And speaking to where the burden falls, I agree that it is every citizens duty to self inform themself. But what percentage of the the voters of this country can we count on to undertake such a task? In theory, we should have no problem with anyone expressing their views however they want, but (speaking pragmatically) history has shown us that large groups of people have done awful things because of leaders with “good presentation skills.”

By “borking” Judge Bork’s nomination, the left politicized the judicial confirmation process, a development most view as regrettable but difficult to reverse. Likewise, impeaching Clinton seems like it unleashed similar ugliness, to no particular purpose (it wasn’t like he could have run again). Seems like journalism and the media are now going the same direction, toward overt, self-conscious bias in what was before (in theory) an apolitical profession.

There is nothing new here.

What I worry more about is the mainstream news that has jumped for joy with all the news of the impending war—Ann Curry (today show) delightedly showing off the aircraft carrier, trying on uniforms, trying out goggles, etc. What a “hip hip horray” cheerleading event the news media was for the Iraq war!

I think that your 2nd paragraph comes dangerously close to suggesting that speech be limited to proven speech or factually-based speech, out of some justfication that infantilizes the citizens. What reassures me (a little) is that Moore is not a leader, he’s just some film-maker that has made a movie that’s made to kick up some dirt. Doesn’t the fact that he’s some private citizen venting give you at least some reassurance that the film’s effects will be limited?

In reference to what history has taught us about leaders having people do awful things through their presentation skills, Moore might reply that Bush is one such leader, and that his film is meant as a check to such awful tendencies as those he sees.

I didn’t mean to send the thread off into a discussion of the politics rather than the genre–but simply to suggest that the “emerging satirical documentary genre” is an unsurprising extension of/variation on/ response to trends and trendsetters in coservative media that present as factual news what in reality is closer to propaganda — the only difference between Moore and, say, Bill O’Reilly, is the polarity of the politics and the size of the screen.

Measure,

I don’t mean to rush to Moore’s defense — although it’s a temptation I have to fight, since I sympathize with his politics but like to think that I prefer a less charged mode of discourse — but the web site you cite simply demonstrates the same tactics that Moore has borrowed from the right. Take this snippet, for example, in which the author of the site uses a characterization by a Fox News Reviewer to set up a Moore-shaped straw man, then “rebuts” the straw man rather than Moore:

…as one reviewer put it, “it seemed that Charlton Heston and others rushed to Littleton to hold rallies and demonstrations directly after the tragedy.” The portrayal is in fact false.

Fact: The Denver event was not a demonstration relating to Columbine, but an annual meeting (see links below), whose place and date had been fixed years in advance.”

Moore never said the convention was a demonstration “relating to Columbine,” the FoxNews reviewer said it “seemed” that way in his (conservative) view.

This is just one example of the kind of distortion that, sadly, seems to be the lot of much political discourse today–be it Moore’s movie, Limbaugh’s talk show, a book by Ann Coulter, a liberal editorial in the Village Voice, or, I would add, political campaign ads on both sides of the aisle.

I think Moore would reply that he’s simply using his medium to reply to propagandistic use by conservatives in other media — I don’t know that the film category deserves special consideration just because the Nazi’s made movies (they used something akin to talk radio, too).

“What we need is for Ken Burns to do a couple of documentaries on current “political” topics so the emerging genre has a positive example to follow.”

That would be just as problematic — and perhaps moreso, because while Moore already has a reputation as a controversialist, Burns has the rep as an “object” narrator–which means he’d have even more power to convince people of his take (whatever that might be). I know a number of professional jazz musicians who were appalled by the way he constructed a history of jazz — but because it’s just music, nobody’s going to call Burns “satanic” for tweaking the facts for the sake of narrative. Imagine, though, the propagandistic power Burns could wield if he applied those slow zooms onto still shots, those warmly-lit and quirkily-angled interview excerpts, etc. onto a political subject — whether from a conservative or liberal angle.

First, we have a genuinely great work of literary genius that has been ‘ripped off’ w/o the author’s permission & despite his requests for his work not to be hijacked in such a manner.

Second, the “nuclear war” type of playing is not a great course to take. As you pointed out, since the first “Borking,” there are more (pun intended) on both sides. Since Rush…there are (more) Moore’s.

As I wrote in letters to movie theater chains, why do they want to ‘politicize’ what Americans watch for entertainment? I have no desire to see picket lines outside of movie theaters when I want to go relax & catch a flick.

Even less…if Limbaugh is as horrible as y’all think…then watch out for the counter-attack. In fundraising, Leftist 527s jumped the gun & have been doing a ‘great’ job. The right will counter. Moore scores a surprise coup with his latest film (with the stolen name). The right will counter.

Do we really want to return to the 1800s where Newspapers were openly partisan? Are you prepared for TV news to become openly partisan? Movies? TV?

Is nothing public & apartisan?