In yet another example of a media darling getting caught with his underoos showing, a real documentary film maker takes some time out to fact-check Michael Moore's latest film, "Bowling for Columbine". The results are startling to say the least:
The bottom line: can a film be called a documentary when the viewer cannot trust an iota of it, not only the narration, but the video?
Read it all, especially if you think you agree with Mr. Moore's views and politics, enjoy his films, or if you like reading a particularly well-done takedown of a media primadonna.
I don't like Michael Moore, but for awhile I tried. Everyone kept going on and on about "Roger & Me", his film about his attempts to interview the chief executive of General Motors after the company closed a plant in Flint MI. I didn't see the movie, although I can't tell you why I kept passing on it, but I did try and watch "TV Nation", another critic's darling, this time on network TV.
I found Moore to be obnoxious, elitist, virulently left wing, and so completely unreasonable in his attempts to "display hypocrisy" he set my teeth on edge at nearly every turn. How can anyone really expect an enlightened interview from a corporate executive when the purported "journalist" is dressed in a giant chicken outfit? Nowadays the MTV show Jackass does some of the same stuff, but at least they make no attempt to pose it as real journalism.