There's no ambiguity in Salon's coverage at least. Two reports there express intense loathing of Moore, i.e.:
"... Moore won for his documentary, 'Bowling for Columbine,' and immediately launched into a rant ... that referenced 'fictitious election results that elect fictitious presidents' and going 'to war for fictitious reasons' -- which prompted a hearty round of boos from the crowd. The documentary, by the way, has been criticized widely ... for playing loose with the facts. ..."
<http://www.salon.com/ent/col/fix/2003/03/24/oscar/index.html>
"... I thought he [Michael Moore] was less likely to get an Oscar this year than O.J. Simpson was. Everybody knew he was going to stink up the room if he won, and, sure enough, he displayed his usual talent for getting kicked out of buildings. It's our night, fat man, said the Academy, and we're not about to be whined at by a guy with cole slaw on his pants. If Moore had been only slightly more graceful and less abrasive, he could have said anything he wanted to; he had the support. But he's just not a pet you can bring in the house. He craves disgrace, he has no self-control. Last night, it wasn't what he was saying that was the problem, but the waddling, honking and gland-spraying with which he said it. ..."
<http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/feature/2003/03/24/oscars_2003/index.html>
Somehow I supect that even without the supposed "waddling, honking and gland-spraying" the latter writer, Cintra Wilson, wouldn't be too keen on Moore's message. Her article subsequently describes Susan Sarandon as "such a lefty I'm surprised both of her eyes haven't traveled over to one side of her head, like a halibut."
Carl
_________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus