Michael Moore is a big fat phony- why do people support this lying hypocrite?

[Wee Bairn]

Originally Posted by Revtim

What was phony about Moore's NRA cred?

He is of course a real member, I meant he used the membership to dupe an old man into thinking he was an ally, then ambushed him.

[Troy McClure SF]

Originally Posted by featherlou

I must respectfully disagree with you on this point; I don't think most people evaulate what they see, hear, and read for truthiness. I think taking in information with your critical faculties engaged is the exception rather than the rule.

I concur.

[Revtim]

Originally Posted by Wee Bairn

He is of course a real member, I meant he used the membership to dupe an old man into thinking he was an ally, then ambushed him.

So you called his credentials phony, even though they are perfectly legitimate, to further the point you were trying to make? How Moore-esque of you.

[crowmanyclouds]

Originally Posted by AskNott

That site itself is packed with distortions, outright lies, and broad, unsupported claims. You'll have to do better than that.

The first thing I read at that "cite",

... The film shows CBS and CNN calling Florida for Al Gore. According to the narrator, "Then something called the Fox News Channel called the election in favor of the other guy….All of a sudden the other networks said, 'Hey, if Fox said it, it must be true.'"

We then see NBC anchor Tom Brokaw stating, "All of us networks made a mistake and projected Florida in the Al Gore column. It was our mistake."

Moore thus creates the false impression that the networks withdrew their claim about Gore winning Florida when they heard that Fox said that Bush won Florida.

In fact, the networks which called Florida for Gore did so early in the evening—before polls had even closed in the Florida panhandle, which is part of the Central Time Zone. NBC called Florida for Gore at 7:49:40 p.m., Eastern Time. This was 10 minutes before polls closed in the Florida panhandle. Thirty seconds later, CBS called Florida for Gore. And at 7:52 p.m., Fox called Florida for Gore. Moore never lets the audience know that Fox was among the networks which made the error of calling Florida for Gore prematurely. Then at 8:02 p.m., ABC called Florida for Gore. Only ABC had waited until the Florida polls were closed.

About an hour before the polls closed in panhandle Florida, the networks called the U.S. Senate race in favor of the Democratic candidate. The networks seriously compounded the problem because from 6-7 Central Time, they repeatedly announced that polls had closed in Florida--even though polls were open in the panhandle. (See also Joan Konner, James Risser & Ben Wattenberg, Television's Performance on Election Night 2000: A Report for CNN, Jan. 29, 2001.)

The false announcements that the polls were closed, as well as the premature calls (the Presidential race ten minutes early; the Senate race an hour early), may have cost Bush thousands of votes from the conservative panhandle, as discouraged last-minute voters heard that their state had already been decided; some last-minute voters on their way to the polling place turned around and went home. Other voters who were waiting in line left the polling place. ...

so, folks in their cars and actually on line at polling places didn't vote because ..... they heard the race for President was over on TV ten minutes before the polls closed?
Just how many people in Florida have TVs in their cars, and were watching them while waiting on line to vote?

'Cause you'll notice that the cite referenced is Joan Konner, James Risser & Ben Wattenberg, Television's Performance on Election Night 2000: A Report for CNN, Jan. 29, 2001, not "The Media's" or "Broadcast Journalism's", television's.

Dave Kopel doesn't seem to be above "stretching the truth to make a point" any more than Moore is.

Originally Posted by Marley23

A documentary is a movie that presents an argument. There's no requirement that it be evenhanded. I think the first movie that won an Oscar for best documentary didn't even have any real footage of the event it was depicting. Different standard, maybe, and it doesn't excuse any dishonesty from Moore. But sometimes I hear people say that his movies are not documentaries because they are biased, and that's not true.

Heh.

Yup, these are the AoMPAaS's rules for the category "documentary",

Rule Twelve
Special Rules for The Documentary Awards

I. DEFINITION
An eligible documentary film is defined as a theatrically released non-fiction motion picture dealing creatively with cultural, artistic, historical, social, scientific, economic or other subjects. It may be photographed in actual occurrence, or may employ partial re-enactment, stock footage, stills, animation, stop-motion or other techniques, as long as the emphasis is on fact and not on fiction.

CITE

that's it, nothing about the film meeting some journalistic standard of truthiness.

Originally Posted by Wee Bairn

... What is the point- the company made a decision to close a factory it felt it needed to close and as a result a small city that relied heavily on those jobs was pretty much ruined- and the sun came up this morning- where's the revelation? What would would it prove to have some laid off guy get to stand in his foreclosed home and call Roger Smith names? Does Roger get sexually excited when thinking of the laid off workers? Does he revel in that people are now in the poor house becasue of him? If not, what's the point of the film? ...

As I recall it, the point was that the guy(s) who should be feeling the pain of poor business and the decisions that make it poor never actually have to see or feel any of it.

If the Roger Smiths of the world were fired and their homes went into foreclosure, then maybe "laid off guy" would at least feel that the playing field was somewhat level.

The fact that Roger Smiths of the world never seem to get fired or get their wages cut or lose their job benefits etc proves it is not.

CMC +fnord!

[Bridget Burke]

Originally Posted by Wee Bairn

So you don't need to read material that you have not read but are denouncing, simply because the thread moved?

Well I've actually had a person in a converstion rail away about what an evil bastard Heston was for holding the imaginary Denver rally two days after the shootings. You should realize that not everybody is as bright as you- look at how many people mindlessly went along with Dubya's invasion, all because he said there were nukes in Iraq. One can't say Moore is any different just becasue he's a liberal, it the same crap, just on a different side, which doesn't make it right.

And there is no nitpicking minor stuff, like he said something happened at five o'clock when it happend at five thirty- were talking full on fabrications.

Oh, I'd have to study those sites to "denounce" them, just as the Moore Haters have spent hours poring over his movies. Calling them crap is just a reaction to similar crap I've read.

Yes, I'm bright. I've known Dubya since he was my governor & I've never believed he was worth a damn.

How many people died because of Moore's "fabrications"? As many as have died in Iraq?

[Wee Bairn]

Originally Posted by Revtim

So you called his credentials phony, even though they are perfectly legitimate, to further the point you were trying to make? How Moore-esque of you.

Exactly! It was just a post, not meant to be taken literally

seriously though, I meant he used real credentials in a phony way, like if I get a young girl to come to my car as I'm an actual cop, and they try and assault her.

[Cisco]

First of all, I'm a best-of-both-worlds guy when it comes to Moore: I think he's an insufferable asshole who makes good movies.

The one question that I always ask to his haters, and that I never get an answer to, is show me a documentary that's not biased or edited. They seem to think 'documentary' = hard news or something. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Just last weekend I watched The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters, an innocuous documentary if there ever was one, only to log onto the internet and find out it was *very* creatively edited. Some of the events were shown out of sequence, some things that would've made bad characters look good (and vice-versa) were removed, and one Kong champ - along with his record-breaking high score - was completely left out of the film!

You know what, though? It was still entertaining. It was still informative. And the overall thesis survived intact.

Say Michael Moore is fat (if you're really immature), say he's an asshole, say his movies suck, but don't say they aren't documentaries. You sound hilariously stupid.

[phungi]

FWIW, Moore posts "factual back-ups" on his website:

Sicko, Fahrenheit 9/11, Bowling for Columbine...

[Wee Bairn]

Originally Posted by Cisco

First of all, I'm a best-of-both-worlds guy when it comes to Moore: I think he's an insufferable asshole who makes good movies.

The one question that I always ask to his haters, and that I never get an answer to, is show me a documentary that's not biased or edited. They seem to think 'documentary' = hard news or something. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Just last weekend I watched The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters, an innocuous documentary if there ever was one, only to log onto the internet and find out it was *very* creatively edited. Some of the events were shown out of sequence, some things that would've made bad characters look good (and vice-versa) were removed, and one Kong champ - along with his record-breaking high score - was completely left out of the film!

You know what, though? It was still entertaining. It was still informative. And the overall thesis survived intact.

Say Michael Moore is fat (if you're really immature), say he's an asshole, say his movies suck, but don't say they aren't documentaries. You sound hilariously stupid.

Your point has been made several times upthread, not that anyone has taken that position here anyway. Most docs are done to get you to agree to the makers POV, no problem there- the problem is when you make up shit to prove a point. You want us to think Charlton Heston is an asshole, fine, maybe he is, just don't base your centerpiece for doing so on the totally fabricated notion that he ran to Denver 48 hours after the shootings to hold a pro gun rally and gave his cold dead hands speech there. Its dishonest.

Take for example Errol Morris' (a real documentarian BTW) The Thin Blue Line- he feels this guy on death row is innocent of the killing of a cop. How does he go about this- by painstakingly showing how in his (possibly biased) interpration of the facts of the case that he has, how the guy isn't guilty- he doesn't invent spliced video of the guy being asleep in bed 100 miles away when the killing occured, as Moore might well do.

[Chefguy]

Originally Posted by ralph124c

Moores first "documentary" is filled with lies, half-truths, and deliberate misrepresentations.

Really? Can you point out a few?

[Wee Bairn]

Not to get off topic, but why blame Roger Smith in the first place- why not go to Japan and bumrush the head of Datsun, or the head of the unions who negotiated ridiculous salaries- aren't they even more guilty for the state of Moore's beloved Flint than the GM CEO?

[wolfman]

Originally Posted by crowmanyclouds

The first thing I read at that "cite",so, folks in their cars and actually on line at polling places didn't vote because ..... they heard the race for President was over on TV ten minutes before the polls closed?
Just how many people in Florida have TVs in their cars, and were watching them while waiting on line to vote?

I Know nothing about that site or his cites, but if there is proof of national media between 6 and 7 saying that the Florida polls were closed, when they didn't actually close until 8, then that is a major fuck up.

[Alan Smithee]

Originally Posted by Wee Bairn

He is of course a real member, I meant he used the membership to dupe an old man into thinking he was an ally, then ambushed him.

Which, of course, is perfectly legitimate when the old man in question is the president of a major political organization, surely.

I will eventually go click on some of the links (when I'm not at work), but it bothers me that critics of Moore on the SDMB always rant and fulminate and provide links to other websites that claim to debunk Moore, but rarely themselves make specific claims with neutral sources cited. I'd like to be able to see the evidence here, without relying on another website of unknown reliability.

[Wee Bairn]

Originally Posted by Alan Smithee

Which, of course, is perfectly legitimate when the old man in question is the president of a major political organization, surely.

I will eventually go click on some of the links (when I'm not at work), but it bothers me that critics of Moore on the SDMB always rant and fulminate and provide links to other websites that claim to debunk Moore, but rarely themselves make specific claims with neutral sources cited. I'd like to be able to see the evidence here, without relying on another website of unknown reliability.

Seriously, what would be your idea of a neutral reputable unbiased source for something like this- any news outlet would be considered biased, anyone who has there own site denouncing his claims would look to be biased even if it were not, etc.

The Manufacturing Dissent makers briefly interview the people who run moorewatch.com (IIRC) and they claim to have been supporters of his until they found his claims were largely crap. Also, the makers of Manufacturing Dissent themselves are Canadian- you can't be any more unbaised than that.

[Cisco]

Originally Posted by Wee Bairn

not that anyone has taken that position here anyway

Originally Posted by Wee Bairn

Moore and his minions don't seem to get the basic point that you aren't supposed to fudge with the facts or timelines of a documentary, because a doc is supposed to be accurate and factual

Originally Posted by Renob

[Moore] is losing much of what made him a good "documentarian."

Originally Posted by GomiBoy

Moore's docu-drama-comedies

Originally Posted by mike ahndembroak

There is a difference between a documentary and propaganda. Documentary will give you facts from both sides of the fence. Moore is too one sided for that.

Originally Posted by TullyMars

I've always found it interesting that Mr. Moore and his ass-kissers supporters claim allow people to think his work is documentary

Originally Posted by ralph124c

Moores first "documentary"

And that's just up to post #36 or so; I got tired of re-reading the thread after that. Are you really any better than Moore with "phony lies" like that and strawmen like this:

Originally Posted by Wee Bairn

How did this inarticulate phony loser get to be the spokesman for a generation of Democrats?

?

You know he's not the spokeman for a generation of Democrats. You know that, right? Why were you being such a phony liar? Or were you just trying to make a more interesting post at the expense of niggling details while holding onto your overall message?

[ralph124c]

Originally Posted by Chefguy

Really? Can you point out a few?

Here are a few: Moore claims that the (pathetic ) woman selling rabbits from her house lost her joba GM-she didn't
-the Hilton Hotel built in Flint DID shut down-how was GM to blame for that? Why did the sity invest in that boondoggle at all?
-what about the role of the beloved UAW? Did Moore ever mention that GM offered to keep the Flint plant OPEN 9if the Union agreed to contract changes)-of course not!
Roger Smith was far from the best CEO-but he tried to save GM. one of his efforts was SATURN-guess who torpedoed the work environment at SATURN-the UAW!

