Monday, July 05, 2004
Would I lie to you? Would I lie to you honey? Now would I say something that wasn't true....
...I'm asking you sugar would I lie to you?
With the success of Fahrenheit 9/11 there's been a lot of speculation in the media about the role of Michael Moore and this film. Having the number 2 film at the box office behind Spiderman 2 is a pretty big deal..especially when most documentaries aren't seen by mass audiences whatsoever...let alone get the kind of numbers F9/11 is drawing.
What I've heard most from detractors is that the film has factual errors or things that are misleading for the audience. Basically that Moore wasn't honest throughout the entire film.
It's a fair debate to engage in.
So why not hold those in media who's ideology is opposed to Moore by that same standard?
David Brock is definitely working on it. The list he's compiling over at Media Matters for America is breathtaking:
Boortz revives false rumor about Kerry
Ann Coulter: Democrats want Saddam back and other "Coulterisms
Rush Limbaugh:"Democrats have found their keynote [convention] speaker ... Saddam Hussein"
Limbaugh and Buckley attacked Langston Hughes; ignored Bushes' praise of poet Limbaugh called a "communist"
Brainwashed author Ben Shapiro ignored stats in labeling U.S. Supreme Court "largely liberal"
Limbaugh wrong on fed education spending
O'Reilly says no Afghanis held at Guantanamo, Pentagon says otherwise
This barely scratches the surface of what Brock has compiled.
It seems rather odd for folks to be spending so much time on whether or not Moore is truthful when relative to the 24/7 barrage that comes out of the folks on Brock's list it's a blip on the radar.
|
With the success of Fahrenheit 9/11 there's been a lot of speculation in the media about the role of Michael Moore and this film. Having the number 2 film at the box office behind Spiderman 2 is a pretty big deal..especially when most documentaries aren't seen by mass audiences whatsoever...let alone get the kind of numbers F9/11 is drawing.
What I've heard most from detractors is that the film has factual errors or things that are misleading for the audience. Basically that Moore wasn't honest throughout the entire film.
It's a fair debate to engage in.
So why not hold those in media who's ideology is opposed to Moore by that same standard?
David Brock is definitely working on it. The list he's compiling over at Media Matters for America is breathtaking:
Boortz revives false rumor about Kerry
Ann Coulter: Democrats want Saddam back and other "Coulterisms
Rush Limbaugh:"Democrats have found their keynote [convention] speaker ... Saddam Hussein"
Limbaugh and Buckley attacked Langston Hughes; ignored Bushes' praise of poet Limbaugh called a "communist"
Brainwashed author Ben Shapiro ignored stats in labeling U.S. Supreme Court "largely liberal"
Limbaugh wrong on fed education spending
O'Reilly says no Afghanis held at Guantanamo, Pentagon says otherwise
This barely scratches the surface of what Brock has compiled.
It seems rather odd for folks to be spending so much time on whether or not Moore is truthful when relative to the 24/7 barrage that comes out of the folks on Brock's list it's a blip on the radar.
Return to Main
