OceanGate: A Documentary Derailed by Bias and Narrative Control
At this point, I would argue that the documentary presents itself more as a piece of narrative-driven propaganda than an objective, fact-based investigation. A credible documentary should lay out verified facts, provide multiple perspectives, and allow the audience to draw their own conclusions. Unfortunately, this production seems to abandon that journalistic standard.
While I am unsure if this criticism is directly applicable to the OceanGate incident alone, there is a broader concern regarding platforms like Netflix increasingly serving as tools for narrative control, often appearing to prioritize political agendas over public interest.
The film disproportionately places blame on OceanGate CEO Stockton Rush, which appears to be a convenient scapegoating tactic. This reminds me of how all wrongdoings in certain scandals are often condensed onto a single figure, much like the late Jeffrey Epstein. Thankfully, the documentary stops short of implicating Rush in events as unrelated as 9/11 - but the tone leans toward exaggeration.
After watching for about an hour, the bias becomes unmistakable. The same viewpoint is reiterated using different voices and scenes, all focused on blaming one individual without adequately exploring wider systemic issues. This undermines the documentary's credibility.
One recurring term in the documentary is "third-party investigation." While the term may sound authoritative, the film never specifies who this third party is. Transparency is critical, and this vague language casts doubt on the legitimacy of the investigation. Additionally, the documentary references a collaboration with Boeing - a company still reeling from the 737 MAX tragedies. Ironically, one might wonder if Boeing had dedicated more diligence to its own aircraft testing rather than external ventures, the Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines disasters might have been prevented.
Furthermore, the documentary omits critical questions. For instance: Which third party authorized the OceanGate expedition? Who was the congressperson the CEO alluded to? What were their political ties and roles in this matter? These omissions raise serious concerns about the film's depth and intent.
In conclusion, this documentary felt more like an attempt to shape a narrative rather than to inform. I had high expectations and eagerly awaited its release. Sadly, it turned out to be a biased production that offered little in terms of new insight or meaningful analysis - ultimately making the two-hour viewing experience feel like a waste of time.
While I am unsure if this criticism is directly applicable to the OceanGate incident alone, there is a broader concern regarding platforms like Netflix increasingly serving as tools for narrative control, often appearing to prioritize political agendas over public interest.
The film disproportionately places blame on OceanGate CEO Stockton Rush, which appears to be a convenient scapegoating tactic. This reminds me of how all wrongdoings in certain scandals are often condensed onto a single figure, much like the late Jeffrey Epstein. Thankfully, the documentary stops short of implicating Rush in events as unrelated as 9/11 - but the tone leans toward exaggeration.
After watching for about an hour, the bias becomes unmistakable. The same viewpoint is reiterated using different voices and scenes, all focused on blaming one individual without adequately exploring wider systemic issues. This undermines the documentary's credibility.
One recurring term in the documentary is "third-party investigation." While the term may sound authoritative, the film never specifies who this third party is. Transparency is critical, and this vague language casts doubt on the legitimacy of the investigation. Additionally, the documentary references a collaboration with Boeing - a company still reeling from the 737 MAX tragedies. Ironically, one might wonder if Boeing had dedicated more diligence to its own aircraft testing rather than external ventures, the Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines disasters might have been prevented.
Furthermore, the documentary omits critical questions. For instance: Which third party authorized the OceanGate expedition? Who was the congressperson the CEO alluded to? What were their political ties and roles in this matter? These omissions raise serious concerns about the film's depth and intent.
In conclusion, this documentary felt more like an attempt to shape a narrative rather than to inform. I had high expectations and eagerly awaited its release. Sadly, it turned out to be a biased production that offered little in terms of new insight or meaningful analysis - ultimately making the two-hour viewing experience feel like a waste of time.
- bilajahmet
- 10 jun 2025