# Michael Moore is a Dishonest Hack **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 4, 2010, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-is-a-dishonest-hack/541915 "2010-06-04T13:18:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2010, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-is-a-dishonest-hack/541915/121 "2010-06-05T18:32:16Z")
> [@Johnny\_Angel](#): > > I have to assume you’re new to this debate, because you don’t seem to realize that is exactly the rationalization Rush Limbaugh uses when he gets caught being full of shit. Or do you think that’s different somehow? Just because you claim that they are equivalent doesn’t make it so. Unlike Michael Moore, there are actually lots of people who take Rush seriously, and he has to at least make a pretense of being serious in order to keep those listeners. In a way, that’s even worse than actually believing in what you say. ---
**Author:** ![Taber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ac91a4/32.png) [@Taber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Taber)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2010, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-is-a-dishonest-hack/541915/122 "2010-06-05T18:36:07Z")
Man, Micheal Moore must be tired being the equivalent of Rush, Coulter, Beck, and now O’keefe. That’s the work of four people! We need some more dishonest liberal commentators to give him a break. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2010, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-is-a-dishonest-hack/541915/123 "2010-06-05T19:28:35Z")
> [@Johnny\_Angel](#): > > Hey, if you’re such a fan of Moore you should at least agree that comparing him to O’Keefe is just too silly. Well, I’m only mildly a fan of Moore’s. But you’re saying this to the wrong person. **Bricker** was the one who compared Moore to O’Keefe, and I’m almost inevitably on the other side of any debate from **Bricker**. Asking me to be skeptical of what is effectively my debate adversary’s position is really a waste of time; the only question for me is whether I have the energy to argue the point. I didn’t, and don’t, and don’t care. Feel free to take **Bricker** to task yourself. > [@](#): > > It’s like those people who say “Jesus was my favorite philosopher” as though that was supposed to pad out his credentials. I mean, I like philosophers, but that’s a serious downgrade from God Made Flesh. The person most famous for saying that was George W. Bush, while running for President in 2000. And the only question in my mind about Bush is whether he was indeed the worst President in this nation’s history, or whether someone else (e.g. Buchanan) was arguably worse. But nonetheless, I think Bush had a point: Jesus, in addition to being God incarnate (at least, in my belief; YMMV), was indeed a moral philosopher, and as long as people are inclined to live their lives in ways that they equate, however accurately or misguidedly, with following Jesus, that moral philosophy must necessarily be strongly connected with an understanding of what it means to follow Jesus. IOW, Jesus as moral philosopher isn’t about giving him any more kudos; it’s about us, and quite reasonably so. Just as Jesus doesn’t need the Gospels, but maybe we do. > [@](#): > > You got me there. Your boldly qualified support has been duly noted. I’m not sure if you’re sincere or sarcastic. If the former, please ignore the following sentence. If the latter, please note that a lukewarm supporter of Moore should, in theory, be more likely to disappear in the face of intense criticism of Moore than a more devoted supporter would be. > [@](#): > > If your dog behaved that way, you’d consider it a virtue, and you probably wouldn’t even let him shit on the carpet. Limbaugh encourages his cohort to shit wherever they please. Now don’t you feel like an asshole? No. For a dog to be loyal, affectionate, and obedient pretty much maxes out a dog’s moral capabilities, if you will. That’s far from the case with people. > [@](#): > > I can remember a time when conservatives used to boast about how unlike the liberals, they didn’t have any litmus tests. Everyone was entitled to his own conscience (back then, they did in fact mean ‘his’). Whatever their boasts were, of course both sides have litmus tests. The alternative is to have no core principles. The question is how wide-ranging and esoteric or bizarre a group’s litmus tests are. If such litmus tests as they have are closely related to a handful of core principles or issues, then that’s to be expected. But if their litmus tests cover the waterfront, then they’ve gone off the deep end. > [@](#): > > You didn’t have to believe the whole program to be welcome, whereas among liberals you couldn’t be pro-labor unless you also gave a shit about the Mississippi Stump Toad and saw it as all tied into the plight of women of color. I was there back then, I witnessed the howls of the pod people when they discovered there was an unconverted among them. Hey, I’m old enough to have encountered