Headline on abortion article was biased, unfair
While I have always supported (and continue to support) the Eagle’s policy of printing articles with opposing viewpoints, I must point out that the Oct. 11, 2009 article by Alissa Scheller was disingenuously titled.
The article, which was titled, “Pregnancy Centers Questioned” was subtitled, “Anti- Abortion Centers May Give False Info.” While this may be the author’s opinion, it certainly does not meet even The Eagle’s historically low standard for journalistic integrity. A more impartial subtitle could have read, “Critics Say Anti-Abortion Centers May Give False Info.”
I cannot imagine that the Eagle would print an article titled, “Abortion Centers Questioned” with a subtitle reading, “Abortion Centers May Kill Expectant Mothers.” While this may also be someone’s opinion, it is just as inflammatory and biased as the title to the article by Ms. Scheller.
Joseph Riedel Grand Knight Knights of Columbus Council 14465 American University
Michael Moore contributed to the advancement of documentary genre
In Monday’s copy of the Eagle, columnist Donny Sheldon lambastes Michael Moore for abandoning the “fundamental job of the documentary: to present the real, objective truth.” Sheldon’s criticism boils down to his self-professed love for “the good old days” when documentary film-makers were devoted to presenting information devoid of subjectivity. Sheldon equates Moore’s embrace of the director’s own subjectivity with the “destruction of the documentary,” failing to recognize it for what it truly is: a rejection of antiquated Cinema-Verite nonsense. Artists cannot truly dispose of their subjectivity — by trying to do so, they simply mask their own bias.
That’s the beauty of Moore’s take on documentary film-making — because his involvement in the artistic process is evident. In this manner, a healthy skepticism on the part of the viewer is encouraged.
Perhaps Moore lets himself get carried away too often. Maybe, as some argue, he’s a hypocrite and a narcissist. But he is in no way responsible for the supposed “destruction of the documentary.” Rather, he has contributed to the advancement of the genre by hammering another nail into the coffin of faked objectivity.
Mikhail Romanov Senior, CAS
