Every single time Michael Moore gets mentioned, somebody calls him a liar, propagandist, or whatever.
My simple request (I haven’t seen any of his films): Tell me what he lied about. I don’t want to know what he exaggerated- I want to know what he’s said that was a baldfaced lie.
Gentlemen, start your Googles.
Bowling For Columbine: there is no bank that gives you a free gun for starting an account there. That sequence was faked. True, it was faked to make a point, but it was faked.
Faked footage has no place in a documentary. By doing this, Michael Moore puts himself pretty much in the same camp with Rush Limbaugh: people who claim they’re “informing America,” but when caught with their facts down, back away, claiming, “I’m an entertainer, not a reporter.”
And that’s just one example.
Last I heard, Moore was still adamantly denying that he faked that sequence. Has he recanted, or has evidence since arisen to prove that he had faked it? I know the bank denies they ever gave out guns, but the last time I read one of these debates, I didn’t see any conclusive evidence that showed one side or the other was lying.
According to this site, the bank Moore visited does in fact pay interest on a CD in the form of a gun. And, in the sequence filmed, Moore received his gun at the bank from a real bank employee who was not acting. What Moore did not mention was that typically the customer must go to a gun dealer to pick up the gun, but they gave Moore his gun at the bank because he had made arrangements, including passing the background check, some time before the scene was filmed.
I’d have been a little more generous with the details than Moore was, but I don’t think this merits calling him a damned liar, at least not by the standards of partisan moviemaking. Try again.
This site, quite anti-Moore, says "North County Bank — like several other banks in the United States — allows people who buy a Certificate of Deposit to receive their interest in the form of a rifle or shotgun. " It goes into detail about the program, noting that there is actually a full background checking process, that ammunition is not handed out with the guns, and stating that normally the guns given out are kept in a completely different location. (in other words, NOT in the bank.) It says that “His immediately walking out of the bank with a long-gun was allowed because “this whole thing was set up two months prior to the filming of the movie” when he had already complied with all the rules, including a background check.”
Moore has a page up making a rebuttal of some of the common claims about Bowling for Columbine. HE says “Nothing was done out of the ordinary other than to phone ahead and ask permission to let me bring a camera in to film me opening up my account.” and “5 minutes later, just as you see it in the film, they handed me a Weatherby Mark V Magnum rifle…”
Moore’s site has an article that they state is from the Chicago Sun-Times, which discusses this whole banks-giving-out-guns thing. Here’s a picture of the bank’s ad, shown on both Moore’s site and the anti-Moore site.
It seems like the general thrust of Moore’s claim, that there is at least one bank that will or would allow qualifying customers to receive interest up front in the form of a gun, is or was true.
On preview: B’oh. Hyperelastic even found the same site! Ah well.
According to Hyperelastic’s link the scene is somewhat staged, in that Moore had to arrange in advance to actually have the gun there at the bank for him. But, I think that that moves this scene very clearly into exaggeration, rather than a real lie.
Let’s look at what actually happened:
The bank does give away free guns when you purchase a CD
They did, in fact, let Michael Moore go to the bank, fill out paperwork, open an account, and walk out with a gun.
Most of the complaints listed in that site are that the editing was done in such a way as to suggest the process was easier than it is, and to further his political agenda. Well, yeah, that’s true, but it doesn’t make him a liar.
The real point isn’t whether Moore is or isn’t a liar. The point is to make the debate on the man rather than his message. As long as people are focusing their arguments on whether the secret projects at the Lockheed plant contain missiles or spy satelites, and whether that makes Moore a liar, the message has been successfully surpressed.
Also on that site, the author points out some other incredibly misleading and nearly untrue words
He points out that someone has indeed been killed by a toaster :rolleyes:
Now all we have to do is somehow prove that Michael Moore had heard of it!
There are a lot of people living in a kind of fantasy world right now – it’s a separate reality in which the president is a nice guy who’s doing his best to guide us through a difficult situation. It’s a fantasy world with the USA as some kind of worldwide hero and possesor of moral superiority. Where US troops are always the good guys, never cruel or arbitrary killers and torturers. Where what they’re told on television is not only true, but complete in it’s presentation of all the facts.
Michael Moore’s documentaries run counter to this fantasy world, exposing parts of it to the cruel light of truth. This scares and angers the people who are living comfortably in their fantasy world. They strike back with hurtful words and accusations of falsity – if they can somehow make even part of Mr. Moores exposition less than factual, maybe they can relax back into their sweet, dreamlike state.
It’s killing the messenger, because that somehow makes the message less painful.
I’ve been called a liar I think three or four times on this board, but never because I was actually lying. As best as I can recall, it was never even because I posted something that was incorrect but that I believed to be true. It always seems to have been because I failed to agree with the person who wound up calling me a liar.
So I guess that’s all it takes for some people – if you don’t agree with them, you’re a liar. A lot of people don’t agree with Michael Moore, so he’s a liar too. But, like you, I have yet to see any evidence that any of his films contain actual lies. Exaggerations (usually for comic effect), yes. Speculation, yes, although he usually seems to make it pretty clear that he is speculating. But intentionally saying something he knew to be false? Not that I know of. I’ve read through the whole hideous “Bowling for Truth” site and the guy’s got nothing. Given the number of enemies and opponents Moore has, if real evidence that he were a real liar existed I’d expect it to be readily available.
It’s easier to call Moore a liar (usually by repeating what some right-wing dittohead told you) than it is to watch his movies and think for yourself.
IMO, you can easily spot the folks who haven’t watched Bowling for Columbine; they’re the ones who call it an “anti-gun film.” If anything, it’s an “anti-media-driven-culture-of-excessive-fear film,” but that doesn’t roll off the tongue as well.
