Both authors Nichols and Coles agree that documentaries reflect real events and people in a mostly objective manner. However, in regard to subjectivity, Coles states,“The issue, finally, becomes one of judgment, and thereby a subjective matter: an opinion of someone whose mind has taken in all that information, that documentation, and then given it the shape of sentences, of words used, with all their suggestive possibilities.” (Coles 21) In essence, Coles describes one of the more prominent challenges in documentary work. Thus, regardless of the form in which a documentary may take place, each collection includes the author’s inherent bias. Consequently, their work may reflect their own misconceptions despite the evidence that may accompany their work. Even the most objective take on a subject is inevitably presented in the opinion of the author. So, despite the directors’ best intentions to create a purely objective take on an event, a group of people, or whatever the documentary may be about, the genre of the film and human bias makes the finished product inherently subjective. Similarly, Nichols states, “It will be told from the perspective of the filmmaker in a form and style of his or her choosing, but it will correspond to known facts and actual events.” (Nichols 12) Differences in filming techniques, such as decisions to include or exclude particular clips can significantly influence one’s interpretations of the documentary. For example, “Filmmakers delight in subvert- ing conventions, challenging viewers, and provoking debate. Definitions of documentary are always playing catch-up, trying to adapt to changes in what counts as a documentary and why.” (Nichols 12) Therefore, the final product of the film has to be considered in the context of what the director’s intent and underlying message may be, especially considering that the seemingly “objective” take on the subject at hand may be an intentional misrepresentation in order to push a certain agenda according to the director’s beliefs.