I will admit first that Stacey Dooley's approach and presence is irritating.
But why?
Well, critics have stated that:
1. Lack of Depth or Oversimplification: Some argue that Dooley's documentaries lack depth despite the subject matter, oversimplifying complex issues. Claims that her work prioritises deliberate emotive storytelling rather than thorough investigation, reducing nuanced topics to surface-level narrative.
2. Subjectivity and Bias: Dooley's contrived empathetic style coupled with personal involvement with the subjects have suggested bias. Critics point out she has a tendency to over-identify with certain perspectives, affecting the objectivity expected and respected in exceptional investigative journalism.
3. Sensationalism: Dooley has been criticised for cherry picking shocking or sensational elements in her stories in an attempt to create a more compelling product. Not dissimilar from clickbait, this approach ostensibly makes them appear engaging, though tends to lead to a perceived exploitation of sensitive subjects for entertainment value.
4. Inexperience and Ethical Concerns: Some have pointed out that Dooley does not have a formal background in journalism, which can lead to ethical lapses or mishandling of serious issues. Critics worry that her lack of training might compromise the integrity of her investigations. I don't have an issue with a lack of training if the person maintains a sense of authenticity, objectivity, and a willingness to explore all aspects of the subject matter fairly.
5. Focusing on Personal Presence: Dooley's persistence in inserting herself into the narrative often detracts from the subject matter and is unnecessary. For some, this might create a more relatable and emotional connection with viewers, yet others surely feel it distracts from the core issues and forcefully ensures the story is more about her experience rather than the subject matter itself.
I'm not sure how she views herself- I can't help but think of the great Louis Theroux - as a journalist, she brings a patronising, over earnest attitude in her attempts to relate to her subjects, oozing disingenuous empathy.
Additionally, she appears to stay within the popular parameters of progressive attitudes, careful to ensure she is showing herself as a sympathetic woman, rather than as an objective observer.
She has potential, and might do well to reassess what exactly she is trying to achieve.
