Michael Moore won’t go away, and neither will his film, Fahrenheit 9/11. On January 7th when the American Historical Association’s convention featured Film & History’s session on “Michael Moore: Cinematic Historian or Propagandist?” the news media were filled with reports about the filmmaker’s likely influence on recent deliberations in the U.S. Senate. Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer, evidently affected by the emotion-laden footage at the beginning of Fahrenheit 9/11 showing that no senator had been willing to support a challenge to the 2000 presidential election results, agreed to back such a challenge in 2005. This action, dubbed “Boxer’s Rebellion,” drew senators into nearly four hours of contentious debate. The nightly television programs of January 7 brought lively commentary on the matter and the politics of Michael Moore. Chris Matthews, Bill O’Reilly, Paul Begala, Robert Novak, and the staff on PBS’s "Washington Week" offered views on the subject. And of course, Michael Moore, too, contributed to the discussions through an appearance that evening on Jay Leno’s show.

The news about Moore and Fahrenheit 9/11 has “legs,” as they say in the news business, because his movie provoked widespread debate throughout the presidential election campaign, and the film’s images of the president and the war in Iraq remain convenient points of reference for partisans of both the left and right. Enthusiasts of the movie praise Fahrenheit 9/11 for raising provocative questions that mainstream journalists failed to address to an adequate degree. Detractors lambaste Moore for manipulating and distorting evidence. The film was “outrageously false,” said White House Communications director Dan Bartlett. “A pack of lies,” declared radio commentator Rush Limbaugh. Some compared Michael Moore to Adolph Hitler’s propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels or to his favorite filmmaker, Leni Riefenstahl.

Many critics of Moore’s film act as if they are interested primarily in maintaining fine standards of documentary production, but Los Angeles Times movie reviewer Kenneth Turan identified the true nature of most debates over Fahrenheit 9/11. They are really about politics, said Turan, not aesthetics. Pundits who bad-mouthed the movie in the national media were often angry about its messages rather than its format. They frequently complained that Fahrenheit 9/11 was not balanced, yet these supposed champions of fairness and objectivity had not taken notable stands against right-oriented partisan commentary delivered through radio, television, film, or the Internet. As Moore has noted many times, he designed Fahrenheit 9/11 to serve like an op-ed piece, not an encyclopedia entry. Furthermore, his partisan outlook is a familiar one in the documentary format. Most notable single-production, non-fiction films (such as Atomic Café, Harlan County, U.S.A., and Hearts and Minds) communicate strong points of view.

The right’s efforts to characterize the production as polemical and excessive in partisanship succeeded to a considerable degree as did its effort to cast doubt on the reputation of Michael Moore. There were, of course, millions who greatly appreciated the movie and recommended it to others, but a steady stream of negative comments about Fahrenheit 9/11 in the national media during the months since its June, 2004 release have made an impact. Americans were exposed to numerous manifestations of outrage against the movie in newspapers, radio, television, and the Internet that chastised Moore for excessive partisanship and distorting evidence. Many got the impression the production was problematic, to say the least. They sensed that Michael Moore’s controversial motion picture production had been discredited in public discussions and should not be praised with enthusiasm in sophisticated company. Some who were appreciative of Moore’s complaints about the Bush Administration’s policies and the Iraq war were reluctant to give the traditional sign of approval: two thumbs up.

This tentativeness was quite evident when Congressman Charles Rangel, a Democrat from New York City, appeared on CNN’s "Crossfire" to speak in defense of Michael Moore’s movie. Rangel, who fought in Korea and received a Purple Heart and Bronze Star, praised Fahrenheit 9/11 for raising legitimate questions about the way the Bush Administration directed American anger over the 9/11 attacks toward a bloody and costly war in Iraq. Rangel pointed to the many American soldiers that had already died in Iraq and asked how many more casualties Americans should tolerate in a war that seemed unnecessary. Co-host Tucker Carlson, representing the conservative position, then quickly attempted to re-direct the discussion. Carlson objected to some specific words and images in the film, claiming the movie argued that “terrible” American soldiers in Iraq were “doing horrible things” and that President George W. Bush “took money from the bin Laden family . . ..” By the time Carlson was finished hammering at Rangel, he had left the impression that anyone who supported the “irresponsible” and “outrageous” film was not a patriotic American. Then Congressman Rangel backed off from the praise he had expressed earlier in the program. When Carlson noted that Rangel seemed willing to throw his “prestige” behind the movie and call it a good film, the congressman lost his nerve and protested. “I never said it was a good movie . . .” he exclaimed. “I never said it was a good movie.”

Fahrenheit 9/11 has become recognized in the eyes of many Americans as an embarrassing example of over-the-top cinematic journalism, and Michael Moore has gained a reputation as an extremist and a propagandist. Like Congressman Charles Rangel, some critics of President Bush’s policies who generally like the film do not wish to appear naively supportive of it. The right’s efforts to discredit Fahrenheit 9/11 have succeeded in making many supporters of Michael Moore’s thesis tentative about articulating praise.

The familiar charges against Fahrenheit 9/11 do not hold up upon close examination of the movie. No documentary film is perfect, of course, and some of Moore’s techniques and claims deserve lively discussion and debate. Moore did take some risks in constructing his production in order to amuse audiences and give energy to his thesis. He could have provided his attackers a smaller target by leaving some non-essential segments out of his movie and by removing a few particularly provocative and contentious statements. Yet most of the lively disputes about Fahrenheit 9/11’s treatment of evidence concerns Moore’s inferences, not his indiscretions. The filmmaker’s angry detractors argue that he employed facts incorrectly, distorted information, and deliberately lied about the president and recent American history. These familiar indictments of Fahrenheit 9/11 are largely mistaken. In fact, the major disagreements between admirers and detractors of Fahrenheit 9/11 are primarily over the interpretation of facts, not whether the facts are, themselves, true (as in the case of disputes about the movie’s reports on activities of the Carlyle Group or the flights of Saudi nationals after September 11, 2001). Moore’s principal evidence is not inherently incorrect, but what one makes of it can, of course, excite animated disagreement.

Regarding his most important arguments, however, news developments subsequent to Fahrenheit 9/11’s June, 2004 release have underscored the validity of his points. Serious and troublesome revelations have come to public attention about the absence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the Bush Administration’s incorrect association of Saddam Hussein with the events of 9/11, the abuses at Abu Ghraib, excesses of the Patriot Act, suffering by Iraqi civilians and American troops in the war zone, problems with a “back-door draft” through service in the National Guard, and many other subjects raised in the film. These were the principal concerns addressed in Fahrenheit 9/11, and they remain vital to the American people today. By poking audiences with provocative questions about these matters, Michael Moore contributed substantially to the nation’s debates about domestic and foreign policy.