This site will look much better in a browser that supports web standards, but it is accessible to any browser or Internet device.

Jay Currie

One Damn Thing After Another


More Fat Bastard....

Ian's run at my take on Moore has generated a further full article over at The Blogging of the President. This time Marcy Wheeler has decided that the FB was not actually running an argument, he was, well I'll let her explain it,

But the movie as a whole and the other points Moore makes is a narrative. A lot of the points Moore makes would have been a lot easier to make had he sat down to write a newspaper (or, more likely, blog) article about them. He could have included the details that Spinsanity and Isikoff and other critics selectively ask for. But (as the number of blogs that have been doing this for the past few years prove) it wouldn't have worked as well to reach large numbers of people from across the political spectrum.

A lot of people have been mistaking the differences between narrative and argument. Jay Currie does so in this paragraph...
marcey wheeler
Well, no actually. Here's the comment I posted there.
As Matthew d’Ancona wrote in the Daily Telegraph,

Fahrenheit 9/11 is a movie for viewers reared on MTV and video games, not on art house cinema. This is popcorn politics, militancy for the multiplexes. And, as such, it is extremely successful. Moore uses all the techniques of modern mass entertainment with supreme skill: comic intercutting, brilliantly-selected music, shocking images of civilian casualties, a laconic voiceover interspersed with scenes of untrammelled emotion. I confess that I found it gripping. (Daily Telegraph)

Moore knows his audiences are ignorant - Hell, he celebrates the fact that Americans are ignorant - and choses to ignore that fact in order to make his political points. He knows Postman’s rule that in visual information media there are no prerequisites which means that a movie audience can be assumed not to have a clue.

One reason mass entertainment is immensely popular simply because it is never more than escapist fantasy. It is the chance to have one’s deepest, most paranoid, conspiracy theories confirmed on the big screen. Call it political pornography.

Like good old pornography there is no actual argument involved – merely a series of disembodied images pasted to a narrative line having nothing to do with the facts of the matter. Refutation is not an option; it would be like refuting a novel or a painting.

Re-labelling F9/11 a narrative is simply a wheeze designed to paper over the FB's inability to get his facts right or to present them in the form of an argument.

So what are we left with? Narrative in these post modern times is a rather pretentious way of saying, "Not, stictly speaking, true." Another word for narrative is story and another word for story is fable. For the FB the facts are simply the raw material from which to construct a tear jerker or rouse emotions or perform whatever entertainment he thinks will serve his political and financial ends.

Which would be fine if the FB labelled F9/11 something like "My take on 9/11" or "Sleeping Bush and the 19 dwarfs". But he doesn't. In fact before F9/11's release he bragged about his war room and his fact checkers ready to slapsuit any journalist uppity enough to suggest the FB was a distortionist.

Postman didn't call it "Amusing Ourselves to Death" for nothing.
Feel free to join in....