Objectively speaking, they're hypocrites

Scan usenet commentary or the conservative blogs -- or even Roger Ebert's "Answer Man" page -- and you'll encounter all sorts of rightists screaming that Michael Moore's film is not a documentary. Documentaries, they say, should be objective. "Did Moore give even lip service to views opposite his own?" writes Ebert's correspondent.

That was the G.O.P. line of the day yesterday. The Conintern has issued a new directive to Party members, who should adjust their statements accordingly.

Today's line of the day holds that documentaries should be politically motivated and partisan -- if they present the right-wing point of view. The conservatives are already mounting a right-wing film festival in Texas. Titles will include such gems as Michael Moore Hates America. (Isn't it cute how quickly the reactionaries resort of playground-style name-calling?) Featured talent will include the notorious liar John Stossel -- as if he did not already get enough exposure.

The conservative movement doesn't miss a trick, and they've got the bucks to mount instant retaliation. As for the hypocrisy involved -- rightists in the Murdochian media calling for "objectivity" -- well, if you're a good Party member, you'll simply not notice the contradiction. Orwell called it Double-Think.

As for Moore, I might as well give my take on his work here and now.

I am not die-hard fan of the guy. I haven't seen Fahrenheit 911 yet, so I can't offer a judgment. I liked Roger and Me. When I caught up with that work in the theatre during its first run, I realized that the campaign mounted to discredit that film was obviously unfair and mendacious. That initial anti-Moore campaign may have been our first glimpse of the current Conintern methodology in its gestative form. I have mixed feelings about Bowling For Columbine -- some portions are quite powerful, others (such as Moore's encounter with the aged Charlton Heston) are obnoxious. TV Nation was funny. I don't have a high opinion of Moore's books. His speech at the Academy awards was a disaster; although events have proven his stance correct, he nevertheless did harm to the anti-war movement.

And frankly, I'll never forgive the guy for supporting Nader in 2000.