# Michael Moore = Liar. Why? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 14, 2004, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-liar-why/250240 "2004-06-14T04:15:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2004, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-liar-why/250240/261 "2004-06-24T19:19:17Z")
IMO, Stephen Whitty said it best, in his review of **Fahrenheit 9/11:** > [@](#): > > [**Moore film questions war in Iraq**](http://www.nj.com/movies/ledger/index.ssf?/base/entertainment-1/1087975051222620.xml) > > EVERY FEW YEARS, Michael Moore makes a movie. Every few years, Michael Moore makes some people deeply worried. > > No, not his targets. His supporters. > > They’re the people who deplored the corporate callousness that was killing Flint, Mich., yet still flinched at Moore’s dramatic rearrangement of timelines in “Roger & Me.” > > They’re the people who would place the National Rifle Association next to the tobacco lobbyists in Dante’s circles of hell, yet still found “Bowling for Columbine” hysterical and even a little mean. > > They’re people who agree with what Michael Moore says – but refuse to defend to the death the way he insists on saying it. > [@sleeping](#): > > Well, literally speaking, no pundit can ever lie about _everything,_ but I think “his works are slanted, selectively edited, and occasionally employ the same disregard for the facts that his foes use” enough that he’s not a good source of information. I have the same feelings about George W. Bush, but whenever he says something, I don’t automatically dismiss it as false – I go to the SDMB, find out what’s the truth behind the matter, and _then_ dismiss it as false. 🙂 I give Moore the same (dis)courtesy, which is more than most of his detractors do – who, ironically enough, are usually the same folks who accept Bush’s pontifications without question. > [@sleeping](#): > > I haven’t read Al Franken’s book but from what I understand it was pretty good–he doesn’t go to the lengths Moore does; mostly he just seems to engage in name calling which is juvenile, but hardly lying. Last I checked, even [Spinsanity.com](http://Spinsanity.com) couldn’t find any factual errors with Franken’s book. Definitely worth a read, IMO. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2004, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-liar-why/250240/262 "2004-06-25T20:29:35Z")
You do know that Moore dislikes Democrats, don’t you? ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2004, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-liar-why/250240/263 "2004-06-25T21:41:02Z")
Of course. Which makes all those accusations that Moore’s just carrying Kerry’s water that much more laughable. As is the notion that Moore has to be making a working-class salary to discuss working-class issues, per my physician analogy earlier. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2004, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-liar-why/250240/264 "2004-06-25T21:51:10Z")
I don’t think he’s carrying Kerry’s water, but he is certainly pissing in Bush’s. Take, for example, the charge he makes that Bush let the Bin Ladin family go home shortly after September 11. He makes a really big deal out of it both in the film (so he says) and in interviews. But there isn’t anything remarkable about that, unless it is Bush’s kindness and compassion toward innocent people who otherwise might have suffered the wrath of idiots like Moore, who apparently blames the whole family for the sins of its lone black sheep. It wasn’t a good time to be Arab in America, much less Arab with the name Bin Laden. Moore is a dick. ---
**Author:** ![SnakeSpirit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snakespirit/32/7271_2.png) [@SnakeSpirit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SnakeSpirit)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2004, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-liar-why/250240/265 "2004-06-25T22:03:11Z")
Getting back to the OP, I came across an online article regarding Moore, his (lack of) trustworthiness, and how he is viewed by various factions. Rather than post the whole thing here, [click here (X)](http://www.townhall.com/columnists/mikeadams/ma20040624.shtml) to link to a great townhall article by Mike S. Adams. ---
**Author:** ![SnakeSpirit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snakespirit/32/7271_2.png) [@SnakeSpirit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SnakeSpirit)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2004, 5:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-liar-why/250240/266 "2004-07-02T05:21:55Z")
Click on [this link](http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm) to see a take on the accuracy, or lack thereof, of his new “Docudrama.” ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2004, 5:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-liar-why/250240/267 "2004-07-02T05:31:39Z")