the tail end of 1960s radicalism. You don’t need to convince me. > [@](#): > > Meanwhile, the conservatives have united. What they hated about the liberals in the 90’s they have become in the new millennium – exclusionary, cynical of meritocracy, constantly decrying their victim status even in victory, always pushing their social engineering agenda in the public schools, relying on judicial activism to achieve what they couldn’t through the democratic process. You misspelled “60s.” For the Dems, the '90s were the era of NAFTA, welfare reform, and stuff like that. > [@](#): > > They learned from you, pinko. Why haven’t you learned from them? I’m not sure what you expect the left to have learned from the right, but it’s worth noting that it has learned some things. Like, think tanks matter. The right has had Hoover and Heritage and AEI; now the left has an actually much better group of think tanks fleshing out liberal ideas and giving them some policy cred. We’ve also learned some lessons both from contemporary right-wingers and the old left, one being that playing the victim card gets old with listeners fast. For instance, while there’s a lot of discussion in lefty circles about what the Dems should do about the filibuster, it’s generally agreed that whining publicly about the GOP’s use of it is pretty much a waste of time. Mend it, end it, or leave it alone, and deal with the elites’ criticism however you must, but just do it and be responsible for what you can or can’t do afterwards. > [@](#): > > You might have a point. Since he’s not _always_ lying his ass off to the very people who look to him to bring the truth down from the mountain, he should be exonerated in full. It’s my fault for having so little mercy in me. **Johnny Angel** , may I introduce you to Excluded Middle. Excluded Middle, **Johnny Angel**. > [@](#): > > Absolutely not! I’d be an inveterate attention slut myself except that so many things kept turning out, on examination, to be more important than me. Whatever. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2010, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-is-a-dishonest-hack/541915/124 "2010-06-05T21:58:44Z")
I’ve seen part of one M. Moore movie, **Sicko**. I found it quite effective & affecting. I will grant that parts (his Canadian relatives who will not cross into Michigan for even three hours without buying insurance) seem exaggerated, but the description of socialized medicine in the UK was in line with descriptions persons in the UK give, even incidentally, of going to hospital. ---
**Author:** ![yoyodyne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/a9a28c/32.png) [@yoyodyne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yoyodyne)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2010, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-is-a-dishonest-hack/541915/125 "2010-06-06T02:39:12Z")
I’m sure the Moore supporters will dismiss this (It’s not in a Chicago paper!), but I’ll throw it in anyway: [Institute on the Constitution](http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=573) ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2010, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-is-a-dishonest-hack/541915/126 "2010-06-06T03:48:42Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > To be fair to Moore regarding the Heston interview – At the time that interview took place, it had not yet been made public that Heston had Alzheimer’s. Moore didn’t know the guy had it. He thought he was talking to an NRA President (and vocal activist) of sound mind. He wasn’t knowingly exploiting Heston’s illness. THat may be true but his editing concerning Heston was dishonest in order to create the impression he wanted to make. Heston’s medical issues only accented what a dick he was being. the moment that turned me off the most was him accepting the award for best dicumentary, holding it aloft while talking saying “somebody has to expose the lies” I saw a hypocryte after that and have little interest in his work. We need honesty. I expect a film to reflect some bias but to be purposely dishonest in your editing just makes you as big a liar and liability as those you’re critisizing. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2010, 10:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-is-a-dishonest-hack/541915/127 "2010-06-06T10:42:10Z")
