Michael Moore Should Pay Kick-Backs to the Times

The Seattle Times was in rare form today. Page A3's Close-Up section can be called nothing less than a full-page advertisement for "Fahrenheit 9/11". The Seattle Times is determined to keep the "buzz" going about this movie as long as it possibly can.

I was encouraged at first by the title, "Analyzing 'Fahrenheit 9/11': It's accurate - to a degree". Good, I thought, a news organization taking Moore's assertions to task. But as I read through the story, I was soon very disappointed. First, nowhere in the piece does the Times actually say anything like "this claim of Moore's is false". Instead, the piece seems to try and discredit the criticisms the political right and news organizations like Newsweek have leveled against the film. For instance, the last paragraph of the section dealing with Saudi flights after the 9/11 attacks says "Despite some media reports, the movie doesn't allege that the Saudis were allowed to leave while U.S. airspace was still closed." The entire piece seems more concerned with defending Michael Moore's assertions, rather than an objective analysis of the key points of the film.

Then on page A5, we have a story called "Cheney is asset, liability on GOP balance sheet". Deep in the story, we get the line "Cheney's defense of his ties to Halliburton, the energy firm he headed and that is the biggest beneficiary of U.S.-funded contracts in Iraq, gets a close-up in 'Fahrenheit 9/11'."

Referencing "Fahrenheit 9/11" (like it's a news source) in a story about our Vice President, to me, is the height of biased journalism. It is crystal clear what this movie means to the Seattle Times. Like "Abu Graihb" appearing in virtually every Iraq story, we must now endure "Fahrenheit 9/11" appearing in political news. As I said in my title, the Times should really get some kind of kick-back from Moore.