My first real exposure to the power of the internet in politics was the way it reacted to Michael Moore. Pre-2000 Moore was a gifted documentary maker with a talent for tweaking the noses of the rich & powerful. An American Roger Cook without the pugnacious attitude, there was an amusing charm to his work that made most of it a real joy to watch. Then Bush was elected.
Seemingly overnight Moore morphed into this obsessive and slightly ludicrous figure, hell-bent on belittling his country at every turn and exposing Bush to the world as a dangerous idiot (no matter, of course, that exposing Bush as an idiot was about a necessary a task as exposing the Pope a catholic). Moore set about this task with a fairly shocking disregard for basic journalistic standards - the irony being that much of it came from the 'playbook' of the likes of Fox News and the very people Moore was having a pop at. Soon the internet was awash with sites dedicated to exposing his approach - highly selective editing, suggestive cuts with misleading voiceovers, apparently improvised 'doorsteps' exposed as set-ups or pre-arranged etc. Some of it, of course, was just Bush fans out for revenge but the sheer volume and breadth of it quickly attested to its substance - Moore had become a useful idiot for the US neocons, his clumsy and discreditable attacks useful cover under which they could dismiss other more sincere and genuine criticisms.
So where is Michael the political activist now that US politics is gripping the world? He is around of course (this post was prompted by his appearance on Larry King in the last few days having a pop at Hillary over Iraq) but why the relatively low-profile? Why the silence from the man who set-out to explain the realities of US politics to the world? You could argue, I suppose, that since all the leading candidates (red & blue) have effectively disowned the Bush Whitehouse then Moore's 'work is done' and he needn't join the fray. But this is weak for me. We're watching the most important & compelling Presidential races in decades, one with even more global consequences than most and the arch-self publicist Moore is nowhere to be seen. I guess it's the final confirmation that his critics were largely right - lightweight, grandstanding & devoid of substance.
Seemingly overnight Moore morphed into this obsessive and slightly ludicrous figure, hell-bent on belittling his country at every turn and exposing Bush to the world as a dangerous idiot (no matter, of course, that exposing Bush as an idiot was about a necessary a task as exposing the Pope a catholic). Moore set about this task with a fairly shocking disregard for basic journalistic standards - the irony being that much of it came from the 'playbook' of the likes of Fox News and the very people Moore was having a pop at. Soon the internet was awash with sites dedicated to exposing his approach - highly selective editing, suggestive cuts with misleading voiceovers, apparently improvised 'doorsteps' exposed as set-ups or pre-arranged etc. Some of it, of course, was just Bush fans out for revenge but the sheer volume and breadth of it quickly attested to its substance - Moore had become a useful idiot for the US neocons, his clumsy and discreditable attacks useful cover under which they could dismiss other more sincere and genuine criticisms.
So where is Michael the political activist now that US politics is gripping the world? He is around of course (this post was prompted by his appearance on Larry King in the last few days having a pop at Hillary over Iraq) but why the relatively low-profile? Why the silence from the man who set-out to explain the realities of US politics to the world? You could argue, I suppose, that since all the leading candidates (red & blue) have effectively disowned the Bush Whitehouse then Moore's 'work is done' and he needn't join the fray. But this is weak for me. We're watching the most important & compelling Presidential races in decades, one with even more global consequences than most and the arch-self publicist Moore is nowhere to be seen. I guess it's the final confirmation that his critics were largely right - lightweight, grandstanding & devoid of substance.
4 Comments:
NICE Blog :)
I beg to differ Liam (just for a change, eh?) The truth is all of the front runners in the US elections are barely separable. They all supported the war in Iraq... but strangely, now they don't, they are all committed to fighting "the war on ...... terror, drugs, crime (delete as appropriate) they are all determined to help the poor (but not too much).
This is the route UK politics is going down. The Parties (and pundits) all want Cameron/Clegg/Milliband-ism. We don't want Hague, (too bald) Brown, (too boring) Campbell (too old) because they 'don't look good on the telly... never mind the fact that they've got more brain cells than the pretty boys.
I'm rooting for John McCain. His politics stink to high heaven - but so do those of his opponents. He's right-wing, a reactionary populist in so many areas, mad as a box of frogs in others, but at least doesn't pretend he's some sort of quasi-socialist, and he ain't pretty.
As you might have gathered, like Michael Moore, I suspect whatever talking head wins the right to spout from the Oval Office.... the corporate finance and military complex will win the election anyway.
Moore is experienced enough to know the realities of the game. I doubt that his 'silence' is due to any of the things you've written.
It could be something simple like he knows he draws attention, figures a Dem could take the White House and doesn't want to derail that.
It could also be that he's keeping his gunpowder dry until the candidates are chosen. Only then knowing for sure who the new targets on the battlefield are.
Or it could be any number of other political considerations for his 'silence'...
Your analysis is largely right. The man is hot air.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home