Bowling for Columbine: a documentary?

Michael Moore has a great gift for making his targets look bad. Yet even those who share his point of view acknowledge that he plays fast and loose with facts (the UC Berkeley School of Journalism rejected his nomination as a commencement speaker out of hand last year, on the grounds that his manipulation of sources was antithetical to the fundamental standards of journalism).

I have friends from across the political spectrum, but one thing that almost all share is certainty. They believe what they have always believed, and what their friends believe. Knowing the answers, they ask their questions accordingly.

I tend to have more questions than answers, which is one reason Cronaca is heavy on links and light on commentary. It is also the reason I find misrepresentations of fact so objectionable, whether in historical dramas (JFK, Mississippi Burning) or in "documentaries" such as Michael Moore's Roger and Me and Bowling for Columbine. Serious questions demand serious treatment, honest treatment.

Bowling for Columbine has recently been nominated for an Academy Award for Best Documentary -- a categorization ably dissected here (hat tip to Instapundit). Some of my friends aren't bothered by reports of its dishonesty, which I find profoundly disturbing: the blithe acceptance of falsification as a means to a higher Truth is not so much a slippery slope as a leap into the abyss.

AND NOW, months later, some transatlantic recognition of what Moore is all about, in the Times of London (as far as I know, the adulation in France is still quite untempered).

UPDATE: Spinsanity, a nonpartisan and quite evenhanded critic of spin in all its forms, has a new post (September 2) on the changes made in the Bowling release on DVD. This includes a summary of the key issues regarding the theatrical release, as well.

Posted by David on March 21, 2003 11:09 AM