Airman's review of Fahrenheit 9/11. Fire at will.

[blowero]

@Airman Doors

Otto, like it or not, profiling and stereotyping exists. They know who they’re looking for and they go for them for a reason, that being that those are the people who will sign up in far more vast numbers. Are you saying that they should waste their time trying to recruit J. Elmer Snerdley V, son of billionaire J. Elmer Snerdley IV and heir to millions of dollars out of some misguided sense of fairness? They have a job to do, they do it, and they do it well. As I said twice before, I thought that those Marine recruiters were callous in their approach, but I can assure you (having dealt with them) that most recruiters are very professional. But that’s of course my unsubstantiated opinion, so ignore it if you like.

Airman, I’m pretty sure his point was that the recruiters lied. You’re changing the issue. Lying, and not wasting one’s time, are not the same thing.

Also, I don’t think you ever answered my question. If it’s true that these unfair recruiting practices exist, what exactly is wrong with Moore pointing that out in his film? If it’s the truth, shouldn’t Moore be allowed to tell people the truth?

[RTFirefly]

@Liberal

You mean like Kerry being a thousand miles away when the gay marriage ban was up for vote.

None of us, including John Kerry, had a spatial location when the gay marriage ban was voted on. So I’m afraid you’re bullshitting us.

Or Clinton jacking off on Monica while a war waged in Bosnia.

[sarcasm]
I agree, no American leader should ever engage in any form of sexual interaction while our troops are in harm’s way.
[/sarcasm]

[pkd88]

@Airman Doors

Otto, like it or not, profiling and stereotyping exists. They know who they’re looking for and they go for them for a reason, that being that those are the people who will sign up in far more vast numbers. Are you saying that they should waste their time trying to recruit J. Elmer Snerdley V, son of billionaire J. Elmer Snerdley IV and heir to millions of dollars out of some misguided sense of fairness? They have a job to do, they do it, and they do it well. As I said twice before, I thought that those Marine recruiters were callous in their approach, but I can assure you (having dealt with them) that most recruiters are very professional. But that’s of course my unsubstantiated opinion, so ignore it if you like.

Isn’t this exactly what M. Moore was trying to show? It looks to me like he got his point across. It even looks to me like you agree with it. Am I wrong?

Could it be that the wealthy don’t join because the recruiters don’t go to the rich mall and be dishonest with the rich kids? Do you see any tie in at all with who voted for the President and who is NOT in the army?

You really think the most effective way to staff the military is through dishonesty? Don’t you think the military would be better off with some wealthy and educated people shooting the freedom haters?

[blowero]

@pkd88

Could it be that the wealthy don’t join because the recruiters don’t go to the rich mall and be dishonest with the rich kids? Do you see any tie in at all with who voted for the President and who is NOT in the army?

Sorry, I have to agree with Airman on this particular point. I have no doubt that the recruiters are focusing on the downtrodden because they believe they have a better chance of recruiting them, not because of some conspiracy to keep Republicans out of the army, and I don’t believe Micheal Moore ever meant to suggest otherwise. To suggest a conspiracy cheapens the point made by Moore.

[pkd88]

@blowero

Sorry, I have to agree with Airman on this particular point. I have no doubt that the recruiters are focusing on the downtrodden because they believe they have a better chance of recruiting them, not because of some conspiracy to keep Republicans out of the army, and I don’t believe Micheal Moore ever meant to suggest otherwise. To suggest a conspiracy cheapens the point made by Moore.

I did not suggest there was. Not inentionally anyway. To suggest I am cheapens my point

I agree, recruiters go where they can recruit, they have a quota to meet. There is no conspiracy by the govt to keep the rich kids out of the Military. I did not intend to say there is.

[Apos]

Yeah, there’s a continuum between documentary and political tract, but it doesn’t seem that Moore has made any conscious attempt to show both sides of the issue.

While I don’t necessarily care how we deliniate journalism, documentaries, and tracts, it matters that the definitions are consistent.

So I’d like to know: Is John Stossel, who uses much the same techniques as Moore day in day out, a journalist? A maker of short documentaries? A tract writer? A Nazi propagandist?

What?

And I say this as someone that both likes some pieces he’s done and hates others. But I have a hard time seeing much difference between his regard for the truth or Moores’: both are extremely one-sided when they want to make a point.

[blowero]

@pkd88

I did not suggest there was. Not inentionally anyway. To suggest I am cheapens my point

Ha, ha - good one. Sorry if I misconstrued your point.

