This is my review of and response to Komo News’ documentary “The Fight for the Soul of Seattle.”
Earlier this month, KOMO News released the documentary “The Fight for the Soul of Seattle,” the anticipated follow-up to the film “Seattle is Dying.” The editorial-style documentary discusses social blight in Seattle, with a focus on homelessness. KOMO points to drugs and “lawlessness” as the principle causes of the problem and proposes court-mandated rehabilitation and stricter policing as solutions. The film features a series of interviews and news clips, woven together by the narration of KOMO reporter Eric Johnson.
Yet, neither Johnson’s exposition nor the footage paints a clear picture of the state of homelessness and crime in Seattle. The film points to numerous local entities as being to blame, such as the Seattle City Council, prosecutors, public defenders, judges, and Police Department. But, KOMO does not articulate how the actions of these groups contribute to the problem at-large, beyond suggesting a tenuous connection between their leniency and the city’s incidents of crime. For example, KOMO criticizes Seattle prosecutors for recommending light sentences, such as probation, instead of imprisonment. But, the film does not explain how incarceration would reduce homelessness. Ultimately, KOMO leaves the audience unsure as to the origin of the problem and who to hold accountable.
The film also omits any discussion of previous attempts to address Seattle’s problem. Topics that are central to the conversation on homelessness, such as affordable housing initiatives, receive no mention. Also absent from the documentary is mention of existing rehabilitation infrastructure. KOMO proposes building a facility for providing court-mandated drug-rehabilitation, called “Hope Haven.” But, the film neglects to acknowledge that rehabilitation is already a sentencing option exercised in Washington State and is provided in prisons, halfway houses, and other facilities. And KOMO does not enumerate any advantages of Hope Haven over the services that are available at present. Furthermore, the film does not explain the seeming contradiction between its advocating for “punishment” (e.g., prison sentences) over “social justice,” while simultaneously proposing an inpatient treatment at the new center. Perhaps KOMO’s intended message is that the release of homeless people convicted of crimes perpetuates the problem, but this is pure conjecture and not made explicit in the documentary.
In addition, the film relies heavily on anecdotal evidence and provides very few statistics. For example, the evidence of efficacy of imprisonment and rehabilitation is the story of a man in San Francisco, who after being arrested nine times and being forced to enter rehabilitation, was able to overcome his addiction and return to his family’s home. But, KOMO does not present a comparison of the recidivism rates or costs associated with drug treatment versus incarceration. As another example, the film relies on the words of a formerly homeless person in Seattle to support the theory that “all homeless people suffer from addiction.” However, hard data on these subjects exists and is more compelling than individual accounts.
The conversation about homelessness in Seattle is an important one and the documentary succeeds in continuing the discourse. But, it doesn’t do much to further it. Rather, the patchy presentation of the issues and proposed solution leave viewers with a muddled message.
The film can be viewed here: https://komonews.com/news/local/fight-for-the-soul-of-seattle-program-looks-at-effects-of-citys-permissive-posture
Comments