Michael Moore may have some valid things to complain about but one will not be that his new movie is debuting unnoticed. Between the ubiquitous commercials and all the interviews and attacks on his integrity and appearance, I'm hearing more than I care to hear about Fahrenheit 9/11. Among the reasons I always thought "Campaign Finance Reform" was kind of a crock were the many ways any set of rules can be circumnavigated. There are rigid restraints as to how much Harvey Weinstein can donate to the Kerry campaign but no one's suggesting or would suggest limits as to how many ads he can buy to promote a movie that makes George W. Bush look like an idiot.
As I've mentioned here before, I have mixed feelings about Mr. Moore. I like a lot of things he's done and when I heard him speak a few years ago, he left little doubt in my mind that he is at least sincere in his efforts. For some reason, that judgment on my part infuriates at least one of my Conservative friends, just as Liberal friends want to insist that every inaccuracy that comes out of the Bush administration is so egregious, it has to be deliberate, conscious and premeditated. I don't necessarily agree. I rarely agree with the old "you can't believe a word he says" attack on anyone. People of good intention can be spectacularly but honestly wrong. In the absence of an obvious motive to lie, I prefer to think that faulty info is not intentional. In Moore's case, he must know that he's going to have to defend every frame of film he disseminates and that every error or semi-error is just handing a bullet to discredit him. I feel this way about most politicians. I don't think they intentionally lie in the first place. What I think they do too often is to lie rather than admit past errors.
My past postings on Moore have brought a wide array of response to my e-mailbox, ranging from an accusation that I am subverting Moore's campaign by not backing him 100% to the claim that by not disavowing him, I am making a tacit endorsement of whatever he happens to say. I think these views are both nonsense. It is not only possible but probable that a polemicist could be right about some things and wrong about others…and I mean "wrong" in not only an opinion sense but a factual one, as well.
My mixed feelings about Moore got a workout this morning when I watched online clips of two recent video interviews he did, both at this MSNBC site. I agreed with most (not all) that he said in his interview with Katie Couric but thought he came off as disingenuous (and none too concerned with accuracy) in the Matt Lauer interview. He's also lost a few points with me via his silly threats made in other venues that he will sue anyone who disparages him or his movie. Where I do agree with him generally is where he talks of how disappointed he is with our leaders. I think a lot of his fans often feel the same way about him.
While I have your attention, assuming I ever do: Comedy Central has been lax about updating its online clips from The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. If they weren't, I'd be linking to an awful lot of them because I not only find it the funniest show on TV but also, insofar as covering real issues with some insight is concerned, one of the most interesting. Yesterday, Stewart had on Stephen F. Hayes, whose book — The Connection — is oft-cited by people who argue that there was a very real, dangerous-to-ignore collaboration between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. Stewart essentially got Hayes to agree that it isn't so much a matter of "we had to act because this was absolutely true" as it is "we had to act because there was some evidence that this might be true." (My paraphrase) I suspect a lot of the friction we're currently witnessing in this country over the Iraq invasion flows from how much that distinction matters to some people.
Anyway, Stewart is very good at not asking guests the kind of questions for which they have stock, pre-packaged answers. As such, he occasionally gets the person on the couch to say a lot more than they ever say on so-called "real" news shows.