Michael Moore, have you at last no decency? (short)

[UncleBeer]

@Diogenes the Cynic

I don’t see how it’s disrespectful to the families either. It’s a lament for what happened to those victims and an accuasatory finger at the person responisble. It’s an expression of outrage at unnecessary casualties. How is that disrespectful?

So it is now acceptable to you leftists the the dead are politicized?

And before you reply, yeah, I read the thread where you guys have said that Moore’s is not using this image for personal gain. But that’s a strawman. Nobody was claiming anything like it when you used it as a defense.

AmLeft is using images of the dead to make a political statement; they are employing the pictures for in support of their wholly political cause. Period. If a guy (Bush) is using images of the dead & 9/11 in his effort to be re-elected, when his ideological opponents use images of dead Americans in the cause to defeat his re-election efforts, the two uses are politically eqiuvalent.

And perhaps shortly we’ll know AmLeft’s full intentions. I’ve sent off an e-mail asking if they intend to print and offer for sale this image.

[sailor]

@Sauron

The problem I have with this image is that it manipulates photographs of soldiers who have given their life for their country. This is done solely to make a political point. I think that shows incredible disrespect for the dead.

If the image were made of unretouched photos of the soldiers … dunno that I’d agree with it, but at least I wouldn’t feel that the remembrance of these soldiers was being altered to suit a viewpoint. That’s just wrong, in my opinion.

If the family of every soldier represented in the mosaic has given permission for their image to be used this way, obviously my point is invalid. Somehow, though, I doubt that happened.

I disagree with this. The image is just an image and the meaning is put into it by the viewer. Those who are against the war will see it as pictures of a bunch of people and of the man who sent them to die for no good reason. Those who believe the war is just will see it as pictures of a bunch of people who died for their country and of the leader who is fighting for the same ideals the soldiers died for.

The meaning is not intrinsic to the picture. The viewer supplies the meaning.

[county]

@Sauron

The problem I have with this image is that it manipulates photographs of soldiers who have given their life for their country. This is done solely to make a political point. I think that shows incredible disrespect for the dead.

If the image were made of unretouched photos of the soldiers … dunno that I’d agree with it, but at least I wouldn’t feel that the remembrance of these soldiers was being altered to suit a viewpoint. That’s just wrong, in my opinion.

If the family of every soldier represented in the mosaic has given permission for their image to be used this way, obviously my point is invalid. Somehow, though, I doubt that happened.

Do you support the war?

Do you support President Bush?

[Sauron]

Good point, sailor. Let me be a bit more specific. Two points about this bother me, neither of which is tied to a political idealogy:

1. It’s using photos of dead people to create a single-image collage. I believe that’s inherently disrespectful of the dead. I don’t care if people see this as an indictment of the war/Bush or as a patriotic tribute. I believe a grieving family should be able to say “My son died fighting for his country” and not “My son is the left nostril in a photocollage of Bush.”

As I said before, if the families involved have all given their permission to do this, this point is moot.

2. It’s altering photos of dead people to create a single-image collage. Regardless of which political point you want to make by creating a photo collage, do so without changing the tint/contrast of individual photos. It’s one thing to do this with seashells, as in the aforementioned Cousteau collage. It’s quite another to do this with people who have died, in my opinion.

[Liberal]

If I understand your post correctly, you believe the vast majority of Americans support Bush’s policies.

No, I believe that the vast majority of Americans oppose PETA-style hysteria. This is no more appropriate than making an image of Clinton with dead soldiers and children from Bosnia. This is no ordinary election. This could be the end of our civil liberties. I’ve abandoned the Libertarian Party this year in order to have a chance at unseating Bush. I would be distressed to learn that I had jumped from one pan of kooks to another.

[sailor]

@Sauron

Good point, sailor. Let me be a bit more specific. Two points about this bother me, neither of which is tied to a political idealogy:

1. It’s using photos of dead people to create a single-image collage. I believe that’s inherently disrespectful of the dead. I don’t care if people see this as an indictment of the war/Bush or as a patriotic tribute. I believe a grieving family should be able to say “My son died fighting for his country” and not “My son is the left nostril in a photocollage of Bush.”

As I said before, if the families involved have all given their permission to do this, this point is moot.

