You're going to be forever frustrated and upset if you expect politics to be conducted like science. If anything, they're diametric opposites--politics is entirely the realm of the subjective. It's about the clash of opinions, not facts. Over on the Space board we could have a meaningful discussion of the objective accuracy of a documentary about science or technology, but keep in mind that here on Current Events the subject is politics, and objectivity doesn't enter into it.

It's a red herring to quibble over whether F911 is truly a documentary. You seem to be using the word as if a documentary were equivalent to a scientific paper, but all it really means is " of, relating to, or employing documentation in literature or art". That's a meaty little phrase in there: "documentation in literature or art". Is Art Truth? You're asking for a paradox if you expect art to conform to the standards of scientific proof. Moore's artform is documentary in that he uses documentation to advocate a position, just like a lawyer, an advertiser, or a politician, or for that matter any of us when we're arguing a position.

What everybody understands, so there's no real reason to try to pin me down on it, is that F911 is a documentary that advocates an anti-Bush position. It's the extended-play version of a campaign commercial. How much objective truth do you expect to see in campaign ads? You may actually see a lot of it, but it's spun to make a case. Campaign ads aren't a public servide intended to educate the public.

So,

You start off with *As a documentary* and end with *duelling propaganda*

isn't a paradox. I stand by my words.

Should I take this as you have no problem with misleading or lying to people for the benefit of your candidate being elected?

Now you're trying to ask a trick question along the lines of the class "when will you stop beating your wife?". Much of what's presented in F911 is factual, a judgment I can make because almost nothing in the film was new to me--I've obtained the same information from multiple and credible sources. But nobody would deny that Moore assembles the facts in a way intended to advance his interpretation of their meaning, and Bush partisans reject that interpretation. That's all--we're not debating facts, we're debating interpretation.

Elections are won or lost entirely on subjective interpretions of reality. F911 may be a powerful factor in this election because it can persuade people to adopt its point of view. That's what makes it a "powerful arrow in the quiver".