It is very revealing to read Sept 12, 2006 New York Times editorial titled “The Fictional Path to 9/11” describe ABC’s movie “The Path to 9/11” as “fictional”. NY Times editorial board had one suggestion: “…when attempting to recreate real events on screen, you do not show real people doing things they never did.” NY Times needs to explain why it did not make the same suggestion to Michael Moore two years ago.

In the NY Times May 6, 2004 editorial, this same paper described Michael Moore’s movie “Fahrenheit 9/11” as a “documentary that clearly falls within the bounds of acceptable political commentary.” The film was in fact anything but a documentary and the film’s tactics is simple ridicule and most of the criticism was cheap and petty.
Words do mean something. The American Heritage Dictionary© defines “documentary” as “A work, such as a film or television program, presenting political, social, or historical subject matter in a factual and informative manner and often consisting of actual news films or interviews accompanied by narration.” There are so many misleading and fictitious implications* by Moore’s film that the word “documentary” should never be used in the same sentence as “Fahrenheit 911”.

One suggestion to the NY Times: appoint a fact checker for all editorials. I would do it for free!