Having read through the National Review article, I don’t really see any evidence of _lying_, just a lot of whining and handwringing about selective editing and things that “Moore implies without saying,” (and I hate to be tautological, but if he didn’t say it it can’t be a lie, can it? Cuz he couldn’t have said what the article admits he didn’t say, if you get what I’m saying). Nice try, but I’s still got zero lies on my scorecard. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2004, 11:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-liar-why/250240/268 "2004-07-02T11:18:11Z")
> [@Snakespirit](#): > > Click on [this link](http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm) to see a take on the accuracy, or lack thereof, of his new “Docudrama.” A fascinating read, thanks. I would like to see Mhendo’s analysis of it. ---
**Author:** ![gum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/bbe5ce/32.png) [@gum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gum)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2004, 11:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-liar-why/250240/269 "2004-07-02T11:51:53Z")
Originally Posted by **Snakespirit** > [@](#): > > - > > Click on this [this link](http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm) to see a take on the accuracy, or lack thereof, of his new “Docudrama.”\* Thanks, **Snakespirit**. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2004, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-liar-why/250240/270 "2004-07-02T14:21:45Z")
Here are a few quick observations regarding the falsity of this “wonderful review.” The author refers to 56 deceits. Here’s a deconstruction of the first six – I suspect the rest will be just as dubious. > [@](#): > > ”Deceit 1” Fahrenheit 911 begins on election night 2000. We are first shown the Al Gore rocking on stage with famous musicians and a high-spirited crowd. The conspicuous sign on stage reads “Florida Victory.” Moore creates the impression that Gore was celebrating his victory in Florida. Actually, the rally took place in the early hours of election day, before polls had even opened. Gore did campaign in Florida on election day, but went home to Tennessee to await the results. The “Florida Victory” sign reflected Gore’s hopes, not any actual election results. (“Gore Campaigns Into Election Day,” Associated Press, Nov. 7, 2000.) This is a deceit? Moore opens the film by describing this as a “dream.” I really don’t understand calling this any shade of lie, and opening with such a dubious assertion calls this author’s credibility immediately into question. > [@](#): > > ”Deceit 2” The film shows CBS and CNN calling Florida for Al Gore. According to the narrator, “Then something called the Fox News Channel called the election in favor of the other guy….All of a sudden the other networks said, ‘Hey, if Fox said it, it must be true.’” > > At 10:00 p.m., which network took the lead in retracting the premature Florida result? The first retracting network was CBS, not Fox. > > Over four hours later, at 2:16 a.m., Fox projected Bush as the Florida winner, as did all the other networks by 2:20 a.m. Here the author is again being deceitful. He attempts to counter Moore’s discussion of “calling the race for the other guy,” with discussion about retracting the call for Gore. Not the same. > [@](#): > > VNS projected Florida for Gore early on election night, and all six of its media members did, too. VNS did not call the race for Bush; five of its six members did, some citing numbers provided by VNS. The AP never called the race for Bush. [CNN.copm](http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/17/vns.ap/).Bolding is mine. > [@](#): > > Fox News Channel was the first to declare Bush the victor in Florida at 2:16 a.m. ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN had all done so by 2:20. The AP, relying on analysis that showed significant votes were still unreported from heavily Democratic counties, never made that call. As is evident in the linked article, and in the article under discussion, there was a call made for Gore based on the VNS numbers. Polling estimations are made by asking people when they come out of polling places who they voted for, no? Given that hundreds, if not thousands of people came out of the Broward County polling places having believed that they voted for Gore when they actually voted for Buchanan, it makes sense that asking these people who they voted for would make it seem like Gore would win. The point that Moore makes in the film and that this “reviewer” washes over is that VNS did call the race for Gore, and then retracted