Of course it shouldn't present "both sides." That would indicate the antis have arguments of merit that deserve equal consideration. And expecting a documentary to sway hard-core antis is not only ridiculous, unless the person leveling such a critique can demonstrate a successful track record of persuading mass Road to Damascus conversions, it's hypocritical.
Treat the documentary as something that will resonate with gun owners and give them further information, and that may cause fence-sitters to consider some points they never have before. If it does that, it's does all that anyone can and should expect of it.
Friday, June 21, 2013
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Your link to the LA Times review goes to TTAG's instead. I think you meant to link to http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/moviesnow/la-et-mn-assaulted-civil-rights-fire-review-20130620,0,2714817.story
Fixed, thanks.
And now the Washington Post weighs in.
I trust no one is surprised by the obvious slant.
This may be a better link to the Washington Post article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/goingoutguide/movies/assaulted-civil-rights-under-fire-movie-review/2013/06/21/22ac058a-da79-11e2-9df4-895344c13c30_story.html
Post a Comment