1. Based on my viewing of this documentary, I would classify it as a secondary source. This is a secondary source because it is a dramatic retelling and showing of the middle ages, so it is not showing exactly what happened, or having eyewitnesses talk about what happened. This documentary, however, does take primary sources (such as pottery, architecture, and writings from the time) and analyzes them, and they tell us what we can glean from these sources about the past.
2. I consider this documentary to be very reliable. Firstly, the people that are giving insight into the topics are scholars of this area specifically for this area, so their words are credible. Also, these scholars analyze many primary sources of the time (such as architecture and manuscripts) so that their conclusions they draw are more accurate. The documentary also cites many specific dates, shows locations on maps and quote the people that live in this time which shows that the research that went into this projects was very in- depth and can be trusted.
What do you think is the target audience for this documentary? How will this impact the documentary? Do you detect any bias in this multi-media presentation? What would you say is the dominant "point of view" regarding the Middle Ages presented in this documentary?
ReplyDeleteHow problematic is it that the artifacts, art-work, and other visual sources in the documentary are not cited. That is, the audience, know virtually nothing about who created them, why they were created, and when?
ReplyDelete