Ann Coulter called Moore “nuts” on the June 14th Hannity & Colmes, so I guess we can toss her onto the list as well. 
But Moore would ultimitely control how much and what parts of the interview the public would see. Heck, for all we know, he might have given the interview, defended himself eloquently, and Moore decided not to use it.
I have no desire to try to defend Coulter, but calling someone nuts doesn’t fit the legal definition of libel. Just like calling someone a big fat idiot isn’t libelous either (not that I have any interest in defending Limbaugh; I just wanted to point out that partisan quibiling goes both ways).
This is why Penn & Teller called their show “Bullshit” and used lots of profanity in describing their targets. As they explained in the first show, if they had said that a practioner of homeopathy (or dowsing, etc.) was lying, they might have been sued for libel. By calling the dubious practices “bullshit” and the practioners “douchebags, scumbags, assholes” etc., they avoided this legal problem, because these terms were obviously not assertions of fact, but of opinion.
According to a new book and documentary (not by MM), you don’t have to assume that if you recognize that, by definition, corporations are psychopathic:
Sounds about right to me.
:rolleyes:
I’m just following the MM Movie issue from the sidelines, but saw this interesting article - an unabashed liberal bashing (somewhat) the movie - what do you think?
Wow, this Christopher Hitchins guy even bashes Mother Teresa. :eek:
In any event, I see Fahrenheit 9/11 is still ranking around 77% on the Tomatometer.
Yeah, you and “Dunkin’ Doughnuts”.
That Christopher Hitchins article is the best description of F911 (and Moore himself) I’ve read so far. It very honestly & clearly lays out not only how this film is not even close to a ‘documantary’ but how it repeatedly contradicts itself in order to maximize its anti-Bush-ness.
Some choice quotes:[ul]
[li]“It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of “dissenting” bravery”[/li][li]“Either we sent too many troops, or were wrong to send any at all—the latter was Moore’s view as late as 2002—or we sent too few”[/li][li]“He prefers leaden sarcasm to irony and, indeed, may not appreciate the distinction”[/li][/ul]
And in particular:
"But if you leave out absolutely everything that might give your “narrative” a problem and throw in any old rubbish that might support it, and you don’t even care that one bit of that rubbish flatly contradicts the next bit, and you give no chance to those who might differ, then you have betrayed your craft." [italics in original]
In other words, F911 is 100% election-year propaganda and Michael Moore has about as much credibility is Joseph Goebbels. 
[QUOTE=Hail Ants]
[li]“It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of “dissenting” bravery”[/li][/quote]
How is it “abject political cowardice”?
[quote]
[li]“Either we sent too many troops, or were wrong to send any at all—the latter was Moore’s view as late as 2002—or we sent too few”[/li][/quote]
True, except for the “sent too many” part. Saying we shouldn’t have sent any or we sent to few isn’t a contradiction.
[quote]
[li]“He prefers leaden sarcasm to irony and, indeed, may not appreciate the distinction”[/li][/quote]
What’s wrong with leaden sarcasm?
Or George W. Bush?
I have no doubt that Fox News is doing it because of political reasons. But that doesn’t mean Moore isn’t a fucking liar. As I’ve posted in the other thread, his lies and misrepresentations are well documented:
Dude, Where’s My Intellectual Honesty?
Moore admits to altering “Bowling for Columbine” DVD
Forbes finds more falsehoods in Moore’s “Bowling”
We had a thread about her and suffice to say that she does have her detractors and Hitchens’ criticism of her is hardly groundless. In fact, we had a thread about this and this very cite was brought up. But then again you knew that.
As for the OP, I don’t know. If enough people who aren’t already Moore fans go to see his movie, it might help Kerry (since most people are idiots who would believe anything a pundit says).
And before any liberal tries to smear me as some raving Bush supporter, I’m a libertarian who hates a lot of what Bush has done and is voting for Kerry (rather than Badnarik, the Libertarian candidate) because that’s how much I oppose Bush.
I think Hitchins relates some valid criticism in the article particularly concerning Afganistan. But a lot of Moore’s supposed contradictions just aren’t. It’s not "“let’s have it both ways opportunism” to complain both that the Administration ignored too many warnings prior to 9/11 and subsequently issues too many public warnings. It is possible to work to foil terror attacks without issuing vague warnings. Nor is there any reason to believe that the House of Bush didn’t privately coordinated policy with the House of Saud prior to 9/11 just because subsequently the Administration took actions against the Saudi’s interest.
