Oprah Vs. Frey

Did anyone else think it was odd that on Oprah's panel yesterday, discussing the sleazy liar James Frey, was Frank Rich of the NYT and Richard Cohen of the Washington Post?

It isn't like these two guys have ever carried the banner of truth at all costs.

That Frey is a liar should not be mistaken. He is a huge liar. He cannot be trusted to tell the truth. Many people that bought his book were misled and inspired because of his lies. Now, I guess, they have lost that inspiration and are angry. That is sad, but it is not the national tragedy that it is being made out to be.

I personally believe that it is much more dangerous for a motion picture to be written, produced, directed and promoted as if it were a true account, when it is so loosely based on history that its major resemblance to history is names and locations. We are seeing this currently in Steven Speilberg's "Munich," and have seen in in movies of the past such as "JFK," and "Pearl Harbor." In these movies what is not historical fact is being sold as one. The dangers of mislearned history are much greater than the exposure of an inconsequential liar as a, well, inconsequential liar.

I don't blame Oprah for being upset. She promoted Frey and then stood by him when he first came under attack. She felt she let down her audience and book club members who spent good money on what turned out to be crap, and this reflected badly on her. Geez, I wanted to go on stage and pop him a good one myself.

But the indignation of Rich and Cohen is laughable. They cry foul over the lies of people like Frey whose actions are unimportant, while accepting the work of history revisionist movies as great drama.