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.
I think you have some unresolved issues you need to address.
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! :rolleyes: 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.
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!
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!
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!
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?
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.
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.
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.
To each his own. Personally, I prefer a reasonable attempt at honesty in the documentaries I watch.
Lying about Fox lying? Gotta admit, that’s some pretty droll post-modernist irony.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Well, yeah, that would be ideal.
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.
Actually I think that’s a pretty fair presupposition, to be made WRT any such site absent evidence to the contrary.
