Starving’s holding out for the third choice to explain even the monumental fuck-ups that are acknowledged by members of the Bush Admin themselves.
Why he chooses to do so is a matter for speculation.
Bush can’t have lied because Clinton lied too. Therefore, Moore can’t have lied because three people cannot lie. Ah, nothing like stamping out ignorance.
Moore was a naughty boy for modifying that headline. Especially when it so wasn’t necessary. The point would have been well made without it: There was a lot of disagreement about the results of the 2000 election. Is this contestable, people?
The OP makes me laugh. Out of all the information presented in the film–out of all the compelling testimony, suspicious documents, and dramatic footage of soldiers and civilians getting their vitals blown up–this one example of overexuberant Adobe Photo Shopping is enough to invalidate an entire movie? It only invalidates it to the person who is actively looking for a reason to dismiss the film without even watching it. It is desperation at its most pathetic. But I’m glad milroij and others have finally found the excuse they’ve spent two months searching for. It probably took a lot of hard work. We should give them a round of applause.
::golf claps::
Someone out there is saying if this is proof that Moore used dishonesty at least once in this move, how can we trust anything else he says? My answer: You don’t have to. No one is holding a gun to your head, forcing you to believe anything blindly. There are plenty of books, articles, and websites out there to verify Moore’s claims, so there is no need to fear that untruths will seep into your brain against your wishes. But why even worry? The person who would ask such a question probably wasn’t planning on viewing the movie anyway; this is just their excuse for not seeing it. Very well.
To everyone who thinks this “lie” destroys the trustworthiness of the movie, what is your opinion of the Bible? Does the presence of minor biblical inconsistencies mean that we shouldn’t believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ? If not, you got some 'splainin to do.
Well, it’s arguably a bit more “whine-worthy” when the person lying or being misleading or dishonest is the President of the United States, not just some random liberal – or even a famous liberal – who isn’t a politician at all. If you don’t trust Michael Moore you can avoid watching his movies, but the US is pretty much stuck with Bush at the helm until the end of his term whether he’s trustworthy or not.
Michael Moore’s not really a journalist in the first place, is he? I guess one could define the term broadly enough to include him, but I don’t think he’s a journalist in the traditional sense and AFAIK doesn’t bill himself as such. Not being a journalist doesn’t give one a free pass to lie all the live-long day of course, but it’s foolish to expect journalistic integrity from non-journalists. Actual professional journalists often have enough trouble living up to that standard.
Are you truly incapable of understanding the differences between a modern documentary and an anthology of somewhat related books assembled 1500 years ago, and authored over an even longer period by people who didn’t necessarily understand modern concepts of truth and fiction?
Seriously–your analogy is so inept that I believe you’re either stupid or (and I think this is the more likely scenario) you’re trying to push a hot-button topic in order to annoy your opponents and provoke a reaction, thereby diverting attention from the topic of this thread.
OK, you have a good point. I should have said “his integrity has a documentarian.”
When I go to a documentary (as I did when I saw F911 on opening day), I expect the images that are presented to me to be real images, unless I’m told they aren’t. This is the defining characteristic of a documentary. Just to make this point clear:
When a documentarian inserts fictional material into his documentaries, and doesn’t tell his audience, he loses credibility. I don’t see why this should be a controversial point.
Metacomm Please define your term “modern documentary.” Are you under the impression that slavish adherence to an absolute standard of truthfullness has been mandated by congress? Doesn’t stylistic rigidity sometimes cause the larger truth to be muddied by irrelevent detail?
How about that recent NOVA documentary on Gamma Ray Bursters? I was shocked at how their unwillinginess to detail current theories of quantum gravity led to gross simplification of complex issues and yes, even the occasional UNTRUTH.
Pretty much any documentary is “modern,” I included the word to contrast a purportedly non-fictional document created recently with a collection of different documents that were written a long time ago in very different cultures.
No, I think you’re the first person to bring up congress in this context in this thread.
The defining characteristic of a documentary is that the images and footage shown are not imaginary. Fabricating an edition of a newspaper and presenting it as if it were real constitutes showing imaginary footage, which is contradictory to the nature of the film has a documentary. Violating the entire principle on which a film is based (i.e., showing actual images) is not an irrelevent detail.
If the audience is incapable of understanding complex scientific theories, then I think it’s acceptable to simplify things in order to give them an understanding of the “big picture.” This is widely accepted.
If, on the other hand, the director of the NOVA documentary had decided that Professor Frink’s theories about the Gama Ray Bursters were the ones that were ultimately correct, and had shown imaginary footage of others in the field saying that Professor Frink was right, then that would not be acceptable.
Wrong. Documentaries routinely include re-created scenes. In some cases, filming the actual event would not have been possible. Sometimes, the “real” footage isn’t clear enough to get the point across. As long as the re-created scenes don’t distort the truth of what they purport to illustrate, no one gets very excited about it.
I noticed that too! I’m also real sure that x-rays aren’t blue. Clearly, very subtle political propaganda, inferring a “blue state” for super-massive stars! What a pack of lying scum! And I’m also sure that they grossly underestimated the implications of quantum “foam” for Heisenberg Theory!
Well, maybe not sure. Pretty sure.
Got no big fondness for MM, his book Stupid White Men bored me to tears, but Canadian Bacon was funny, easy to dance to, an 85.
But he sure knows how to tie a knot in the knickers of All the Right People. Can’t remember when I’ve seen such spasms of self-righteous anxiety. Now, maybe that isn’t a “documentary”, maybe it isn’t factually correct, maybe it isn’t even a very nice thing to say about GeeDubya (Praise the Leader!), maybe it isn’t even newsworthy.
But it damn sure is a hoot! No maybe about that.
