FBI True

"FBI True Documentary" casts the FBI as the paragon of justice, but this portrayal might be an attempt to shift focus from the agency's contentious actions. Here's a brief review alongside some examples of alleged FBI misconduct:

The Steele Dossier: The FBI used this dossier, filled with unverified claims about Trump, to justify surveillance on Carter Page. The DOJ's Inspector General later criticized the process, pointing to potential bias.

Clinton Email Investigation: The FBI's decision not to charge Hillary Clinton over her email server use has been seen by some as preferential treatment, questioning the agency's impartiality.

Epstein Case Handling: The FBI's investigation into Jeffrey Epstein has faced scrutiny for possibly not pursuing connections to influential figures as aggressively as might be expected.

Use of Informants: The FBI's tactics in cases like the Michigan Governor kidnapping plot have led to accusations of entrapment, where the FBI might be seen as manufacturing crimes.

Historical Context: COINTELPRO's legacy reminds us of the FBI's past in overstepping legal and ethical boundaries.

"FBI True Documentary" offers a sanitized view, potentially serving as a counter-narrative to these controversies, which raises questions about the documentary's role in shaping public perception of the FBI.

As much as I try to watch this series, I become frustrated with how the stories are shared. The first setback for me involves the hubris attitude that surfaces when the agents share the information. Most of the dominate speakers seem to seek recognition for fulfilling the very job they are hired and trained to do, so that prideful arrogance really isn't necessary.

Another obvious fact is the homogeneous culture that the bureau employs or prefers to interview. Those who share seem to reflect one who boast of their experiences as if theirs is paramount in professionalism. Again, an FBI agent is hired and trained to deal with terror threats and terror suspects; boasting about it seems a bit embarrassing. Some episodes do convey a retelling of a popular case. But for some reason, many of the episodes I have watched caused me to grow weary of the arrogance that comes across very strongly.

And lastly, if there are two or three agents involved in the retelling of the case, PLEASE LET THEM ALL SHARE THEIR EXPERIENCE!!! Gosh!!! I just stopped "Part 1" of season three's episode one. In that episode, ONE GUY WILL NOT STOP TALKING!!! Why have three guest if only one dominates the entire retelling of the event??? We are ONLY hearing HIS EXPERIENCE. That is ONE SIDED!

So, PLEASE, make adjustments to this interesting series. A few adjustments might make it more enjoyable. But remember, not all people like hearing barroom stories, some of us don't drink alcohol when watching this show. That means we are not under any alcoholic influence to tolerate the long winded speaker. So, the setting of this show could also benefit from a new setting.

I find the show interesting because the perspectives of the agents are intriguing and well told. They seem to choose good cases. That are relevant and interesting. My question is why is it set in a bar? It seems like a poor choice of background and seems distracting that they are drinking beer. Unfortunately it makes Kristy Kotits look like an alcoholic. Maybe it's poor lighting, but she looks kind of rough in the show and a little buzzed. It takes away from the credibility of such an intense and trusted position that they have held. I get that a lot of agents drink after work and maybe it's set so that it feels like they are unwinding together after work, but to me it takes away from the incredible work that these folks have done.

These are old stories. The copyright on the films are 2012. I thought I had seen some of these shows before but was not sure. This is a rebranding of some shows that are over 10 years old. Most of these I had forgotten about but these guys dig them back up put in some new people but it's very old stores. They take two episodes to go over Waco. I haven't heard about Waco in forever but maybe some of the younger folks may not have seen these stories before. I think this is just paramount to create content for its streaming service paramount plus. But it's still interesting. I guess the fbi cannot discuss anything recent.

I realize my opinion is based on a weirdly technical thing, but it seems amateur or overlooked, to me. The interviews with FBI agents look washed out, like they were shot using low-contrast-a common method to leave room for later color grading-but they didn't color grade that footage.

The actual content of the show is good and entertaining. It's pretty cool to get the stories from the agents who were on scene. I do wish the show had episodes that would critique other drama shows and how they depict the FBI. Maybe that would be something for some other show entirely.

I'm really not sure if this show is even connected to the other FBI series by Dick Wolf.