A quick note...

Watched "A Flock of Dodos" the other night. It's a documentary along the lines of a little seriousness mixed with one-off caricatures, awkward sound effects and the occasional comment from the camera guy whispered under his breath. While I'm generally not a fan of these new "pop-documentaries" this one is interesting in that the documentary's technique is to barely take a stance, by criticizing those supporting its own opinion. This method is used to confuse the viewer.

The technique works like this:

I'm Pro A you're anti-A
1) I create a documentary pointing out legitimate challenges to the Pro A party. (I build credibility)
2) I then point out legitimate challenges to the Anti A party (building more credibility)
3) **THEN** I sprinkle illegitimate claims about the Anti A party through out the documentary.

Thus when I reach the conclusion supporting the Pro A party at the end (with the credibility I've gained from points 1 and 2) , many viewers trust me.

While this has nothing to do with books... I thought it was interesting

The official website

The Discovery Institute's Rebuttal to the "pop-doc"