To the Editor:

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.

Jared Reece

Senior English/philosophy