QandO

June 25, 2004

Truth or agitprop?
Posted by McQ

Bill O'Reilly offers an interesting evolution of "Fahrenheit 911" (or as one wag tagged it, "Fraudenheit 911") since Cannes:

On June 9th it was "the truth":

"We want the word out. Any attempts to libel me will be met by force. The most important thing we have is the truth on our side. If they persist in telling lies, then I'll take them to court."

Of course Christopher Hitchens has welcomed this little challenge with open arms.

By June 20th, it had "evolved" into an "op/ed" piece:

"(The movie) is an op-ed piece. It's my opinion about the last four years of the Bush administration. And what's what I call it. I'm not trying to pretend that this is some sort of, you know, fair and balanced work of journalism."

Ah ... but aren't op/ed pieces at least based in truth and fact? Well in this world they are. No report how that works in Moore's world.

A.O. Scott of the NY Times rides to the rescue and helps it "evolve" again:

"It might more accurately be said to resemble an editorial cartoon ..."

Not to be outdone, LA Times critic Kenneth Turan helped it "evolve" one more time:

"It is propaganda, no doubt about it, but propaganda is most effective when it has elements of truth ... "

No report on what constitutes the "elements" of truth to which Turan was alluding.

From "da truth" to "an op/ed" to and "editorial cartoon" to "propaganda".

Not exactly something I'm willing to spend my hard earned money on. If I want propaganda, I can watch political ads for free. But rest assured, the left, hungering for "red meat" of any kind (I mean they have Kerry for a candidate, have a little compassion) will make Michael Moore's propaganda at least a financial success.

Such is life in the land of the free and the home of the brave.

TrackBack