Fahrenheit 9-11 reminds me of Howard Dean. Both were wildly promoted by
the media in a manner not carefully thought through by media bigwigs, and
then both were savaged by the media just before opening day.
The size of the audiences seeing this movie was guaranteed by the media
hype, and the notion that the audiences consist mainly of liberal
activists is disproved by the size of them. More people have already seen
this movie than subscribe to progressive magazines or participate in
political primary MeetUps. The question is what will happen in the heads
of people who had never heard any of this stuff before.
What if you had never been told that U.S. soldiers come from
poor families, that U.S. presidents launch wars for corporate profits, or
that governments use fear to manipulate people? Will two hours be enough
to get you thinking like this movie? Or will you have to go back and read
all the books that I had to read before I thought this way? Will your
reaction be a troubled uncertainty that you are able to maintain or will
you be immediately converted? Or will you steadfastly resist the notion
that your television has been lying to you all of these years? "They
wouldn't lie to me," sings Willie Nelson. "Not on my own damn TV."
One Republican who was taken to see Fahrenheit by a friend told me she had
never known any of these things before, especially that Bush had
connections to the Bin Ladens. She clearly was unsure whether to believe
it all. And in the face of it she was still able to think of Bush as a
good president. But she was overflowing with questions.
A Republican Floridian quoted by the New York Times said: "Oh my goodness,
I cried. I'm still trying to process everything. It really makes me
question what I feel about the president. I'm still going to respect him
as our president, but it makes me question his motives. Of course, I think
that's the whole point of the film, to question his motives. But after
watching it, I do question my loyalty to the president. And that's scary
for me."
According to the San Francisco Chronicle, one viewer "said he was an
independent who had not decided how to vote in November. He said, however,
that a section of the film showing U.S. troops in Iraq speaking out
against the war had a strong effect on him.
'That really hit me,' he said. 'That did tilt me toward the Democrats.'"
According to every corporate newspaper I've seen, the fact that people
could be so shocked by the revelation of such recent and important events
indicated absolutely nothing about the performance of the media worth
commenting on.
Where I saw the movie on Saturday in D.C., the audience cheered and
laughed at various points, but most people walked out looking glum and not
talking to each other, at least not at first. My own reaction was
complete agreement with the movie – something I had not found with Bowling
for Columbine. But I wished, although I saw problems with it, that the
movie had included a successful popular fight for change and a call to
action. On second thought I revised my wish: I now wish the movie had
closed with a recommended reading list.
Such a list might begin with Moore's own recent books, in which most of
the themes of the film can be found. It might then include books that
look at a longer period of history from a perspective that recognizes
class struggle, books like "A People's History of the United States" by
Howard Zinn, and "Labor's Untold Story" by Richard Boyer and Herbert Morais.
Then a sampling of the extensive anti-Bush literature might be in order,
including books by Molly Ivins and Lou Dubose (who warned us about all of
Bush's traits before he wasn't elected), and books by David Corn, Al
Franken, Jim Hightower, Peter Singer, Kevin Phillips, Richard Clarke,
Laura Flanders, and especially these two books: "The Five Biggest Lies
Bush Told Us About Iraq" by Christopher Scheer, Robert Scheer, and Lakshmi
Chaudhry, and "Warrior King: the Case for Impeaching George W. Bush" by
John Bonifaz with a forward by Congressman John Conyers.
Finally, some understanding of the media might be needed. A good place to
start might be "Corporate Media and the Threat to Democracy" by Robert
McChesney. And a bit of activism is indispensable. Perhaps "The
Activist's Handbook" by Randy Shaw would be a good place to start.
At this point, even the most reflexively Republican moviegoer would be
ready to read the media's (excuse me, the LIBERAL media's) commentary on
Moore's movie. While Moore failed to make the media's failures a
sufficiently large part of his focus, he has managed to generate stellar
examples of irresponsible reporting.
The USA Today and Gannett have put out an article that reads: "In Moore's
voice-over narration about Bush's three-year record, the president is
depicted as clueless and deceitful. He is so in thrall to Bush family
business ties with the clan of Osama Bin Laden and other wealthy Saudis
that he misdirects American reprisals for the 2001 terror attacks from
Saudi financiers of terrorism to Iraq's Saddam Hussein. Hoarding military
resources for a long-intended war with Iraq, he botches the Afghanistan
hunt for bin Laden. He has lost the confidence of U.S. troops. These are
incendiary assertions. Some will believe them. Others will find them
nakedly partisan."
The USA Today, however, will not expend a single syllable investigating
whether they are true or not. Instead, it will encourage readers to think
of the film as "partisan" and "unobjective" by pretending to report on
viewers' reactions.
The Christian Science Monitor accuses Moore of lies and half-truths but
fails to cite a single example of either. The Macon (Georgia) Telegraph
accuses Moore of oversimplification, but produces not a single example --
other than its own article which surely sets the standard.
Bill O'Reilly claims: "The 9/11 commission findings clashed with Moore's
thesis that the Bushies had done something dastardly immediately after the
attack by letting a bunch of Saudis, including members of the Bin Laden
family, fly out of the U.S.A. while everybody else was grounded." He does
not elaborate. Is he claiming that Bush did not do this or that it was
not dastardly? Neither claim would be the least bit credible, but the
confused mixing of the two almost sounds as if O'Reilly is saying something.
The New Republic, meanwhile (apparently still suffering from the Stephen
Glass episode), accuses Moore of unsupported accusations. To back this
up, the article cites Moore's contention that an oil pipeline was part of
Bush's motivation to attack Afghanistan. Yet the New Republic offers not
one word of argument against this point. Instead, it goes on to bizarrely
accuse Moore of dishonesty because he makes both the point that the war on
Iraq is unjust and the point that our soldiers are recruited from poor
families. Of course Moore made more than just these two points, and if
the New Republic had picked up on any of the others, who knows how
dishonest they might have thought him! I encourage them and all Americans
to watch the film more than once and to follow up at their library,
assuming it hasn't been shut down and you don't mind having Ashcroft know
what you're reading. I then encourage you to register all of your
neighbors to vote, and to ask John Kerry to oppose the war. The election
is on November 2nd. Mark it on your calendar!
David Swanson's website is
www.davidswanson.org. The opinions
expressed are his alone unless you share them.
