(Note: The first paragraph of this piece ran as a letter to the editor in the 6/30 issue of NYPress. Go to www.nypress.com/17/26/mail/TheMail.cfm and scroll down to "Moore vs. White, XII".)

Armond White's piece on Michael Moore's film Fahrenheit 9/11, in the June 23, 2004 issue of the New York Press, is a biased political screed, not an honest review of the film. I did not start out a fan of Moore's, but each of his films has been less sentimental, more cohesive and more fact-based. This film is almost there -- gimmicks are few and non-central, documentation is substantial. Moore was careful on this one, because he didn't want it to be attackable on these grounds. White doesn't care; his blanket swipes at Moore suggest someone who didn't watch the current film with anything like objectivity. Nor is there any objectivity in White's political points. Moore uses footage of President Bush at an elementary school after he knew a plane had hit the WTC, sitting for seven minutes in the photo op rather than leading any action. Moore suggests that without an advisor telling Bush what to do, he did nothing. White says the same footage shows "the most powerful man in the world suffering. He's miserably distracted." So we're supposed to feel sorry for Bush that he was uncomfortable while he sat there not sure whether he should abort the photo op to address this national crisis? White then takes a hilariously non sequiturial potshot, calling Moore's …

(more)