Moore Reactions

I was very pleased on Friday to receive my copy of Michael Moore is a Big Fat Stupid White Man from Amazon. So far, I'm about two thirds of the way through the book, and It's very good though not great. What the book does well is demonstrate the utterly fradulent nature of the narratives that Michael Moore constructs, both in his books and especially on screen.

With his latest film, Fahrenheit 9/11, Moore has outdone himself in the dishonesty department, not an easy task. Everyone from bloggers to opinion writers to journalists have been trampling each other in the rush to point out the numerous errors, distortions and misrepresentations in Mikey's latest masterpiece. Here are some links to the best of the fisking:

There's no better way to begin than with the latest from Spinsanity.com, a liberal site that, to its credit, mocks perceived spinmeisters on both sides of the political aisle:

Fahrenheit 9/11: The temperature at which Michael Moore's pants burn:

However, "Fahrenheit 9/11" is filled with a series of deceptive half-truths and carefully phrased insinuations that Moore does not adequately back up. As Washington Monthly blogger Kevin Drum and others have noted, the irony is that these are the same tactics frequently used by the target of the film, George W. Bush. Moore and his chief antagonist have more in common than viewers might think.


From the Newsweek Web site, we have a lengthy article by Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball that dissects many of Moore's infantile conspiracy theories regarding Bush and the Saudis:

More Distortions From Michael Moore:

But for all the reasonable points he makes, on more than a few occasions in the movie Moore twists and bends the available facts and makes glaring omissions in ways that end up clouding the serious political debate he wants to provoke.


Uh, guys, if you think Moore's interested in a "serious political debate", I have some nice Manhattan real estate right near Mikey's $1.9 million home that I'd like to sell you. "Fahrenheit" is designed to serve two main purposes: As propaganda to mislead the uninformed, a sort of "Bush Hatred for Dummies"; and as masturbation material for the converted.

In the June 29 Daily Telegraph, Mark Steyn engages in some Moore-like speculation:

The importance of being Michael Moore:

I can understand the point of being Michael Moore: there's a lot of money in it. What's harder to figure out is the point of being a devoted follower of Michael Moore. Apparently, the sophisticated, cynical intellectual class is so naïve it'll fall for any old hooey peddled by a preening opportunist burlesque act. If the Saudis were smart, they'd have bought him up years ago, established his anti-Saudi credentials, and then used him to promote the defeat of their nemesis Bush.

Hmm. Maybe they don't need to. Stick him in a headdress and he looks like King Fahd's brother. All I'm saying is connect the dots.


Meanwhile, in an article for National Review Online, "Moore Politics", Jonah Goldberg points out this "awful truth":

I don't need to know very much about you or your ideas to know that if you think Michael Moore is just great, a truth-teller and a much-needed tonic for everything that is wrong in American life, you are not someone to take seriously about anything of political consequence, or you are French.


Former New York mayor Ed Koch describes an encounter he had with Moore a year after 9/11:

Koch: Moore's propaganda film cheapens debate, polarizes nation:

“One of the panelists was Michael Moore, writer and director of the award-winning documentary “Roger & Me.” During the warm-up before the studio audience, Moore said something along the lines of “I don’t know why we are making so much of an act of terror. It is three times more likely that you will be struck by lightening than die from an act of terror.” I was aghast and responded, “I think what you have said is outrageous, particularly when we are today commemorating the deaths of 3,000 people resulting from an act of terror.” I mention this exchange because it was not televised, occurring as it did before the show went live. It shows where he was coming from long before he produced “Fahrenheit 9/11.”


In other reactions:

• Dave Kopel notes "Fifty-six Deceits in Fahrenheit 911".



• Stockholm Spectator Blog points out a specific example of Moore's dishonesty in "Fahrenheit".



• Frank J. at IMAO notes that "Fahrenheit's" opening weekend was virtually identical to a film of similar intellectual quality and integrity: Jackass the Movie. After all, if "Fairenheit" can be called a documentary, then "Jackass" can certainly lay claim to that title.

Finally, for some historical perspective, the Weekly Standard Web site offers three articles by Matt Labash. In addition to his review of "Fahrenheit", the Standard has graciously opened its archives and made two previous articles available:

Michael Moore, One-Trick Phony (1998):

But even vaster than Moore's ego is his hypocrisy. For when he bemoans "people today working longer . . . for less . . . with no job security" and says "people are frightened," he could be describing what it's like to work for Michael Moore. This is hardly news to Mooreologists. Vicious take-outs featuring Moore's ex-employees have appeared in the New York Post, Salon, and New York magazine. War stories include everything from Moore's discouraging union membership to his not adequately paying or crediting his subordinates. To mine such material once more might seem a gratuitous rehash. Then again, so is most of Moore's work.


Jackass, The Documentary (2002)

"Dishonesty. Tendentiousness. Blubber. Michael Moore's "Bowling For Columbine" is even worse than what we've come to expect from him."


To keep up with the latest on Fraudenheit 9/11, check the following sites:

Bowling for Truth
Moore Exposed
Moore Lies
Moore Watch