Emily Wiseman’s letter in Monday’s Collegian shows the kind of
double standard so many people have about information today. She
disregards all of the points Cpl. Zetye makes about Michael Moore’s
work, and instead decides to quibble over the veracity of his
sources. Granted, there are a lot of disreputable sources on the
Internet, but the official site of The New Yorker is generally not
considered to be one of them. Similarly, “The Guardian” is one of
the most widely read and respected newspapers in Britain, and its
official Web site would certainly not be classified as “unreliable”
(unless someone feels the “Guardian” itself is unreliable, which is
up for debate). Rather than nitpicking at Zetye’s entirely valid
choice to use the Internet as a source of information, perhaps
Emily’s time would be better spent investigating Moore’s sources.
Though he gets his information from “reputable” sources, many of
the people he quotes in his movies later sue him for editing their
comments to make it seem like they said things they never intended
to say, or even for fabricating facts or sources entirely. For
information on this, watch “Farenhype 9/11” to see interviews with
people who have been misquoted or misrepresented by Moore.
Perhaps the real issue here is that people tend to label any
source that expresses views they don’t like as “unreliable” while
any source that affirms their opinions will be regarded as gospel
truth. I believe it’s best to keep an open mind and do some fact
checking of your own, just like Zetye suggests.