"What I think is most interesting about Kopel's post ... is not the number of 'deceits' [Kopel] identifies but the cleverness with which he shows how Moore uses 'true facts' (as the National Lampoon used to say) to give a false impression. "What I find most interesting about Barnett's post is that he fails to describe what was false about the impression Moore's film created. Barnett refers to what he describes as
"the film's meticulousness in saying only (or mostly) "true" or defensible things in support of a completely misleading impression."So Barnett believes that the film was "mostly true" but that it left a false impression. Why does he refrain from defending his thesis that the impression the film left was false? Perhaps because the impression it left was even more true than the "true facts" the film used to paint its picture.
Barnett says that
"Kopel's lawyerly description of Moore's claims shows the film to be a genuinely impressive accomplishment in a perverse sort of way ... "I don't give the film that much credit. I don't think it was very good as a film. It wasn't even an impressive indictment of Bush. But it was right-on in spirit.