Ah yes, the political response to the left wing "documentary" produced by Michael Moore, Fahrenhype 9/11 responds and refutes many of the arguments made by Mr. Moore and his overly politicized movie. While this movie does make a decent argument against Michael Moore, it is still very political from the opposite spectrum of Moore. The movie is no where near the propaganda that is Fahrenheit 9/11, it isn't what I would call a true documentary either because it speaks to a certain audience that was aggravated by the lies spoken by Michael Moore and his movie.

Fahrenhype 9/11 is a TV "documentary" that interviews conservative intelligentsia who responds and refutes many of the accusations Michael Moore makes about President George W. Bush in his movie Fahrenheit 9/11. Surprisingly a few of the major contributors are actually democrats, including Dick Morris who was an advisor for President Clinton. Morris actually co-wrote the script. Because of this there is a re-occurring theme where the evidence presented by Michael Moore was turned against him and used to incriminate Clinton. Morris enlists fellow democrats, Senator Zell Miller of Georgia and former New York City mayor Ed Koch to support the things that Bush is/was doing.

Now once again, this is another movie that says it's a documentary when I think it is closer to propaganda. I once again recall the definitions of Documentary and Propaganda:

Documentary - Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film. *

Propaganda - Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause i.e. wartime propaganda.*

* Definitions found at Dictionary.com.

Not to say that this movie is propaganda like Fahrenheit 9/11. In my opinion, Moore's film breaks both rules of the definition of a documentary. Moore adds his opinion (editorializing) and inserts fictional matter or grossly misrepresenting factual information. In Fahrenhype 9/11 there are editorials given with every piece of information that is given to refute Moore's movie. The people in the movie who argue against Moore will site books, example being the 9/11 Commission reports, and then add their opinion of what they think Michael Moore was trying to do or call him names because of what he said. They should have left it out. What they should have done is quote what Michael Moore said and then quote the rebuttal and then leave it up to the viewer to decide what they believe in. However, since they were arguing against a movie that is so blatant in its propaganda, I understand why they did what they did, I just have issues with the term documentary.

Besides the whole documentary thing that I don't like, the other thing that I don't like is that once the show gets to the interviews of the soldiers that refute the things that Moore says the movie slows down tremendously. It's not that what the soldiers and their families don't have something important too say, it's just shot poorly and the questions that they were answering weren't the greatest.

Being the Political Scientist that I am, I will tell everybody to watch this movie because there are two sides to every story and for an intelligent person to make an intelligent decision, you should open yourself up to the other side. However, since I am talking to people who think the name President Kerry is a good thing, I can leave out the intelligent part. Same to you.

Brian - the Naked Gun