He was composed and approachable, his smooth white hair belying his youthful appearance. John Dougherty sat at the restaurant table across from me, eager to pick my brain.
It was August 2014, and I had agreed to provide the American documentary filmmaker with background information that might help him with his upcoming film on Hudbay and its past and proposed projects.
It was an off-the-record meeting, so I won’t get into the details of what we discussed over lunch. I will say I did my best to ensure Dougherty understood the full context of the issues he was documenting.
I left the lunch with confidence that Dougherty sought to explore the controversies around Hudbay – fair enough – but did not have an agenda. Then, last week, I viewed an advance copy of the film.
Flin Flon Flim Flam is the name, and based on that title it’s what you’d expect. Dougherty casts no discernable suspicion on what his interview subjects tell him, but is quick to use words such as “alleges” and “claims” to describe Hudbay’s positions.
He uses over-the-top language. A study found up to 66 per cent of soil samples taken from Flin Flon-Creighton tested high for one or more heavy metals, with the health risk believed to be low. Dougherty’s translation: “the community was contaminated.”
Dougherty interviews Hudbay opponent after Hudbay opponent. Seemingly his only criteria for screen time is to bear an allegation – proof not always necessary – against the company.
Hudbay refused to be interviewed for the film, citing concerns it was funded by a known opponent of its proposed Rosemont Mine in Arizona. Dougherty, to his credit, used published statements and third-party footage to try to present the company’s viewpoints.
But Dougherty hides behind his “they wouldn’t talk to me” excuse a little too much. In an interview about the film, I asked him if he attempted to talk to anyone with a positive take on Hudbay or its projects. Given that thousands of people have worked for the company, often for decades, surely he could have found someone?
Dougherty’s agenda is clearest when he examines Hudbay’s proposed Rosemont Mine. Incredibly, in the entire state of Arizona (pop. 6.73 million), he could not find – or did not try to find, rather – a single person in favour of the mine.
He did find a whole lot of people with environmental fears, which is fair. But just as environmentalists failed to kill Hudbay’s Reed Mine near Snow Lake – they simply lacked popular support – I find it hard to believe Arizonians’ disdain for Rosemont is absolute.
I asked Dougherty how a film funded by Rosemont opponents has legitimacy. He assured me that no one from that opposing group, Farmers Investment Co. (FICO), shaped or saw the film before its completion.
I believe him. But with FICO being the sole funder listed in his film (other forms of media rarely depend entirely on a single funding source), could he afford to produce something other than a Michael Moore-style project that would placate his financiers?
This isn’t about defending Hudbay, but decent journalism. I’ve heard journalists say, “If you have both sides upset with you, you must be doing something right.” Neither FICO nor opponents of Hudbay / Rosemont will be upset with this film.
Where I compliment Dougherty is in his aggressive look at past smelter pollution in Flin Flon. For too long, I believe residents shrugged off heavy metals in our environment with statements like, “I breathed in that air for 60 years and I’m fine.”
In reality, injecting heavy metals into a sensitive environment such as the human body can be really bad news. Yes, a peer-reviewed study found the remnants of those metals pose a low to negligible health risk, but kudos to Dougherty for doing what journalists should do: being skeptical and questioning authority.
It’s just unfortunate that throughout much of the film, Dougherty seems far more willing to question his target than the people helping him paint the bull’s eye.
Flin Flon Flim Flam is due for a web release next month.
Local Angle is published on Fridays.
