I haven't watched this new episode yet but I feel like the people who say this stuff were never really understood Louis in the first place, which is fine, but weird. His documentaries have never felt objective, and they've never tried to play an objective role. He's a talented journalist because he lets people talk. The people he's chosen to talk about, and what he's chosen to let them talk about, has never been "objective". That's why they choose Louis for all the weird shit. It's because his on camera personality meshes well with the degenerates he talks to.
Louis shit is good because his method of gonzo journalism is inserting himself as this unassuming figure that needs to be told everything in plain english. It's the same reason he pretends not to understand innuendo etc that the people he's interviewing are saying. But at the end of the day he's always been a "Louis" not some random objective journalist. Every local news journalist can ask a fucking question and let the subject talk. It's Louis personal method of doing so that makes him popular. He's never been an objective eye.
The absolute state of journalism. "He's a talented journalist because he lets people talk."
My old vs. new media comment wasn't intended to say that new media is 100% better, though I admit it can be read that way. Old media is comfy, it tells you everything is alright in the world, and the powers that be have things under control and anyone that threatens status quo is ridiculous and it's well crafted enough to let you think you've come to that conclusion yourself.
New media is autistic, loud, annoying, it tells you everything from every angle and you're likely to be more confused afterwards than before you went into it about the subject. But unlike old media, the comments are enabled, which allows the same alaska stream to dunk on alaska with the human vs. subhuman comment, as well as theroux with the jimmy saville comment.
I'm not exactly what you think I've not understood about Louis. I point out that it isn't objective, because many people are fooled by that style thinking that it's objective. He wears clothes, acts, talks, presents himself as objective in the same way that fuentes does with presenting himself as heterosexual catholic. It's worth pointing because it's true and some people fall for the style instead of the substance.
Not exactly sure why you disagree with me when your comment, that he isn't objective, is actually in agreement with me. Besides my comment was more about media in general and the clash of styles that this documentary showed and how theroux actually has difficulty keeping up with modern trends and you can see his (understandable) distaste when encountering it.
The only moment of rapport that happened was between theroux and fuentes when theroux asked him about the other documentary that was being made and fuentes said it is a self-made one and theroux remarks "that way you can choose what goes in" and fuentes laughs and agrees. But also with baked and beardson, there is that clash of media, with theroux instantly being on baked stream and theroux even saying he tries to get out of the picture for being used for clout, even as he makes a documentary on the other person, and interesting moment.
Then there's also the interesting moment with beardson and theroux, where theroux injects himself back onto beardson's stream by calling him after having been thrown out of the hobbit burrough. The clash of old and new media is probably the thing I'll take away from this documentary and could still think of in years to come.