Mauling Moore: The Attack on Farenheit 911

This article makes the point that the media is not questioning the facts presented
in F911, which are irrefutable. They are questioning Moore's point of view, if he
has the right to come to the conclusions he does based on those facts.

<http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0426/goldstein.php>

In just one weekend, Fahrenheit 9/11 earned more money than any
feature-length documentary in history. This despite a campaign against the film
by the White House and its surrogates. Everyone expected George Bush's
media shills to go after Moore, but who would have thought Fox News would
keep its attack dogs relatively muzzled while ABC and NBC launched
remarkably unbalanced attacks.
<snip>

Note that none of the facts in Fahrenheit 9/11 are in dispute. What ABC and
NBC called into question is Moore's extrapolation and interpretation of
information; in other words, his slant. But by using loaded phrases like "truth
squad" and "fact or fiction," and by omitting Moore's answers to key questions,
these networks did the very thing they accuse him of doing. I would argue that
this sort of distortion is far more dangerous in the context of a news broadcast
than in a clearly opinionated film.

<snip>

When you consider how well the film is doing despite this pile-on, you have to
conclude that most people haven't been affected by the media's negative spin.
They want to see what all the fuss is about. Of course, the real question is
whether audiences will leave the cineplex arguing about Moore's truthfulness or
his insights into Bush. If the film turns out to have an impact on the fall election,
we'll learn something about the limits of the media's power to shape
perceptions. Since this is a recurring theme of mine, I hope Fahrenheit 9/11
affirms my conviction that the press distorts but we decide.

<snip>

When someone is attacked with such operatic ferocity, one thing is certain: That
person is successful.

I've heard of the Village Voice but never read it before. Just added it to my list of news links. Thanks!

Goldstein makes an extremely rational argument for the media's actions. Imagine -- Fox is hedging its bets in case Kerry wins! Will Fox become "Fair and Balanced" to the left WHEN that happens? :7

are spewing from the media because they know he is right.
They can't stand knowing that we know that they know he is right. They know we are on to them.
The bar has been lifted, the standard raised, and they know the usual crap that passes for "journalism" won't cut it anymore. The performance of the media since 9/11 is an indictment of the whole industry (I was going to say "profession", but it's not anymore.) Some always knew that, now the whole country does. So they are pissed off, exposed, guilty, and humiliated.
What happened to all the idealistic people that flooded journalism schools after Woodward and Bernstein? Are they writing romance novels now?

At least they let you know when the characters are being screwed, and you go in knowing it is fiction.

LOL

which, despite it's clammorings about 'objectivity' by and large the journalism schools and the newspapers they channel into insist you pull the status quo.

Having experienced this first hand, I can guarantee to you that this is so.

demon seed, Christopher Hitchens."

OK, I'm new here...so be kind... after seeing David Brooks on a talking head show tonight, I surfed up his article re: Moore, and then surfed up some varied insights from US papers. (read left AND right, as my moniker suggests) I happened upon the following article that seems to point out something that I notice is a common thread in US politics these days...left AND right...hyperbole to a disorienting degree...unfortunately, ultimately disorienting to the speaker and their audiences...for what it's worth, please take a step back and THINK before you SHOUT...you're driving us moderates away from you...


Calling Bush a Liar
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

Published: June 30, 2004


So is President Bush a liar?

Plenty of Americans think so. Bookshops are filled with titles about Mr. Bush like "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them," "Big Lies," "Thieves in High Places" and "The Lies of George W. Bush."

A consensus is emerging on the left that Mr. Bush is fundamentally dishonest, perhaps even evil — a nut, yes, but mostly a liar and a schemer. That view is at the heart of Michael Moore's scathing new documentary, "Farenheit 9/11."

In the 1990's, nothing made conservatives look more petty and simple-minded than their demonization of Bill and Hillary Clinton, who were even accused of spending their spare time killing Vince Foster and others. Mr. Clinton, in other words, left the right wing addled. Now Mr. Bush is doing the same to the left. For example, Mr. Moore hints that the real reason Mr. Bush invaded Afghanistan was to give his cronies a chance to profit by building an oil pipeline there.

"I'm just raising what I think is a legitimate question," Mr. Moore told me, a touch defensively, adding, "I'm just posing a question."

Right. And right-wing nuts were "just posing a question" about whether Mr. Clinton was a serial killer.

I'm against the "liar" label for two reasons. First, it further polarizes the political cesspool, and this polarization is making America increasingly difficult to govern. Second, insults and rage impede understanding.