[Wee Bairn]

Originally Posted by Cisco

And that's just up to post #36 or so; I got tired of re-reading the thread after that. Are you really any better than Moore with "phony lies" like that and strawmen like this:
?

You know he's not the spokeman for a generation of Democrats. You know that, right? Why were you being such a phony liar? Or were you just trying to make a more interesting post at the expense of niggling details while holding onto your overall message?

You know what- I also said in the OP Charlton Heston was 90 at the time of the sandbag, and I knew full well at the time he isn't even 90 now- I did this to show my basic point that he attacked an old man and didn't think it was worth my time to look up his exact age at the time of the interview, if it could even have been determined. But you're equating an exaggeration by an anonymous nobody on a message board with flat out lies in a film seen by millions- that's like me telling a couple of people Jews are evil, and Hitler doing it in 1938 (another exaggeration, yes)- I have no power or audience or influence, Moore does.

And the doc I quote is the OP shows Moore holding court in front of thousands of college students in campuses across the country (maybe not across the country, maybe in a tri-state area, I'm not sure, possible exaggeration)- I can't think of anyone else but him who would be considered the generational spokesperson?

[Helen's Eidolon]

I do not like Moore. The search function is down, but I debunked that whole 'Canadians own more guns per capita than Americans' bullshit previously on the board (I'm pretty sure).

People like him make us look bad - I don't want him on my side.

[Lemur866]

Wait, the "Pets or Meat" woman was supposed to be pathetic? She wasn't pathetic!

I thought that segment was the best part of "Roger and Me", because obviously Moore just stumbled across her, and was just amazed by the situation. Cute bunnies. Cuddle the bunny, or club it on the back of the head and skin it and eat it. Your choice. Pets or meat.

[Cisco]

Originally Posted by Wee Bairn

You know what- I also said in the OP Charlton Heston was 90 at the time of the sandbag, and I knew full well at the time he isn't even 90 now- I did this to show my basic point that he attacked an old man and didn't think it was worth my time to look up his exact age at the time of the interview, if it could even have been determined. But you're equating an exaggeration by an anonymous nobody on a message board with flat out lies in a film seen by millions- that's like me telling a couple of people Jews are evil, and Hitler doing it in 1938 (another exaggeration, yes)- I have no power or audience or influence, Moore does.

The amount of people hearing an argument should not have much of an effect on the argument itself. You're acting a lot like Moore in this thread, while claiming to hate him. You even admit this, but you think it's ok because you don't have a big audience.

Originally Posted by Wee Bairn

And the doc I quote is the OP shows Moore holding court in front of thousands of college students in campuses across the country (maybe not across the country, maybe in a tri-state area, I'm not sure, possible exaggeration)- I can't think of anyone else but him who would be considered the generational spokesperson?

Is Generational Spokesperson an official position that must be filled at all times for all groups of people? Who is the Republican's generational spokesperson? Surely not Bush, the conservatives hate him. Not McCain, the evangelicals hate him. Not O'Reilly or Rush or Hannity; they're punchlines at this point. My point here is that at least half the Democrats I know hate Michael Moore. Another 10 or 20% either don't know who he is or haven't seen his movies. Conversely, I know 2 Republicans who love the guy.

[Bridget Burke]

Originally Posted by Cisco

....You know he's not the spokeman for a generation of Democrats. You know that, right? Why were you being such a phony liar? Or were you just trying to make a more interesting post at the expense of niggling details while holding onto your overall message?

This is The Pit.

They are here to vent, not to convince anybody. Which is good, because they won't. But it's therapy.....

(At least they have their Adonis-like physiques!)

[Wee Bairn]

If you gave young Dem college students a list of people and asked them to choose who "speaks" for them, my guess is Moore would be way up there- who else is there in politics that young Dems could even choose from, epsecially before the rise of Obama in the last few months?

And yes, size of audience is key- if I tell my friend Obama is gay, who cares? If I make a film thats shown on 3000 screens and make the same claim...

[Wee Bairn]

Originally Posted by Chefguy

Really? Can you point out a few?

In another bit from Roger & Me, Moore explains how Nightline planned to do a special on Flint, where struggling local leaders were to talk with Ted Koppel via satellite hook up. In the next scene, a local TV reporter informs audiences that the special has been cancelled because ABC's satellite truck was stolen by an unemployed GM worker. What a gem. How did Moore get it? Caine and Melnyk made some calls.

