Documentaries are constructed in such a way that what you see and hear (visually and music as well) lead your moods to go a certain way, and within that emotional framework, selected evidence is shown logically put together to persuade the viewer to some set of inescapable conclusions.
Documentaries are typically in the “Low accuracy, High precision” quadrant.
It’s _possible_ they can end up in one of the others instead, but with the extreme focus a documentary puts on an issue to convince you of a particular argument, it’s likely to me that documentaries are found in the “High precision” side.
But is it low accuracy or high accuracy? Well, by the time you’re done watching it, all the bullets hit their target and it can be hard to see where it truly lands on the backdrop of reality because it’s hard to “pull back” and get a broader perspective then.
It’s possible. But movies have a capacity that writing does not. Many elements pass into us unconsciously as we start to identify with somebody or something in the movie.
That can also be true while reading, but with reading, you can “lay it all out” and pick it apart more easily for issues.
But a movie is much harder because information comes in from more senses and pulling forward more memories based upon visual and auditory impressions – areas that bypass most conscious reasoning processes (except when they’re being obvious, such as “Arms of an Angel” to get you to contribute to their cause, or when someone views movies from a “book” like perspective, laying all the elements out as one can do more easily with a text.