Oh, so now you want nuance?

June 29, 2004

Solonor has a review of Fahrenheit 9/11 that I think is pretty much on point. As opposed to some reviews I’ve read, which tend to criticize Moore for speaking at all, and never really engage him on the issues.

One particularly interesting thing Sol (who is not a right-winger) says:

Personally, I’d rather have Edward R. Murrow presenting the facts in a straightforward, relatively non-partisan manner. I think a far more damning case could be made that way, but I’m an old-fashioned kinda guy.

Yeah, me too.

 And there’s been a lot similar complaints coming from the right wing. Moore’s unbalanced, he leaves out important bits, he makes emotional appeals. Which is, funnily enough, the kinds of complaints we’ve made about Ann and Rush and Sean for ages, only to be laughed at for being egg-headed liberal nuance-brigaders.

But folks like Michael Moore, Rhandi Rhodes, and Ted Rall have gotten the message. Emotional appeals are shorter, more quickly understood, and more entertaining than more fact-based analysis. And hey, they’re easier to manufacture as well! And so here they are: the response to the Right Wing’s propaganda machine—built just the way the Right Wing said we should build it.

Of course, now that some liberals are following the conservative mold, the right-wingers are howling for a bit more nuance. Which is kind of funny, don’t you think?

Posted in Politics