this. VNS never called the race for Bush. Despite this, Fox News Channel did, the others followed suit, and then retracted this call. In the days that followed, public opinion was crucial – so important that the republicans had their operatives posing as protestors in that famous picture in the hallway, and made up all those “Sore Loserman” signs. > [@](#): > > ”Deceit 3” […]Michael Moore shows a clip of CNN analyst Jeffrey Toobin saying that if ballots had been recounted in Florida after the 2000 presidential vote, “under every scenario Gore won the election.” This one is already under discussion in GD. I have not read Toobin’s book, but I will try to do so this weekend to assess the validity of this assertion. It is worth noting that this reviewer has cropped the quote to exclude the issue of “statewide recounts” that is in the Toobin quote, and then used limited recount claims to refute the misstated assertion. Deceitful. > [@](#): > > ”Deceits” 4-5: The movie lauds an anti-Bush riot that took place in Washington, D.C., on the day of Bush’s inauguration. It lauds them? How? I cannot find deceit #4. It can’t be the following: > [@](#): > > Moore continues: “No President had ever witnessed such a thing on his inauguration day. And for the next eight months it didn’t get any better for George W. Bush. He couldn’t get his judges appointed; he had trouble getting his legislation passed; and he lost Republican control of the Senate. His approval ratings in the polls began to sink.” Has any president ever faced such a protest and had eggs thrown at their limo? The reviewer goes on to assess the rest of this deceit by saying it was true, but it was the fault of the Democrats in the Senate. He even notes that Jim Jeffords left the Republican party. His primary argument for the deceit of Moore’s claim appears to be that the tax cut passed. I think the following is supposed to be “deceit” 5. [quote] Did Bush’s approval ratings begin to sink? Not really. Moore shows a screen displaying Bush with 53% job approval on May 3, and 45% on September 5. Strangely, the screen shot includes no source for this alleged poll.[…] ``` According [to Ruggles’ chart of “major polls”], never during 2001 did Bush’s approval rating fall as low as 45% in any of the polls. ``` Easily found at PollingReport.com is this poll. I agree that it would have been helpful for Moore to cite it. Moore’s general point about a decline in Bush’s polling numbers, however, is easily supported by a review of the other polls archived at the site. > [@](#): > > Investor’s Business Daily/Christian Science Monitor poll conducted by TIPP, the polling arm of TechnoMetrica Market Intelligence. June 1-6, 2004. N=1,003 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.1. > > 10/3-7/01 - 82; \*\*9/5-9/01 - 45; 8/8-12/01 - 45 \*\*; 7/12-16/01 - 47 > 6/7-10/01 - 46; **5/3-7/01 - 52** ; 4/6-10/01 - 44; 3/8-12/01 - 49 > 2/15-19/01 - 47 > [@](#): > > ”Deceit 6”: Fahrenheit 911 states, “In his first eight months in office before September 11th, George W. Bush was on vacation, according to the Washington Post, forty-two percent of the time.” > Shortly before 9/11, the Post calculated that Bush had spent 42 percent of his presidency at vacation spots or en route, including all or part of 54 days at his ranch. That calculation, however, includes weekends, which Moore failed to mention. We’ve covered this before, as well. The issue as to how weekends are treated is foolish. Does anyone honestly say “I’m going to take a 12 day vacation” when they will be away for 16 days, because they are subtracting weekends? If I pay to go on a cruise, I damn well better get Saturdays and Sundays included! Nobody contests the characterization of Bush’s vacationing more than other presidents, they just worry about how vacation days were treated. > [@](#): > > The president is also captured in a well-worn TV news clip, on a golf course, making a boilerplate response to a question on terrorism and then asking the reporters to watch his drive. Well, that’s what you get if you catch the president on a golf course. That’s what you get when you can only catch him on the golf course. There is no comment in this review about a clip in which Bush stammers to try and answer a question about what he’ll be working on during his working vacation. ---
**Author:** ![Equipoise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/equipoise/32/151_2.png) [@Equipoise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Equipoise)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2004, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-liar-why/250240/271 "2004-07-02T15:05:54Z")
Oh Hector, please deconstruct the whole thing and put it on a web page so it can be linked. Please? (I know, unfair, it’s not my free time I’m asking you to give up) The web site states: “[This is a preliminary version of an article that will be published on National Review Online.]” so we’re going to be hearing a lot more about it. ---
