Urbin Report

Tuesday, March 25, 2003

Seeing the Stupid White Man, on TV the other day got me to get off my butt and do some research on his so called documentary.
First off, as pointed out by David Hardy, it's not even a documentary by the rules of the Academy.

Rule 11 of the rules for the Academy Award: a documentary must be non-fictional, and even re-enactments (much less doctoring of a speech) must stress fact and not fiction.

As Mr. Hardy, a civil rights lawyer, points out, "[bowling] makes its points by deceiving and by misleading the viewer. Statements are made which are false. Moore invites the reader to draw inferences which he must have known were wrong. Dates are transposed and video carefully edited to create whatever effect is desired. Indeed, even speeches shown on screen are heavily edited, so that sentences are assembled in the speaker's voice, but which he never uttered.
These occur with such frequency and seriousness as to rule out unintentional error. Any polite description would be inadequate, so let me be blunt. Bowling uses deliberate deception as its primary tool of persuasion and effect."

The Wall Street Journal Opinion page makes some interesting points also.

"[Bowling] show[s] a willful aversion to the truth. Mr. Moore repeats the canard that the United States gave the Taliban $245 million in aid in 2000 and 2001, somehow implying we were in cahoots with them. But that money actually went to U.N.-affiliated humanitarian organizations that were completely independent of the Taliban.

In print, too, Mr. Moore plays fast and loose with the facts. In his "Stupid White Men," his best-selling book, he blithely states that five-sixths of the U.S. defense budget in 2001 went toward the construction of a single type of plane and that two-thirds of the $190 million that President Bush raised in his 2000 campaign came from just over 700 individuals, a preposterous assertion given that the limit for individual contributions at the time was $1,000.When CNN's Lou Dobbs asked Mr. Moore about his inaccuracies, he shrugged off the quesiton. "You know, look, this is a book of political humor. So, I mean, I don't respond to that sort of stuff, you know," he said.

So...it seems that Mr. Moore is more a propaganist in the finest tradition of Gobbels than documentary film maker.
Yet, the far left of center folks eat his stuff like a cat going at a bowl of cream.