The Morgan rationale

Paul Krugman on Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11:

[F]or all its flaws, [the film] performs an essential service.

If you read on, what you find in the way of flaws are:

> 'promot[ing] a few unproven conspiracy theories'
> 'Viewers may come away from Mr. Moore's movie believing some things that probably aren't true.'
> Fahrenheit 9/11 'is a tendentious... movie'

And what you find in the way of an essential service is:

> The movie 'tells essential truths about leaders who exploited a national tragedy for political gain...'

Krugman also says that some day, 'when the crisis of American democracy is over', he might take a more severe view of Moore, but not now.

So, how I read all this is that it's OK, according to Krugman, to promote untruths, unproven conspiracy theories, other tendentious stuff, in the service of partisan political judgements. This reminds me of three things. One is what was recently said by some on behalf of Piers Morgan when he published pictures of British brutality in Iraq that were not authentic. Another is this snatch of conversation from Sleepless in Seattle:

Co-Worker: It's easier to be killed by a terrorist than it is to find a husband over the age of 40!
Annie: That statistic is not true!
Becky: That's right it's not true, but it feels true.

The third are the reasons in favour of political honesty, especially over issues that are highly controversial.