**Author:** ![Psycho\_Pirate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Psycho\_Pirate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Psycho_Pirate)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2004, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-liar-why/250240/272 "2004-07-02T15:30:53Z")
**Hentor** , what are you talking about? As far as deceit 2, you still haven’t addressed Moore’s spin that he presents CBS and CNN calling the race for Gore, then saying Fox News Channel called the race for Bush, and the other networks changing their tune. He leaves out the fact that Fox called the race for Gore too. Then they retracted the call and at 2:16 (when most of America was asleep) called the race for Bush (which they later retracted). To me, calling the race for Gore before the polls closed in Florida’s panhandle, which no doubt caused Bush to lose thousands of votes, is a much bigger story than Fox News calling the race for Bush when not only had all of the polling closed, but the majority of America was arguably asleep and not even paying attention. We won’t discuss Deceit 3, since you haven’t seen the book (nor have I, although I do remember the results of the independent recounts done after the fact that showed Bush winning Florida). I think Deceit 4 is referencing Moore’s assertion that Bush had trouble getting some of his legislation passed and his judge appointments through. The author’s changing of “appointments” to “confirmations” is picking nits IMHO, but he does make a good point that Bush was able to pass much of his important legislation. As for Deceit 5, Bush’s polling numbers, I found the same poll at [PollingReport.com](http://PollingReport.com), and I can’t follow your math. I read it as: 10/3-7/01 **76** ; _ **9/5-9/01** _ **44** ; 8/8-12/01 **43** ; 7/12-16/01 **45** ; 6/7-10/01 **44** ; _ **5/3-7/01** _ **51** ; 4/6-10/01 **43** ; 3/8-12/01 **48** ; 2/15-19/01 **47** ; I’d also point out that these are (as I understand it on [PollingReport.com](http://PollingReport.com)) favorablitity ratings, not job approval ratings. Also, this is the only poll I see on the site during this time period where the numbers are anywhere near this low. A bit of selective editing from Moore. As for Deceits 1 and 6, it is all in the impression Moore gives. He presents an image, and infers one meaning, but doesn’t state the meaning. This is misleading. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2004, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-liar-why/250240/273 "2004-07-02T16:26:04Z")
> [@](#): > > Hentor, what are you talking about? I’m talking about the list of 56 deceits, committed by the author of the linked-to article above. What are you talking about? > [@](#): > > As far as deceit 2, you still haven’t addressed Moore’s spin that he presents CBS and CNN calling the race for Gore, then saying Fox News Channel called the race for Bush, and the other networks changing their tune. He leaves out the fact that Fox called the race for Gore too. Then they retracted the call and at 2:16 (when most of America was asleep) called the race for Bush (which they later retracted). How would the point be changed by including all of that? The point would remain – initial calls for Gore were made by VNS, which all the networks reported. VNS **never** called the race for Bush. Yet for some reason Fox did, followed by other networks. How would this point be changed by including any other information? […calls 10 minutes before polls closing text deleted for irrelevancy…] > [@](#): > > I think Deceit 4 is referencing Moore’s assertion that Bush had trouble getting some of his legislation passed and his judge appointments through. The author’s changing of “appointments” to “confirmations” is picking nits IMHO, but he does make a good point that Bush was able to pass much of his important legislation. What was the “much” legislation? His point is that Bush was able to pass **two** items. Does this suffice for “much,” in your opinion? Is the essential point of this “deceit” valid? No. Michael Moore’s point stands unchallenged. > [@](#): > > As for Deceit 5, Bush’s polling numbers, I found the same poll at [PollingReport.com](http://PollingReport.com), and I can’t follow your math. I read it as: > 10/3-7/01 76; 9/5-9/01 44; 8/8-12/01 43; 7/12-16/01 45; 6/7-10/01 44; 5/3-7/01 51; 4/6-10/01 43; 3/8-12/01 48; 2/15-19/01 47; > I’d also point out that these are (as I understand it on [PollingReport.com](http://PollingReport.com)) favorablitity ratings, not job approval ratings. Also, this is the only poll I see on the site during this time period where the numbers