2. It’s altering photos of dead people to create a single-image collage. Regardless of which political point you want to make by creating a photo collage, do so without changing the tint/contrast of individual photos. It’s one thing to do this with seashells, as in the aforementioned Cousteau collage. It’s quite another to do this with people who have died, in my opinion.

I do not see why the families own the images of those dead. They died for the country, not for the family. I see no reason why the families can claim any rights in that respect. Of course, I would want to respect the families in their grief and I would object to any use of those images which was inherently and intrinsically disrespectlful like a photo of someone urinating on the photos or something like that to use against the war. But this is not inherently disrespectful at all. Just an image. You supply the meaning. If instead of Bush’s face it was the American flag it would be a tribute. So why is it that the image of the president of the Unites States has come to represent something so opposed to the American flag? A lot of food for thought.

I would also object to the Republicans using those images for partisan purposes.

[Sampiro]

Wow- this one grew a lot more than I anticipated.

A few points: Even as a war protest I do not see this as valid propaganda. It’s waving a bloody shirt, pure and simple. The logic seems to go like this:

Bush is a monster because his policies caused more than 600 American soldiers to lose their lives (some of them 2 & 3 times, judging by the mosaic). Whether the cause was worth the shedding of American blood or not isn’t addressed- doing something that gets soldiers killed is just inherently evil, isn’t it obvious? Look at the picture…

Meanwhile a regime whose likenesses could be placed on a billboard sized photomosaic without one of their victims having to be used more than once was toppled from power, but the fact they’re one of the bloodiest and most vile and violent regimes in the history of the world is immaterial. 640 Americans are worth far more than a few million Iraqis because… well, they’re Americans. Isn’t it obvious?

Think also of how enormous a photomosaic could be made of Lincoln, who could easily have let the South secede peacefully (even constitutionally) but instead fought a war that cost 600,000 people their lives. Or FDR- who declared war on a dictatorship that had never attacked the U.S. and would have turned backflips for the chance to sign a peace treaty with the U.S. in December 1941 (Hitler was livid at the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor- the last thing he wanted was for America to enter the war) and led to the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans in the European theater- he’s a hero (and rightfully so).

As for Moore’s promotion of himself, click the image on his site. The first thing you come to is an advertisement for the latest book by this multimillionaire man of the people (unless you count the hourly wage slaves he verbally abused while throwing a tantrum for more money at the Palladium in London, or the white victims on the 9-11 hijackings who he so humorously described as cowardly ['black people wouldn’t have allowed themselves to be hijacked" yuk yuk]). As for his accuracy, check out the offerings of Spinsanity, one of the most objective sites on the web in turns of left-right rhetoric and propaganda.

I can understand why many people are against the war, but the way to combat it is to delineate why it was wrong and why deaths were in vain. Personally my feelings on the war are mixed; I do believe Bush lied about WMDs, but am I one of the few who believes that Saddam had given us ample incentive and provocation for an invasion even if he wasn’t manufacturing chemical weapons (which it has not been proven he wasn’t)? “NO BLOOD FOR OIL NO BLOOD FOR OIL” was a slogan that got old really fast as well- in the first place if you think the war was about oil look at gas prices; in the second, oil is NOT a frivolous reason to go to war. (FWIW, I drive a very fuel efficient Saturn- but we’re not just talking about a commodity that affects gas prices of Sunday driving for rich folk in SUVs who can afford a few extra cents a gallon- we’re talking about the fuel that runs the 4 mpg trucks that transport food, clothing and every other good from coast to coast {first rhyme learned by truckers: ‘If you have bought it, a truck has brought it’- the second rhyme learned by truckers would probably get me banned} meaning a rise in prices for all necessary items that would destroy the millions of families barely making it as it is.)

In any case, I stand by my statement: it was an attrociously disrespectful use of the images of people who were not public figures for use in a piece of propaganda that will not effect the views of anybody not already opposed to the war.

[catsix]

Diogenes said:
Oh, and Catsix what part of “Michael Moore did not create this image” do you not understand? How does someone else’s political protest make Moore a “liar?”

In this case? He has deliberately posted a misleading picture on his website to give the visual impression that (despite the original creator’s tiny disclaimer, which I did not see on Moore’s website) each one of the 1410 images is of a unique soldier who died in Iraq. You’re supposed to look at it and see that many images and think ‘My god, look how many soldiers have died.’

