Television series
The New York Times Presents
A showcase of long-form documentary journalism from the New York Times, each episode a self-contained investigation or character study. Uneven by design—some episodes are extraordinary, others merely competent—but the ambitious ones rival anything on television. For people who read the paper and want their stories to breathe.
Should you watch it?
Watch it if you like long-form reporting that lets a single investigation unfold patiently, the way careful print journalism does, and you trust the reporters to carry the story.
Skip it if you want one coherent story with a single arc, since each installment jumps between breaking news and features on different subjects.
What it asks of you: Each episode runs about 81 minutes and moves at a patient, deliberate pace, so you'll need to follow the reporting closely rather than let it wash over you.
Not sure? Find tonight's pick in a minute.
If you liked this
The Jinx: The Life and Deaths of Robert Durst2015
A six-part investigation that plays like a prestige thriller but remains rooted in meticulous documentary reporting. The finale genuinely stuns. Essential viewing about obsession, privilege, and the mechanisms of justice.
But It's long and deliberately paced. Some will find the subject's evasiveness frustrating rather than compelling, and the ending raises more questions than it settles.
The George Burns and Gracie Allen Show1950
Slate's audio series reconstructs Watergate, the Clarence Thomas hearings, and other political earthquakes with archival audio and fresh interviews. Illuminating not just for the history but for what it reveals about how power actually operates.
But Audio-only, which demands more active attention than most viewers give television. Some episodes feel like podcasts stretched to fit a schedule rather than shaped by it.
Citizenfour2014
Laura Poitras' stunning documentary about Edward Snowden captures the man and his decision in real time, unfolding like a spy thriller but grounded in actual stakes. Essential history that still feels urgent.
But It's dense with technical detail that doesn't always matter to the narrative. Some viewers will find Snowden sympathetic; others won't, and the film won't convince them.
Not sure tonight? Get a pick in a minute, starting from The New York Times Presents
The wildcard
Something you would not have found on your own.
The Apology2022
Both prize the particularity of a single subject over the tidiness of a thesis. Where *The New York Times Presents* investigates systems through people, *The Apology* investigates history through a single, difficult conversation.
A South Korean woman confronts a Japanese government official about his nation's responsibility for 'comfort women' during WWII—but the power dynamic shifts. Uncomfortable, necessary, about accountability in ways most documentaries never reach.
But It's confrontational and sometimes nearly unwatchable. The subject (a government minister's response to war crimes) may feel distant if you're not familiar with the history, and the resolution is ambiguous by design.
More like this (4)
Four Hours at the Capitol2021
A tight 81-minute reconstruction of January 6th using only footage from that day. No narration, no talking heads, just the event itself. Clarity through restraint.
But Watching the assault in full, unmediated, is difficult. Some will feel the lack of context is a cop-out; others will see it as powerful precisely because it trusts what you see.
Crip Camp: A Disability Revolution2020
A history of the disability rights movement that explodes with joy and urgency. Nicole Newnham and Jim LeBrecht made a documentary that is politically powerful without ever feeling like an assignment.
But Its utopian energy about social change might feel naive if you're burned out on activism. Also, it's partly nostalgic, which can read as sentimental if you didn't live through it.
Knock Down the House2019
Following four women running for Congress in 2018, including Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, this captures a specific political moment with real stakes and character development. Access and timing collide beautifully.
But It's unabashedly sympathetic to its subjects. If you didn't share their politics, the film won't convert you and might feel like propaganda masquerading as journalism.
The Death of Stalin2017
A radically different approach to the same impulse: understanding how power operates and how individual decisions ripple through institutions. *The Times Presents* shows you documents; Iannucci shows you the absurdity underneath them.
Armando Iannucci's black-and-white political satire about Stalin's death and the power struggle after. It understands how bureaucracy, fear, and personality produce history with more wit than a hundred earnest documentaries.
But It's a comedy about atrocity, which some will find in terrible taste. Also, the dialogue is rapid-fire British wit delivered over a Russian setting, which is deliberately unsettling and won't click for everyone.
