apophasis + crash

The theme of "technology turning against us" is prevalent in a variety of twentieth century media(s). Films like David Cronenberg's Videodrome and literature such as J.G. Ballard's Crash exemplify this apophatic approach to satire in an efficient manner. What differentiates an apophatic satire from say a "literal" satire (such as Mike Judge's Office Space) is the implication engrained within. In both Crash and Videodrome, the "technology turning against us" theme is not directly vocalized at any point. Cars crash- people die: people watch Videodrome - and then they die; but the director/author never formally explains their ethos. 

My question brings us back to a class discussion where we addressed the difference between directors "hovering above your head and dropping their messages onto your nose" and solely implying, relying on the viewer to decipher his or her message. With these two options of delivering an ethos, I am curious to know what people think about these approaches. Does using the first method deter from the work itself? Is the latter method stronger?