This blog post explores how we can discern truth amidst information chaos through the documentary Merchants of Doubt.

Merchants of Doubt Synopsis

The film begins with the preparation process of a magician. A magician’s job is to deceive people. While magicians and con artists may seem similar in that they both deceive people, the stark difference is that magic does not cause serious consequences and is an honest, ethical deception.
Broadly speaking, this film is a story about doubt and deception. Yet, looking closer, it reveals itself as a documentary addressing environmental issues like tobacco, combustion engines, and global warming. But examining it more closely still, one discovers it is fundamentally a story about ‘people who fail to see the essence of the situation’. The film critiques scenes where businesspeople and journalists deceive people for their own interests, linking these to environmental issues like tobacco, combustion engines, and global warming. But as it progresses through four sequences to its final conclusion, the film’s crucial message isn’t simply that businesspeople and journalists are bad, but that the people blinded by them must awaken. The film delivers a message of warning to them.

Magic and Deception

The film is structured into five sequences, each closely resembling the rules of magic. Before each sequence begins, a simple magic trick explains the story to come, piquing the audience’s interest. To illustrate the most entertaining sequence: in magic, the most crucial element is diverting the audience’s attention. To divert attention effectively, one uses a small lie to support a big lie. A classic example is the magic trick where a woman floating in mid-air passes through a hula hoop. The woman floating is the big lie; passing through the hoop is the small lie. The audience questions how the woman floats, but when she passes through the hoop, that doubt vanishes. The core of this trick is diverting attention with a small lie to conceal the big one. When diverting attention, the key isn’t just randomly shifting focus, but where you direct it. If you divert attention with something captivating, the audience fixates there and fails to see the truth.
This method mirrors how the tobacco industry diverted attention when scientists emphasized the addictiveness and harmfulness of cigarettes, advocating for bans. The industry pushed messages like ‘banning smoking is a deprivation of freedom’ and ‘excessive government regulation’. By exploiting the sensitive issues of freedom and regulation, they implanted the perception that ‘cigarettes symbolize freedom’ instead of ‘cigarettes are harmful’. Using this strategy, the tobacco industry successfully avoided accountability for the next 50 years. Other companies also effectively employed the diversion tactic of “freedom of choice” to justify the harmfulness of their products.
Despite tackling complex subject matter, this film sparked audience interest and anticipation by metaphorically explaining it through the lens of magic. This approach made the film far more accessible than conventional, expository documentaries.

Documentary Characteristics

Narrative Structure

The film’s narrative does not progress sequentially. After posing a question about the issue, it does not immediately provide an answer, instead unfolding by offering the answer in the next sequence. Although not following a sequential format, the content flows naturally because each piece of material comes together to form a single story.

Scene Transitions

This film features many dramatic elements, with scene transitions being particularly striking. It begins with magic in the opening sequence, using playing cards to create match cuts. For example, when shuffling cards, a close-up shows the hands forming an arch shape. This arch gradually transforms into an arched building structure, signaling the start of another narrative. Additionally, various dramatic match cuts using cards are employed, such as transitioning from the square shape of a card to a TV screen.

Interview Format

The film features 13 individuals, with their interview footage unfolding consecutively to advance the narrative. Rather than one narrator driving the story, each interview passes the baton like a relay race, propelling the tale forward. Where their voices are inaudible, subtitles or archival footage provide support, making a primary narrator unnecessary. This film attempts to convey an overwhelming amount of information, with interviews, archival footage, and reenactments pouring out relentlessly. Introducing a main narrator at this point would feel excessive. As mentioned earlier, the story progresses through a continuous sequence of interviews. However, it doesn’t solely consist of interview scenes; the footage transitions to archival images, allowing the interviewees’ voices to naturally become the narration. Furthermore, the interviewer remains off-camera, and the questions themselves are edited out. The interviewees are clearly aware of the camera, and in some scenes, the camera itself is deliberately exposed.

Camera

Scenes that aren’t interviews consist entirely of established archival footage and created visuals, meaning there is no camera movement; the camera is always stationary. However, camera movement does appear in establishing shots that describe the interviewee’s current situation.

Documentary Form

This film appears to blend an explanatory form with a participatory form. The explanatory form is evident in how the film controversially addresses historical events and conveys information to the audience. Visuals serve as supplementary means of communication, and the film strives to maintain a certain neutrality. For instance, it presents the opposing narratives of the IPCC and NIPCC in a cross-cutting, equal manner, embodying this neutrality. Furthermore, the editing adopts a format of presenting evidence, utilizing various images and footage from existing films, newspapers, and other sources, which can be considered an expository style.
However, the reason this film is considered participatory is due to the intimacy between the interviewees and the director. Those interviewed are conscious of the camera and director, and the interviews feel less like answering questions and more like telling a story. Therefore, I believe this film presents a complex blend of explanatory and participatory styles.

