Pricko

I like Michael Moore's movies. But I do not like Michael Moore.

I don't have many gripes with much of his agenda in Sicko. I agree that it's just fundamentally more humane and better policy to provide healthcare to everyone regardless of his ability to pay. But Moore fudges facts and outright lies in his work (deception by omission and through creative editing). Worse, he refuses to engage his critics on the merits of their often unassailable arguments about his cherry-picking techniques.

Check out this encounter with Dr. Sanjay Gupta on CNN the other night. He simply evades any criticism of the facts in his film, as if they aren't verifiable. And he refuses to answer the simple question Gupta repeatedly throws at him concerning Moore's contention that healthcare in Canada and France are "free." Of course, these people pay for their healthcare through much higher taxes. Why can't Moore just admit that? It's not the end of the world if he were to say, "Yes, there would be some trade-offs. No system is perfect. But we are not even close at the moment." Instead he just ducks the question and does everyone a disservice.

If you watch the video, Gupta comes across as perfectly calm and agreeable with a firm grasp of the facts. Moore comes off as defensive, irrational and evasive -- unwilling to address perfectly legitimate criticisms of his work. He isn't purporting to merely portray the forest for the trees when it comes to healthcare policy. He says over and over again that each of his trees are the gospel truth, raked over by an army of fact-checking lumberjacks. I'd have little problem with him if he'd only own up to his intentionally deceptive tactics, just flash a mischeivous smile, shrug and say: "You caught me, I know. I'm a bastard. But let's talk about the real problem here..." Instead, he comes off like Cheney denying what's happening in Iraq.

Moore's supporters often give him credit for fighting dirty like their opponents on the other side of the political spectrum. But I don't really go for the theory that Michael Moore may be an egotistical, deceitful, defensive prick but he's OUR egotistical, deceitful, defensive prick. I try to apply the same standards to all assholes. A good number of people who have worked for him even think he's a shitheel. And his methods are just as unforgivable as Hannity and Limbaugh and Coulter. The fact that he's right and they're wrong just makes it all the more frustrating.

If you have the truth on your side, you don't need to embellish it or mutate it or outright lie about shit. That only hurts the cause and provides distracting ammunition to opponents -- making the cause more about you than it.

I'm reminded of the bit in Bowling for Columbine when he shows Charlton Heston brandishing a rifle at an NRA convention, daring gun-rights opponents to pry it from his cold, dead hands. The editing of this sequence looks as though it was shot in Colorado just days after the shootings -- making Heston look like a complete monster. But the reality was quite different. (scroll down to #2) In another instance, Moore actually chops up two different speeches to completely change the scope and context of what Heston says.

And here is a link to the anti-Michael Moore site shown in the film. The guy who runs it is a little ticked off at how he is represented. And rightfully so if you read his reaction. These are somewhat minor gripes, but they are all of a piece with Moore's shameless manipulation of reality to suit his agenda.

(Granted, Moorewatch isn't necessarily providing a pure public service, because more often than not it appears to blindly support the healthcare industry or the NRA or whomever the fuck just because they oppose Moore. Like I said, it's not the message I abhore, just the messenger. It wouldn't be nearly as aggravating to me if he weren't so good at what he does. And if it didn't perpetuate the poorly researched and worse argued Moore/Coulter fault line on which our national discourse teters.)

Kurt Loder also wrote a nice review of Sicko. More Moore fair balance here.

Again, I'm not attacking the message, just the messenger. His movies are provocative and brilliantly made. But so was "Triumph of the Will."