Documentary viewers recognize that there isn't really any further breakdown of that specific genre classification because it represents the quest for truth. Hopefully this won't be seen as a battology, but it will be repeated here on out. It's the whole point of the genre.
People who watch the documentary genre are smart enough to know that there is more to the truth than the public instilled comfort zone. Filmmakers know this and work to satisfy this demand. To be granted authority in a genre implies recognition and respect from the people or groups who are considered professional. In the case of the documentary genre, the director/writer has to be taken seriously, usually has to have done previously credible and publically acclaimed work, and be considered a force that produces legit work without a doubt. The director/writer should be intelligent, serious, fearless, diligent, unafraid of criticism or threats from corporations, honest, and should care about whether or not the audience gets the truth. Documentaries aim to address issues which affect entire communities and public interests. The purpose is supposed to be to give objective, informative facts that allow viewers to see the truth for themselves and give the ability to make up their own minds whether any aspect should be deemed good or bad, depending on their own set of moral values.
Observation and description are the most common evidence for documentaries because they allow the viewer to bring an otherwise abstract idea into a visual context, making it more real because it's no longer an idea but an image that was tangible enough before the camera to be recorded and shared. They also use citing authorities in order to give the information a sense of credibility, placing the information in a different level of severity because it's talked about by somebody who, in theory, knows what they're talking about. Logic is inductive, further providing the audience to draw their own conclusions from the facts presented.
The film "Food Inc." is a paragon for the documentary genre. All dialogue is spoken, not written, so the "prose" is everyday language spoken by everyday people, common Americans from no specific ethnicity or creed. The tone differs with the attitudes of the people interviewed. It varies because people think and feel and believe differently. Sometimes interviewees were fervently angry; sometimes they were timid; sometimes they were calm and mild mannered. The viewer understands that a good number of people asked to interview refused to because they were afraid of the repercussions that would come along with the questions. But the people who were brave enough to speak didn't waver from what their hearts felt were the facts about what they saw and knew. It was honest; it was truth. There was no real intricate logical pattern set: questions were asked and answered, straightforward and to the point.
The form of publication was video in mass distribution and easy accessibility. The film crew themselves went to various locations ranging from idyllic farms, urban slaughterhouses, rural grocery stores, and an organic food convention. The film is distributed to the public and accessible to anyone who wants to see it. It can be found in video stores in this country and abroad, having been internationally certified. It can be ordered and purchased or rented. The economics are the same of any film produced by a film company. It's available to anyone who can afford to rent a movie or legally purchasing it off the Internet.
Documentary writing and filmmaking requires an issue and discreet, often secret information pertaining to it. The hard work in documenting the issue lies in the legwork of going out and finding the truth, thinking out how to portray information for the audience, and setting up the logistical work of meetings, interviews, etc. There has to be a film crew as dedicated to the cause as the original filmmaker, film companies that find the media worthy enough to take on the financial risk and support with distributing to audiences, and marketing teams clever enough to promote the work effectively.
Documentaries are driven by the quest for a type of universal truth that citizens of a democratic nation deserve. The reward is seldom monetary, but quite simply, the satisfaction of delivering a human ideal; that the irrefutable, absolute fundamental truths need to be discovered, preserved, and accessible to anyone who wants it. The risks are unfortunately political: advertising the truth about big money corporations means that they stand to lose profits if consumers don't want their products anymore. They don't want to go to jail for any illegal methods used, and they don't want to be posted on any sort of campaign ad by radical activist groups as a "bad guy." All these can bring fiscal losses. Risks have to be eliminated, and the film crew that brings the "dirty laundry" to light is a big risk. But what's more important? Avoiding criticism, slander, and potential lawsuits from multi-million dollar food production companies, or delivering an ideal? When the feet are in the fire and the film is done, documentary filmmakers might be out of a career or launched into a level of cinematic authority. They might lose everything they invested in the film or suffer in their personal lives. But the truth is captured, for whatever brief amount of time, and that can never be undone.
