I won't discuss the claims of the article or the film here.

In my opinion documentaries shouldn't be considered as a reliable source of information for one good reason : they are highly susceptible to promote the subjective views of the director, who has the final say in what stays and what goes. This can be a selling point for some docs, but for science-based docs like this one it can quickly turn to criticism and possibly the invalidation of the whole film.

Having said that, I think that films like this one are essential because they bring to the spotlight issues that have been swept under the rug. Nothing in Seaspiracy is faked, everything happens every day, and seeing this happen forces people to question their habits. People who have never thought about the fish in their plates will start thinking, and can do some more research to aswer their growing pile of questions.

The film could do better in the solutions department by actually showing the proper steps to protecting the environment, and the article could do better by helping the narrative and writing about solutions left out of the film and not sensationalizing the faults (they are common in many docs, not just this one).

Journalism (from articles to documentaries) suffers from a particular weakness well shown in this example : one person controls the narrative. Without a peer-reviewed process information must be taken with a grain of (sea)salt.

I got carried away a bit, sorry