Then there’s the actual number down below, which says that there have been 648 soldiers killed in Iraq. So Moore uses a picture that he knows contains 2.17 times more pictures than there are soldiers killed in Iraq, but he doesn’t actually state that the number of photographs in the mosiac is more than double 648, he just leaves it alone in order to create the impression that all those little pictures = 648 guys. Because 1410 pictures makes a bigger impression in people’s minds than 648 pictures, I suppose, even if it is dishonest.

Either that or he really doesn’t know that 37 * 40 = 1410 and not 648. In which case, he’s just a dumb motherfucker, but that’s not much better than him being a dishonest, self-serving asshole.

[Sampiro]

PS- For the record, I despise George Bush and wouldn’t vote for him if he were running against Pat Robertson (I’d stay home and practice my Canadian idioms).

[Sauron]

@sailor

I do not see why the families own the images of those dead. They died for the country, not for the family. I see no reason why the families can claim any rights in that respect.

I’m not arguing legality or intellectual property rights. I’m talking about showing proper respect to a soldier of my country who died while fighting, and proper respect and deference to his/her family. I do not believe creating photo collages with their images shows that respect and/or deference.

Of course, I would want to respect the families in their grief and I would object to any use of those images which was inherently and intrinsically disrespectlful like a photo of someone urinating on the photos or something like that to use against the war. But this is not inherently disrespectful at all. Just an image. You supply the meaning.

Okay: If a single family objected to having their son’s/daughter’s photo used in this way, and said it was disrespectful, would you agree that the image should not be displayed? Who gets to determine if the photo is used disrespectfully?

If instead of Bush’s face it was the American flag it would be a tribute.

No, it wouldn’t. The same points I made earlier would still stand (at least in my opinion). Images of dead soldiers would still be manipulated to create a red, white and blue mosaic. I believe that would be wrong.

So why is it that the image of the president of the Unites States has come to represent something so opposed to the American flag? A lot of food for thought.

YOU seem to have a specific interpretation on this image. I have no particular political axe to grind here.

I would also object to the Republicans using those images for partisan purposes.

I honestly don’t understand this. You have no problem with this image as it exists now, as long as the interpretation is “the image of the president of the United States has come to mean something so opposed to the American flag.” However, if the Republicans used this same montage to promote Bush, you would have a problem with it. I do not understand that logic.

[UncleBeer]

The meaning is not intrinsic to the picture. The viewer supplies the meaning.

What an interesting, and by interesting, I mean naive, rationalization. Are you saying that you actually believe that AmLeft, the creators of this collage, put it together without the intention of making a political statement? Or the expectation that it would be used as such? Or with the assumption that it would not be seen as such? Pardon me, but that’s foolish in the extreme. And an excessively transparent rationalization. This can be easily seen by simply reading the comments posted by the visitors to AmLeft blog. Do not the members here, of every political stripe, with some justification contend that messages and information which originate from identifiably slanted sources are tainted? This is no different.

From the creator’s post on the AmLeft blog:

I must say that it is my belief that one distinguishing characteristic between art and other forms of speech is that art takes risks, and if we, as a society, value art we must allow it more leeway than other modes of expression to incite or offend.

Right. And if it’s just art and carries no intrinsic message, then where’s the risk? Transparent rationalization.

Sauron, on the AmLeft blog, the guy who created the image says quite specifically, that he does not have permission from the families to use those images.

I also note that he says he does not intend to use the image in any way to try to make a buck. So the e-mail I mentioned sending above is answered. And answered in the correct manner. That, at least, is good to hear. But it is still a political statement; propaganda.

[gex_gex]

originally posted by catsix
In this case? He has deliberately posted a misleading picture on his website to give the visual impression that (despite the original creator’s tiny disclaimer, which I did not see on Moore’s website) each one of the 1410 images is of a unique soldier who died in Iraq. You’re supposed to look at it and see that many images and think ‘My god, look how many soldiers have died.’

