|
This page was last updated on July 8, 2004. |
||
|
Middle ground; Editorial; Beaver County Times; July 2, 2004. This editorial was not on the Times web site at the time I wrote this critique. The central theme is that President Bush and Republicans in general are "ruling as if you and your party have been appointed by God." If you believe the editorial, President Bush and Republicans are steamrollering Democrats in Congress. It must be interesting to live in a fantasy world. The editorial says we need more "moderates" in power. As discussed in this web site's dictionary, moderate -- or centrist -- is a liberal code word for liberal. When the editorial board says we need more moderates, it really means we need more liberals in power. The editorial talks about the "astounding success" of Michael Moore's truth-challenged "documentary," but that is relative to other so-called documentaries. Among all 2004 films, it currently ranks #18 for its opening weekend. Even Moore reportedly describes his movie as an op-ed piece rather than a documentary. That description falls in line with his previous films. The film has been successful, for an op-ed piece, likely because of all the free publicity the movie received from the liberal (read: anti-Bush) media. The editorial talks about the success of former President Clinton's book. Book reviews, even from liberal outlets, have been nearly universally bad. As of July 3rd, the jury is still out on sales, but I would expect any ex-president's book to sell well in a presidential election year, especially when it includes impeachment and sex. The editorial claims the "success" of these works can be attributed to a "liberal backlash against the president and his policies." What hogwash! The editorial takes President Bush to task because he won a plurality of the vote, not a majority. The editorial withheld the fact that former President Clinton didn't get a majority of the vote in either of his elections. If Republicans were steamrollering Democrats, you would expect to see all votes along party lines. That is not the case, however. Let's use a few big issues as examples.
If Republicans were steamrollering Democrats, you would expect to see the Senate approve all of President Bush's judge nominations. Senate Democrats, however, filibuster conservative nominees to "influential" benches and don't allow the Senate to vote on their appointments. The Constitution requires only a majority (51%) of senators to approve a nominee. Filibustering lets Senate Democrats effectively raise that requirement to 60%. If Republicans are steamrollering Democrats, why can't President Bush get his energy policy passed? On the web site's President Bush page, I show the accusation that President Bush doesn't try to work with Democrats is false. Once again, the Times makes a bunch of anti-Bush accusations but apparently is unable to present supporting evidence. I include comments about the following piece from Jogging Around only because it represents the second time on the same page the Times mentioned Michael Moore. "RUSHING LEFT: Michael Moore calls 'Fahrenheit 9/11' an op-ed piece that expresses his opinion of President Bush and his policies. That hasn't stopped conservatives from attacking the veracity of the film. (And from what has been reported, the documentary is anything but fair and balanced.) But before the critics go too far, they ought to consider this: Moore can be seen as the left's equivalent of Rush Limbaugh, another op-eder who uses 'facts' and ignores others as it suits his politics." [RWC] Conservatives aren't the only ones pointing out the "inaccuracies" in the Moore film.1 I didn't -- and won't -- see the movie, but it's been widely reported the movie claims President Bush OK'd letting Saudi families leave the United States after 9/11. In fact, that darling of Bush bashers -- Richard Clarke himself -- took sole credit for that move and he testified to that fact before the 9/11 Commission in March 2004. Though he had plenty of time to correct his movie, Moore chose not to because it didn't support his agenda. That is lying in my book. Consider the following comment by film critic Roger Ebert, an avowed Moore fan. "The pitfall for Moore is not subjectivity, but accuracy. We expect him to hold an opinion and argue it, but we also require his facts to be correct. I was an admirer of his previous doc, the Oscar-winning "Bowling for Columbine," until I discovered that some of his 'facts' were wrong, false or fudged."2 Moore also takes advantage of the fact that the everyday person's opinion of what a documentary should represent is not the definition held by those in the movie profession. Most of us think documentaries should present a fair and balanced view of an issue. That's not the case for those in the profession. As a result of our expectations, too many of us mistakenly think a documentary automatically differs from an entertainment movie. People like Moore know this and take full advantage of the misperception. The Times concedes the movie "is anything but fair and balanced" and that's OK for an op-ed piece. There is a difference between not being "fair and balanced" and lying, however. As pointed out above, the movie perpetuates at least one lie and Moore has a history of "inaccuracy." Finally, the Times says, "Moore can be seen as the left's equivalent of Rush Limbaugh." Not exactly. It is true Limbaugh is not a newsman and his radio show promotes his opinions. Unlike Moore, however, I have not heard Limbaugh lie about the facts he cites. In fact, Limbaugh is scrupulous in documenting his sources so they can be verified. That's one of the things opponents hate most about Limbaugh. You can argue about the conclusions Limbaugh draws from the facts he cites, but few critics who attack his facts make the mistake a second time. 1. Unfairenheit 9/11- The lies of Michael Moore; Christopher Hitchens; Slate; June 21, 2004. 2. '9/11': Just the facts?; Roger Ebert; Chicago Sun-Times; June 18, 2004. © 2004 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved. |
||