Paul Krugman on Michael Moore

New York Times columnist Paul Krugman with his verdict on Fahrenheit 9/11. He pretty much supports Moore:

And for all its flaws, “Fahrenheit 9/11” performs an essential service. It would be a better movie if it didn’t promote a few unproven conspiracy theories, but those theories aren’t the reason why millions of people who aren’t die-hard Bush-haters are flocking to see it. These people see the film to learn true stories they should have heard elsewhere, but didn’t. Mr. Moore may not be considered respectable, but his film is a hit because the respectable media haven’t been doing their job.

He concludes:

“Fahrenheit 9/11” is a tendentious, flawed movie, but it tells essential truths about leaders who exploited a national tragedy for political gain, and the ordinary Americans who paid the price.

I am looking forward to seeing it next week.

5 thoughts on “Paul Krugman on Michael Moore”

  1. “These people see the film to learn true stories they should have heard elsewhere, but didn’t”

    Yeah, I think Michael Moore is remarkable – he’s probably the only person on the planet who makes George Monbiot look like a careful and accurate journalist.

    The only time Moore did any serious journalism was when he edited MoJo – if I remember, he lasted about three weeks in the job before being fired.

    So yeah, the passangers on 9/11 would have fought back if they were white?

    Bush let suspects out of the country? Dick Clarke said otherwise, as did the 9/11 commission.

    Puhleeze…

    Save yourself some money and go to see Shrek instead: It has a firmer foundation in reality.

  2. Already seen Shrek 2, I think you are mistaking Michael Moore for a journalist, when he is not one, nor I believe does he claim to be.

    I just want to see some good old polemic. A bit like calling Monbiot ‘Moonbat’ or calling the Guardian the ‘Grauniad”. Polemic can be funny.

  3. “I think you are mistaking Michael Moore for a journalist, when he is not one, nor I believe does he claim to be.”

    Well, he’d better write a letter to the Times correcting Krugman – “…it tells essential truths…”

    I seem to recall him often claiming otherwise, retreating behind the defense that he’s a satirist when challenged. Polemic is one thing, but there’s plenty of others who’ve put big lies on celluloid, the fabrications of Eisenstein or our own Man of Aran for example.

    He’s not Hitchens, he’s not making an argument. Film is by its nature a much more emotional and less logical medium than print and he exploits those weaknesses to the limit.

    Fisk is an interesting contrast – I’ve read two of his three books, and while I’ve seen a lot of adverse comment about him, he’s never been credibly accused of just making something up, in spite of his obvious bitter dislike of the Israelis in particular. Moore’s just a yahoo. Check out the transcripts of his talks in Dublin or the recent New Yorker story.

    His shallowness and hatred enrage me. The remarks about the white passengers, that the New York 9/11 victims didn’t vote for Bush, and especially the scene with Charlton Heston are all big waving red flags for me.

    Foreign Affairs should have a press release denying he has any Irish ancestry.

    Anyway, I’m off to see Shrek now – at least he’s not as damn ugly.

  4. Read the column in this week’s Economist about him too. With any luck, he’ll damage any politician dumb enough to associate with him.

    Now WTF am I going to do with these bite marks in the carpet?

Comments are closed.