultural fascination, obsession even, with tiny was in the backdrop of all these women’s experiences and was hardly even touched upon.

My guess is that I’m not the only that agrees to these concepts as investors have opted out of investing in another season and Little People: Dallas had a short-winded fame of two seasons, which was really one season broken into two. I wish these young women the best in the rest of their endeavors.

FACT: Documentary Doesn’t Mean Fact, Anymore.

How have documentaries evolved from transparent to opaque and how does that effect society?

WAKE UP! Documentary doesn’t necessarily equal facts, at least not anymore. Welcome to the era where documentaries are beginning to dominate as the public’s source of news, information and thought. A recent study found only 6% of Americans feel they have a “great deal of trust in the press.” So with the combination of our lack of trust in news, documentary cinematic and emotional appeal and streaming services such as Hulu and Netflix – documentaries and their views have sky rocketed and drastically evolved over the last two decades.

Documentaries are reaching audiences never before seen. They’re shaping culture and society and now have the power to influence people to change their vote, donate to that cause, consider that person innocent, consider that other person guilty, boycott animal products, boycott this company and aid in propaganda for another. I mean, the list goes on. Point being: documentaries are POWERFUL and shape society far more than research, academia and society itself has fully come to understand or explore.

The Future of High Quality Documentaries Reaching a World Audience

What’s grinding my gears in all this, is the general public’s lack of acknowledgment that a documentary is, point blank, someone’s perception. Again, documentaries are someone’s subjective perception. Even more important, documentaries are someone’s subjective perception that’s created with the intention of reaching a goal. A goal that requires a lot of funding, a crew that costs money and a streaming service that wants a piece of the pie as well. All in all, the goals or intent generally being making money and leaving an audience with a lasting impression.

Consider this: What’s the goal of reality tv? Make money and entertain, maybe even influence, people. What’s the goal of a major motion-picture? Make money and entertain people, maybe even influence, people.

Let’s consider major common developmental aspects of documentaries, reality tv and major motion-pictures. Creating these films all require similar resources, albeit maybe to different extents. They all require a director, producer, editor, camera operator, lighting director, marketing and an executed launch for success. Whether it’s for fiction or nonfiction all require a skillful set of people to create the end product. All these aspects creating a product that isn’t as spontaneous as we’ve foolishly thought.

Documentaries aren’t that far off from reality tv – they’re highly manipulated. Documentaries still require a script, an editor and interviews that are generally aimed at providing more evidence to whatever theme the documentary is focused on achieving. Natural assumptions about the simplistic nature of a documentary – such as chronology can no longer be taken as what seems common sense. As a viewer, you can no longer assume chronology in documentaries.

Other less obvious tools of manipulations include; reenactments, high quality cinematography, stylized lighting, over composure all intended to help cultivate the desired, meaningful and emotional experience for their audience and holy shit – they’re good at it.

“The Innocent Man” on Netflix combines reenactments, quality cinematography and music to create the ultimate experience for the viewer.

For example, take “The Jinx” from HBO where film makers exploited and recorded Robert Durst into what appeared to be like a confession in the finale. Durst was consequently arrested the day after the release of the finale doc series and this left the journalistic community sick because it was ethically a wrong relationship for a journalist and a subject.

The Queasy Finale of “The Jinx”

What’s concerning about all this, is how drastic documentaries reaches are becoming with profound effects and little to no rhetoric on the ethics behind it and most certainly, little to no regulation on it regardless of the increasing use as docs as a source of news.

There’s no committee or agency that regulates the authentic of claims made. There’s no rigorous peer editing that without sufficient support would render the doc unprofessional such as in academia. Nor is there any requirement to cite their sources which blurs the lines of reporting of “facts” and conveys bias.

It is true that documentary is not journalism, so maybe it shouldn’t be held to the same ethical standards as that of journalism but I argue that documentary is capturing society so quickly because it encompasses creativity and expression in a way that journalism cannot which is why we see a lot of journalists work as documentarians as well. Because of the artistic nature of documentaries, I don’t argue that it’s all up to filmmakers to change the course in the assumption of docs as reality.

As Lisa Leeman argues “we filmmakers have some reckoning to do, regarding our ‘contract’ with the audiences,” and I do believe filmmakers need to be held to a higher standard if creating products for an audience operating under the assumption as, “nonfiction.” Doc filmmakers are now teetering on the idea of annotating their documentaries such as Penny Lane has in “NUTS!” This is hopefully setting a precedent that citing docs you want to be deemed fully non-fiction and transparent will have to go but it also runs the risk of taking away the opportunity and unique niche documentaries fill for us – an emotional and enlightening experience.

However, my frustration is also with the audience. I can’t help but think that is not fully the filmmakers responsibility. Since when, as a society, have we allowed ourselves to become such mindless sheep to the influence of an opinion? A perception? A obviously cultivated and designed medium to elicit a specific response from the viewer (us)?

If we’re at a historic low on the public’s trust in media, then why is that so many people put so much blind trust into documentaries? Perhaps, from a lack of understanding of the mechanisms behind documentaries combined with the lack of trust in other news forms of media/press has resulted in the rise in acceptance of documentaries as a better way to receive their news. Or perhaps, because they’re more in line with their perceptions so they’re easier to relate to along with a cinematic appeal.

We’re so quick to jump down the throats of anyone who mindlessly follows or believes a comment Trump made without fact checking. Yet we’ve crossed into complete hypocrisy because if we watch a cinematic documentary with a viewpoint that aligns similar to our perceptions and beliefs we deem it to be the absolute truth. Further, will use that medium to base further beliefs, shame, discredit and even legal prosecutions on.

Robert Durst appears in criminal court after being arrested the day after “The Jinx” finale aired.

I don’t think it takes a journalism degree to realize and accept that media is the ULTIMATE influencer and it creeps into all aspects of our lives quietly shaping us with or without our knowledge. The key here is to understand that media does have a goal, media does cost money to produce and in order to spend money to create media – media must reach its’ goal and that goal – is to influence you.

So please, next time you watch a documentary on Netflix, Hulu or whatever streaming service you chose – do yourself and our culture a favor and fact check it before you deem it the truth.

To learn more about ethics and documentaries check out the study “Honest Truths: Documentary Filmmakers on Ethical Challenges in Their Work”