[gouda]

@elucidator

I think friend Gouda is fairly secure in stating that he/she thinks something, being as he/she is the only witness with any expertise on what he/she thinks.

He. Whoever heard of female cheese?

Bush and his supporters can go ahead claiming that he was sitting there projecting strength and calm. Horseshit. A projection of strength would have involved action on his part, not inaction. Stand up, say a sentence or two to the assembled crowd, and walk into the next room. Fer cryin’ out loud, it’s not as if the newscrews didn’t know what was happening! And as for projecting calm - time and a place, man. Keep your calm for the fuckin’ address to the nation, not for the sake of appearance!!

[Liberal]

@Apos

So I’d like to know: Is John Stossel, who uses much the same techniques as Moore day in day out, a journalist? A maker of short documentaries? A tract writer? A Nazi propagandist?

Precisely what techniques do you mean? Film and television are very different media in terms of who does what. For example, in film the director is very important, and is in charge of everything from casting to editing. But in television, the director does little more than call camera sequences (an oversimplification, but still.) Exactly what cinematic techniques are you comparing to exactly what television techniques, and exactly to whom are you assigning them?

[Apos]

Precisely what techniques do you mean?

Oh come on, we can talk in broad strokes here. Cutting down on quote footage to play up the angle Moore/Stossel are shooting for, leaving out key details, using music to heighten the emotional perspective that the author of the piece is going for, etc. We’re not talking Film 101 here, and certainly none of the Nazi comparisons of Moore had anything to do with any complex discussion of filmic technique (see that wide cut to a close one? that’s characteristic of the late 30s period in…): it was the opinion/tract/propaganda aspect that inspired the comparison, not simply the medium.

[Liberal]

Wow. The last thing I had expected from you was a tap dance. But Moore actually does use cinematic techniques in F9/11. It is, after all, a film. One that I’ve seen for myself is called parallel editing. It’s a technique used quite commonly in suspense scenes. The camera cuts back and forth between some event and some prop — say, a guy sitting in a schoolroom and a clock The effect is to make time seem to pass very slowly. It was a favorite of Hitchcock. I’ve never known Stossel to use this technique or any like it. But you mention leaving out key details specifically. Exactly what key details has Stossel left out? I’m sure you have an example at hand. Also, in what report did Stosse use music for emotional effect?

[Desmostylus]

@Liberal

Wow. The last thing I had expected from you was a tap dance. But Moore actually does use cinematic techniques in F9/11. It is, after all, a film. One that I’ve seen for myself is called parallel editing. It’s a technique used quite commonly in suspense scenes. The camera cuts back and forth between some event and some prop — say, a guy sitting in a schoolroom and a clock The effect is to make time seem to pass very slowly. It was a favorite of Hitchcock. I’ve never known Stossel to use this technique or any like it. But you mention leaving out key details specifically. Exactly what key details has Stossel left out? I’m sure you have an example at hand. Also, in what report did Stosse use music for emotional effect?

My guess is that Liberal is working his way through the list of conversational cheap shots. In this post we’re treated to an ad-hom variant (“The last thing I expected from you was a tap dance”) plus a sleight-of-mind fallacy (the misdirection into film vs TV, rather than any substantial point raised by Apos).

[Liberal]

The “substantial point” he raised was about “John Stossel, who uses much the same techniques as Moore day in day out”. I asked him precisely what those techniques were. Was it an unfair question?

[Desmostylus]

@Liberal

The “substantial point” he raised was about “John Stossel, who uses much the same techniques as Moore day in day out”. I asked him precisely what those techniques were. Was it an unfair question?

@Apos

While I don’t necessarily care how we deliniate journalism, documentaries, and tracts, it matters that the definitions are consistent.

So I’d like to know: Is John Stossel, who uses much the same techniques as Moore day in day out, a journalist? A maker of short documentaries? A tract writer? A Nazi propagandist?

Doesn’t seem all that hard to understand. :rolleyes:

[Liberal]

Well, since you’ve stepped in to speak for him, perhaps you can tell me precisely what techniques he means, when Stossel ever used music in his reports, and what details he has left out of his reports. Or are you just here once again to wheeze and blow spit at me as you did when you hijacked this thread in Great Debates.

[Desmostylus]

@Liberal

Well, since you’ve stepped in to speak for him, perhaps you can tell me precisely what techniques he means, when Stossel ever used music in his reports, and what details he has left out of his reports. Or are you just here once again to wheeze and blow spit at me as you did when you hijacked this thread in Great Debates.

Poor, poor, Liberal. I’m not speaking for Apos, I’m calling you on bullshit, just as I did in the thread you linked to, and in which you had to go off crying to mommy.

