So then I chimed in to say, it’s really not remarkable, nor does it mean there is no value to the opinion expressed in the film, that Michael Moore produces films that many would agree are not objective. In addition to few people claiming the contrary, it’s also really not that much of a knock against him, nor does it distinguish him in any way from others in the same field.

So yes, the analogy works formally. But there’s not much force behind it. To my mind, my initial response carried that meaning clearly. When we are making points, it is generally not assumed we are being objective, but rather that we are expressing a subjective opinion. I think Michael Moore would gladly cop to having an opinion.

In any case, the analogy was about documentaries. It seems to me that documentaries of a political nature almost always have some ideological point or other to make — we take that for granted. They rarely pretend to be ‘objective’ like the NBC Nightly News. So calling out Moore’s films has always seemed to me little more than a political tic of people who differ profoundly with the particular angle he takes than as a coherent way to draw real distinctions between his stuff and other political documentaries. That might not be an objective assessment, however.