In a June 26 TimesWatch item (and NewsBusters post), Clay Waters takes offense at New York Times film critic Stephen Holden's description of the new film "The Stoning of Soraya M." as "lurid torture-porn." But Waters doesn't offer an explanation of why it isn't. Given that the film's depiction of the stoning itself takes up a full 20 minutes (by Holden's estimation, a number Waters doesn't dispute), that would seem to fit the definition of "torture-porn," no?
After noting that "Holden generally likes politically activist movies, especially left-wing documentaries that take aim at politically correct targets like big business and heartland hicks" -- though Waters offers no evidence that Holden's favorable reviews of such movies is in any way linked to his personal political views, let alone offers any definitive knowledge of what Holden's actual personal political views are -- Waters then went on to say: "Holden found the movie didactic -- fair criticism, but one he usually fails to apply to movies whose message he approves of."
Huh? Is Waters saying that, by criticizing "Stoning," Holden is endorsing the stoning of innocent people?
And why, by the way, is Waters taking such offense at criticism at this particular movie? Because, as he notes, "Conservatives have embraced the movie." Unmentioned by Waters: "Stoning" was directed by Cyrus Nowrasteh, the screenwriter for the factually challenged (not that Waters and his MRC buddies will ever admit it) TV miniseries "The Path to 9/11."