Nature documentaries are not easy to make, involving patiently watching for hours, days, and weeks on end in very difficult conditions to get the footage they need. But they cannot simply show the footage. To get people to watch, they need to create some kind of story arc with animal characters and protagonists who seem to play roles within it that the audience can identify with.
Does this make the documentaries fake? If the makers of documentaries involving humans did the same thing, cutting and reordering footage to create a narrative that may not have actually existed in real life, viewers would cry foul. But when it comes to nature documentaries, we give them more slack, which raises the question of whether there are any limits all that should bind them.
Via Rob Beschizza I came across this video by Simon Cade that discusses the various artifices used by nature documentarians to make compelling videos.