The Necessity of Michael Moore

by matt at 6:30 am on June 25th, 2004 in Entertainment

ci_columbine1.jpg
I have incredibly mixed feelings about Michael Moore. While I enjoyed Roger and Me and Bowling for Columbine, the liberties that he took with the truth still bother me.

The subjects that he covered in those films (corporate greed and gun violence) plus Fahrenheit 9/11’s look at the administration’s reaction to terrorist attacks are all critically important and the ideas he endorses and puts forth are all too often given little weight in the mainstream media.

General Motors caused horrible pain in Flint, Michigan as was depicted in Roger and Me. Our gun laws are insane and our government uses fear to control us as illustrated in Bowling for Columbine. The administration has much to answer for 9/11 and their reactions to it. Moore is doing important work in shinning light on difficult topics.

I wish that he could do his work without bending the facts to suit his arguments. There are times when the truth is more heinous than the legends, and it appears that Moore hasn’t learned that lesson yet.

There is an old legal saying:

When the law is on your side, bang on the law
When the facts are on your side, bang on the facts
When neither are on your side, bang on the table

Moore could do a bit more banging on the facts, and a bit less banging on the table. Part of me wishes I could completely ignore him for making the left constantly defend his factual errors. It’s enough of an uphill struggle to get our points across on any number of issues, but he makes it harder by adding fuel to right wing crusades.

On the other hand, I’m reminded of just how uphill our battle is:

Katie Couric: And wouldn’t your movie have been better balanced if you had at least included some about Saddam Hussein’s own reputation?

Michael Moore: You guys did such a good job of–of telling us how tyrannical and horrible he was. You already did that. What–the question really should be posed to NBC News and all of the other news agencies: Why didn’t you show us that the people that we’re going to bomb in a few days are these people, human beings who are living normal lives, kids flying kites, people just trying to get by in their daily existence. And as the New York Times pointed out last week, out of the 50 air strikes in those initial days, the–we were zero for 50 hitting the target. We killed civilians and we don’t know how many thousands of civilians that we killed. And–and–and nobody covered that. And so for two hours, I’m going to cover it. I’m going to–out of four years of all of this propaganda, I’m going to give you two hours that says here’s the other side of the story.

Moore really gets at the heart of it in that interview. The media bought the administration line at full price. They got suckered into the embedding process and coverage suffered mightily. It’s not because they were right wing or left wing (Fox News excepted), it’s because they were a lethal combination of incredibly lazy and too worried about being seen as not patriotic enough.

Jefferson again: (get used to it)

“Our citizens may be deceived for awhile, and have been deceived; but as long as the presses can be protected, we may trust to them for light.” –Thomas Jefferson, 1799

When the press doesn’t do their job, someone will step in to fill the void. That’s nothing but market economics. The drawback comes when it is time to broadcast your message without the infrastructure to reach a mass audience. Consumers can access radio and television outlets for no additional charge, and newspapers are relatively inexpensive. But since documentaries are one-off enterprises, they must be entertaining enough for people to justify spending $10 for 2 hours.

Fahrenheit 9/11 looks set to have a smashing opening, proving that a significant number of people feel that $10 is a reasonable price to pay for the perspective that was ignored to date.

It is a sad, sad commentary on our information age that we need to go to the movie theatre to get our news. In consideration of that fact, should Moore get a pass on his style if that means playing loose with the facts or exaggerating?

I’d rather the news media did their jobs and spared me that decision. Until then, I’ll be in line early for Fahrenheit 9/11 this afternoon. Look for something passing for a review on Monday.

Comments

  1. ian wrote:

    You hit the nail on the head at the end: simply because the media has been so unbalanced in terms of it’s coverage of Bush’s record waging the war in Iraq and the war on terorism, you have to go see Fahrenheit 9/11. If the media was as merciless and thorough in examining Bush’s many flip flops, f-ck-ups and parsing of facts and “truth” WRT these two “wars” and the running of his administration in general as they have trying to rip apart Moore’s movie, we’d all be a lot better off right now.

  2. sac wrote:

    No fucking shit. Matt Lauer was attemting to rip Moore a new asshole, and Moore fired back with “Where was this tenacity when covering the war?” or something to that effect. The mainstream press is totally ineffectual these days.

  3. Poodie Neutron wrote:

    Michael is necessary because there is seemingly no space in the corporate press for real muckrakers like Greg Palast. I was surprised that Michael didn’t give Greg at least a few minutes of screen time in the movie. When his reports first came out about how Bush stole Florida it was mind blower that nobody would cover except independent shows like “Democracy Now” and “Flashpoints.” But surprisingly Palast’s version of the story is now reflected in establishment accounts summarised in news sources such as USA Today and the Washington Post.

    Michael’s biggest contribution in this movie is the exposure of Bush’s connections to the Saudi Royal Family and the way this connection led them to botch all attempts both to prevent 911 as well as the subsequent investigation.