The answer is, he made it up. There was no laid-off car thief. No truck had been stolen. There was no truck to be stolen. Nightline had never attempted to do a special on Flint. Moore made the entire incident up, gave a script to a cooperative reporter and passed it off as real."

[Cisco]

Originally Posted by Wee Bairn

If you gave young Dem college students a list of people and asked them to choose who "speaks" for them, my guess is Moore would be way up there- who else is there in politics that young Dems could even choose from, epsecially before the rise of Obama in the last few months?

My guess is - since it has been pointed out to me that this is the pit - that you're full of shit. I wouldn't say anyone speaks for me except me, and the people I know feel the same way. In retrospect we can maybe say JFK or Reagan or MLK or whoever was the voice of a generation, but it's hard to unite people under one voice with today's present-tense scrutiny. I would think it impossible if that one voice was Michael fucking Moore.

Originally Posted by Wee Bairn

And yes, size of audience is key- if I tell my friend Obama is gay, who cares? If I make a film thats shown on 3000 screens and make the same claim...

I guess for you it's a pragmatic issue, while to me it's about integrity.

[Wee Bairn]

Originally Posted by Cisco

My guess is - since it has been pointed out to me that this is the pit - that you're full of shit. I wouldn't say anyone speaks for me except me, and the people I know feel the same way. In retrospect we can maybe say JFK or Reagan or MLK or whoever was the voice of a generation, but it's hard to unite people under one voice with today's present-tense scrutiny. I would think it impossible if that one voice was Michael fucking Moore.

I guess for you it's a pragmatic issue, while to me it's about integrity.

The difference is, I fully admit I was exaggerating out of laziness when for example I said that Heston was 90, and if I was publishing a collection of my posts here, I would make a notation of that as a footnote. Moore doesn't cop to his flat out major LIES, only that "uh..its film...of course we have to edit... film...thats what you do...otherwise the movie would be 100 hours long..."

Your point that my point that Moore is a dishonest liar is not valid becasue my posts stating this contain obvious exaggerations is like saying a murderer cannot correctly identify another person as a murderer. And if you're going to foucs on that and other miniutiae instead of the actual point of the OP that Micheal Moore is a phony liar hypocrite who is no different than the phony liar hyopcrites he exposes, then there's no debate. Pretend that I have not posted at all in this thread and maybe answer some of the Moore criticisms by other posters who did not resort to hyperbole, if you can't get passed focusing on things that aren't germane to the topic.

Or pretend the thread starts here and I ask you- do you think its ok for Moore to flat out lie and make shit up in a "documentary"?

[Bridget Burke]

Originally Posted by Wee Bairn

The difference is, I fully admit I was exaggerating out of laziness when for example I said that Heston was 90, and if I was publishing a collection of my posts here, I would make a notation of that as a footnote. Moore doesn't cop to his flat out major LIES, only that "uh..its film...of course we have to edit... film...thats what you do...otherwise the movie would be 100 hours long..."

Your point that my point that Moore is a dishonest liar is not valid becasue my posts stating this contain obvious exaggerations is like saying a murderer cannot correctly identify another person as a murderer. And if you're going to foucs on that and other miniutiae instead of the actual point of the OP that Micheal Moore is a phony liar hypocrite who is no different than the phony liar hyopcrites he exposes, then there's no debate. Pretend that I have not posted at all in this thread and maybe answer some of the Moore criticisms by other posters who did not resort to hyperbole, if you can't get passed focusing on things that aren't germane to the topic.

Or pretend the thread starts here and I ask you- do you think its ok for Moore to flat out lie and make shit up in a "documentary"?

I repeat: This is a Pit Thread.

Knock yourself out. Keep on raving. Perhaps it will be therapeutic.

[hawksgirl]

Originally Posted by Lemur866

Wait, the "Pets or Meat" woman was supposed to be pathetic? She wasn't pathetic!

I thought that segment was the best part of "Roger and Me", because obviously Moore just stumbled across her, and was just amazed by the situation. Cute bunnies. Cuddle the bunny, or club it on the back of the head and skin it and eat it. Your choice. Pets or meat.

I loved that woman. I used to show rabbits, and a lot of people in those circles will raise their own for meat. Its fairly common for them since no one makes money showing rabbits.

