(no subject)

[arethinn]

tiggrrl, I'm assuming you were already aware of the issue mentioned here, but something compelled me to post it anyway...

and!

This proposes to be the "truth" about Bowling for Columbine I don't have anything to say about its veracity or falsity but it is interesting at the very least, especially for those of us who hold Michael Moore as a liberal icon.

Comments

[jrpseudonym.livejournal.com]

Michael Moore is many things, but considering him to be a journalist is like considering Rush Limbaugh to be one. Moore has a long history of intellectual dishonesty... while I don't know how many of that guys claims are valid (several of the nits he picks I don't feel are valid, well, nits, such as the comments about the B-52 bomber), things like re-editing interviews and distorting statistics... well, Moore's always done those.

The question is what that means. Moore is a sensationalist and an activist, and his films get people riled up, which is good. Liberal sensationalists to compete with the Limbaughs of the world are in short supply. If he presented a more balanced coverage, and followed journalistic procedures, he'd be less entertaining and reach fewer people. I guess the take away message here is that quoting Moore's "facts" in a discussion doesn't mean those facts are guaranteed to be accurate. If Moore makes you interested in a subject, use that as an incentive to dig up some original sources of information yourself, but question him as much as you'd question anyone with an obvious agenda whose axe (in need of grinding) is showing.

And, of course, enjoy his films as entertainment and conversation starters, which they excel at.