Let me preface this post by saying that I support Michael Moore. I think he is doing a great service by telling the truth and doing it in such a way that people pay attention.
But if he intentionally left his viewers with any false impressions in Bowling for Columbine – even if “technically” he told the truth, then he is still hung up at the same adolescent* understanding of honesty: I didn’t tell a lie; therefore, I am honest.
(The word adolescent is used here because this particular standard of morality is not uncommon in adolescent psychological development. I wouldn’t slam any of you rascals personally.)
It puts Moore at the same standard of integrity that George W. Bush had when, in his State of the Union Message, he said, “British Intelligence has learned…” Technically that was true. But he knew that what that had claimed to learn was false. (I’m paraphrasing the Bush quote.)
I’m not saying that Michael Moore’s misrepresentation rises to the level of importance of Bush’s – only that there is a similar standard for those two occasions.
It is imperative that Michael Moore’s films remain above reproach. If he took shortcuts before, I’ll bet that he will think twice before he does it again.
I know, I know, this is the Pit, and most people who post will be doing so to weigh in on Michael Moore. Still, I’d rather have people just answering the question.
So far Master Wang-Ka is the only one to point out a lie, which may or may not actually be one depending on your definition of “lie” and/or your reading of the facts.
Come on, guys- Moore gets way too much vitriol on the Boards for this to be the only barefaced lie (if it was one) in his films.
In other words, put up or shut up.
Perhaps he’s more like Jack Nicholson’s character in Something’s Gotta Give: “I always told you some form of the truth.” 
Fuck me.
I haven’t seen BfC, but your banks give out GUNS?!!!
I am sort of laughing and terrified at the same time.
I recently listened to the “Dude Where’s My Country” audio version of the book, and he was seriously wrong about one thing: he was sure there was no hope of defeating Bush in 2004. That’s certainly not looking like a lock anymore! 
More seriously, I found he tended to make some conclusions that did not follow from the evidence. For example, because there were Saudis on the 9/11 planes, and it’s hard to hit targets at 500 mph, he speculated that the pilots were really from the Saudi armed forces, and 9/11 was an attack by the Saudi Arabia gov’t.
Because of the Saudi data being censored from the official 9/11 report, I suspect something is being hidden, but likely just more embarrassing ties between the Saudis (and maybe the bin Laden family) and the Bush family. I fail to see the motive in the Saudis attacking us, beyond a few religions fanatics working on their own. Why attack one of your biggest (maybe THE biggest) customers? Doesn’t make sense. And although I have no idea how hard it is to fly a plane into a building at speed, I suspect if you train enough people, even with simulators in Florida, you’ll find at least 3 who can do it.
I don’t think this counts as a lie, just being wrong.
I don’t think Moore has a dishonest character, and I will tell you why. I’m convinced that Moore is basically an honest man because BfC is nowhere near as anti-gun as it could have been or, more importantly, as Moore originally intended it to be. It’s clear from the movie that Moore went into the project with certain ideas and theories, and it’s equally clear that he discovered during the movie’s production that some of these ideas and theories were wrong. The problem was more complicated than he’d thought, and there wasn’t an easy solution. He says as much himself.
He didn’t have to. He could have made a movie with a clearer message, something like “Guns = bad” or “High levels of private gun ownership cause high levels of gun violence.” I probably would have been happy with such a movie. From a strictly cinematic perspective this might have even improved the film, as the latter portion suffers from a certain lack of focus. Moore could have ignored the things he learned and pretended that all the evidence supported his original thesis and that he had all the answers. Instead, he made a film that’s not just about gun violence in America but about exploring a complex issue and discovering that it’s even more complex than you expected. This strikes me as the work of a man who is honest in a deeper way than just “not technically telling lies”.
This guy is making an documentary called Michael Moore hates America. I watched the trailers, and while it is anti-Moore, it seems to be as much about how a documentary is, by its very nature, selective in the “truth” that it presents, and that Moore is good at making sure his message is put across and exploits situations (such as the bank scene) to his benefit.
Grim
There is only one truth. Exaggerations are not the truth.
If you state that a bank gives out guns at the branch for buying a CD, when they don’t, that is a lie. When you omit the part about making special arrangements for your movie to get the gun at the bank, going through a complete background check beforehand, that is a lie of omission.
He deliberately set up that scene to give his viewers the impression that one can waltz into a bank, buy a CD and walk out with a gun. If you were to try that yourself a day before he filmed his sequence, you would not have succeeded. Therefore, his film does not depict reality, and since the film is a documentary, that make him, IMHO, a liar.
If it weren’t for all the anti-Moore folks trying to prove him wrong, would anybody doubt Moore’s version of the events? Would anybody know that the normal transaction consists of going to a licensed gun dealer and getting a full background check?
There are a lot of people living in a kind of fantasy world right now – it’s a separate reality in which the president is an evil guy who’s doing his best to guide us into a pit of Doom. It’s a fantasy world with the USA as some kind of worldwide villain and posessed by corparate interests. Where US troops are always the bad guys, and the enemy is never cruel or arbitrary killers and torturers. Where what they’re told on television is not only true, but complete in it’s presentation of all the facts.
Michael Moore’s detractors’ facts run counter to this fantasy world, exposing parts of it to the cruel light of truth. This scares and angers the people who are living comfortably in their fantasy world. They strike back with hurtful words and accusations of falsity – if they can somehow make even part of the detraction less than factual, maybe they can relax back into their sweet, dreamlike state.
It’s killing the messenger, because that somehow makes the message less painful.
:wally
