Fahrenheit 9/11

The New York Times has a disappointing article about Michael Moore's new movie, "Fahrenheit 9/11." Here's the lede:

"The Michael Moore documentary the Walt Disney Company deemed too partisan to distribute offers few new revelations about the connections between President Bush and prominent Saudi Arabian families, including that of Osama bin Laden."



"Few new revelations"--what the fuck country does the Times think we're living in? What percent of NYT writers/editors think Saddam had a hand in 9/11? Now contrast that with the poll numbers for Americans as a whole. To the vast majority of Americans, anything Moore says would probably be quite new. Disney apparently agrees. Most people don't read books, but most people do see movies--and that's exactly why "House of Bush, House of Saud" got published without incident, while "Fahrenheit 9/11"'s having trouble getting out there.



The Times plays the old journalism trick of making both sides of an argument equivalent, and calling that "objectivity." Objectivity means evaluating each side's claims objectively, then reporting which one IS TRUE.



Is it true that Disney wouldn't distribute the film because it gets massive tax breaks from Jeb Bush's Florida? Is it true that rich Saudis exert too much influence on the Bush family? Don't tell me, "One side says yes, the other side says no." Tell me which is TRUE. That's the role of the Press in a democracy, and we're not getting it anymore. That's why the U.S. media is becoming a world-wide laughing-stock. And rightly so.



By the way, Ty the Skunk died over the weekend. Rest in peace, "King of the Living Room."