That's well and good, but the composition of such interviews itself is a synthetic action, and the result has now interpreted its sources in some particular way. Is the video itself peer reviewed? I doubt it.

Interpretation is an important part of science and itself is subject to peer review.

Unless you've seen it in its entirety, I'm not sure how you can comment on how the interviews are presented. It seems like you're suggesting that you think there's a bias in it that you don't like. Do you have a problem with any specific parts of the documentary?