> [@yoyodyne](#): > > I’m sure the Moore supporters will dismiss this (It’s not in a Chicago paper!), but I’ll throw it in anyway: [http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=573](http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=573) Not only is it not in a Chicago paper, but it is written and published by, as Moore is quoted in the piece as saying, a wingnut who found Bush too liberal. Not exactly a strong cite. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2010, 12:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-is-a-dishonest-hack/541915/128 "2010-06-06T12:20:06Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Not only is it not in a Chicago paper, but it is written and published by, as Moore is quoted in the piece as saying, a wingnut who found Bush too liberal. > > Not exactly a strong cite. If they came from a source you found acceptable, would you agree that these are good examples of Moore’s deliberate dishonesty? Just curious. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2010, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-is-a-dishonest-hack/541915/129 "2010-06-06T14:40:06Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > If they came from a source you found acceptable, would you agree that these are good examples of Moore’s deliberate dishonesty? Just curious. I’d want to see the entire transcript, because we’re relying on Lofton’s claim about what he said that Moore objected to. Plus we can’t independently verify whether Moore’s other major claim - that the hosts of the show didn’t do anything to indicate that Lofton was anything other than a reasonably neutral or credible commentator - was true. I note that Lofton makes no attempt to rebut that claim, though. Hell, Lofton doesn’t even give a link to what Moore said about him, so that we could judge whether what he quoted represents the main thrust of Moore’s objections to him. So I’d like to see that too. It doesn’t matter if you, yourself, are a dubious source, if you link back to the original source material. ---
**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2010, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-is-a-dishonest-hack/541915/130 "2010-06-06T15:03:49Z")
_Roger & Me_ was pretty good, and I think fair, after that he sold his soul to the devil. As he’s previously said every time he’s called on his shit ‘he doesn’t make documentaries, he films his point of view.’ Selective editing to wedge in a deliberate attempt to be disingenuous is disgusting and ultimately undermines their cause, be it FOX’s conservative beliefs or Moore’s liberal ones. ---
**Author:** ![yoyodyne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/a9a28c/32.png) [@yoyodyne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yoyodyne)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2010, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-is-a-dishonest-hack/541915/131 "2010-06-06T16:19:47Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Not only is it not in a Chicago paper, but it is written and published by, as Moore is quoted in the piece as saying, a wingnut who found Bush too liberal. > > Not exactly a strong cite. Well of course Moore would have no personal reason to denigrate him, so he must be a wingnut. How about [http://article.nationalreview.com/268445/ibowlingi-truths/dave-kopel](http://article.nationalreview.com/268445/ibowlingi-truths/dave-kopel)? ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2010, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-is-a-dishonest-hack/541915/132 "2010-06-06T20:04:35Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > Michael Moore movies have evolved from" Roger and Me “onward. In Roger ,he was in a town that was gutted by the company store moving. (GM). His hometown became a mess. So he took it a bit personally. > But “Sicko” and Capitalism” have shown to many the alternatives ,that get no press in America. It also demonstrates the failures and flaws of the American systems . He has done a service. You will also note, the movies do not get on mainline TV. > Okeefe brings nothing. Yeah, I don’t think there’s a valid comparison between OKeefe and Moore. THat said, I don’t think intentionally distorting the details with selective editing adds much value to the debate on important issues. After realizing how distorted Bowling for Columbine was and the incident I mentioned above I haven’t bothered to watch any of Moore’s films. If I can’t trust him to tell me the truth in a film then I’m not that interested. His selective editing goes beyond focusing on one aspect of the story. He deliberatly creates a false impression. That’s lying in my book. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Midnight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/977dab/32.png) [@Captain\_Midnight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Midnight)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2010, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-is-a-dishonest-hack/541915/133 "2010-06-06T20:05:17Z")
Michael Moore is the Rush Limbaugh of the left. Michael Moore is entertaining enough to say what he wanted to say intwo hour bits. Michael are both fat opinioned loudmouths. ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2010, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-is-a-dishonest-hack/541915/134 "2010-06-06T20:05:45Z")
