It's so amazing how much information can be presented in 6 minutes. Several provocative questions were raised and it's good that we're all having this discussion. It's time to question the traditional methods and figure out the best ways to reach an audience.

Why make documentary?
Is it cinema verite' whereby you objectively present a situation and allow the viewer to arrive at their own conclusions, or is it a form of utilitarian propaganda whereby you manipulate the representation of a situation in order to achieve a desired outcome/response from the viewer?
In the first case, the viewers' history does not matter, the piece stands as a piece.
In the second case, much preparation is taken to tailor the piece to the audience.

One is propaganda, advocacy - disguised as documentary, and one is pure.

One is Michael Moore, and one is Tom Palazzolo.

One seeks to invite honest investigation, one seeks to invoke dogma.

How many times does one need to look at the Mona Lisa, or to read a great novel in order to be moved to deep thought?

interesting - both of them. I think Kagan's idea of divining definitive answers with regard to testimony/credibility quotient based on look at/looking away from the camera is a little optimistic - there are far too many variables involved

That was fascinating, thanks for sharing. I felt like Kagan was speaking directly to issues I've been trying to figure out myself.