are anywhere near this low. A bit of selective editing from Moore. A bit of difficulty on your part, actually. You are correct that the issue pertains to “job performance.” Why did you go to “favorability” numbers, use them to suggest I was wrong, and review them to suggest Moore was selective? Try reading the right numbers. Here’s a [specific link](http://www.pollingreport.com/bushjob2.htm). Scroll down to the poll I drew your attention to earlier. > [@](#): > > As for Deceits 1 and 6, it is all in the impression Moore gives. He presents an image, and infers one meaning, but doesn’t state the meaning. This is misleading. Huh? In “deceit” 1, he clearly states his meaning. He describes it as a dream. Perhaps people were also confused when he rolled the footage backwards? Perhaps people thought that there were fireworks that recede into the ground, and that everybody on the stage decided to move real funny-like too? As to “deceit” 6, Moore explicitly names his source, the WP article. The article says Bush spent 42% of his time at vacation spots. It describes how it included weekdays. I have not heard one argument against this point that attempts to suggest Bush didn’t spend a lot of time on vacation. What do you think? Perhaps he might have chosen to have a meeting with someone about the PDB on August 6 if he wasn’t away in Texas. Might have tried to talk to Tenet. Got together with Richard Clarke. Could have been helpful, n’est pas? ---
**Author:** ![Psycho\_Pirate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Psycho\_Pirate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Psycho_Pirate)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2004, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-liar-why/250240/274 "2004-07-02T17:47:08Z")
> [@](#): > > How would the point be changed by including all of that? The point would remain – initial calls for Gore were made by VNS, which all the networks reported. VNS never called the race for Bush. Yet for some reason Fox did, followed by other networks. How would this point be changed by including any other information? Yes. That point would remain. But that isn’t the point being discussed. The point being discussed is that Moore presents the situation as “the networks called the race for Gore, then Fox called the race for Bush, so the other networks followed suit”. This is technically correct, but Moore leaves out the information that Fox at first called the race for Gore along with the other networks. His portrayal of the events is misleading. And calling the race for Gore before polls closed is not irrelevant. Maybe to Moore’s film, but not to the voters who were disenfranchised because of the networks’ rush to judgment. > [@](#): > > What was the “much” legislation? > His point is that Bush was able to pass two items. Does this suffice for “much,” in your opinion? Is the essential point of this “deceit” valid? No. Michael Moore’s point stands unchallenged. I disagree. He passed the two major planks that he ran on: tax cuts for all Americans, and No Child Left Behind. Those were two of the big ticket items - that is “much” in my book. > [@](#): > > A bit of difficulty on your part, actually. Duly noted. I didn’t see the link for the earlier polls. I will say that there were other polls with higher numbers that Moore could have used, or he could have averaged the available polls. But he chose to use a poll that was less favorable towards Bush. Some would consider that misleading, or at the very least, not objective. > [@](#): > > As to “deceit” 6, Moore explicitly names his source, the WP article. The article says Bush spent 42% of his time at vacation spots. It describes how it included weekdays. I have not heard one argument against this point that attempts to suggest Bush didn’t spend a lot of time on vacation. What do you think? Perhaps he might have chosen to have a meeting with someone about the PDB on August 6 if he wasn’t away in Texas. Might have tried to talk to Tenet. Got together with Richard Clarke. Could have been helpful, n’est pas? I think using the word “vacation” brings up images of the President doing absolutely no work whatsoever for the entire time of his vacation. Do you really think that is the case? If so, I feel sorry for you. Neither am I suggesting that he did nothing but work during his “vacation”. I believe the answer is somewhere in the middle. And as far as the August 6 PDB, hindsight is a beautiful thing, and to second-guess what might have been from the comfort of your computer is another beautiful thing. But if you are suggesting that Bush could have prevented 9/11 based on the vagaries in a brief, of which he receives one every day with countless issues in it, is stretching it, n’est pas? ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2004, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-liar-why/250240/275 "2004-07-02T19:41:09Z")