Look, try and grasp this. There is no “hive-mind”, just because some guy disses the Leader, doesn’t make him my bestest buddy. So far as I know, thats about the only thing he’s got right. But even if me and every remotely “lefty” Doper came in here and were reduced to blubbering sobs of woe and humiliation and fling ourselves at your feet, begging for mercy, it don’t matter. He landed his punch weeks ago, it’s over, for good or ill.
'Bout all you can do now is bitch and check for loose teeth. But don’t stop on my account, I am having a good time!
So why do you think there are two different words: ‘misleading’ and ‘lie’?
Could it be that your chain of ‘logic’ above is misleading?
Presumably you accept that an ‘inaccurate’ statement ‘leads in a wrong direction’. So you believe any ‘inaccuracy’ is a ‘lie’?
As I understand it, the material was not fictional, but came from another part of the paper. (I agree Moore should have been more accurate.)
Since you have inserted this fiction on this very message board, presumably your credibility is shot? :rolleyes:
What really appalls me about this thread is that one brief inaccuracy has been seized upon as if it invalidates the whole film.
Surely the key point is that the President has committed a series of errors which have led to thousands of deaths, immense damage to the reputation of the US and made the world a more dangerous place.
Hopefully the truth will continue to come out.
So, if two words can’t have the same meaning, I suppose the word “synonym” doesn’t exist.
by Metacom
Yes, I am very capable of distinguishing between those things. The thing is, there’s a lot of people out there–of lot of whom would refuse to see F911 on the grounds you’ve espoused in this thread–who believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God. When told that there are inconsistencies–some small, some bigger than small–they nevertheless continue to believe in Jesus and his divinity, even when their only evidence is the very book that makes the claim. Do you see anything strange with that?
I’m not saying Moore doesn’t play fast and loose with facts. I’m not saying he is an altogether Honest Human Being. Not one time have I ever defended the man on the Straight Dope. If he died, I would not cry. But I will defend the movie. And I’m sorry, the little piece of deception that the OP is ranting about does not discredit any of the claims that the movie makes. It may discredit Moore’s trustworthiness, but if everything else in the movie stacks up to scrutiny, the fact that an headline has been creatively altered does not affect the veracity of the other claims. Most people who saw the movie would understand this. If you don’t, I’m so so sorry.
Funny how you don’t even bother to answer the question; you just resort to typical Pit-like behavior. But what’s new under the sun?
The op-ed section is the part of the newspaper that’s designated for opinions. The front page of the newspaper is where factual stories go. Taking a headline from the op-ed section, and fabricating an edition of the newspaper where that headline appears on the front makes it appear as if the newspaper was reporting the opinion has fact. He created an image of something that didn’t exist (the headline on the front page) and presented it as if it did exist. I consider that to be inserting something fictional into his film. YMMV.
No, that hasn’t been seized on. Have you even bothered to read the thread? The issue is Moore’s credibility, not the validity of his film.
In other words, you acknowledge that MM is a liar, but that’s OK with you, as long as he got his punches in at Bush. The end justifies the means, right?
No, there is a word ‘synonym’. Would you like me to give you the definition?
(I have this splendid device called a dictionary, you see. I use that rather than your practice of defining words to mean whatever you want.)
Now the thread title calls Moore a liar.
All that’s been proved is that he was misleading in one shot in the 2 hour film.
You claim that ‘misleading’ and liar’ are always identical. Well, they are not.
P.S. In your definition, is inaccurate = lie?
Right. And in such situations, the audience knows that they’re not seeing a real scene, so there’s no need to tell them. In this situation, the audience thought they were being shown real newspaper headlines (I certainly did!), so Moore had an obligation to disclose that he had shown an imaginary edition of a real newspaper.
I imagine he didn’t because saying “Oh, by the way, I’m going to show you a series of newspapers editions in order to further my point that Bush stole the 2000 election. By the way, I made up some of these editions” would weaken his argument somewhat.
I’m afraid I can’t quote your quote of the dictionary properly, so I’ll just paste it here:
"doc-u-men-ta-ry, adj.
- Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.
- Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film."
This may be what the dictionary says, but I can assure you that such a definition was not used in any film class I ever took. I don’t think any of my professors would have accepted that it was even possible to make a film that “presented facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter”. But if that’s the definition of “documentary” you want to use, then Moore’s clearly no documentarian either. Setting aside the question of fictional matter for a moment, all of his movies contain obvious editorializing. There can be no doubt about that, and I’d expect that everyone would know it before they bought their tickets.
Now this is a valid criticism. Moore’s editorializing is done openly, so whether one thinks such things belong in a documentary or not it’s pretty easy to pick it out and disregard it if you choose. If he’s attempting to pass off fictional material as fact then the audience might not have that freedom, as they may genuinely be confused as to what’s real and what’s not.
However, in the world of film the question of “what’s real” is a bit murky. If Moore were being accused of merely retyping the headline in a different font I wouldn’t consider it a credibility issue at all. It would technically be a “fictional” newspaper page, but I think making cosmetic changes like that is within acceptable bounds when you’re working in a visual medium. The charges against Moore are a bit more serious than that, though. I’d want to see a side-by-side of the actual newspaper and the shot from the movie before making the call as to whether it was an acceptable cosmetic change to material that really did appear in that newspaper or an unacceptable misrepresentation of the newspaper’s content.
It’s not a matter of inaccuracy. As has been explained already, he tried to present opinion as fact. That, in and of itself, is dishonest. The changing of dates, fonts, and typefaces is further proof that the dishonesty was intentional, i.e., it took deliberate action on MM’s part to perpetuate the lie. Inaccuracy would be a typo or a botched date or an unchecked source. MM went out of his way to make this particular lie.