Michael Moore is a prick of the highest order.

The BBQ Pit
1

I thought of putting this in GD originally, but it’s not worth it. If Moore can’t keep on the level of reasonable debate, why should I?

Recently, on MSNBC’s “Crosstalk,” Moore appeared and made some comments about Bowling for Columbine. During the discussion, Moore spouted this little gem:

(bolding mine)

Is he serious? I mean, really… he gets to play fast and loose with the facts, and then this?

I guess his first statement there, that every “fact” in his film is true, is at least debateable. However, the fact that some have already done a good job of debunking the films many inaccuracies and exaggerations is grounds to believe that Moore is once again being (at least) disingenuous. I guess it depends in what your definition of “facts” is. :wink:

But what really gets me is his claim of “libel.” I’m no lawyer, but I don’t think there’s any grounds for this. If what he says were true, then he himself is also guilty of libel for calling out the Bush Administration on their inaccuracies and exaggerations. It just doesn’t make sense to me, but perhaps a lawyer can chime in and confirm or clarify this.

As for Moore, he’s really just digging himself deeper and deeper to me. I may be in agreement with some of what he’s saying (but not all… far from all), but the way he says it is worthy of Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, or our own dearly-departed december. A comparison to Coulter is perhaps most accurate, as like her, Moore’s final folly is that he actually takes himself seriously.

Moore, if you happen to read this, then know this: you’re the only one who takes you seriously anymore. To the rest of us, you’re a fucking joke. Get over yourself.

There, I feel better.

(Full disclosure: I was originally clued into Moore’s arrogance in this instance from another Spinsanity article, this one about changes made to the DVD version of “Bowling”. This in itself is interesting… if Moore claims that all the facts in his film are true, then why “fix” them for the DVD?)

2

I haven’t see the movie (IHSTM?) or the program, so I can’t really comment on the specifics, but my guess would be that he is trying to turn the tables on his critics with a little tongue-in-cheek. You said:

I would say he’s throwing their strategies right back in their faces.

3

Michael Moore an ass?

In other news, the sun sets in the west!

4

If that’s the case, then he’s committing himself to a parody of Andy Kaufman proportions. Every appearance he makes seems to packed with this sort of thing, and he seems to take himself entirely seriously.

So, maybe he’s pulling a Kaufman and I’m whooshed. Frankly, I doubt that’s the case, but I’ll concede it as a possibility. Anyone else think he’s doing this?

World Eater: I know. Surprise, surprise.

5

But what about bears pooping?

6

Mighod.

It’s the Anti-Limbaugh… the Bizarro Limbaugh… a “Bleeding Heart Liberal” who acts like a selfrighteous jerk and demands that everything that falls out of his mouth is ghod’s truth.

I guess we shouldn’t be SURPRISED…

7

I don’t have a cite, but I recall reading it was in the woods.

8

Every significant fact in BFC is true. There was some lighthearted editing spin done in a couple of scenes (like the open doors in Canada) but everything important was true. Most of the “debunking” horseshit (like the lying, libelous falsehood that the bank scene was staged) hasitself been debunked.

9

Don’t suppose I could ask for the definition of “significant fact,” could I? As opposed to “insignificant facts?”

10

I would say that that is a lame defense of Moore’s tactics. It’s akin to folks who make some unsupported claim of fact…and when called on it , back step furiously and say they were just joking.

The issue of whether Moore told the truth in Bowling has been hotly debated in many quarters…with some calling for the return of his Oscar for his “documentary” (snicker).

He’s a repeat liar, pure and simple. Any opinion spewed from his mouth is tainted by that fact.

11

I dunno, I haven’t seen the interview in question, but I’d guess that he was being straight-up serious here. When Moore goes for the comedy, he usually goes for an exaggeration so ludicrous that it’s apparent to everyone that he’s putting his tongue in his cheek. This is a bit subtle than his usual style.

I’m not sure how I feel about Michael Moore these days. I liked his earlier work, especially the TV Nation television series, and I found Bowling for Columbine to be thought-provoking but flawed. But lately, it seems like he’s flying off the cliff into la-la land, and I get the suspicion that this is just the start of his downfall…

12

Rush Limbaugh has, on many occasions, been called on the fact that items he has reported on his radio and television shows have turned out to be other than true.

