The golden age of documentaries is fading fast, and it’s leaving behind a troubling question: What happened to the spirit of independent journalism? Once upon a time, powerful figures would grant access to journalists and filmmakers, trusting them to tell their stories with integrity. But today, the documentary landscape is dominated by what can only be described as glorified hagiographies—projects where the subject holds the reins, dictating what makes the final cut. And this is the part most people miss: it’s not just about control; it’s about the erosion of journalistic independence.
But here’s where it gets controversial: Why would an athlete, celebrity, or public figure surrender editorial control when they can instead partner with a production company that pays for access and hands them the final say? It’s a no-brainer for them, but a nightmare for those who value unbiased storytelling. Take, for instance, The New Yorker editor David Remnick’s experience with LeBron James. Remnick pitched a profile, only to be shut down by James’s PR team, who insisted, ‘We’ll tell his story in our voice.’ It’s a stark reminder of how access journalism is slowly dying, replaced by a system where the powerful curate their own narratives.
Remnick and Emmy-winning documentarian Ezra Edelman recently discussed this issue on Pablo Torre Finds Out, lamenting the rise of access-driven films. Remnick recounted his meeting with James and his business partner Maverick Carter, where he thought he’d secured a green light for an in-depth profile. ‘I’m in like Flynn,’ he recalled, only to be blindsided by a PR executive who explained the new reality: ‘If we want to tell our story, we’ll hire a ghostwriter or make a documentary that guarantees our version of events.’ Edelman echoed the sentiment, calling out the naivety of expecting independence in today’s landscape. ‘What happened to journalism?’ he asked. ‘What happened to the separation between subject and filmmaker?’
This shift isn’t just about entertainment; it’s about the loss of rigorous, enlightening storytelling. Great documentaries should educate and challenge, not merely entertain. Yet, as Edelman pointed out, the line between truth and PR is blurring. Host Pablo Torre summed it up perfectly: ‘The subject is often not the best arbiter of what’s interesting about them.’ And Edelman added, ‘They’re also not a great arbiter of the truth.’
So, here’s the question for you: Is the rise of access-driven documentaries a necessary evolution of the genre, or a dangerous compromise of journalistic integrity? Are we losing something irreplaceable when subjects control their own narratives? Let’s spark a conversation—because the future of storytelling depends on it.
