|| Michael Moore Hates America!
||Jun. 28th, 2004 02:05 pm|
'He creates a false impression without ever uttering a word that is untrue,'
And the best the Right can manage is to accuse him of an undefined ThoughtCrime.
I think you have that precisely backwards. The best journalists can simplify and distill the complex truth - which usually involves a certain amount of distortion - while still keeping as much of the original truth as possible. This is very, very hard, which is why good journalists are few and far between.
I think Moore is very, very bad at this, and tends to taint the integrity of every cause he supports as a result.
I think you have that precisely backwards
My experience leads me to believe that I have it the right way round. Its why i will shy away from ever giving any sort of feedback or quote to a journalist, having seen my own words (and in one rather bad case, the words of my father) twisted out of line by a journalist looking to create an opinion other than the one given. Yes its an example of bad journalism, but bad journalism seems to be the rule rather than the exception. For what it's worse I'm a big fan of a lot of Moores work, but unlike some of his more rabid followers, I can see his faults. Although they often seem to come not from a desire to deliberately mislead, but ego mixed in with a passionate opinion.
It's an opinion piece. It's generally understood that there's a place for this and that it's perfectly respectable as long as 1) it's not the only sort available and 2) it's clearly signposted. The recent Offcom judgement against Fox makes good reading here - opinion pieces are perfectly acceptable as journalism unless the opinions are based on or justified by false "facts".
Hitchens is quoted in the review being harsh about the film, but his own journalism is also generally of this school. He doesn't agree with the tone, and presumably feels that Moore isn't being careful enough wth his justification, but it's certainly a matter of degree rather than a category difference.
Point taken about Hitchens. He's always struck me as someone with a lot of integrity, who'd give me a fair hearing if I disagreed with him, whereas Moore would find a way to make me look bad as a debating tactic. But that may be a mistaken impression.
I doubt that. Moore is ridiculously partisan, but not insane about it per se.
Interesting that he's seen as on the same side of the political divide as Christopher Hitchins, given that Christopher Hitchins was a supporter of the Iraq war from the start, as far as I'm aware. I'd certainly expect him to be critical of Moore's film.
I suspect I'm going to hate Faranheight 9/11 with a venomous passion, but I intend to go to see it.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of it, the right wing are probably on a losing streak here. People want to see Moore's film because it's about the president - and he's important. He runs the country and stuff. Well, allegedly.
But a film or book - by a third party - about why Moore is wrong? It's one more step away from the actual story, isn't it? A hatchet job on a commentator who's done a hatchet job on a politician... and it'll demand a certain audience familiarity with Moore's work if it's going to be effective. I suspect most of the American right don't actually listen to Moore, on the basis that they think he's talking rubbish... so will they want to go see a film (or read a book) about him? And the left will see this as a partisan attack from the dodgy characters he's been criticising, so they aren't likely to pay much attention either...