Thanks to Begging to Differ for pointing me to Christopher Hitchens' commentary on Fahrenheit 9/11 at Slate entitled "Unfairenheit 9/11 - The lies of Michael Moore" (note the sly transcription of fahren to fairen).
For those that don't know him, Hitchens' is a contrarian and is famously known for his opinions and debating positions that appear to more often than not, go against the populist grain. From laying into Mother Teresa's reputation, to scathing attacks on Henry Kissinger, Hitchens' has no fear of controversy.
Last year I heard him debate in Berkeley against Mark Danner where he took the position in support of the war. A most entertaining tete-a-tete it was too which probably left even the most hardened pacifist with a modicum of self-doubt. As a friend of mine said "he's a little too clever for his own good". I wouldn't debate that - like Chomsky he has a fantastic head for historical facts and figures, and previously thought out analytical sound bites to throw against any contrarian opinion he encounters - contrarian against his views that is.
However I found that having read his commentary I found it to have played as fast and furious with associations and inferences as he accuses Moore of. He spends so much time asking questions of Moore about things not stated in the movie, and finding contradictions in opinions not expressed that I begging to wonder if we even watched the same movie. Of course the real truth is that Hitchens' has his own ideas, like many, about what the movie is trying to say and is commenting on those ideas.
He may be saying those things on his prior knowledge of what Moore believes - having debated with him before. He certainly accuses Moore of changing his mind (such a terrible sin) or supporting such conflicting ideas as being against a war (which I was) and then criticizing the government for not sending enough troops (which I have).
Having heard Hitchens speak before I know that his real beef is that the populist movement was against Iraq and waved its stupid "no blood for oil" banners long after the US totally failed to fulfill its mission to wipe out Saddam and save the Kurds. He is unsympathetic to those who support a view that says enough is enough and that its time to stop compounding errors with errors, or to recognize that preaching endlessly about prior atrocities (such as the US turning a blind eye while Kurds and those in the soothern marshes of Iraq were massacred by Saddam) does no good if one doesn't act to stop atrocities recurring. He could be a great galvanizer of the populists to act on such things instead of always scolding them for their prior stupidity. He could teach them a thing or two (as perhaps he believes he is now).
He of all people knows, and is unable to refute, that the links presented by Moore between Bush, the Whitehouse and Saudi Arabia - I posit that this is because they really are all true. He chastises Moore for having a fact checking team, something even the most learned U.S. papers or journals could use once in a while. Has Hitchens never stooped to the lowly task of fact checking? Instead he decides to infer that Moore is saying Saudis "run U.S. policy (through family ties or overwhelming economic interest)". Either they are or they aren't he states. But that was never a statement Moore made. One can state reams of connections between large US corporations, or individuals and the Whitehouse - does that mean one is saying they are running U.S. policy? Of course not.
All Moore ever says is that one should ask oneself the questions about just what choices the administration will make when there are such close ties. Mr. Hitchens why don't you answer the questions that Moore does ask like what would have happened if Clarke had let the McVeigh family fly out of the country days after the Oklahoma bombing? Moore is just trying to present facts and ideas in ways that the U.S. public can understand. He is trying to provoke debate. Instead of laying in with your contrarian bulldozer leaving no room for thought in favor of Moore's opinions, why not come back with a more balanced debate such as you criticize Moore of not providing.
Instead of congratulating Moore on opening the debate over the morality of a society in which the poor, especially the black poor (who suffer much more by percentage from economic disadvantage) are left with pure economics of survival to decide whether they should join the army. Hitchens chooses instead to chastise Moore for failing to highlight that blacks have previously fought for their right to serve in the military throughout history. If one saw uniformed Marines targeting poor gays would you also write that off as fair game simply because gays have fought for a place to serve? Hogwash. Haven't both these minorities been fighting through history to get every ounce of equality and recognition they can, even to the point of sacrificing their lives for their country? Shouldn't you be pointing out the irony of a government that devotes more efforts to recruit blacks into the military than it does to get the to vote? How dare to confuse their own desperate fight from the bottom of the pile with the larger issue and economic injustice in this country.
