Moore
Interesting piece by Declan Lynch in yesterday's Sunday Indo, as follows........
THE following is a brief extract from Stupid White Men, Michael Moore's international bestseller: "The British media offer a wide spectrum of editorial viewpoints. No-one is left out of the political discourse in the UK except the Catholics of Northern Ireland.
"As with the Palestine situation, I'm not going to spend time rehashing 800 years of history, so let me get right to the present conundrum. Catholics in Northern Ireland are second-class citizens whose rights are constantly violated, who are kept on the lowest tier economically, and who live under the thumb of an occupational force of British soldiers. This has led to a lot of random killing in the last 33 years."
This is chilling stuff, especially for those of us who believe that Moore is bringing something to the party. In fact, anyone with a passing interest in politics should have a grudging respect for Moore, as he has effectively become the Opposition in the world's greatest democracy - and that was before his current triumph at the Cannes Film Festival with Fahrenheit 9/11, a two-hour savaging of Bush which Disney refuses to distribute, allegedly fearing the wrath of Governor Jeb Bush in Florida.
This is the same Jeb who won Florida for brother George, but who won it ugly, so ugly that Moore refuses to talk about the re-election of Bush, insisting with admirable bloody-mindedness that he wasn't elected in the first place.
So why don't we love Michael Moore the way we should? What is wrong with Michael Moore?
Of course, while some of us have our doubts, there are many who hate him unconditionally, and many who love him unconditionally. Such people are not to be taken seriously.
As regards the misgivings which any reasonable person might have, I guess that little synopsis of the plight of the "Catholics" in Northern Ireland goes a long way towards explaining them.
It is simplistic, it is ignorant, it is stupid, it is wrong-headed, it is all the things which George Bush is, according to Michael Moore. And when we get to that shocking cop-out line - "This has led to a lot of random killing in the last 33 years" - we could justifiably call Michael Moore a big fat liar: except, in order to tell a lie, you have to have some awareness of the truth.
On the most charitable reading, it's just a throwaway line on a subject that doesn't interest him enough to get it right. He's twisting it for humorous effect, and that is his style.
But as someone who has done a little work in this area, I would say that a piece with a humorous edge probably demands more accuracy than a straight piece, not less.
Humour works on the basis of recognition, so it follows that a reader will only recognise that which, at some level, is already known to be true, or which is shown to be true. And Moore's contribution is probably less true than any statement about the North since the last missive from the Crossmaglen branch of Oglaigh na hEireann.
Admittedly, the North is far from being the main item on Moore's agenda, but, as with Bush and Blair, it is often these unguarded statements which are most revealing.
Forget about WMDs, I began to regard Blair as a pathological liar when he claimed that he watched Jackie Milburn from the terraces at Newcastle (sorry, Tony, wrong era). He also told journalist Dion Fanning that he read Veronica Guerin's articles every week, as if no Sunday at Chequers was complete without Tony passing to Cherie the latest article on the General's colourful love life, or Tony checking out the activities of the Viper, the Tosser and the Coach.
I suppose he was only trying to say that he admired Veronica, but he just had to gild the lily, as it were. To lie, as it were, when there was absolutely no need for it.
And, since then, I find it hard to believe almost anything Tony Blair says, about anything.
Likewise, when Moore is so wrong about something I happen to know about, how am I supposed to buy his line about the Middle-East ?
There is no moral equivalence here, we expect better from Moore than from the unelected Bush. It is also cringe-inducing to think of Moore being hailed by the luvvies on their yachts at Cannes. The great Hunter S Thompson, the last American journalist to mount such a sustained and brutal assault on a President, would despise all that carry-on.
Thompson also had a large following who preferred to think of their man as a recluse, holed up in his cabin in Woody Creek, drinking, drugging, heavily armed. Thompson was massively abusive about Nixon, describing him as "a lust-maddened werewolf", and "a plastic little fart". But he wrote majestically, and he would take a dim view of Moore preaching to the converted about the "stupidity" of Bush, because that itself is deeply stupid.
There's a war going on, and Moore is winning. But he's winning ugly.