However, that clip made me HATE my classmates. They acted like she was butchering a dog or rare parrot. Newsflash guys: rabbits have been food for people for thousands of years, and still are today, although less common in the US. Add that to their horror that meat comes from dead animals!! OMG! It really wasn't all that different than how larger animals are butchered, get over yourself.
My biggest pet peeve: people who don't understand where their food supply comes from and are shocked when they learn.

[Chefguy]

Originally Posted by ralph124c

Here are a few: Moore claims that the (pathetic ) woman selling rabbits from her house lost her joba GM-she didn't

No, her husband worked for GM, and apparently died 10 years before the movie was made. The point of that portion of the movie and many other portions was to show the devastating effect of the GM shutdown on all sectors of the economy. Jobs were scarce and people were doing what they needed to get by.

-the Hilton Hotel built in Flint DID shut down-how was GM to blame for that? Why did the sity invest in that boondoggle at all?

I don't know; you're the one claiming he lied about it. And what does the city investment have to do with the documentary?

-what about the role of the beloved UAW? Did Moore ever mention that GM offered to keep the Flint plant OPEN 9if the Union agreed to contract changes)-of course not!

Omission is a form of lying, I suppose, but again I have to ask where this information comes from. Also, what contract changes were they objecting to: lower salaries?

Roger Smith was far from the best CEO-but he tried to save GM. one of his efforts was SATURN-guess who torpedoed the work environment at SATURN-the UAW!

OMG! The evilllll unions are at fault for attempting to keep salaries and benefits for their workers! It's all clear now; it's a liberal conspiracy!

[Helen's Eidolon]

FOUND IT!

The gun ownership rate is not at all comparable between the US and Canada, according to this study, done by the Canadian Firearms Centre (sponsored by the Canadian Department of Justice).

"In Canada, 21.9% of households possessed at least one gun, which is a rate comparable to France, Sweden, and Austria.8 At the lower end of the scale, less than 5% of households possessed at least one gun in England and Wales, Scotland, and the Netherlands. In contrast, 36.4% of households in Switzerland and 48.5% of households in the United States possessed at least one gun, representing the higher range of ownership."

So yes, he lies.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

I loathe Michael Moore. He needs to make a movie about obesity in America, starring himself.
Fuck that guy, and yes, I copped to the immature tactic of calling him fat, because he is fat.
He has raised some valid points in his films, at the expense of examining both sides of the coin on issues.
Good for him.
Keep getting fatter, fatass.

[vibrotronica]

I saw the movie at a film festival several months ago. It's badly done and employs the same tactics as the filmmakers accuse Moore of using.

Plus, the filmmakers are a couple of jerks, and I don't believe for a second that they didn't start out to make a hatchet job on Moore.

[Omegaman]

Originally Posted by FoieGrasIsEvil

I loathe Michael Moore. He needs to make a movie about obesity in America, starring himself.
Fuck that guy, and yes, I copped to the immature tactic of calling him fat, because he is fat.
He has raised some valid points in his films, at the expense of examining both sides of the coin on issues.
Good for him.
Keep getting fatter, fatass.

I think you have some unresolved issues you need to address.

[Cisco]

Originally Posted by vibrotronica

Plus, the filmmakers are a couple of jerks, and I don't believe for a second that they didn't start out to make a hatchet job on Moore.

Agreed. Reminds me of Dylan Avery who claimed he set out to make a fictional movie about 9/11 being orchestrated by the US government . . . and along the way became convinced it was true! Give me a break. He later admitted he thought 9/11 was an 'inside job' from day one.

Manufacturing Consent, Bowling for Truth, FahrenHYPE 9/11, and Loose Change all belong in the same file as far as I'm concerned: file 13.

[Justin_Bailey]

Originally Posted by Wee Bairn

If you gave young Dem college students a list of people and asked them to choose who "speaks" for them, my guess is Moore would be way up there- who else is there in politics that young Dems could even choose from, epsecially before the rise of Obama in the last few months?

Let's see... who do young Dem college students turn to for their political ideals...

I think they've got a show... and it's on every day... I think it's called The Everyday Show

Yes! Dem college students obviously look to Rachael Ray for all their political ideals!

[asterion]

Rachael Ray doesn't speak for me! She can take that EVOO and, well, cook with it I guess. But it's still a stupid initialism!

