> What I *have* 'bashed' him over, is his playing fast and
> loose with the facts and his reluctance to have a fact
> checker read his stuff before it goes into print.
It seems to me that he is somewhat conflicted about whether to be a "political commentator/investigative journalist" or a comedian. When he tries to get serious, he loses me too. E.g., in "Bowling for Columbine," I thought the routine about getting a gun at the bank as a premium for opening an account was great (not only was the "Don't you think it's a little dangerous having all these guns in a bank?" line hilarious, but the glimpse into the connection between the gun culture and the retail financial industry was fascinating). But his going after Charlton Heston at the end came off as a doctrinaire anti-gun activist squaring off against an old, sick guy, which was not funny at all, and quite pointless as "investigative journalism."
But as long as he remains a comedian, he doesn't need a fact checker. When did Groucho or Lenny ever check their facts?
Jon Johanning // jjohanning at igc.org ________________________________ How good bad music and bad reasons sound when we march against an enemy. -- Nietzsche