I saw Fahrenheit 9/11 last night. On one hand, it was a highly entertaining film and very skillfully composed. On the other hand, I believe that Moore gets away with a lot of "claims" by making them simple conjecture, opinion, or implication. And a lot of people eat it up as if it were presented as unadulterated fact.

One person mentioned to me how they hated everyone calling him out for his ``lies,'' not understanding why the man couldn't just have his opinion. Oh, he's entitled to his opinion alright. And he has two options: one, he can share his opinion, or two, he can not share his opinion. In the latter situation, nobody gets the benefit of hearing another point of view, and that is never, ever a good thing. In the former situation, however, just as he is entitled to share his opinion with the world, the world is entitled to criticize his failings. It is only through rational discourse and the exchange of ideas that intellectual progress can be made. To ignore a person's deceits, be they intentional or accidental, is a far greater crime than to present those deceits in the first place.

I came out of the theater in a great mood after having been entertained by his film for the last two hours. I agree with the spirit behind nearly all of Moore's conjectures, but I struggled with their presentation if it were to be swallowed wholly as unbiased documentary. There seemed to be too much implication, too much sleight of hand. I wasn't convinced that this was the unfailing truth so many of his supporters claim it to be. So I did some digging on the internet and found this (http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm). It's a rational, well-supported counterpoint to each of the issues Dave Kopel feels to be a deceit in the film. It is not a blind, vitriolic rant spewed from the maws of Murdoch's minions, but rather a reasoned discussion about where the film went wrong. The author has even modified the document when readers have pointed out his errancy. Michael Moore has a webpage posted to defend many of the films points; in each intersection between Kopel and Moore's pages, Kopel posts Moore's response. While I agree that this page is biased against the film, it's dangerous to hear only one point of view and to swallow that without thought. The media should be questioned exactly as harshly as the government; everyone should take into account multiple sources for everything. Sure, it's exhausting to do so, and no, you won't have time to do it for everything. But you owe it to yourself to learn as much as you can from as many viewpoints as you can.