[crowmanyclouds]

Originally Posted by wolfman

I Know nothing about that site or his cites, but if there is proof of national media between 6 and 7 saying that the Florida polls were closed, when they didn't actually close until 8, then that is a major fuck up.

The problem is that Florida is in two time zones, so while the polls were closed in the vast majority of the state, the pan-handle (in the central zone) was still voting. Is forgetting that little fact a fuck up, yes but did it cost Bush the election? Take a look at those counties, not all that red when it came time to vote.

My problem with this one small part of that site, is that it seems to be making the claim that if it wasn't for the MSM, Bush would have won Florida outright.

Making the claim that people in their cars and on line at the polls didn't vote because of something said on TV is just not believable.

CMC +fnord!

[elfkin477]

Originally Posted by crowmanyclouds

Yup, these are the AoMPAaS's rules for the category "documentary",

that's it, nothing about the film meeting some journalistic standard of truthiness.

Quick question, what in your mind is the definition of "Non-fiction"? Most people define it as being based on things that actually happened, therefore the opposite of fiction which is fabricated/about things that didn't happen.
We can even do the etymology:
non-fiction [nonˈfikʃən] noun
books, magazines etc giving facts, information etc, ie not stories, novels, plays, poetry.
fact /fækt/
–noun 1. something that actually exists; reality; truth:
information /ˌɪnfərˈmeɪʃən/
–noun 1. knowledge communicated or received concerning a particular fact or circumstance

Most everyone (besides James Frey) agrees that non-fiction is about factual, true events by definition, so why would there need to be a standard for how truthful it is?

[clairobscur]

Originally Posted by Renob

Moore is clever, though. In a lot of his movies he doesn't outright lie (there are a few minor mistakes I've seen in some). What he does is leave impressions that are completely false with his editing and his leading commentary.

I entirely agree with this statement (and it must be the first time I agree with anything you wrote). Moore presents true informations but presents them in such a way that the viewer is led to a false conclusion even though Moore doesn't make such a statement. It's the juxtaposition of factually true elements, loosely related to each other, that leave the viewer with the feeling that the last one is a consequence of the first one, although actually, they're completely unrelated.


Moore doesn't say "It's because of A that very bad thing D happens", but rather " There are many instances of A (footages). Here's someone who does both A and B (footage). In the opinion of an expert B is related to C (footage). C has been known to cause D (footage). D is a very, very, bad thing (footage)". Nowhere he says that A is the cause of D, but a large part of the audience will be left with this impression.

Also, of course, he choose to present elements, which though probably true aren't in any way representative. When those elements are in themselves shameful (or laudable) it's not an issue, but when they are used to demonstrate something, it becomes a serious one.



Moore does raise very valid issue, but his "documentaries" are so misleading that if the audience was thinking critically, they would diserve whatever cause he is espousing, or at the very least would left the public completely unconvinced.

[Wee Bairn]

Also when he says about the 2000 election something to the effect of "and Gore was said to have won Florida...and then something called the Fox News Channel called Florida for Bush..." not mentioning that CNN and CBS retracted the Gore win before Fox- Fox did so four hours after the others. So he doesn't lie, he implies that Fox did so first, when they didn't.

[Cisco]

Originally Posted by clairobscur

I entirely agree with this statement (and it must be the first time I agree with anything you wrote). Moore presents true informations but presents them in such a way that the viewer is led to a false conclusion even though Moore doesn't make such a statement. It's the juxtaposition of factually true elements, loosely related to each other, that leave the viewer with the feeling that the last one is a consequence of the first one, although actually, they're completely unrelated.


Moore doesn't say "It's because of A that very bad thing D happens", but rather " There are many instances of A (footages). Here's someone who does both A and B (footage). In the opinion of an expert B is related to C (footage). C has been known to cause D (footage). D is a very, very, bad thing (footage)". Nowhere he says that A is the cause of D, but a large part of the audience will be left with this impression.

Also, of course, he choose to present elements, which though probably true aren't in any way representative. When those elements are in themselves shameful (or laudable) it's not an issue, but when they are used to demonstrate something, it becomes a serious one.

Welcome to almost every documentary, news story, "60 Minutes"-type show, and magazine article ever created. They feed you the meat and potatoes (interesting stuff), but if you want the brussels sprouts (objective truth), you're on your own. Blame Moore if you want, but don't hang him by himself.

