Nobody Speak: Trials of the Free Press

With the attractive tailor, I was hoping this would be an enlightening documentary on how the press has stoped to function in our neo libertarian society but it turned out mostly like an advert for Gawker media and the people who hurt them, lightly and indirectly reminding us of the power of politicians and businesses to influence free press, while showing the people of the press in a good light. To be honest, the press itself is corrupt and this film stayed clear from that topic, how news and media are as interconnected to the businesses and political powers that run the show, and editors as as much to blame for misguiding the pawn citizen in this global game of the people in power to become wealthier and more powerful. If you really want to see something eye-opening, the whole nexus of lies we live in, go watch Requiem for an American Dream.

For the most part, this is an engaging documentary. But despite its marketing, "Nobody Speak" isn't really about the Bollea v. Gawker case. Sure, the trial gets plenty of screen time (in all its salacious and uncomfortable glory) but this is really about behind-the-scenes funding; the billionaire with a grudge against Gawker, the baron who buys out the Las Vegas newspaper to suppress unfavorable reporting. These are moneyed villains that beg to be reviled. Even His Trumpness is involved in a final segment that feels wholly supplemental) after waging a war on "Fake News".

The movie loses steam when it moves away from Peter Thiel and Gawker (its strongest segment) to broaden the support of the Fourth Estate. But on the whole, it's not bad.

6/10

Spin doctoring and fake news exists on both conservative and liberal outlets. This documentary is a PRIME example of the very thing it argues against because it spins against conservatives only. Shameful.

Our free press clearly has a credibility problem.

This quite well presented 'documentary' makes no real attempt to address the facts and instead sets itself up with a number of straw man arguments it never delivers on.

For a start the film makes out that this is a story about the free press, the earnest, honest hardworking noble establishment working to uphold the high ideals of a great society.

In reality they're dealing with gossip journalism, muck shoveling drivel that at best distracts the population from looking at issues that really matter, like world peace, corporate corruption, racism social and gender injustice etc, and at worst pose a real and damaging effect on society and how we develop. It's almost laughable to watch these shills wince in interviews at saying the 'f' word yet their day job is to pedal and create as much pornographic like garbage and sensationalist atrocities as they can fit in an edition. They really are unintentionally self unaware and horrible low life.

Yes the concept of freedom of the press is an important pillar of the free world, but the concept is not there for the likes of these muck peddlers although it has until now protected their right to make sh!t up or profit from the misfortunes and ugliness of others. With that freedom comes responsibility and watching these people talk for almost 2 hours clearly demonstrates they have no interest or comprehension of what it takes to make a functioning safe and thriving society. They try to hang the discussion up on technicalities and loop holes pretending they're oblivious and innocent to the larger picture of what these particular individuals do and how they undermine the much more noble establishment of the 4th estate.

It would be funny if it didn't have real impact not only on the celebrities they attack but a serious real impact on the mindset of the world we live in. But that's just the people this film fails to paint in a favorable light.

As for the film itself, while its camera angles, sound and music are all professionally produced the producers fail to maintain any real 'documentary' credibility. They never address the harm that gawker style 'journalism' does to the individuals they focus on or to the public at large who are tricked into participating in a downward spiral of ugliness, as if it was irrelevant to the discussion.

This is a thoroughly unpleasant unsuccessful (at least to the producers goal of justifying gawker as some sort of moral high ground "what did we do wrong??" innocent victim of powerful men out to hurt them shtick) film.

What it unintentionally does is put the faces of the players in front of us and let them hang themselves with their own words, body language and expressions. We are without a doubt in a bad place as a society riddled with diversionary garbage news, and here are the people that bring it to you in all their self justifying, self-important, selfishness.

This is a truly horrible film in a way they didn't intend it to be.

Using Gawnker as a 1st amendment example may not be entirely suitable.

First the Tabloid headlines are rather disgusted than admirable. Personally, I would not be drawn any attentions to its website not mentioning to read the contents. Secondly posting someone's sex tape even brought more gray areas. Subsequently, its bona fide intention became blurry and unpersuasive. It could have started with a well known media instead. However, there would be presentably much bigger challenges since most main stream ones including FOX News already have mighty legal teams to fend out such allegations. So I would say it's not a well thought out documentary. The idea was applicable. But its implementation lacked effectiveness.

Basically, Gawnker is not a media public would think has its value in the society. It essentially leeched on human ethics. Nevertheless. 1st amendment protects all voices even dark, unpleasant ones. This documentary might convey such a message. However, I am the least convinced of their innocence and that is the problem.