And it’s rather disingenuous of you all people, to be whining about hijacking of threads. :rolleyes:

[Liberal]

Actually, Mommy (as you derisively refer to the moderator) came in all by himself. I in fact apologized voluntarily for my own part in your infantile display. So once again you’re caught in another pathetic lie. But regarding the topic at hand, I guess you’re basically saying you have no idea what the hell either of us is even talking about. So I’ll just ignore you until Apos returns to speak for himself.

[Desmostylus]

Still working your way through that list, I see.

[Liberal]

Apos, for your convenience, here is where you and I left off:

Wow. The last thing I had expected from you was a tap dance. But Moore actually does use cinematic techniques in F9/11. It is, after all, a film. One that I’ve seen for myself is called parallel editing. It’s a technique used quite commonly in suspense scenes. The camera cuts back and forth between some event and some prop — say, a guy sitting in a schoolroom and a clock The effect is to make time seem to pass very slowly. It was a favorite of Hitchcock. I’ve never known Stossel to use this technique or any like it. But you mention leaving out key details specifically. Exactly what key details has Stossel left out? I’m sure you have an example at hand. Also, in what report did Stossel use music for emotional effect?

[MaxTheVool]

@Liberal

Due respect, you are mistaken. That was the one place in the US where crashing a plane would be onerously problematic. Air coverage is always provided wherever the president is. Fighter jets and surveillance aircraft routinely monitor the airspace above his head.

So you claim that an elementary school is a safer location than, say, an air force base? If that were the case, he would have stayed at the school all day long…

The quote directly from the SS that someone posted here talks about moving him to a safer location, which clearly contradicts your previous claim that the school was the safest possible place for him.

What remains unclear to me is whether the time he remained in the school (in and out of the classroom) after the second tower was hit was due to:
-The SS consciously deciding to keep him there
-The SS wanting to get him out of there, but not being logistically ready
-No one quite being ready to deal with an event of this magnitude, and thus it taking some time before someone stepped up and made a decision
-Or something else

You rightly point out that there are a lot of options between doing nothing and knocking people over to get out. He selected one of them.

Well, I suppose if by “between” we mean “between, inclusive”. It sure seems to me that the functional difference between what he did and nothing is quite small.

I’d like to know how many minutes between 1 and 7 you believe he should have waited in the classroom, and why waiting outside it was somehow superior to waiting inside it.

Zero. And waiting outside the classroom (even assuming he can’t leave the school) means that he can begin to discuss the situation with his advisers, plan contingincies, etc.

So, let’s say he says almost immediately something like, “Okay, kids, we’re going to have to interrupt this now because the president has something important to do.” He does so calmly, pleasantly, and while smiling. The kids are a bit disoriented, but smile and wave goodbye.

Precisely what I would expect someone in that situation to do.

What we would have is Michael Moore parallel editing footage of a clock and a roomful of nervous antsy children with the president nowhere to be found. And all the left-wingnuts would be hear shouting their outrage and indignation that the president frightened a roomful of children unnecessarily while ducking out of danger and doing God knows what for six minutes.

Oh, come ON! Do you really think that the vast majority of anti-bush people, particularly somewhere like the SDMB, are so rabidly, insanely, frothingly, ludicrously opposed to him that they’ll just mindlessly attack him for ANYTHING? Maybe there are a very few insane nutjobs out there who are that way, but it’s pretty insulting of you to claim that most anti-Bushers are that stupid.

The best example that proves that you’re wrong is the war in Afghanistan. Compare the reactions to it to the reactions to the war in Iraq. Same president. Same basic idea (invading a sovereign nation, lots of US soldiers and foreign civilians killed, no clear exist strategy). But the protests against Iraq are far louder and longer. Why? If everyone was just a nutty anti-Bush protestor-against-anything, they would both have been protested, at least more than Afghanistan was.

Like I said, people are concerned about a gnat while the whole place stinks from a camel’s ass. Bush is a tyrant — that’s what’s wrong with him. This seven minute crap is bullshit.

It may not be the most important thing Bush has done wrong. In fact, it’s not even in the top 10. But that doesn’t mean you’re right.

Oh, and by the way, you keep claiming that Moore used “parallel editing” to make the 7 minutes seem longer than it was. Which is ridiculous, given that that section of the movie is SHORTER than 7 minutes. If he’d wanted to, he could presumably have shown us 7 straight minutes of Bush reading to the kids. But that would have been boring. So instead, he cuts around some. It’s hardly some sinister and manipulative technique.