I agree with the readers who are upset by the suggestion that there is a moral equivalence between Moore and Gibson. I agree that Moore's actions are much worse. Moore is knowingly lying to further a bad agenda, and Gibson is probably telling a story that he believes to be true and important, although I think he's wrong and doing something dangerous.

But, The World didn't claim that they are morally equivalent. The post said:

The two movies are somewhat similar symptoms of the same serious malaise in Western society: the widespread loss of confidence in its secular moral values. Both are personal statements made by charming rogues who have a sense of humour, are very good at their jobs, and are driven by a core of gibbering hatred. Both peddle incendiary falsehoods that have caused murder and destruction beyond measure, been a blight on every kind of progress and will undoubtedly do a great deal more harm before they are extirpated.

I suppose the line about hatred could be reaching. Maybe David is more familiar with Gibson's motivations than I am, but I'm willing to concede that he might not be motivated by hatred, but is stupidly repeating likely falsehoods that have a history of fostering hatred.

Either way, I think both films do intentionally appeal to bad elements of popular culture, and they should be criticized for it.

Gil