Let me backtrack a moment.
In the blog he follows the line of belief that document originating from textual media, translated to now is analogous to images and the digitized, filmic medium. This means that each image/set of images (whether in the mimicry of motion or not) are documents about that particular time. And he also takes into account (although not explicitly) Grierson's ideology that Documentary film is the "creative treatment actuality" and doesn't necessarily have to be reality. Yet there are issues with his assertions that have to be attended to before the contention with the idea that observational documentary can be properly tackled.
The blog post arose out of addressing a book by film theoretician/critic Bill Nichols. Nichols asserted that documentary films are informed by, composed of, and perhaps detailed transpositions of documents but that they are not documents themselves. The blogger supports his disagreement with Nichols utilizing an argument that in Errol Morris' film The Thin Blue Line that a particular stance, one supportive of Randall Adams, is compiled from documents that are neutral to Randall Adams as a person. Then he goes on to talk about films like D.A. Pennebaker's The War Room and Marc Singer's Dark Days as observational films treating their subjects ambiguously. The issue here is that neither film is ambiguous towards their subject. And try as hard as any documentarian might, there is not way for them to be ambiguous towards their subject. Let's address the films so we are clear on how these examples, and others, are not really ambiguous documents.
The two films given as evidence in the other blog, The War Room and Dark Days are very opinionated, despite what the blogger believes. The War Room is decidedly a pro-Clinton film. It casts Clinton's campaign staff and the man himself as protagonists (although not flat or blemish free) who are going to affect positive changes in the world after his election. At least that's the hope. And Dark Days is a film about the homeless living in a particular, abandoned, part of the New York Subway system around Harlem. The film is earnest in it's desire to help the people living in the tunnel, and by extension, the homeless and transient people of America. I am surprised that these films were chosen because their bias and voice are so prevalent; better to choose a Fred Wiseman film or one like Sweetgrass, as a support. However, no matter the case, one of the biggest components that separates documentary from documents is the ability of the creator to edit. Editing is what makes the documentary what it is rather than a document. Even in the films of Fred Wiseman, take for instance La Danse, his film about the Paris Opera Ballet company, despite shooting millions of feet of film and constructing a loose narrative about a single season of the company there is still an opinion and a voice; the Paris Opera Ballet needs to be preserved (all this is clued by a small scene showing a production manager stressing out over the lack of funds for upcoming seasons and shows). While the other blogger might mention that stance doesn't erase the validity of a document (it's true all documents with a creator have a stance) it is because of this ability to take the time to edit, cut, and rearrange that makes a documentary not actuality.
It might be time to more fully distinguish what, semi-generally, makes a document a document. A document is a a piece of information. Down to it's most basic core of being, a document is a piece of information. Because of this a documentary cannot be a document itself; a documentary can be made of documents, it sure as hell can be informative, but it cannot be that most essential thing. Let me put it this way, consider the word/position of a dignitary; a person of certain regard and stature in a sociopolitical environment. This person may have certain duties to perform for their country or group but this is a dignitary. That word, and position really, are rooted in dignity. Dignity, as modern peoples, usually equate with certain actions and general bearing. But dignity also is a worthiness, character, and respect. Yet, a dignitary can be a shameless, amoral, cad who gambles and boozes until gluttonous death; just because a person is a dignitary does not mean that they are a person of dignity. Does this analogy make sense or would a more simplistic explanation be required? We'll include the simplistic; a documentary cannot be the thing which comprises itself. Sort of like how people are made of cells but the fact remains that we as people are not biological cells with nuclei, mitochondria, or ribosomes.
