More than you wanted to know (about Michael Moore).

The BBC continues to flog F911, which is ok. But it should be fair about it and get its facts right, even if Mr Moore fails miserably on both points. The BBC headline ‘Moore film divides America’ introduces an article which notes both the devisive character of Moore and his propaganda. That would be fair enough if the article did not give impression that it is only Republican Bush supporters who have major issues with the film.

Michael Moore’s award-winning documentary Fahrenheit 9/11 has opened to rave reviews – but not among supporters of President George Bush. The filmmaker has made it clear that he wants this film to send Mr Bush crashing to defeat in November’s presidential election. And Republicans have few kind words for Mr Moore. But while praise has been lavished on him following top honours at Cannes, reviewers are beginning to take a more critical look at the film.

Then follows a sampling of reviews, primarily quibbling over Moore’s abrasive style, but never questioning the honesty or factual basis of his ‘documentary’.

Contrast this with the non-right wing, non-Republican reviewers (previously posted by Ed Thomas here) and more recently by Nicholas Kristoff, Richard Cohen, and now, Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball of Newsweek —

‘More Distortions From Michael Moore —

Some of the main points in ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’ really aren’t very fair at all’

The BBC seems all too willing to accept and promote Moore’s opinion piece with no apparent concern for its basis in fact. Smells like bias to me.