|
Michael Moore is a journalist, even if he doesn't claim to be.
|
|
By Mike Cuenca | July 20, 2004
|
|
|
|
|
Throughout the mainstream media coverage of Fahrenheit 9/11, we're told
that the movie is Moore's "opinion." But Moore's movie is journalism; a
documentary, as surely as any documentary ever made. It's a
journalistic presentation of factual historical information. But, as is
often done by those who are reason-deficient, these critics are
exaggerating a grain of truth and using it to generalize about a
message they oppose or are afraid of.
The grain of truth in this instance is that Moore's film contains some
statements of his opinions and those of some of our soldiers, citizens
and elected officials. But those statements of opinion are a tiny
fraction of the information presented in the film. The solid foundation
of Moore's film—presented in support of the opinions—is proven,
undisputable factual information that has been and is available to
journalists worldwide. In fact, throughout the film, mainstream U.S.
journalists are themselves providing the statements of fact in archival
news footage. And the majority of the information presented comes
directly out of the mouths of George W. Bush and his closest associates.
Every "documentary" we watch, whether it's a feature-length motion
picture like Fahrenheit 9/11, or a one-minute news segment on the CBS
Evening News, is presented from one perspective or point-of-view,
depending on the producer. I'd guess most people understand that
reporters look for "angles" when covering the news. Journalists are
taught to analyze the information available and then to look at it from
different "angles" to develop a coherent and—hopefully—logical
description of the story.
If Moore's angle or perspective or
point-of-view is different than the perspectives or conventional wisdom
of mainstream journalists, that makes him no less a journalist. He's
merely done what all journalists do: present a particular set of facts
in a particular order and association, to show another way of looking
at the story—another "angle" on the story.
However, there is
a distinct and important difference between Moore's presentation and
the presentations of "journalism" in the Wall Street Journal or the
Today Show or the Nightly News: Moore acknowledges that he's speaking
from his personal perspective, to produce a particular reaction from
viewers. Conversely, the mainstream journalists of our era are in
denial of their biases and hide behind the myth of "objectivity." In
extreme cases, illustrated most effectively by Fox News, they actually
claim to be "fair and balanced" when in truth they are unabashed
proponents of a particular, ideology-driven point of view.
"Objectivity" is a myth because, generally, human beings aren't
objective. How many people do you know that really see things without
any bias or prejudice or preconception? People don't automatically
become objective by becoming a newspaper reporter or network news
anchor. Their personal perspectives and self-interests always,
naturally, affect their "angles."
The respectable goal of
"balance" in our presentations of news has been perverted and
distorted. In a physical sense, a balance is a scale, such as the
scales used by merchants or as a symbol of justice. Scales work on the
principle that you take objects that vary in size, shape and weight, or
facts that vary in importance or significance and then place them on
one side or another of the scale until the two sides "balance," or come
to an equal position. And sometimes the scale simply won't balance
because you can't put enough objects or facts on one side to counter
the "weight" of the objects or facts on the other side. For example, if
you put a one-ton boulder on one side of a scale and use only feathers
for the other side, you may never succeed in creating a balance. One
side is obviously more powerful and weighty than the other.
Too often in journalism today, though, when the facts and circumstances
placed in the balance tilt heavily to the side opposite conventional
wisdom or the official establishment position, journalists nonetheless
favor the weaker side and say that they're being "balanced" simply
because they may have mentioned the alternative possibilities. But it's
not a simple balance of consideration we should seek, because not all
facts are equal in significance and import. We should seek a reasoned
premise or conclusion based on the results of attempting to balance the
facts, the results of weighing the facts.
For example, as
we consider the various reasons we may be fighting a war in a country
that has some of the largest reserves of oil in the world, we place on
one side of the scale the fact that our current president is an
oil-company executive from an oil company family. We add to that side
the fact that the people who have given him the most money for his
political campaigns are the executives of oil and energy companies. We
add to that side the fact that our vice president is the recently
semi-retired CEO of an oil production services company. We add to that
side the fact that our president and his family has long-standing,
financially interdependent relationships with other powerful oil
company families in the region where we just happen to be waging a war.
On the other side of the scale, the only counterbalances we can place
against those facts aren't even facts, they are simply the self-serving
and unrealistic statements by the president and the vice president that
they're not affected by their personal interest in oil when making
policy. Of course, we also place on that side of the scale our own
desperate hope that our president would not allow his personal
interests to affect his foreign policy decisions. So, on the one side,
we have facts and circumstances, while on the other side, we have only
the assurances of our president and vice president and our hope—or
"faith," if you will. Consequently, the side that leans toward an
indication that we're fighting a war for oil in the Middle East weighs
a lot more heavily than the side that could counter that indication.
Unfortunately, though, too many journalists refuse to accept that
imbalance of evidence and what it indicates. Even though, in this
particular example, there is much more reason to believe that our
president is allowing his personal interests to affect the foreign
policies of our nation, journalists are telling us there's no way that
could be possible. Even journalists we might consider more "liberal"
are discounting that possibility. Because this type of journalism is
heavily reliant on self-serving assurances and hope, we could call it
"faith-based" journalism. And this faith-based journalism can be
detected in too many subjects and stories presented by the mainstream
media.
Where we really need a balance in journalism is in
our skepticism. In the modern practice of journalism, the vast majority
of journalists are extremely critical and skeptical about anything that
questions the status quo; that may come from what they consider the
left or from people or sources they consider "liberal". Conversely,
they accept with little skepticism or critique the statements and spin
that they're fed by the people they see as "conservative" or as being
on the right.
The mainstream media ignored and/or downplayed
nearly every "angle" presented in Fahrenheit 9/11. I think it's pretty
easy to see that they're now hoping to discredit the movie because it
serves to remind us of their own failure to present alternate
perspectives on the news and to thereby effectively serve democracy.
But when mainstream journalists criticize Moore for only telling one
side of the story, they're damning themselves, because if he's guilty
of telling only one side of the story and those other journalists
didn't tell that side of the story, they're equally guilty of one-sided
journalism.
|
|
|
|