Limbaugh has, on several occasions, simply declared that he was kidding. He has also gone so far as to declare that he is not a reporter or an anchorman, and that his show is not a news show; that he is an ENTERTAINER, nothing more. The implication here is that Limbaugh may attempt to make his show look like a news show, he may attempt to garner credibility, but that he is under no obligation to tell the truth, and may say anything he likes, true or not, and even attempt to get his audience to BELIEVE it.

It disheartens me to think that Michael Moore is really nothing more than Limbaugh with a different political spin.

13

“There was some lighthearted editing spin done”

Good one.

God I would hate to see him use the big guns.

14

The difference between Moore and Limbaugh is that Moore DOES NOT FUCKING LIE!!
Prove one fucking lie, motherfuckers. One fucking lie. You can’t fucking do it.

Conservatives just can’t handle the truth.

15

Let the record state that I think Rush is an ass as well.

16

Just a nitpick:

The Oxford English Dictionary defines the word “fact” thus

Given that a fact is, by definition, something that is true, Moore’s statement that “every fact in the film is true” is not only correct, but is something of a pleonasm.

17

Nay, imho.

Politics aside, he’s an accomplished self-publicist who is, here, presumably and purposefully stirring up a little media controversy. That may be because he just wants to keep his name ‘up there’ or he may have a DVD release coming up or he may be playing his angle before pitching the next one to a studio. Who knows. Thing is, he’s bright enough to know the claim is nonsense.

No substance to the claim but it does its job by us discussing it. IMHO.

18

Take a look at this DTC

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

19

We just saw the DVD of “Bowling” this weekend and I thought it was magnificent. I read the first “Spinsanity” link (the second one’s down right now) and their criticisms strike me as stupid.

  1. Money to Afghanistan - the figure I heard was $43 million to the Taliban gov’t in 2001 as a reward for destroying poppy fields. Not in food and humanitarian aid, but as part of the “war on drugs”. I don’t know about figures from 2000; perhaps Moore’s dollar amount was an exaggeration, but I thought the point itself was valid.

  2. Didn’t it strike anyone else as hilarious that the guy talking about not solving problems via violence was standing right in front of a big bomb that his company sells?

  3. The UK/US culture comparison requires a lot more depth and thought than simply noting our shared bombing in Yugoslavia; Moore’s point about 68 gun deaths was made in a specific context within a global statement. Even if you toss out the UK as a particular example, the other countries he cites make the point compelling.

  4. I understood him to state quite clearly that Canada and US are very different in terms of poverty. He interviewed at least one man who said they had no real slums in Canada, IIRC. He then went on to discuss Flint and the welfare-to-work program in great detail.

  5. Frankly I thought his criticism of Heston had as much to do with Heston’s insensitivity to victims of gun violence as anything else, especially since Moore’s not completely anti-gun. It seems that the NRA wasn’t willing to let people grieve in peace, they had to grandstand and rally their troops. Does it really seem appropriate for them to do that? Wouldn’t it be better to consider gun issues more rationally, to try to work together towards a constructive solution rather than just shouting “don’t blame us”?

  6. I found Spinsanity’s argument circular. Moore’s criticism of the media’s fear culture went far beyond gun violence and into a wide range of fears shouted by the evening news. “What you don’t know about xxx could kill you”. Isn’t it possible for the media to discuss issues in a non-hysterical way? Aren’t they provoking a knee-jerk reaction by getting people riled up in the name of good ratings? They approach every issue like it’s a crisis.

  7. The point about lightning strikes was just dumb. The point of the movie is that school shootings are bizarre and tragic, and they make all of us wonder “what happened?”, not that it’s statistically likely to happen to anyone else.

I’ll have to watch the VHS version to see if significant changes were made; that might well alter my view. But based on what I’ve seen, it’s a great film IMHO.

On preview I see there’s another link I should follow; unfortunately I don’t have time right now as I have to RETURN this fucking PRINTER that has magically decided NOT TO WORK right when I have a PROJECT to COMPLETE. But I look forward to learning more about this issue when I have a moment.

20

So next someone will post a detailed argument about Gulliver’s Travels indicating there aren’t really any giants or little people. . .a satirist is a satirist, be he Swift or Moore.