Friday, July 02, 2004
Finally
There are two pieces that I came across today which contain the most objective and honest analysis of Michael Moore and Fahrenheit 9/11 that I have seen to date. The first is by New York Times columnist Paul Krugman. An excerpt from Krugman's piece:
The second highly recommended article, by New York Press columnist Matt Taibbi, contains one of the most honest, and scathing, critiques of the profession of journalism that I have ever come across. From an insider no less. Taibbi's critique of Christopher Hitchens is particularly merciless in its unabashed truth-telling. It is rare that the reader is treated to such fearless self-criticism, and when the occasion presents itself, I implore you to take it. Here is a portion of what Taibbi has to say:
There has been much tut-tutting by pundits who complain that the movie, though it has yet to be caught in any major factual errors, uses association and innuendo to create false impressions. Many of these same pundits consider it bad form to make a big fuss about the Bush administration's use of association and innuendo to link the Iraq war to 9/11. Why hold a self-proclaimed polemicist to a higher standard than you hold the president of the United States?
And for all its flaws, "Fahrenheit 9/11" performs an essential service. It would be a better movie if it didn't promote a few unproven conspiracy theories, but those theories aren't the reason why millions of people who aren't die-hard Bush-haters are flocking to see it. These people see the film to learn true stories they should have heard elsewhere, but didn't. Mr. Moore may not be considered respectable, but his film is a hit because the respectable media haven't been doing their job.
The second highly recommended article, by New York Press columnist Matt Taibbi, contains one of the most honest, and scathing, critiques of the profession of journalism that I have ever come across. From an insider no less. Taibbi's critique of Christopher Hitchens is particularly merciless in its unabashed truth-telling. It is rare that the reader is treated to such fearless self-criticism, and when the occasion presents itself, I implore you to take it. Here is a portion of what Taibbi has to say:
I'm off on this tangent because I'm enraged by the numerous attempts at verbose, pseudoliterary, "nuanced" criticism of Moore this week by the learned priests of our business. (And no, I'm not overlooking this newspaper.) Michael Moore may be an ass, and impossible to like as a public figure, and a little loose with the facts, and greedy, and a shameless panderer. But he wouldn't be necessary if even one percent of the rest of us had any balls at all.
If even one reporter had stood up during a pre-Iraq Bush press conference last year and shouted, "Bullshit!" it might have made a difference.
If even one network, instead of cheerily re-broadcasting Pentagon-generated aerial bomb footage, had risked its access to the government by saying to the Bush administration, "We're not covering the war unless we can shoot anything we want, without restrictions," that might have made a difference. It might have made this war look like what it is—pointless death and carnage that would have scared away every advertiser in the country—rather than a big fucking football game that you can sell Coke and Pepsi and Scott's Fertilizer to.