Lefties have been asking me whether Mr. Bush has already captured Osama bin Laden, and whether Mr. Bush will plant W.M.D. in Iraq. Those are the questions of a conspiracy theorist, for even if officials wanted to pull such stunts, they would be daunted by the fear of leaks.

Bob Woodward's latest book underscores that Mr. Bush actually believed that Saddam did have W.M.D. After one briefing, Mr. Bush turned to George Tenet and protested, "I've been told all this intelligence about having W.M.D., and this is the best we've got?" The same book also reports that Mr. Bush told Mr. Tenet several times, "Make sure no one stretches to make our case."

In fact, of course, Mr. Bush did stretch the truth. The run-up to Iraq was all about exaggerations, but not flat-out lies. Indeed, there's some evidence that Mr. Bush carefully avoids the most blatant lies — witness his meticulous descriptions of the periods in which he did not use illegal drugs.

True, Mr. Bush boasted that he doesn't normally read newspaper articles, when his wife said he does. And Mr. Bush wrongly claimed that he was watching on television on the morning of 9/11 as the first airplane hit the World Trade Center. But considering the odd things the president often says ("I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family"), Mr. Bush always has available a prima facie defense of confusion.

Mr. Bush's central problem is not that he was lying about Iraq, but that he was overzealous and self-deluded. He surrounded himself with like-minded ideologues, and they all told one another that Saddam was a mortal threat to us. They deceived themselves along with the public — a more common problem in government than flat-out lying.

Some Democrats, like Mr. Clinton and Senator Joseph Lieberman, have pushed back against the impulse to demonize Mr. Bush. I salute them, for there are so many legitimate criticisms we can (and should) make about this president that we don't need to get into kindergarten epithets.

But the rush to sling mud is gaining momentum, and "Farenheit 9/11" marks the polarization of yet another form of media. One medium after another has found it profitable to turn from information to entertainment, from nuance to table-thumping.

Talk radio pioneered this strategy, then cable television. Political books have lately become as subtle as professional wrestling, and the Internet is adding to the polarization. Now, with the economic success of "Farenheit 9/11," look for more documentaries that shriek rather than explain.

It wasn't surprising when the right foamed at the mouth during the Clinton years, for conservatives have always been quick to detect evil empires. But liberals love subtlety and describe the world in a palette of grays — yet many have now dropped all nuance about this president.

Mr. Bush got us into a mess by overdosing on moral clarity and self-righteousness, and embracing conspiracy theories of like-minded zealots. How sad that many liberals now seem intent on making the same mistakes.

.... in the america of today, shouting the truth gets people's attention faster than stating the truth in a decent tone. the latter might take years.
for instance, the media- electronic, print and rove's PR machine- shouted their "truths" 24x7: "SADDAM, WAR ON TERROR, 911, WMD, IMMINENT THREAT, MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" et al and achieved remarkable success. most americans ended up believing saddam had a hand in 911, and that iraq's arsenal of WMD posed an imminent threat to the American homeland. those who quietly refuted these "truths"- from hans blix to ted kennedy, were villified and marginalized into submission.
therefore, a lesson has been learned. one has to shout to be heard these days in america.
that's just my 2 cents, although i may be wrong since i am not american nor have i visited america. i just observe from afar and form my opinion.
welcome again, and have a pleasant stay here, ok?

Subjective, one sided political statements have been around in the US in one one form or another forever...

We hear slanted RW info on the radio & TV 24 hours a day, year after year.

A good bit of it not even true- like the Clinton stuff mentioned in the article.

But Moore puts out ONE 2 hour movie- and suddenly everyone is screaming for "balance"?

out of proportion.

I think the GOP was grasping at straws when they pushed this whole serial killer thing. Clinton had his issues, but mostly they were along the lines of 'have a good time, all the time,' which isn't really a bad thing, IMO. ;-)

However, for the most part, Clinton was upfront (though not entirely) on things. Democrats have to be, you see, because they are held to a severe double standard. Repugs can do and say things that Dem candidates would be hazed for saying. The incompetence and secrecy of our current maladministration and it's toleration by the mainstream media is a perfect example. You can't honestly tell me that if this were a Dem in office that the repugs would be all taking about patriotism and standing by the CAC, can you? You know it would simply not be so. But beyond partisan politics, BushCo is by far the most dishonest administation in US history, IMO.

Bush*, on the other hand, lies every time his mouth opens. Even when a lie is not required, he lies.

These lies have cost the lives of thousands of people, have destroyed the US reputation internationally, have created two unnecessary war zones, have bankrupted a huge surplus, have polarized the people in the US, and have pissed off the entire world.

