Birds of a feather
: Is it any surprise that The Guardian wrote not a puff-piece review but a puff-piece editorial about Fahrenheit 9/11? No, not a surprise at all.
12 responses to “Birds of a feather”
-
Is it any surprise that you would bitch about it? Nope.
It’s a significant movie that you yourself have editorialized about quite a bit in this space.
The Guardian doesn’t like Bush. Get over it. -
If not at all a sujrprise then why write about it except to suggest that “My team is Right” and your team is wrong.
-
When you say “significant” is that a nice way to say “bullshit”?
-
“Partial and selective the film may be, but it makes a compelling case.”
-
Everyone agrees that Moore is a talented manipulator, so why wouldn’t you call it Goebbels-for-a-good-cause?
-
Are you suggesting that the Guardian is liberal?
-
With Moore type editing, Winston Churchill could be made to appear a stumblebum.
Remember that Vietnam execution that was edited as a repetitive act? Bang, bang, bang, bang?
Such editing is appropriate as a gag, but hardly as a conveyer of information. Moore is just one prolonged fart in an elevator – kinda funny but prudent folk get off at the next stop. -
My blog has done some Michael Moore, but hasn’t addressed a critical question. So here goes: whether or not you see ‘F 9/11’ as Truth For The Masses or Goebbels-Wrap For The(m) Asses, do you(or whoever) think this flic will affect the Presidential election in November?
-
Whatever you think about the film – the images of Iraqi children with horrific injuries and US soldiers abusing Iraqi citizens are real
-
Of course they’re real. The Iraquis blown up by suicide bombers are real too. The women in Saddam’s rape rooms were real too. The Iraquis whose families will be killed if they report “insurgents” are real too. So what’s the point?
