Michael Moore rips Wolf Blitzer a new one

You know, the sad thing is that Moore is absolutely right. About pretty much everything. CNN, and the rest of the major news organizations, didn't ask the hard questions about the war in Iraq. They didn't do the investigative reporting that would have shown very clearly and easily that the administration is full of crap. And yes, their ridiculous attempts to counter-balance a perceived skew in Moore's films are shallow and misleading. He has every right to be pissed off.

And yet, he does a disservice by allowing himself to go into a hysterical rant. He comes off looking like a loony-toon, which ultimately affects his credibility. The same thing happened at the Oscar's. He ultimately did more damage than good. It's really sad, because he's one of the few people out there actually asking the hard question. I have to imagine that the same drive and outrage that energizes his documentary efforts makes him trip over himself when he actually interacts with the rest of the world. It makes it so easy for right-wing pundits. Look at what happened to Dean just because he let out an excited yell too close to the microphone, for god's sake. And that was just one incident!

Imagine how different it would have been if Moore had said essentially the same things he did but in a calm and composed way. It would have been profoundly more effective.

And actually, the point he should have (calmly) made is something along the lines of the following:

"Wolf, the news organizations have become hostage to this concept of balance. The idea is that a news organization dispassionately gives equal airtime to both sides of an argument and thereby remains objective. That's why you had Gupta's piece on before me to "balance" what I presented in Sicko. That's why you showed a clip of Guiliani and asked me to respond to it.

It sounds nice, but there is a deep, deep problem with it: balance has nothing to do with the truth. And the truth is far, far more important than balance. Think about it: what happens when one side is telling the truth, and one side is lying (as this Administration has been from day 1)? Where is the balance? Halfway between truth and lies, Wolf, are half-truths. At best. And those aren't truths.

I'm telling the truth. It's a truth born of facts that anyone can go verify. They're lying. If you look at the facts, it's quite evident that they're lying. But the news organizations have been too afraid to actually seek the truth because sometimes the truth actually contradicts one side of an argument (as it does in the case of the Iraq war, and as it does in the case of our health care system).

That's why I'm frustrated, Wolf. The whole point of the freedom of the press is to allow it to find the truth and report it. When you turn on the news, that's what you're looking for: the truth. Not competing sound bites: the truth. And if you're not going to report the truth, you might as well not be here. We can just have two podiums in the center of town, and our two political parties can stand there and yell at each other. And everyone else will have no idea what to believe. Probably, they'll believe the more attractive guy. Or the guy who is the most eloquent speaker. But they'll never, ever know what the truth is. And that's a damned shame, Wolf."

Man, I should be a speechwriter. ;)