Amy Potter: Digging through the propaganda

Michael Moore may well be an excellent choice for the Connaissance spring speaker at Penn. But he will have a few questions to answer on April 16 -- and not just about his stance on the war in Iraq.

As a liberal and a proponent of free speech, I have no problem with Moore actively voicing his opposition to the war.

What I do have a problem with -- and this may come as a surprise -- is Moore's work.

The Jefferson County Sheriff's Office contends that the two students responsible for the 1999 shooting at Columbine High School ditched the bowling class that Moore claims they attended the morning of the murders.

Although Moore disputes this point -- claiming that he has at least five witnesses who saw the two boys at the bowling alley -- it brings up a larger issue of accuracy in Moore's Academy Award-winning documentary Bowling for Columbine.

Moore's documentary itself was irresponsible and immature. He blatantly omitted any facts that might run contrary to his overarching point. His documentary was a meticulously crafted argument -- but one that failed to show the entire situation.

Movie critic James Berardinelli said in his response to Moore's 1997 documentary The Big One, "Moore doesn't make [documentaries].... It's best to consider Moore's films as entries into the ever-growing category of pseudo, or 'meta,' documentaries. Or, perhaps even more accurately, view it as an exercise in self-publicity."

Recently, dissent has started to accumulate, and many are questioning crucial components of Moore's argument. In fact, it appears that Moore's masterpiece may be one big hoax.

David Hardy, a skeptic of Moore's work and a former lawyer for the Department of the Interior, maintains a Web site -- www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html -- in which he lists over a span of 12 pages all the facts in Moore's documentary that can be disputed.

He's not the only one. On March 21, John Fund published an opinion piece entitled "Unmoored From Reality" on the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal. Hardy and Fund both report that Moore's connection between the two Columbine shooters and the Lockheed Martin factory in Littleton, Colo., is contrived. Moore claims in the movie that the factory manufactures "weapons of mass destruction." According to Fund and Hardy, the factory in actuality makes rockets that carry TV satellites into space.

Early in Bowling for Columbine, Moore walks into a bank in Traverse City, Mich., and opens an account. As an enticement for starting an account at this particular bank, the new customer is offered a Weatherby rifle.

As reported in Forbes Magazine, this scene was apparently staged.

"What happened at the bank was a prearranged thing," Jan Jacobson, the bank employee who worked with Moore on his account, told Forbes. Jacobson said that Moore's film company had worked for a month to stage the scene.

Hardy also says that Moore's portrayal of the National Rifle Association is unfair. Moore claims that the NRA and Charlton Heston purposely came to Denver after the events at Columbine to hold a rally. However, the Denver event was an annual meeting, and the dates are scheduled years in advance. In addition, the NRA canceled as many events as possible that weekend -- everything except the annual members meeting which it was required to hold by law.

Moore also claims that Heston's powerful and chilling speech in which he holds a musket over his head and emphatically announces, "I have only five words for you: 'from my cold, dead hands,'" took place at the Denver NRA rally shortly after Columbine.

In fact, that speech was given a full year later in Charlotte, N.C. By splicing the clips, Moore implies that this speech took place in Denver.

Hardy maintains that Moore, an undoubtedly talented editor and movie producer, splices scenes and speeches throughout the movie. The changes, Hardy claims, alter the theme and the intent of the speakers.

Moore disputes these points, claiming that his work is accurate and justified. However, he doesn't give any new evidence in his defense.

Michael Moore may be a fine speaker and a talented filmmaker, but in my mind, he's nothing but a con artist. He's created a film full of propaganda -- perfectly constructed falsities that serve only to prove his point.

As viewers, it is crucial to step back and evaluate what is put in front of us. When Moore appears on campus, take a minute to re-evaluate the messages being put forth.

And when Michael Moore opens the floor to questions, challenge him on his methods. If nothing else, he should be forced to explain his actions.

Amy Potter is a junior World History major from Albuquerque, N.M. and executive editor of The Daily Pennsylvanian.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.