Re: [chat] Lies?

[Harald Richard Ashburner <hras151@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 2004-07-06 at 09:19, Terry Collins wrote:
> Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
> 
> ...snip..
> 
> > Well someone here (from the left of US politics) has challenged Moore's
> > facts and his selective use of them:
> > 
> >     http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723
> 
> Naah, Hitchens is really trying to script Fahrenheit 9/11 (the loony
> right version), combined with that old whinge about "the youth of today,
> they have no morals and values, etc, etc, etc" (i.e. "that is not how
> you make a film").
> 
> The rest of Hitchens writings are just as bad as he claims for Moore's.

Hitchens is a Brit, an Oxbridge graduate and a socialist.
He's also (unlike Mr Mooore) a journalist who believes in checking facts
and challenging the zeitgeist when it doesn't stack up to reality. He
has made himself extremely unpopular more than once, and come out better
than who he was exposing after the passing of time.

He's famous for among other things, exposing the previously
unchellengable reputation of Mother Theresa as wholly fraudulent (which
made people want to lynch him initially, but nowadays most who care have
seen the merit of his investigation) and also being (probably?) more
responsible than anyone else in journalism for shattering the myth of
Henry Kissinger's 'political genius and statesmanlike qualities.'

Like a lot of people with beliefs (and I promise you he is a socialist),
his ire is particularly provoked by those who claim to share some part
of those beliefs, but who in fact have a completely different agenda, or
who are just incompetent. I disagree with Christopher Hitchens more
often than not, but it is genuine journalism of a reasonably high
quality. 

Moore preaches to the choir, which makes him rich & popular (intended or
not.) He makes up facts himself, and doesn't check claims made by others
instead opting to simply repeat them. This provides endless ammunition
to anyone of a differing point of view. Such exposes on Moore tend to
get those of opposing politics increasingly sure that they are right. I
choose my words carefully, nobody has their politics changed by Michael
Moore.

On top of this, anyone who has ever worked with him, seems to hate him
personally. He's been publically exposed being a right shit more than
once. 
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/content/?040628fr_archive01
(It's long and it's quality journalism so it simply and quietly shows
you what he's made of, without offending any of his suporters. It lets
you make up your own mind...)

I'm very happy to put Michael Moore in precisely the same bucket of
slime as Rush Limbaugh or Jimmy Swaggart. The only differences are minor
details. Find a mob of 'Believers', get rich entertaining them. (If I
were being cruel I'd drop ESR at this point as well - note that is just
a stir ;)

Just like Rush & Jimmy, Michael Moore will come unstuck very badly. The
only question is when.