Well, I will give Ebert one bit of praise. Everyone in the media should be as open about what their biases are.
If Dan Rather started every broadcast by saying, "I'm a left winger and you should expect to see my biases reflected in the upcoming news broadcast", most of my compliants about the Democrats' media would go away.
That being said, a pressure campaign such as the one Ebert is so critical of is hardly that unusual in America. Remember the NAACP boycott? Remember the Left's continuing efforts to silence talk radio? The Clintons going after the VRWC?
Finally, how would Ebert know if there are mistakes in Moore's film? Does he regularly read non-leftwing news sources? I would strongly guess no...
Obviously he did eventually get around to reading some conservative website someplace because he does acknowledge that it caused him to revise his opinion of Bowling For Columbine (did it change his mind enough to go from thumbs up to down though?).
Mr. Moore "takes on" President Bush for the departure of some members of the (large) bin Laden family and they have long ago denounced him. Ted Kazenski's brother turned him in; just because you are related does not mean that you share politics or extremism.
Richard Clarke was the National Security adviser at the time of 9-11. He did not raise a red flag over the decision to let them go (he cleared it with the FBI). How is this is "Bush's" scandal? Mr. Moore, I'm sure, will tell us in his movie.
Pop quiz, no web searching:
How many people left the US when the planes were "grounded"?
Did you include border crossings (by car, foot, boat)?
How many people FLEW out of the US?
How many of those people were of Middle Eastern descent?
How many people of other nationalities left? Where were they from?
How many flights did it take to coordinate the departure of the "bin Laden" relatives? How many other flights were there? What other sort of official activity was going on when people were told "flights were grounded"?
My point is that people hear this one detail but they aren't given ANY corresponding information to tell if it was out of line. Start with a faulty understanding of the situation and it can easily be blown out of proportion.
Mr. Moore is alleging that they were given "preferential" treatment because of a Bush-Bin Laden connection.
Mr. Moore has done more to show to me his sympathies with terrorists than the bin Laden family has done.
Michael Moore: Iraqi terrorists are "minutemen", American troops must shed blood
(April 14, 2004): The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not "insurgents" or "terrorists" or "The Enemy." They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win. Get it, Mr. Bush?....I oppose the U.N. or anyone else risking the lives of their citizens to extract us from our debacle...the majority of Americans supported this war once it began and, sadly, that majority must now sacrifice their children until enough blood has been let that maybe -- just maybe -- God and the Iraqi people will forgive us in the end.
People who kidnap Americans and decapitate them on video are terrorists. They seek to strike terror in the hearts of people. They kill innocent civilians. They have bombed the United Nations building, they have bombed the oil pipeline. They have killed many US soldiers with land mines (which the well intentioned left has told us should be globally banned).
I have not heard Michael Moore distance himself from any of the actions of his "minutemen".
Agreed. I definitely disagree with his opinions & political views, but I respect anyone who is upfront and honest about them.
Roger Ebert should read this critique by Slate's Christopher Hitchens: Unfairenheit 9/11