As reported in this issue of GunWeek, Michael Bellesiles, the author of Arming America, a book that was so widely praised by the devoutly anti-gun when it was first published, has been exposed as a charlatan, resigned his professorship at Emory University in disgrace, and had honors stripped from him.

Pro-rights activists, who realized Bellesiles was a bogus shill for the civilian disarmament movement, are delighted. Some may even feel that they were responsible for exposing Bellesiles. But the truth is, he was not done in by loud protest, but by peer review.

There have been many other examples of historians playing fast and loose with the facts or with the writings of other scholars, but they have been reported, and the malefactors have expressed their apologies. None of the other examples add up to the same level of outright distortion as that of Bellesiles. But in almost all cases, the other historians who strayed from accepted professional standards—like Bellesiles—were corrected because other respected historians and researchers took the time to check and publish the real facts.

Peer review is the vehicle which corrects error in any specialized field, but only if the peers deign to speak out or write about the failings or transgressions of others in their professions.

And peer review does not work when everyone in the group is governed by the same mindset and agenda. Medical journal acticles are supposed to be peer reviewed before publication, but when those medical journal articles deal with firearms or other politically-charged subjects outside the immediate practice of medicine, the peers take a walk.

Junk Science
Thus, although junk-science articles with a decidedly anti-gun slant appear frequently in such publications as the Journal of the American Medical Association, the New England Journal of Medicine or Prevention, real peer review is absent. In fact, when other doctors call attention to the factual and political failings of such medical journal “studies,” they are ostracized by some of their peers and abused by the organizations which sponsor such periodicals.

Such peer review does not even exist in other fields, such as the entertainment industry, or even the news business. In those fields, one is not allowed to criticize colleagues, particularly if the facts disturb the common wisdom of the group. The entertainment business is devoutly anti-gun based solely on faith in its own viewpoint. Thus, people who try to make pro-gun movies, or act in them, or speak out in support of self-defense and the right to keep and bear arms, are not just passed over for work, they are largely ostracized.

It is important to keep these points in mind as we complain about the failure of the medical peer review system to unmask the failings and falsehoods in the research of Dr. Arthur Kellerman and his cohorts. For those readers who don’t remember, Kellerman is the originator of the “43 times more likely” claim of the anti-gunners.

Similarly, when gunowners and scholars bridle at the accolades being heaped upon Michael Moore, the creator of the “Bowling for Columbine” movie which is currently playing in theaters across America, they should remember that his peers agree with Moore.

In fact, even if their peers exposed Kellerman and Moore, their sycophants would still defend what they do. In such circumstances, it is common for the charlatans’ supporters to reject facts, to say that even if the facts do not support a certain statement or position, “they should.”

When minds are so solidly convinced, they not only reject facts, they encourage distortion to pursue a public policy of which they approve.

Seldom Corrected
Kellerman is seldom corrected—nor are his research methods challenged—by a media that constantly regurgitates his “43 times more likely” claim. But Moore is taking some heat in the media these days—albeit from publications that others might term “right wing.”

On Jan. 12, The Orange County Register in California, published a piece entitled “A devotion to distortion,” in which it said, “Filmmaker-provocateur Michael Moore wanted to expose America’s gun culture with his documentary, ‘Bowling for Columbine.’ Instead, he again exposed his basic dishonesty.”

Ben Fritz, co-editor of Spinsanity (www.spinsanity.org), a website that tracks and analyzes political rhetoric, commented about Moore and the many honors that his movie is winning in Europe (Cannes Film Festival) and the US, as well as his looseness with the truth.

“But in their praise of Moore’s provocative and often hilarious filmmaking style, critics have neglected the fact that ‘Bowling for Columbine’ fails at the most basic task of a documentary: telling the truth,” Fritz wrote.

In a recent article for Forbes magazine, Dan Lyons found even more distortions in Moore’s documentary than several cited by Fritz.

“The film makes reference to ‘weapons of mass destruction’ being manufactured in Littleton, CO, and questions whether there is a connection between that activity and the Columbine High School shooting,” notes Lyons. “In actuality, the Lockheed Martin plant in Littleton makes space launch vehicles for satellites. The much-celebrated scene at the beginning of the film where Moore receives a gun at a bank in return for setting up a certificate of deposit turns out to be false as well.

“In reality, customers at the branch where Moore shot the scene are normally required to pick up their guns at a local store (in order to be processed through the National Instant Check System [NICS]). An executive at North Country Bank said the scene where Moore is handed the gun at the bank was staged at his request (and a mistaken belief by the bank that it would be good publicity). Yet Moore makes it look like it’s standard practice to receive a gun right there, even joking before he walks out, ‘Here’s my first question: Do you think it’s a little dangerous handing out guns at a bank?’ ”

Lyons goes on to note: “Beyond his errors and distortions, what Moore likes to call his ‘hard-core analysis’ is contradictory and confused. He claims that excessive coverage of gun violence by the media makes Americans scared of each other and therefore more violent. This circular argument doesn’t make any sense. If gun violence is really so bad, shouldn’t the media be covering it, and don’t citizens have something to be afraid of? And if the media are indeed over-covering it and America is safer than we think, why did Moore make this film?”

Kicking 9/11 Victims
Moore is even taking heat in some media overseas. An article in the British newspaper Independent bridled at Moore mocking white men on the airlines hijacked on Sept. 11, 2001, as “scaredy-cats.”

The author of the article had taken his son to see Moore speak in London before Christmas.

“What we did not expect,” he wrote, “was to feel so enraged at one point that we almost walked out. It was when Moore went into a rant about how the passengers on the planes on 11 September were scaredy-cats because they were mostly white. If the passengers had included black men, he claimed, those killers, with their puny bodies and unimpressive small knives, would have been crushed by the dudes, who as we all know take no disrespect from anybody.”

What is amazing about Moore is that he can make statements that offend not just whites but blacks as well.

I thought of all of this recently when a fellow gun rights activist—a person who’s been dissed by both the Hollywood and media communities because of his views—discussed Moore’s and Kellerman’s distortions and I later watched an entertainment industry awards show on TV.

In March, of course, there will be the big Academy Awards event, at which Moore will receive the Oscar for best “documentary.”

No wonder they call the entertainment industry “make believe."

Don’t Count on Peer Review For Filmmaker Michael Moore
February 1, 2003

by Joseph P. Tartaro
Executive Editor