[HPFGU-OTChatter] Amanda --->Cold dead hands (or a lawyer), was Bowling for Columbine

[Kathryn Cawte]

Dreadnought wrote -
It's also not a documentary, nor is it particularly factual.
 
Discussing it in too much detail would go well into the discussion of 
current political issues. But anybody who is praising BFC should be 
aware of the issues mentioned in:
 
http://www.opinionjournal.com/forms/printThis.html?id=110003233
 
That link is from 'The Wall Street Journal', a fairly reputable news 
organ. After reading it, I would also suggest people check out:
 
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
 
which is a more detailed analysis of Moore's misrepresentations, but 
from a less reliable source. It's accurate as far as I can tell (and 
I've checked it out - it should be noted that one of the problems was 
removed from later editions of the film), but it has a definite 
political axe to grind.
 
Me -

Actually having just gone and read the Wall Street Journal article I would
have to say that it isn't exactly enamored with facts itself. I'm not going
to go into details here, as I'm sure most people would be bored but I'd be
happy to carry this on offlist with anyone interested. I noticed several
statements in it that make me wonder if they watched the film. I also notice
that they gave the researchers for BFC 24 hours (possibly less) to respond
and went to press without securing a response so it is also one sided and it
does seem to be basing a lot of its opinions on the opinions of the guy
responsible for the second site you linked to. Again I make no judgements on
his reliability but I'm not keen on its over-reliance on that one source.

The article talks about anti-Americanism (a very common you're with us or
against us attitude that the US media seems to be adopting) which may be
true in regards to the French in general, but I doubt it was a motivating
force for the judges at Cannes (I could be wrong there, I don't know much
about them). I think the WSJ's whole attitude though smacks of the same
false sense of patriotism that seems to pervade American media these days -
if your criticise America (and obviously are an American) you are
unpatriotic, if you criticise the government or the President you are
unpatriotic. I note that Michael Moore's last book was due to be published
the day after the WTC disaster and was pulled, not because of comments which
might be hurtful to victims and their families since he offered to re-edit
it to remove any, but because he refused to remove his criticisms of the
Bush government - it was eventually released due to pressure from readers.

Yes Michael Moore has political views - he is what you Americans would call
an extreme liberal and what we Europeans would call slightly left of centre.
He campaigned whoever the third presidential candidate was in 2000 (Ralph
Nader I think) and is pro-gun control. However I would disagree with the
view that that negates the value of the film. All news articles or
documentaries or films produced due to one person are biased in some way,
whether it is deliberate or not, if we as intelligent adults cannot
understand that and ensure we know what kind of bias we might expect when
watching/reading them then that is a failing on our fault.

K