In the article “The Uncertainty of Documentarism”, author Hito Steyerl discusses the ways the authenticity and people’s perception of said authenticity of documentation has changed. From my point of view, many people rely on the media’s truth to form their own morals and perspectives. Only by referencing true events as evidence can people validate their opinions. For example, news stories and the way they’re presented are often used to defend to criticize political opinions. By being true, this defense and criticism can be valid. I personally view the media I interact with on a daily basis the same way: I need to use what I believe is the “truth” to inform of my opinions about the world. The role of the live broadcast is an exponential form of this “authenticity”: by showing live footage, it excludes the possibility of editing, making the video seem more authentic in turn. Steyerl’s article points out another key factor: how a lack of clarity in documentation can lead to a more realistic feeling by evoking emotions and reactions from the audience. People no longer need an exact display of truth: as long as what the media represents feels authentic and evokes the wanted emotions, people can accept it as proper documentation. In this sense, there is a very thin line between truth and fiction: the now more abstract nature of documentation and live broadcasting attempts to represent real events and can generate more real emotion, but at the same time, this abstract nature allows for individuals to twist their understanding of what is being documented in the first place.