'The World Is Flat' and other conservative documentaries

John Hayes' article ("Do documentaries ever focus on the conservative point of view?" June 23) considers why documentary films portraying a conservative point of view are rarely produced and marketed nationwide. The answer is fairly clear: A conservative is someone who wants to conserve the status quo. If someone is happy with the status quo, he or she will more than likely want to conserve it. Conservatives rarely take enlightened, forward-looking positions, preferring instead to look backward. Liberals instead choose to take progressive, forward-looking views.

The documentary "An Inconvenient Truth," featuring former Vice President Al Gore, argues that global warming is a real and dangerous phenomenon that is inexorably linked to the increase of carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere. The reason there is no legitimate conservative counterpoint is that the data supporting global warming are irrefutable. This week a panel convened by the National Academies released a scientific paper confirming this fact: The world is heating up in a pattern unprecedented in human history. Yet conservatives try to refute this fact because it challenges their "status quo" worldview.

I can only imagine what some other documentary films promoting "conservative" positions might have been throughout history. Perhaps "The World Is Flat" (1492). Or "The Sun Orbits the Earth" (1633). Or "Keep America Under British Rule" (1776). Or "Slavery Is Right for America" (1863). Or "Women Should Not Have the Right to Vote" (1920). Or "Segregation Keeps Us Strong" (1965). The list goes on. These "conservative" positions are not only intellectually dishonest; they are counterproductive and dangerous.

Mark Abramowitz
Squirrel Hill

---

Conservatives have Fox

John Hayes asked why there are so few documentaries produced by and for conservatives.

The first observation to be made on this might be that the documentary format probably isn't one that is well fitted to the conservative form of discourse. (I mean popular conservative discourse, not the sort of thing one would come across in National Review.)

To document something means to support it with facts and evidence that come from credible sources. Note this contrast: when liberals want to find out what's taking place in the world, they'll go to NPR, while conservatives are more apt to go to the Fox News Channel.

Recall here that people who rely on FNC were more likely to think that Iraqis were among the 9/11 hijackers (when this wasn't so) and more likely to think that Saddam Hussein was an agent of al-Qaida (when this wasn't so). And when the evidence led to the conclusion that there were no WMDs in Iraq, many conservatives still couldn't let go of the idea -- and some still can't. The point is that individuals who treat facts and evidence in this way are not likely to feel at home in the world of discourse that makes up the documentary.

But then we should ask: In what world of discourse are these individuals apt to be fitted? To get a sense of this world, I'd say put an ear to talk radio. On Pittsburgh's 104.7 FM, five demagogues are haranguing their audiences from early morning until late evening. Here you'll find sharp and highly charismatic communicators who often appeal to their listeners' fears and prejudices. Instead of discursive discourse, you're more likely to find something resembling the style of preaching.

For obvious reasons, liberals have not fared well in this particular radio format. What we have here is a conflict of styles, but we might still learn something from this. Richard Weaver, one of the old-line conservatives from the University of Chicago, observed that a person's style of argument will be a better indicator of how he sees the world than will the person's explicitly professed principles. In other words, the way one comes to believe may be more important than what one believes. Amen.

George Yochum
Squirrel Hill

---

Facts, not faith

John Hayes asks, almost rhetorically, whether documentaries ever focus on the conservative point of view, while couching his query in regard to "An Inconvenient Truth." Well, John, global warming is neither conservative nor liberal. Science is funny that way, how it doesn't adhere to political ideology, existing as its own animal. Of course, there are those who draw into doubt whether or not science itself is valid, or nothing more than a roguish godless discipline, but then they tend to base their argument on faith and not fact. To which I say, good luck with that.

Jennifer Robbins
Zelienople

---

Gore has the facts

Regarding John Hayes on left-or-right documentaries: It's a gross distortion to characterize "An Inconvenient Truth" as left-wing "opinion." In the film, Al Gore carefully amasses evidence for global warming and our contribution to it. He shows that scientists agree -- warming's a fact, it's growing fast, and human actions are a major cause. Yes, they debate the proportion of natural vs. man-made causes of warming. But no scientist disputes that our policies -- personal, corporate, governmental -- have acute, increasingly dangerous impacts on world climate.

This isn't a partisan issue! As warming increases, won't we ALL be "in deep doodoo"? However, polluters lean hard on politicians to avoid environmental regulation, and our ruling Republicans deny the problems, believing business should be unhampered; so politics does, sadly, take sides.

Many politicians of both parties avoid hard decisions, thinking apathy is safer than controversy. Unfortunately, this issue won't resolve itself, and the longer we ignore it, the worse it'll get -- anyone disagree?

Gore also notes that though 100 percent of peer-reviewed scientific publications agree on warming, about half of general media reports call it debatable: "The jury's still out." In this case, trying to placate conservatives with journalistic "balance" fatally muddies a vital issue. Hayes doesn't help by glibly calling this film "opinion." Our future depends on us seeing its facts very, very clearly.

Walter and Kathy Boykowycz
Oakland

---

An inconvenient movie

After viewing Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth," I was horrified by more than just the problem of global warming -- why are there only five theaters in the Pittsburgh area showing the film? As a college student, I find it hard to fathom that such an important issue plays on only a few screens, while more than 15 separate theaters show Jack Black's new picture. Although the movie urges viewers to take action against the easily eliminated sources of global warming, the crusade is futile unless there are more than a handful of people seeing the film. A portion of the ticket sales does support the movement, but that will not entice many people to drive 45 minutes to see a documentary.

Jenna Krall
Upper St. Clair

---

X out Hillary

Joe Martinelli is angry at Fred Honsberger because he has an image of Sen. Hillary Clinton with a red line through it ("Politics as juvenile, Feedback, June 22). He sees it as juvenile, and of course it is.

Personally, as a liberal, progressive Democrat I would like to thank Mr. Honsberger for helping the Democratic party save itself from ruin in the 2008 presidential election! He is doing what our party won't do, and that is eliminating Hillary Clinton from the field of contenders and as a sure front-runner.

Sen. Clinton not only voted to give President Bush the red light for the war in Iraq, she gave a most impassioned speech for the reason to go to war in Iraq. The Republicans will savage her over her stand, especially since she is backpedaling on so many issues, even abortion, of which she has always been a staunch supporter. One can only imagine the charges of flip-flopper and hypocrite -- it will be even worse than 2004 with Kerry.

If the Democratic leadership is smart, it will stop pushing Sen. Clinton and start looking at governors, especially women. There are a few good choices to be had. Any senator who voted to give the President the war powers to invade Iraq is a sure loser in the next election.

Linda Bear
Canton Township

---

Pride and prejudice

There are two things that Anna Rosenstein should know before criticizing theater (review of Pittsburgh Pride Festival, June 21): first, a knowledge of literature and the theater; second, the ability to discriminate between a festival's name or purpose and the actual art of playwriting or acting.

She seems to have been upset that there weren't enough prancing queens on stage or the sound of sufficient lisping for her narrow and outdated understanding of the gay and lesbian community. Perhaps we have morphed into bland hetero knock-offs!

To match her ignorance one could say that if you go to see "Fiddler on the Roof," you won't see any jewelers, lawyers or Park Avenue doctors either. So be ready to be disappointed!

Bob Poropatich
Stanton Heights