Leftist Media Supporting Michael Moore's "Documentary"

It's very interesting to read how media outlets refer to Michael Moore-on's anti-Bush fantasy. Here's a link to an AP article in the Washington Times:

The Washington Times: AP

AP is still calling this movie a documentary. Merriam-Webster online defines documentary as follows:

"of, relating to, or employing documentation in literature or art; broadly : FACTUAL, OBJECTIVE ".

Why does the media insist on referring to this Moore's garbage as a documentary? It has overwhelmingly failed the 'factual' test by any but the blantantly leftist standard. Likewise, the 'objective' standard was never even a contest - Moore's modus operandi, the ambush interview, is by execution (if not by defintion) subjective.

The 'movie' is one of the biggest entertainment industry cons in history, in fact off-hand I can think of none bigger. Except maybe that ridiculous global warming disaster 'epic' of recent release (can't remember the name, it was that bad). I'm guessing Moore spent an afternoon on "ConspiracyTheory.com" and then wrote the screenplay for his movie (notice I'm not even listing the title - don't even want the web-crawlers to be inadvertantly promote this crap). Then he wraps it in his fake 'little guy against the man' production style, throws in some carefully edited ambush interviews, and with his socialist Hollywood buddies and gleeful support of the liberal media, he labels it a documentary in an attempt to give elevate it from it's rightful category - treasonous, libelous, agit-propaganda. I'm not amused.

What I'd pay to see over and over is a true documentary of Michael Moore. I bet it would triple whatever his latest screed makes, just in the US alone. Contrary to leftist media reports, this is an almost universally reviled man in the US.

Also, I'd be very curious to see in which countries his movie is making the supposed 100M...I seriously doubt that it attracts a wide audience. I'm sure it gets it's money from the 10% on the lunatic fringe (and repeat viewings in that category - these are generally not scholars) and foreigners of the same ilk.

Hey Mike: If you're so in favor of the 'little guy', why don't you interview me? I'll tape it too, just in case you're inclined to edit away my true feeling about your anti-American, traitorous, socialist, liberal, opportunistic, lowlife ass.

Adios MF,

Doug