Only those fortunate enough to live in a medialess vacuum would be lucky enough to have avoided the cries of scandal over the release of the movie United 93. I've tried to read several reviews and I cannot make it through to the end without shaking my head in disgust at how the media is playing its role, part and parcel, of the morally outraged advocate for those exploited by the corporate money machines in Hollywood.

I guess what I'm driving at is that when you read these reviews that claim either that the film is an exercise in unexploitive restraint or a tediously unemotional film that leaves one on the verge of boredom, you can see that the strings of manipulation are being pulled by those who are going to profit from all the fuss, the very people that made the film that the reviewers have so many questions for. To me, this is nothing more than the continuation of the blurring of the line between news and entertainment. Most media is an exercise in promotion as it is, especially in the realm of magazines, but shouldn't the news be a tad above that type of behavior? I realize that when artists put out a new product it will be covered, reviewed, and critiqued from all angles, including the major news media. What would the arts section be comprised of if it wasn't? What I don't understand is that these writers, many of them good at their profession, don't seem to realize that by taking some sort of stance that either raises questions as to the intent of the artist in a negative way or by overly praising the artist in such a gushing manner that they are simply doing part of the marketing campaign for the distributors themselves. Maybe it all goes hand in hand and one scratches the back of the other and vice versa, but there seems to be something askew about the process that riles me more and more.

One other aspect of the writing that bothers me to a tremendous extent is the way in which writers decree with some manner of satisfaction that their criticisms, while seeming harsh, aren't really meant to be taken that way and then deflect that attention by tossing out an equally inflammatory criticism. Here's an example:

To question this is not meant to take anything away from the heroism of the passengers on Flight 93. (Although to imply that they were the only ones who displayed courage in the face of the events of that day is to slight the cops and firefighters who rushed into the Twin Towers, many of whom never returned alive.)

I assume the reaction is supposed to be, "Oh, of course, no one would accuse you have saying anything remotely negative against the innocent victims of this tragedy. In fact, you reinforce your position by mentioning the fact that there were other victims as well, ones not portrayed in the film, who you happen to have been the ONE person to recall. Good job."

These types of disclaimers are often pointless nonsense that serves little purpose other than to present the writer as an overly passionate observer and empathetic towards the victims, but the fact remains that they are still reviewing a film, so they need to make some sort of comment, which may be harsh in tone but respectful in intent. Does that make sense?

I think everyone can get my drift. This type of writing is so transparent that it's practically vaporous in nature.