> [@Psycho Pirate](#): > > The point being discussed is that Moore presents the situation as “the networks called the race for Gore, then Fox called the race for Bush, so the other networks followed suit”. This is technically correct, but Moore leaves out the information that Fox at first called the race for Gore along with the other networks. His portrayal of the events is misleading. How? The fact that Fox first calls the race for Gore is irrelevant to his point, which is that the tide was turned by Fox. > [@Psycho Pirate](#): > > But he chose to use a poll that was less favorable towards Bush. Some would consider that misleading, or at the very least, not objective. He’s making a documentary; he doesn’t _have_ to be objective, merely accurate. [So says Roger Ebert,](http://www.suntimes.com/output/eb-feature/cst-ftr-moore18.html) who ought to know. > [@Psycho Pirate](#): > > And as far as the August 6 PDB, hindsight is a beautiful thing, and to second-guess what might have been from the comfort of your computer is another beautiful thing. But if you are suggesting that Bush could have prevented 9/11 based on the vagaries in a brief, of which he receives one every day with countless issues in it, is stretching it, n’est pas? As you said, this is all hindsight, and we can only agree to disagree as to what the President “should” have done after receiving the PDB. Moore, however, never makes any claim to the rightness or wrongness of Bush’s (non)response. He simply reminds us of the briefing, and lets each of us decide for ourselves whether Bush did the right thing. Just because some folks may draw a conclusion that’s unflattering to Bush does not qualify as a flaw in the movie. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2004, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-liar-why/250240/276 "2004-07-02T19:57:00Z")
> [@Rjung](#): > > How? The fact that Fox first calls the race for Gore is irrelevant to his point, which is that the tide was turned by Fox. No, the tide was turned by CBS. > [@](#): > > At 10:00 p.m., which network took the lead in retracting the premature Florida result? The first retracting network was CBS, not Fox. > > Over four hours later, at 2:16 a.m., Fox projected Bush as the Florida winner, as did all the other networks by 2:20 a.m. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2004, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-liar-why/250240/277 "2004-07-02T20:25:37Z")
**Liberal** , who first called the race for Bush? Upon what basis did they do that? ---
**Author:** ![Spree](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/919ad9/32.png) [@Spree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spree)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2004, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-liar-why/250240/278 "2004-07-02T20:36:22Z")
I touched on Deceit 7 and 8 in another thread. > [@](#): > > September 11 > > Deceit 7 > > Fahrenheit presents a powerful segment on the September 11 attacks. There is no narration, and the music is dramatic yet tasteful. Instead of the oft-played images of planes hitting their targets, the visuals are reaction shots from pedestrians, as they gasp with horrified astonishment. > > Moore effectively evokes the horror that every decent human being felt on September 11. > > But remember, Moore does not necessarily feel the same way. As New York’s former Mayor Edward Koch reported, Moore later said, “I don’t know why we are making so much of an act of terror. It is three times more likely that you will be struck by lightening than die from an act of terror.” This makes no sense. The footage of September 11 was simply that…footage, which stands very well on its own. The fact that Michael Moore may or may not agree with the threat of terrorism (a claim I’m not sold on just yet), it doesn’t make the footage any less true. This is not deceitful. > [@](#): > > Bush on September 11 > > Deceit 8 > > Fahrenheit mocks President Bush for continuing to read a story to a classroom of elementary school children after he was told about the September 11 attacks. > > What Moore did not tell you: > > Gwendolyn Tose’-Rigell, the principal of Emma E. Booker Elementary School, praised Bush’s action: “I don’t think anyone could have handled it better.” “What would it have served if he had jumped out of his chair and ran out of the room?”… > > She said the video doesn’t convey all that was going on in the classroom, but Bush’s presence had a calming effect and “helped us get through a very difficult day.” > > “Sarasota principal defends Bush from ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’ portrayal,” Associated Press, June 24, 2004. “What Moore did not tell” us is that, gasp, there is one person who thinks that Bush’s actions were commendable. Big whoop. I expect many more feel the same way, just as many feel that those minutes were…not so commendable. The fact that one person (an elementary school principal) feels that those nine minutes were well spent does not in any way make Michael Moore’s footage deceitful. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2004, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-liar-why/250240/279 "2004-07-02T20:49:56Z")