For me, I’ll wait to see the movie myself.
I want to see it myself, only because I want to stick it to Michael Eisner.
If this film breaks $40 million in the first week, Eisner is good as gone as CEO of Disney.
Michael Moore admitted that there was a factual error in a caption in the theaterical release of the film, so he corrected it for the DVD? How dare he! Hanging’s too good for him!
I suppose you’d have been happier if he’d denied any error and allowed the incorrect caption to remain on the DVD.
I just read an excellent article on Moore and his movie on Slate. It’s written by Christopher Hitchens. A most excellent article for those who doubt the veracity of Moore’s critics. It can be found here: http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723
My apologies if a previous poster beat me to it, but I didn’t see it from a cursory glance over the postings here.
Wow, I just read an excellent series of about six posts discussing the Hitchens opinion piece. They end a scant three posts above yours, Starving Artist.
Do you think perhaps this could be the reason I posted the link?
As I said, a quick perusal of the posts didn’t reveal a link and as people were discussing it I thought someone might like to actually read it.
Nope, correcting the error is not the issue, the fact that he added a caption to a political ad in such a way as to make it appear that the caption was in the original (which is wasn’t) is dishonest. He has never apologized or tried to correct that. As I said before, I’m normally on the sidelines on the issue, and won’t make a decision on the movie until I see it (and read careful analysis of the film by people with more time than me), but this alone makes it hard for me to trust MM.
You set a very high bar for integrity and compassion.
Do you apply these same standards to the likes of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Wolfowitz, Rice, Ashcroft, and the rest of the Administration?
If you do, how do you maintain your sanity?
If you do, you must feel compelled to vote for someone other than Bush in the upcoming presidential election.
Unless, of course, you are pretty sure these paradigms of virtue always tell the truth.
And who in the Bush menagerie - other than Richard A. Clarke - has ever apologized for anything?
What does compassion have to do with anything? Integrity is an issue, though. I don’t feel it is a “very high bar” to have documentary filmmakers refrain from changing a commercial to have it say something the original didn’t say? Why is this such a high standard?
The bigger question, Antiochus, is why don’t you have a problem with Moore’s apparent actions in this case?
BTW, the emphasis on the apology in your quotation is yours and not mine. I’m simply saying I trust Moore a little less because of the decision. An apology would restore some of my trust, but it wouldn’t completely negate the concern.
Frankly, yes. As well as Kerry, the DNC, the last administration, the Pope, Lassie, my mom and any other person. The standard isn’t that hard - if you lie to me I will still listen to what you have to say, but I will trust it less and look to verify it more.
Antiochus, you seem to have decided that I am some sort of supporter of or apologist for the current administration. Not so. I do not believe I have ever posted a message on this board that reveals any political leaning of mine. Anyway, my political outlook changes frequently.
Then there’s the big logical falacy inherent in your reply. Person X misleads to support a particular point of view. Just because person (or group) Y also prevaricates doesn’t mean person X is any more trustworthy. Any lies of this or any other administration does not mean that Mr. Moore acted unethically in changing the original ad.
Well, I’ll just leave these alone and reiterate my previous position:
I will see Mr. Moore’s new movie (not in the theatre, but mostly because I rarely see anything in the theatre) and make up my own mind about the legitimacy and veracity of his opinions. In doing so, I will also listen to his critics and see if what they have to say has any value. Because of my understanding of Mr. Moore’s actions in altering an old political ad in BFC, I will remain wary but open to what he has to say. If I find that he, in fact didn’t alter the original ad, then I will apologize and my faith in Mr. Moore will return. After all, he was one of my favorite TV personalities back when he was making TV nation, one of my favorite shows.
Any interpretation as to my political beliefs taken from anything I have said here is a creation of your own mind.
The only problem I have with Moore is his insisting on calling his movies documentaries. They are psuedo-documentaries. Political art in the form of a documentary.
Other than that, he can loop together pictures of Bush playing gold while urging people to fight the War on Terror all he wants. He can even put subtitles on it. It is his movie. It is hardly like Repubicans would never selectively quote people or anything, right, Holier Than Thous?