The sadder point, made by some serving military personnel, is that even once in the military it is a challenge for many to even make a living and the economic injustice continues. Is it really fair game to have wealthy officers cruise the malls of poverty stricken America to entice youths to trade a poverty line existence working at KFC, for "seeing the world and getting an education". To trick a poor soul into giving you his phone number and address so you can "strike him off your list" when you fully intend to bombard his parents with recruiting literature and phone calls next day. As if "seeing the world and getting an education" truly represented the realities of putting your live on the limb for some distant millionaires attempt at "foreign policy". Did you not see the humor and irony of a mock canvassing (and Mr Hitchens it was so clearly mock that you shame yourself to suggest it was a real effort), of congressmen to send their children for military service? When lining up the youth of today as cannon fodder how can you not fail to see the disgusting truth of juxtapositioning these two scenes?
Hitchens takes his own cheap "sneers and jeers" at Moore, quite a few actually, culminating in his use of the phrase "employed to pump air into one of the great sagging blimps of our sorry, mediocre, celeb-rotten culture" clearly a reference to Moore's large size. Such a comment is just as low, if not lower than any attack on Bush for "his verbal infelicity". Mister Hitchens, if that is your best then I can assure you that you have lent much hot air to the inflation of that blimp. Is it any wonder that Micheal threats legal action against those that choose to libel him or his pet goat personally. Would you not do the same and what in the world has that to do with the issue of "right-wing hack groups" issuing death threats against theater owners wanting to show the movie or trying to block it legally because its "propaganda". Mr Hitchens, your juxtaposition of such unrelated things is as heinous as those you accuse Moore of.
Ultimately I feel that basically Hitchens points are number one: he vehemently disagrees with Moore's stance about invading Iraq or Afghanistan, and he feels that portrayal of Fahrenheit 9/11 as an objective documentary is a betrayal of the trade and nothing more than an unfair lie. For these reasons I infer he thinks we would do better to toss the entire 112 minutes into the garbage pail without so much as a thought for any critical thought or debate that it actually stirs outside of the movie.
And so doing we miss then entire point of the movie. Documentary or not. Propaganda or not. Clever juxtaposition of images and words to provoke debate or not. The entire project was conceived to wake up a good many people from the apathy of simply not caring or not acting. He freely tells all who care to ask that Fahrenheit 9/11 presents his opinion and his views. As such, yes I agree it can be labeled propaganda in it strict dictionary definition:
prop·a·gan·da
n.
- The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.
- Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause: wartime propaganda.
- Propaganda Roman Catholic Church. A division of the Roman Curia that has authority in the matter of preaching the gospel, of establishing the Church in non-Christian countries,
and of administering Church missions in territories where there is no properly organized hierarchy.
But no where in that definition does it say that propaganda is inherently all lies and disinformation. That is the common misconceptionof "propaganda" which many choose to paint Fahrenheit 9/11 with and something to which I object strongly. Say what you will but if you want to say its all lies then you'd better come out swinging to refute the absolute facts stated in the movie instead of refuting what you inferred it says or is.
Call it what you will, but Moore has managed to make Fahrenheit an alluring way to spend a couple of hours that has proved, contrary to many pundits opinion, to enable its viewers to find plenty of room to think, question and debate the prevailing media and government supplied propoganda of our time. Where it to be a standard humorless documentary on the four years of the Bush's regime it would most likely have been seen by a fraction of the people who have viewed it so far, and being even handed would have promoted little debate or introspection of our beliefs. In dismissing Fahrenheit as hopelessly flawed or one sided or just plain wrong (he stops short at the use of a scatalogical terms only to avoid lowering the debate to pure mudslinging) Hitchens does himself a disservice. In four years time no doubt, in his own uniquely contrarian way, Hitchens will surely be roasting Bush and flaming those who dare to lionize him and his wonderful term at the Whitehouse. We'll probably even have a book or two from Hitchens on the subject. Mr Hitchens, in criticizing Mr Moore why not be a little more objective and even handed yourself? I simply fail to believe that you found not a shred of value, truth or purpose in Fahrenheit that could prompt even one good word about it.
Any finally, in the spirit of Moore, here's my cheap shot at Hitchens:
Could it be, ultimately, that Hitchens is just jealous that scholarly debates between erudite intellectuals, and fair and balanced documentaries never seem to make $21 million in a weekend and stimulate nationwide popular debate over a desperately boring subject like politics?
Those meddling kids at