There is simply no comparison, there.

Welcome to DU. :hi:

But the rush to war in Iraq was based on lies. And not all those who wanted the war were sincerely mistaken. (And why is it OK that the president is a clueless, brain damaged fool?)

I remember the demonization of the Clintons, the coverage of the Presidential election & its aftermath, and the rush to war in Iraq. And I remember the role the media played in all this. Because of all this bad journalism, Michael Moore should shut up?

"Fahrenheit 9/11" is not journalism. It's a documentary film, so it contains a combination of fact & opinion. Those who oppose it must point out factual errors.

Per DU copyright rules
please post only four
paragraphs from the
copyrighted news source
and also provide a link
to the source.


Welcome to DU!!

DU Moderator

by catering to their every whim. For years, the right wing echo chamber's screaming has reverberated throughout the media creating a "punch-drunk" mentality which reminds me of a battered wife desperately trying to appease her abusive husband by meeting his ever increasing demands. He raises a hand, she cringes, and tries to "do better." Sadly, he's never pleased and the abuse simply escalates.

Like the abused wife, the media cringes every time conservatives sneer that it has a liberal slant. In an effort to avoid being attacked, the media under-report (or fail to report at all) many significant stories about conservatives like Bush's failure to report to duty for 16 months in Arkansas while serving in the reserves. The story about the US bugging UN members during the Iraq vote, and the trial of a whistle-blower overseas charged with leaking this story, is not news to the US media although it was on the front-page in the rest of the world.

The double standard is clearly apparent when looking at the New York Times (an allegedly liberal paper) which led the charge against Clinton in connection with Whitewater, Travelgate, etc., stories that were all molehill and no mountain, but pleasing to the right. To date, the New York Times has never admitted that its coverage of Clinton was overzealous, slanted, and without substance, much like Whitewater and Travelgate themselves.

The media's efforts to appear non-liberal continued through the last presidential election. During the Bush/Gore 2000 campaign, the media accused Gore of numerous falsehoods, reported ceaselessly about changes in his wardrobe for a "new image" and several times recited the false story that Gore had claimed that he "invented the Internet." Contrast that to Bush coverage - the media's silence was deafening when he lied over his service record, criminal past, insider trading and effects of his social security and tax plans. It remains largely silent even now when it is clear that his administration is less than candid and/or misrepresents facts concerning secrecy, the environment, the war on Iraq, scientific studies, the consequences of tax cuts, etc.

Give those of us on the left credit for learning the lessons the right wing echo chamber and the media has has taught us. If screaming is the only thing that will get the media's attention and keep it nominally fair, we can scream too. If this is what it takes to keep the media focused on the issues and not on the wardrobe, then expect more of the same. The left is merely awake to the reality of the "liberal media."

The left is damned if they do, damned if they don't. We're not allowed to be too adamant about our positions or we're dubbed "wild eyed" and made fun of as the "looney left." But if we're silent in the face of this never ending onslaught, we're ignored and accused of being weak. In either event, we're marginalized. Our message is ignored while our methods are attacked. The right is treated with courtesy and respect, regardless of either their methods or their message.

Frankly, I'd rather go down fighting because at least we have a fighting chance then. And I definitely see hope on the horizon given that those that fight, including Michael Moore, are getting heard.

Sorry if this is too radical for you. But make your choice. Do you want the right's radical ways and radical policy, or the left's not near as radical ways, and always rational policy?

couldn't agree more....

You say '.. you're driving us moderates away from you', I have to ask have you been driven away from the right as well as espoused by Hannity, Savage, Coulter, Miller, O'Rielly, Scarborough?

If not, why not?

And is one Micheal Moore 'the other side of the coin' really enough to 'drive you away' when the rhetoric has been strong and vile for so long coming from the other side of the aisle?

Or do you buy into the Right's argument 'oh I know I pissed you off a few years ago, but you really should just get over it and like me now' as a true sincerity?

Michael Moore is running a rebuttal against attacks upon the film, as the attacks occur:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/latestnews/f911facts/

thanks for that post...

But Richard Clarke, the former security adviser—and prominent Bush critic—insists it was he who authorized the flights.

He also said in his testimony: "Someone -- and I wish I could tell you, but I don't know who -- someone brought to that group a proposal that we authorize a request from the Saudi embassy."

In general he does seem to have a good memory. I bet he would have started to remember the name of the person again, if the White House had tried to play dirty tricks on him. As I first read this part of his testimony I thought immediately that this was his insurance policy. I figure he is the kind of guy who knows how to cover his ass.