First Sequence: Moral Deception and Immoral Deception

In 1970, the American tobacco industry claimed, “Tobacco is not harmful to health, and nicotine is not addictive.” However, they had already known since the 1950s that smoking causes heart disease and that nicotine is addictive. Tobacco industry executives even swore an oath to keep this a secret for life. They believed this secret would last forever, but due to persistent claims by scientists, citizens gradually became aware of the dangers of tobacco. Facing difficulties, tobacco companies hired public relations firms, and their claims shifted from “tobacco is not harmful” to “tobacco may be harmful.” However, a second crisis soon followed: frequent fire incidents caused by cigarettes. The government demanded the creation of self-extinguishing cigarettes, but the tobacco industry, unwilling to alter its immensely profitable product, shifted blame for the fires from ‘cigarettes’ to ‘furniture’. After a lengthy trial, the government enacted a law mandating the inclusion of fire retardants in furniture, allowing the tobacco industry to escape crisis once more.

Second Sequence: In the history of card games, not a single person has ever beaten the dealer

While many believe the primary reason one cannot win money at shell games is the dealer’s quick hands, the real culprit is the spotter. The most crucial aspect here is ensuring the spotter never appears to be in cahoots with the dealer. This is essential to avoid suspicion.
Upon learning that carbon dioxide heats the atmosphere and accelerates global warming, Dr. Hansen emphasized the severity of global warming and the critical importance of atmospheric temperature. Greenpeace also joined Dr. Hansen in advocating for reduced carbon dioxide emissions. Oil and coal companies, however, could not stand idly by. Like the tobacco industry, they argued that ‘global warming might not be happening’ and that ‘increased carbon dioxide could actually be beneficial’. Moreover, scientists Singer and Saitz supported the oil companies’ claims by asserting that global warming was a lie. When these two scientists claimed it was false, people began to think global warming was no big deal. However, decades later, it was revealed that Singer and Saitz had been paid to do this work.

Third Sequence: Once a deception is exposed, it can never be hidden again

Opponents of the bill mandating the use of flame retardants continued to file lawsuits related to flame retardants. Mothers’ groups, journalists, and citizens attended court hearings arguing against flame retardant use, and the tide seemed to be turning. However, the situation reversed when a surgeon spoke about the importance of flame retardants. He recounted the story of a seven-month-old child who died after suffering full-body burns when a fire broke out while the child slept on a blanket without flame retardants. His story ultimately made flame retardant use seem unavoidable. But a journalist, suspicious of the doctor’s testimony, investigated his past records and video footage. It was revealed he had never treated such a child, and this story had been repeatedly used in multiple trials. Ultimately, it came to light that he had been paid by flame retardant manufacturers to give false testimony, leading to a reinvestigation of flame retardants.

Fourth Sequence: Divert the Audience’s Attention

The most crucial element in magic is diverting the audience’s attention.
As scientists persistently asserted that ‘cigarettes are harmful to health’ and ‘people should not smoke,’ the industry concluded countermeasures were necessary. They decided that if they couldn’t solve the problem, they had to divert people’s attention elsewhere. Instead of a strategy of “we’re not sure if cigarettes are harmful,” the tobacco industry promoted the claims that “preventing people from smoking is excessive government regulation” and “cigarettes symbolize freedom.” They appealed to people by arguing that preventing them from smoking was an infringement on their freedom. Surprisingly, this argument proved highly effective. Instead of perceiving “cigarettes = potentially harmful to health,” people came to see “cigarettes = freedom.”

Fifth Sequence: 50 Years

Ultimately, the tobacco industry faced consequences. They acknowledged that cigarettes contain harmful and addictive substances and were mandated to inform and educate the public about this. The fact that they had deceived people for decades was exposed, and punishment was meted out, but it is regrettable that it took 50 years.
As global warming caused Arctic ice to melt, oil buried in glaciers became accessible for development. Oil companies partnered with Russia and raked in hundreds of billions of dollars. They profited enormously from the very phenomenon they had wanted to conceal. Many environmental activists and scientists feel a sense of futility about this reality. Their frustration isn’t solely directed at the oil companies. The primary reason is that no matter how loudly they shout, people fail to grasp the truth. It’s speculated that someday, like with tobacco, people will understand the scientific evidence, and a regulatory legal framework will emerge. But the crucial point is that we no longer have 50 years. Climate change is already underway and irreversible. Hurricanes will intensify, people will die, heatwaves and droughts will destroy crops, and homes and communities will be devastated. We must realize that more money will be needed to deal with the aftermath of these disasters than to prevent them. People must wake up faster.