Soccer Dad

Moore is Lies

The Bush administration is pressuring Disney to sensor Michael Moore. (There's an irony here. In 1986 Paul Berman wrote a critical account of the Sandinistas for Mother Jones magazine that was being edited, at that time, by Michael Moore. Moore refused to publish the article. I don't recall that the Times was much exercised by Moore's stifling of dissent at the time.) So the New York Times practically hyperventilates:

Give the Walt Disney Company a gold medal for cowardice for blocking its Miramax division from distributing a film that criticizes President Bush and his family. A company that ought to be championing free expression has instead chosen to censor a documentary that clearly falls within the bounds of acceptable political commentary.

The Baltimore Sun really went over the top:

Now we know that Mr. Moore's films tend to benefit from controversy. And neither Hollywood agents nor executives are the most credible sources. But the fact is, a major U.S. corporation has acted in a manner that implies that the Bushes might misuse the power of elected office for speech-chilling, Nixon-like purposes. The brothers Bush, George W. and Jeb, need to stand up now and deny this outrageous allegation - unless, of course, it's true.

Guess what (thanks to an under-the-weather Instapundit) the allegation wasn't true.

Less than 24 hours after accusing the Walt Disney Company of pulling the plug on his latest documentary in a blatant attempt at political censorship, the rabble-rousing film-maker Michael Moore has admitted he knew a year ago that Disney had no intention of distributing it.

The admission, during an interview with CNN, undermined Moore's claim that Disney was trying to sabotage the US release of Fahrenheit 911 just days before its world premiere at the Cannes film festival.

The credulity of the of the New York Times and Baltimore Sun to believe someone who has shown little more than a passing acquainance with the truth does demonstrate a liberal media bias.
Moore's problem isn't that, according to the Times, he's "a controversial filmmaker who likes to skewer the rich and powerful" but that he's dishonest. Disney never agreed to market his film. What the Times and Sun now have to explain is why they were so gullible to take a dishonest man at his word. The Bush family has nother to explain. These two papers (at least) owe the President and his family an apology.
UPDATE: Apologies to Junk Yark Blog, I had forgotten where I'd seen the Moore story first. JYB links to Just One Minute who in turn links to Michelle Cottle's "Moore is Less" at the New Republic. Cottle sums things up nicely

But facts, in Moore's view, should not stand in the way of good entertainment. Indeed, when quizzed about inaccuracies in his work, Moore has two lines of defense: One, dismiss his critics as right-wing cranks. (This, despite the fact that many of them are liberals.) And two, claim his movies and books should be taken in the satirical spirit in which he offers them. "How can there be inaccuracy in comedy?" he smirked to CNN's Lou Dobbs a couple of years back.

Fine. So you're an entertainer. Then don't wrap yourself in the Constitution and rage about how you're being censored because of your courageous crusade to reveal unpopular political truths. Don't pretend you're a muckraking journalist if you are, in fact, simply a dumpier, left-wing version of Ann Coulter. Like you, Coulter is flitting around this free country lobbing her share of ideological bombs. She just has the good sense not to expect Mickey Mouse to help her do it.

Also I've e-mailed the public editors of both the Times and the Sun asking them to correct the record. I anxiously await their responses.

Posted by SoccerDad at May 9, 2004 5:12 AM