Hitchens Can't Take Any Moore

I'm eager to see Fahrenheit 9/11 and am curious to compare the reception it receives from the public and the pundits. In "Unfairenheit 9/11 - The lies of Michael Moore," Hitchens, a man of the left who left the Nation because (as far as I understand) he was the lone hawk regarding Iraq amongst the magazine's regular contributors and editors, attacks Moore what could be (not having seen the film) a legitmate flaw -- an inconsistent argument and position regarding the Bush Administration's foreign policy.

Although I thought Moore's Bowling for Columbine was definitely worth seeing and deserved credit for being ambitious, I left the theater thinking that it raised too many questions about violence in America without seriously, i.e., rigorously, trying to provide any answers. As a consequence, at times the film seemed either exploitative (of the victims of gun violence who appeared to be bearing their wounds publically for no discernable purpose) or too glib. That said, the film was worth seeing, and I hope the scenes of middle-Canadian hunters, etc. might help to dispel the idiotic myth that people in countries with more strict gun regulations are somehow emasculated, disempowered, or less 'free' when compared to Joe America.

At this point, I'm wary of being overly critical of Moore's larger project (unlike Hitchens, I think Moore provides a genuine service by informing people about facts and phenomena--rural poverty, the waste promulgated by the military-industrial complex, etc.--that are generally ignored in school, on television, the radio, etc.) since I think the majority of Moore's political pranks are well intentioned and display enough irony to distinguish them from propaganda.

As Hitchens suggests in his article, the left needs figures who can 'entertain' if they are to attract an audience in our mass-mediated wasteland. It appears that, at present, Moore may be as good as it gets. (I'm told Jon Stewart is rising to the challenge, but alas, this scholar of the postmodern can't afford cable TV, which is, in itself, a perfect pomo paradox.) Moore's message is more fair and better thought through than the bulk of the lies we get via Fox News, etc., but it may ultimately be the case that you can't do justice to complex issues while employing soundbite editing (Please provide with with emperical proof to refute my last hypothesis) for an image-driven medium. In any case, I'm damning Moore with faint praise and will hold off making any more pronouncements until I actually see the film.