Like all propagandists, Moore starts out with a “reasonable” inference (e.g. "GM screwed Flint, MI). He then salts his thesis with half-truths, and progresses to totally outrageous conclusions. As in “Roger and Me”-he neglects the fact that his beloved UAW refused wage concessions that might have saved the GM factory. He also omits the fact that GM CEO Roger Smith tried harder than anyone to keep jobs in the USA (like setting up the now closed Saturn Division-which was killed by the UAW). He is a liar and dishonest, but a decent entertainer. Imagine…the evil Roger Smith forced that poor woman to be evicted! Or that pathetic woman who tried to raise rabbits for a living-Roger Smith’s hands were all over her! ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2010, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-is-a-dishonest-hack/541915/135 "2010-06-06T20:07:32Z")
> [@yoyodyne](#): > > Well of course Moore would have no personal reason to denigrate him, so he must be a wingnut. How about [http://article.nationalreview.com/268445/ibowlingi-truths/dave-kopel](http://article.nationalreview.com/268445/ibowlingi-truths/dave-kopel)? No, this is the guy who was the [communications director for the Constitution Party candidate’s 2004 Presidential campaign](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lofton). Basically, the political niche of the CP is for people who find the GOP insufficiently conservative. And of course, the 2004 GOP candidate was GWB. I wasn’t talking through my hat when I said this guy found Bush insufficiently conservative, nor was I taking Moore’s word for it. And no, the National Review website isn’t a good cite either. I’ve read them occasionally for years, and they go from biased to [flat-out batshit](http://davidbroder.blogspot.com/2008/10/corner-unhinged.html). ---
**Author:** ![yoyodyne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/a9a28c/32.png) [@yoyodyne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yoyodyne)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2010, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-is-a-dishonest-hack/541915/136 "2010-06-06T21:39:44Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > No, this is the guy who was the [communications director for the Constitution Party candidate’s 2004 Presidential campaign](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lofton). Basically, the political niche of the CP is for people who find the GOP insufficiently conservative. And of course, the 2004 GOP candidate was GWB. I wasn’t talking through my hat when I said this guy found Bush insufficiently conservative, nor was I taking Moore’s word for it. > > And no, the National Review website isn’t a good cite either. I’ve read them occasionally for years, and they go from biased to [flat-out batshit](http://davidbroder.blogspot.com/2008/10/corner-unhinged.html). Are you disputing the verity of the articles? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2010, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-is-a-dishonest-hack/541915/137 "2010-06-06T22:48:25Z")
**Arty** , disputing? **Arty** is an intelligent and perceptive person, he is sneering derisively. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2010, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-is-a-dishonest-hack/541915/138 "2010-06-06T22:59:41Z")
It can work. Sort of. Case one, a tighty righty wing-ding of the first water, way over the rainbow. Cannonades and barrages of fact and expert opinion are as nothing, his mind set is neutron-density and will not change, period, regardless, now and forever. Hopeless, gormless, a candidate for The Wall. Case two, a more or less conservative person whos politics are a mixture of upbringing, immediate culture, comfort and laziness. Sees a Mike Moore movie and is totally pissed-off at that lying scum, Mike Moore. In fact, goes to read up on it to gather ammunition. And finds out that even though Moore exaggerated the specifics, in general, the practice he invites us to abhor is real. Case two is now apprised of a fact he never would have gotten any other way. He has the creepy moment of doubt, hey, those leftys were actually right about something. And, in Heaven, another angel gets his internet connection… ---
**Author:** ![yoyodyne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/a9a28c/32.png) [@yoyodyne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yoyodyne)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2010, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-is-a-dishonest-hack/541915/139 "2010-06-06T23:14:05Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > And finds out that even though Moore exaggerated the specifics, in general, the practice he invites us to abhor is real. Case two is now apprised of a fact he never would have gotten any other way. He has the creepy moment of doubt, hey, those leftys were actually right about something. And what fact would that be? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2010, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-is-a-dishonest-hack/541915/140 "2010-06-06T23:25:39Z")
You pick one, I ain’t doing your work for you, this ain’t Tee-ball. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-is-a-dishonest-hack/541915.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-is-a-dishonest-hack/541915.md?page=8)