Wednesday, August 04, 2004
Get over it already.
There are many pundits and others who are irate about the nature of "deception" in Fahrenheit 9/11. I say, enough! We know you're disappointed, shocked, and saddened by the bias. But really...isn't that a bit intellectually dishonest?
It's an opinion piece. Not objective journalism. (Unlike Fox News, Moore doesn't even have to pretend to be non-biased.)
I wonder how many other opinion-venders (i.e. columnists, commentators, etc.) have had their works picked through with as great a scrutiny as Michael Moore is undergoing. 59 deceits in F911? Give me a break--59 deceits is about average for any one Ann Coulter column.
Many of the "59 deceits" complain of Moore presenting an incomplete set of facts or using them in such a way that indicates one thing but could actually mean something different. Fine, but to me, that seems to be the nature of the beast: how many columnists/commentators can you think of who are guilty of this same criteria? Consider the treatment of facts by the likes of O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Coulter, Sowell, Thomas, Malkin, Franken, Dowd, Rove, etc. How many of these would stand up to an equally severe litmus test by Kopel?
It's funny to me that so many people are getting all bent out of shape that F911 is liberally biased and skewed in his particular partisan direction. It's nothing more than what any of the aforementioned would do as well if they had the skill Michael Moore possesses with a camara.
[Update: go here for the origin of this post and a continuing discussion.]
|
It's an opinion piece. Not objective journalism. (Unlike Fox News, Moore doesn't even have to pretend to be non-biased.)
I wonder how many other opinion-venders (i.e. columnists, commentators, etc.) have had their works picked through with as great a scrutiny as Michael Moore is undergoing. 59 deceits in F911? Give me a break--59 deceits is about average for any one Ann Coulter column.
Many of the "59 deceits" complain of Moore presenting an incomplete set of facts or using them in such a way that indicates one thing but could actually mean something different. Fine, but to me, that seems to be the nature of the beast: how many columnists/commentators can you think of who are guilty of this same criteria? Consider the treatment of facts by the likes of O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Coulter, Sowell, Thomas, Malkin, Franken, Dowd, Rove, etc. How many of these would stand up to an equally severe litmus test by Kopel?
It's funny to me that so many people are getting all bent out of shape that F911 is liberally biased and skewed in his particular partisan direction. It's nothing more than what any of the aforementioned would do as well if they had the skill Michael Moore possesses with a camara.
[Update: go here for the origin of this post and a continuing discussion.]
