I love watching Michael Moore’s work. He’s a fantastic entertainer, and is a master at making his point. There’s no denying that the man is trying to make positive changes, and gets things done. However, I’ve always felt nervous watching his films because I think too many people take them at face value, because they’re labeled as documentaries.

Moore selectively ignores facts that don’t fit his theory. He is aggresive and manipulative in interviews. He carefully edits his films to make anyone who opposes his viewpoint look like a fool.

And I love him for it. His films crack me up. But they’re not documentary. Moore is not presenting unbiased opinions. He gives just as extreme a view as the right-wingers he criticises.

Now, if you aren’t frothing at the mouth right now, ready to flame me for daring to look beyond the surface of Moore’s films, check out this article: Bowling For Columbine: Documentary or Fiction? The author does an excellent job of checking Moore’s sources, and points out the (impressive) editing job he does on the clips of Charleton Heston.

Again, I like Michael Moore, and I agree with the larger points that he makes. But I am uncomfortable with his willingness to bend and stretch facts in making his case. With his films (as with any modern media), it pays to read between the lines, and question the author’s motivations.