Do Journalists Have a Good Reason for Anger Over Fahrenheit 911?

From Skippy (who also reports that Ronald Reagan is still dead:

the latimes has a wonderful op-ed piece by neal gabler, who points out that the main reason the press is taking shots at fahrenheit 911, is not because it's slanted propaganda against awol, but because it rightly points out what a lousy job the journalists themselves have been doing lately.

Notably:

"Fahrenheit 9/11" may have an altogether different effect: a change in the practice and the values of journalism. What Moore and the film have done is take dead aim on one of the most sacred of journalistic shibboleths: the idea that journalists are supposed to be fair and balanced. This isn't just a function of Moore having a point of view to push; there have always been provocateurs. Rather it is a function of the film revealing the harm that balance has done to our public discourse and the distortions it has promoted.

I was also pleased to read that Michael Moore says he may be open to the idea of legal downloads of his film over the Internet. He said he's made sufficient money and that he'd rather more people see it, so he's considering the concept.

Good for him.