I “posted the other day”:https://www.crookedtimber.org/archives/002112.html about “Paul Krugman’s correct observation”:http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/02/opinion/02KRUG.html that many of the right-wing pundits who get exercised about Michael Moore apply lower standards to the spin coming out of the Bush administration. As I said in comments at the time, that _comparative_ judgement is compatible with thinking Farenheit 9/11 is a pretty bad movie. Elsewhere in Krugman’s piece he gives qualified approval to Moore as providing an essential public service and writes that this is despite the fact that Farenheit 9/11 is tendentious, promotes unproven conspiracy theories and that viewers may come away from the film “believing some things that probably aren’t true.” This “has somewhat upset Norm”:http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2004/07/the_morgan_rati.html , who compares Krugman’s defence of Moore to the line some took on behalf of Daily Mirror editor Piers Morgan, who published faked photographs of British solidiers mistreating Iraqi detainees.