Brian, Thanks for your comments. I like your term "ecopoliticians." Did you coin that? I wouldn't use the term "environmentalists" - it's so broad that I don't know what it means. The term that I have used consistently in my complaint against them is "environmental activists" - those who behave in very irresponsible ways, presumably because they believe that the rightness of their end justifies the wrongness of the means they are willing to use to accomplish it (demagoguery). Zealots. I have also called them elitists, because they believe that they know what is best for the rest of us, whether we agree with them or not, and they are busy trying to shove their beliefs down our throats with whatever political force they can muster. As for the film being financed by mining companies, who did you think was going to finance it? Funding for such a topic from some neutral party would be even harder to find than the neutral party itself. Would you have trusted the film more if it had been produced by British Broadcasting Corporation or Public Broadcasting Service? Would you regard these organizations as objective in reporting on politically sensitive issues so that you can trust whatever you see and hear from them? Who gets to decide if a treatment of a politically sensitive issue is a documentary or propaganda? I hope that it is obvious to you that the source of the funds and the validity of the message are separable issues. One doesn't reject the message because he doesn't like the messenger. I for one am more willing to believe a minority report than an orthodox one, simply because the reporter knows that in challenging orthodoxy he is going to be challenged by the defenders of orthodoxy. Hence he has to have his facts accurately stated. What difference does it make who paid for the film? Why even mention it? Whether you regard it as propaganda or not, if you found inaccuracies or misleading comments, whether inadvertent or deliberate, why not share them with us? Are you going to reject the film because the promotion says that it's the first documentary to ask hard questions of the environmental movement when you can recall earlier such films? Would you have been satisfied if instead it said it was a documentary that asks hard questions of the environmental movement, or do you think that the film should have been described as something else, e.g., a polemic? And since we're discussing terms, have you noticed that "right-wing" appears in the public forum about a hundred times as often as "left-wing"? (At least in English - I don't know about other languages.) How balanced are you in your usage of those two terms? I noticed that you referred to "ecopolitical NGOs" as engaging in "extremist activities," but you didn't refer to them as "left-wing." Also, when you use "right-wing" to refer to a position, do you mean, as most users seem to, to dismiss it with no further evaluation? Rather than just implying your criticism, for example in referring to the Fox News appraisal of the film, why not state it? Labels and slurs are no substitute for critical thought. I know you can do better. Gordon Davy