“Yes, but Michael Moore…”
So it’s an incontrovertible fact that they’re equivalent and deserve equal levels of condemnation and anger, and anyone who won’t do so is a partisan hack?
…and Lewinsky had a lemon party.
That would be because Moore and O’Keefe are NOT equivalent. I think some people have even said this already.
How about if you try to defend O’Keefe in this thread, and move to the other thread to talk about how Moore is a dishonest hack, mkay?
Hasn’t he tried enough? His defense was: O’Keefe is like Moore, liberals love Moore, ipso facto liberals love O’Keefe.
It failed.
Their methods are equivalent. Anyone who purports to condemn O’Keefe’s methods alone, and not Moore’s with equal vigor, is acting in partisan bias.
Their results are not equivalent. One may condemn O’Keefe more strongly than Moore without partisanship if the basis for the condemnation is a judgment of both methods and results. (My earlier analogy for this was a harsher punishment of a spray-paint vandal than for a chalk vandal).
Because the problem is that people here will say, “O’Keefe is a monster! He lies, he misleads, he edits to make his targets look bad, and takes quotes out of context! It’s horrible!”
And in the other thread, they’ll say, “Meh. Moore may mislead, and take quotes out of context, and edits to make his targets look bad, but he’s an entertainer, and he tells a story that needs to be told! If anyone believes Moore, it’s their own fault!”
So it’s obvious why you want me to uncouple the two subjects.
Moore doesn’t fake footage or lie about his targets. Even if he did, that’s got nothing to do with O’Keefe.
Really? Moore has dubbed in voiceovers to change the context of the footage?
Yes. Just like we should uncouple hispanic rights and gay marriage. They’re the same thing. The same thing! Also, they weigh the same as a duck and are therefore, a witch.
Moore’s a lying liar. O’Keefe’s a lying liar PLUS he’s also a failed Ashton Kutcher.
He ran a “speech” from Heston that was actually multiple speeches, on different days, and different sections from the same speech, all knitted together as though it was one continuous segment.
How is that different? After all, he did actually record his voiceover, just at a different time. Moore shows Heston holding a musket over his head, saying, “I have only five words for you: ‘from my cold, dead, hands.’” Moore’s voiceover says, “Just ten days after the Columbine killings, despite the pleas of a community in mourning, Charleton Heston came to Denver and held a large pro-gun rally for the National Rifle Association.”
But the ‘cold dead hands’ part of the speech was a YEAR removed from Denver, in Charlotte, North Carolina.
So, yes. Moore has dubbed in voiceovers to change the context of the footage.
No, he hasn’t. Those examples are not comparable. He has not dubbed in fake audio to amke it appear that his subjects are responding to different questions that what they were asked. A selective montage of speech clips shown in conjunction with commentary is not the same thing. Moore never said that the “cold dead hands” clip was from Heston’s trip to Denver after Columbine. O’Keefe actually lied directly about how he presented himself, what he asked and faked the audio to support a narrative that didn’t happen in reality.
Actually, nobody has said that, here or in the other thread. You have just made this up. Would you like some extra straw?
In fact, most people in the other thread have critisized Moore’s tactics, and said that they take away from any message he may have.
Here.
Moore doesn’t stage or fake things. That is a fact. I’m also tired of this diversionary tactic. Nothing Michael Moore does forgives anything that James O’Keefe does.
I"m sorry Bricker, In your quoted pieces above I don’t see anyone saying “If anyone believes Moore, it’s their own fault!”
I don’t see anyone saying "he tells a story that needs to be told! "
I don’t see anyone saying “he misleads and takes quotes out of context”
I see people saying that Moore is an entertainer, so you got that part right anyway. Is this one of those arguments where if you get 25% right, you give yourself a passing grade?
And Diogenes was right - the scenes referred to were not staged or faked.
Moore is a propagandist. I don’t pay him much heed, because I already pretty much know what he has to tell me. If he tells someone something that pisses them off, and they go and find the truth of the thing, that’s all good. I want people to go and find the truth of the thing, whatsoever it may be. If that takes an exaggerating propagandist, so be it.
But Moore doesn’t create the circumstances wherein he propagandizes, the situation already exists, and he offers a slanted take on it. O’Keefe created his situation out of whole cloth, he made it up, and then further altered the facts to a pre-arranged end.
Here:
Here:
Misleading:
Damn, dude, I know this is the Pit but that’s just really harsh.
Not to mention that Moore gets in people’s faces with full-on production crews, not some lapel camera he picked up at Sharper Image.