> [@Hentor the Barbarian](#): > > **Liberal** , who first called the race for Bush? Upon what basis did they do that? Fox did. No one knows why except maybe Moore. The other networks followed suit after four minutes. (Did he do parallel editing with a clock and a sweating Tom Brokaw?) According to Moore, they did this because they believed that if Fox said it, it must be true. CBS was again the first to retract. > [@](#): > > The fact that one person (an elementary school principal) feels that those nine minutes were well spent does not in any way make Michael Moore’s footage deceitful. At least she was there. Damnation, you people. You insist that we see the film to criticize it, but you’ll take Moore’s view about events he didn’t even witness. Sychophants. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2004, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-liar-why/250240/280 "2004-07-02T20:55:02Z")
> [@Psycho Pirate](#): > > Yes. That point would remain. But that isn’t the point being discussed. The point being discussed is that Moore presents the situation as “the networks called the race for Gore, then Fox called the race for Bush, so the other networks followed suit”. This is technically correct, but Moore leaves out the information that Fox at first called the race for Gore along with the other networks. His portrayal of the events is misleading. Well, I disagree about what Moore’s point is, but if the issue is that he left out parts of the story that weren’t necessary to make his point, well, okay. He also left out ABC and CBS calling the race for Gore in the first place as well. OMG! > [@Psycho Pirate](#): > > And calling the race for Gore before polls closed is not irrelevant. Maybe to Moore’s film, but not to the voters who were disenfranchised because of the networks’ rush to judgment. Well, since the topic is F911, it is irrelevant to the topic, but if you want to talk about disenfranchisement, we can pick that up elsewhere. > [@Psycho Pirate](#): > > I disagree. He passed the two major planks that he ran on: tax cuts for all Americans, and No Child Left Behind. Those were two of the big ticket items - that is “much” in my book. Okay, but your book is insufficient to support the claim that Moore’s characterization is deceitful. > [@Psycho Pirate](#): > > Duly noted. I didn’t see the link for the earlier polls. In retrospect, I could have made a more specific link in the first place. > [@Psycho Pirate](#): > > Some would consider that misleading, or at the very least, not objective. I completely agree that he is not objective. The point under discussion is “deceitful,” however. Do you think the mean poll numbers would have been going up for Bush, or would the point be the same? > [@Psycho Pirate](#): > > I think using the word “vacation” brings up images of the President doing absolutely no work whatsoever for the entire time of his vacation. Do you really think that is the case? If so, I feel sorry for you. I’m not sure why you would feel sorry for me. However, I do not doubt that he did some work. I imagine he signed papers and that sort of thing. Frankly, he doesn’t strike me as a very hard working president to begin with. I have no idea what he might have been doing, but the point stands that he is measureably the president most absent from Washington. > [@Psycho Pirate](#): > > And as far as the August 6 PDB, hindsight is a beautiful thing, and to second-guess what might have been from the comfort of your computer is another beautiful thing. But if you are suggesting that Bush could have prevented 9/11 based on the vagaries in a brief, of which he receives one every day with countless issues in it, is stretching it, n’est pas? I never suggested any such thing. I do suggest though, that he should have talked to the key players about it. It is known that he made little if any contact with those players. His response to the matter displayed disinterest. Perhaps if he had been in Washington, his response would have been equally inadequate. I would at the very least, prefer a president who was willing to show up for work, not operate somewhere inbetween work and vacation. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-liar-why/250240.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-liar-why/250240.md?page=15)