Then there’s the actual number down below, which says that there have been 648 soldiers killed in Iraq. So Moore uses a picture that he knows contains 2.17 times more pictures than there are soldiers killed in Iraq, but he doesn’t actually state that the number of photographs in the mosiac is more than double 648, he just leaves it alone in order to create the impression that all those little pictures = 648 guys. Because 1410 pictures makes a bigger impression in people’s minds than 648 pictures, I suppose, even if it is dishonest.

You’re telling me that you don’t understand 648 guys killed means 648 guys killed? And you’re calling Michael Moore a “dumb motherfucker?” Are you usually this stupid, or does your brain just turned to shit when your conservative outlook is confronted?

[Malthus]

Canadian here; I don’t have any dog in this fight.

Just to give my own 2 cents’ worth, it seems obvious to me that this image is pure propaganda, and slightly dishonest at that.

It is a common technique in advertising and other places to use various methods to exaggerate numbers, through the use of graphic images. This may not exactly be “lying”, as the true figures may be placed under the image - but it is intended to be dishonest, as the viewer will look to the image and have an exaggerated picture of the issue in his or her mind.

One example which I am sure you have all seen is to use some sort of two, or even three, dimentional image instead of a bar on a bar-graph. For example, suppose you wished to demonstrate that Company X sold way more candy bars than Company Y. The actual sales were 3 and 2 million, respectively. You can exaggerate the visual impact of the sales by using three-dimensional pictures of candy bars 3 and 2 units high (and in perportion). Even with the actual printed figures below this misleading “graph”, the viewer is left with an image of Company X doing much, much better than Company Y than is the reality. (Reason: we instinctively know that a 3-D object of length 3 is much larger in volume than one of length 2).

I am pretty sure that Moore would be the first to denounce this sort of technique as an example of the moral bankruptcy of corporations who indulge in it for advertising/shareholder relations purposes. While this pic does not use the technique I have described, it is similar in its intended impact - to exaggerate the visual impact of a number that the creator of the image wishes to exaggerate.

[county]

Well, I certainly think Moore has achieved at least one of his goals with the collage. This thread proves that much.

[UncleBeer]

Well, I certainly think Moore has achieved at least one of his goals with the collage. This thread proves that much.

Yup. That the Internet is a great tool for self-promotion.

[Revtim]

Of course, the image lacks the thousands of Iraqi civilian dead, so that more than makes up for any duplication of American dead, I’d think.

[Revtim]

@UncleBeer

Yup. That the Internet is a great tool for self-promotion.

Just curious: is it possible, in your eyes, for Moore to make any type of political statement without you seeing it as self-promotion? And how would one distinguish between one that is self-promotion, and one that is not self-promotion?

[catsix]

You’re telling me that you don’t understand 648 guys killed means 648 guys killed? And you’re calling Michael Moore a “dumb motherfucker?” Are you usually this stupid, or does your brain just turned to shit when your conservative outlook is confronted?

I understand what 648 means.

I also understand that using 1410 pictures to represent 648 soldiers creates the visual impression that 648 is a much larger number (by 2.17 times) than it actually is.

That is why I think Moore is either dishonest (because he knew he was creating a false impression of how large the number of dead is) or a dumb motherfucker (because he doesn’t know there are too many pictures there).

[New_Iskander]

@catsix

…using 1410 pictures to represent 648 soldiers creates the visual impression that 648 is a much larger number (by 2.17 times) than it actually is.

Cut the BS. Nobody was counting the photos, until some weasel started counting. Everybody was responding on an emotional level, as one must to such things. And everybody is well familiar with an actual number of dead US soldiers. So knock it off, please.

Also, the fallen soldiers deserve to have their photos replicated, even more than 2.17 times.

Also, if that montage was made of a single photo of a single dead soldier, it still would be a good image.

[sailor]

As I said, I have been playing at making such graphics and you need a certain level of difference in size or the graphich just does not work. at 30X it woks pretty well and that means 900 small pix for 1 big one. If you do fewer then the effect is lost.

I took my passport photo and did the background and then superimposed the same picture at 30X and it works fine. I was thinking what it would be like to now use this picture replicated 900 times as backgrond and superimpose the same picture again enlarged. My computer can’t handle graphics that size but it would be quite impresive. I wonder how many levels up you could go.

This would lend itself to some interesting art.

How about a picture of Bush composed by the pictures of the Americans that died, each one in turn composed of pictures of Iraqis that died. . . make you think