With movies like Zeitgeist, Loose Change, and What the Bleep out there - which make Michael Moore look like Edward R. Murrow, and are more popular right now, especially among young, impressionable people - Moore is pretty low on my outrage list.

[JThunder]

Originally Posted by featherlou

I like Moore's films because they discuss things that I'm interested in, from a perspective that I don't often see.

To each his own. Personally, I prefer a reasonable attempt at honesty in the documentaries I watch.

[elucidator]

Lying about Fox lying? Gotta admit, that's some pretty droll post-modernist irony.

[Alan Smithee]

Originally Posted by Wee Bairn

Seriously, what would be your idea of a neutral reputable unbiased source for something like this- any news outlet would be considered biased, anyone who has there own site denouncing his claims would look to be biased even if it were not, etc.

The Manufacturing Dissent makers briefly interview the people who run moorewatch.com (IIRC) and they claim to have been supporters of his until they found his claims were largely crap. Also, the makers of Manufacturing Dissent themselves are Canadian- you can't be any more unbaised than that.

What I'm talking about is what Helen's Eidolon does in post #71. She (?) presents a specific claim made by Moore and links to an independent, reputable study showing that Moore's claim (that Canadians own more guns per capita than Americans) is false. Helen's Eidolon links to a source for the study that is not a website trying to debunk Moore.

This is the only instance of this I've found. Other posts criticizing Moore either present vague, sweeping criticisms or are uncited or cite only anti-Moore websites, leaving the reader to track down the original source showing that Moore is wrong. The same is true of all the other threads I've read about Moore. If more critics here did the job Helen's Eidolon did, I'd be much more convinced. The fact that so few do suggests to my mind that there is smoke here but no fire.

[BrainFireBob]

I'm seething a bit, so I'll restrict myself to two comments.

One, the problem with Moore is that, despite claims that his films are entertainment, it is patently obvious when you watch them that they are intended to *convince*. That is the problem with Moore. He deliberately spreads misinformation amidst a large audience that does not, regretably, seek to become educated on the issues.

Two, Bridget, you keep making non sequitur arguments. "How many have died because of Moore's lies, as many as have died in Iraq?"

So, let's see, the implication is that if you condemn Moore you must condemn Bush. OK. Doesn't mean Moore's not condemned. Doesn't mean that there's not anger at Bush- a separate issue.

Oh, but Bush's lies are more powerful!

In some ways, but since Moore's films get quite a bit of play in Western democracies, it makes him effectively a demagogue figure, and that's why he enrages me, at least.

[BrainFireBob]

This presupposes that all anti-Moore sites are anti-Moore because they are against his political agenda.

If those collection sites provide their own citations, you can backtrack that extra step, and find studies such as Helen's.

[Wee Bairn]

For the record I'm as liberal as they come, I think all drugs should be legal, gays should marry, no prayer in school, and all Republicans are evil and should burn in hell , but guess what? You can be anti-Republican and anti-Moore- you don't have to love a guy just becasue he's on your side.

[Cat Whisperer]

Originally Posted by JThunder

To each his own. Personally, I prefer a reasonable attempt at honesty in the documentaries I watch.

Well, yeah, that would be ideal.

[Alan Smithee]

Originally Posted by BrainFireBob

This presupposes that all anti-Moore sites are anti-Moore because they are against his political agenda.

If those collection sites provide their own citations, you can backtrack that extra step, and find studies such as Helen's.

I assume this was directed to me.

It presupposes nothing except that I'm lazy (and busy) and expect the person making a positive argument to do the work of finding citations, not me. It's pretty standard practice around here, and usually when someone deviates from it, I find it is because their argument lacks the support they need.

[Wee Bairn]

Originally Posted by Alan Smithee

I assume this was directed to me.

It presupposes nothing except that I'm lazy (and busy) and expect the person making a positive argument to do the work of finding citations, not me. It's pretty standard practice around here, and usually when someone deviates from it, I find it is because their argument lacks the support they need.

There are numerous cites and quotes in the various posts here- arguing they aren't valid becasue the aren't spoonfed to you to your liking doesn't prove their lack of merit- if anything, it proves your unwillingness to accept them.

Check my post 89 for one of many examples here.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by BrainFireBob

This presupposes that all anti-Moore sites are anti-Moore because they are against his political agenda.

Actually I think that's a pretty fair presupposition, to be made WRT any such site absent evidence to the contrary.