# 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:** 4
**Author:** ![JohnBckWLD](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d6d6ee/32.png) [@JohnBckWLD](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnBckWLD)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2004, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-liar-why/250240/61 "2004-06-14T21:39:51Z")
> [@GorillaMan](#): > > The abuse of prisoners was ongoing - just today it’s been announced that several British soldiers are to face courts martial for abuse over a year ago. It was happening, and it kept on happening until it (hopefully) was stopped because of photos becoming public. Granted, the text (not the images) were out since January… Just so I understand, what you’re saying is there was no abuse that went on “months before the story broke on '60 Minutes” and the point at which CBS first aired the pictures? I personally don’t know what dates the abuses ended. But IF there was onging abuse whilst Moore had video footage of “even more shocking” abuses, I feel it’s entirely possible the moment the public saw it, the abuse would have ended. If one prisoner could have been spared the torment as a result of Moore releasing his video footage sooner, (though it doesn’t make him guilty of abuse) - it surely shows him as putting personal gain over ideology or morals. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2004, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-liar-why/250240/62 "2004-06-14T21:49:01Z")
Nutshell: Michael Moore is an artist/entertainer, not a journalist. He infuses his artwork with his political point of view, just like Pablo Picasso did; just like Mel Gibson does. Not to suggest a judgment of the quality of his art: there are many, many very, very bad artists who are just as political. Judgments aside, I’m only talking about his approach, not his talent. Moore slammers insist, bizarrely, that he be held to journalistic standards. When a situation has a gray area, or a doubt needs a benefit allotted, Moore does not divorce his personal opinions and his politics from his presentation of that gray area or that benefit of the doubt. Unclear, I know, but perhaps if you squint you can see what I’m trying to say. The only criticisms I’ve seen of Moore would be perfectly legitimate if he were Peter Jennings, but really are irrelevant to Michael Moore. If you get your news from Michael Moore, that’s your own stupid problem; dig deeper for the truth. Newsflash: the Cinewhore Googleplex is NOT the best source of un-spun information. Read a fucking newspaper and quite blaming Michael Moore for your own ignorance. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2004, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-liar-why/250240/63 "2004-06-14T21:53:17Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > Nutshell: > > Michael Moore is an artist/entertainer, not a journalist. He infuses his artwork with his political point of view, just like Pablo Picasso did; just like Mel Gibson does. Not to suggest a judgment of the quality of his art: there are many, many very, very bad artists who are just as political. Judgments aside, I’m only talking about his approach, not his talent. > > Moore slammers insist, bizarrely, that he be held to journalistic standards. When a situation has a gray area, or a doubt needs a benefit allotted, Moore does not divorce his personal opinions and his politics from his presentation of that gray area or that benefit of the doubt. > > Unclear, I know, but perhaps if you squint you can see what I’m trying to say. > > The only criticisms I’ve seen of Moore would be perfectly legitimate if he were Peter Jennings, but really are irrelevant to Michael Moore. > > If you get your news from Michael Moore, that’s your own stupid problem; dig deeper for the truth. Newsflash: the Cinewhore Googleplex is NOT the best source of un-spun information. > > Read a fucking newspaper and quite blaming Michael Moore for your own ignorance. quite! ---
**Author:** ![GorillaMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@GorillaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GorillaMan)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2004, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-liar-why/250240/64 "2004-06-14T22:31:48Z")
> [@JohnBckWLD](#): > > If one prisoner could have been spared the torment as a result of Moore releasing his video footage sooner, (though it doesn’t make him guilty of abuse) - it surely shows him as putting personal gain over ideology or morals. He was dealing with the same dilemma that constantly faces war reporters, investigative journalists, etc. The question is how many abuses could be spared by immediate exposure, v. how many through full co-ordinated media exposure which is capable of influencing longer-term public opinion and governmental planning? Clearly Moore called the latter. (With his fingers crossed) ---
**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:** [June 14, 2004, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-liar-why/250240/65 "2004-06-14T22:54:53Z")
If Michael Moore had released his pictures before the Abu Ghraib abuses were known about, he would have been accused of selective editing, anti-Americanism, villfying the troops, self-promotion, etc. And the desriptions make it sound like Moore’s images were only borderline- taunting of prisoners, hoods on heads and some ball fondling- but not the kind of outright abuse and torture seen in the Abu Ghraib photos. Without the knowledge of AG, war supporters would have accused Moore of trying to make too much of an issue out of some low level abuse in the field. Moore haters would have roasted him like a chicken if he had publicized these photos a year ago. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2004, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-liar-why/250240/66 "2004-06-14T23:15:44Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > Read a fucking newspaper and quite blaming Michael Moore for your own ignorance. Well said. At least Moore is honest enough to tell you upfront of his own biases, so you can weigh his points accordingly. Heck, AFAIK Moore has never called himself a “journalist” or a “reporter” of any kind, and never claims to be an impartial dispenser of information. In a way, it’s the devotion he brings to his projects that’s his primary motivator. And folks who claim that a documentary has to present unbiased and objective facts are working from a dictionary definition. In both movies and television, almost all documentaries have a bias of some kind, because the person making it has a message he wants to convey. Dinging Michael Moore for being biased is as silly as dinging Tom Clancy for having a pro-military outlook. ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2004, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-liar-why/250240/67 "2004-06-14T23:45:03Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > Dinging Michael Moore for being biased is as silly as dinging Tom Clancy for having a pro-military outlook. Good comparison. Both are noted for their works of fiction. ---
**Author:** ![GorillaMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@GorillaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GorillaMan)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2004, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-liar-why/250240/68 "2004-06-14T23:49:49Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > Well said. At least Moore is honest enough to tell you upfront of his own biases, so you can weigh his points accordingly. Heck, AFAIK Moore has never called himself a “journalist” or a “reporter” of any kind, and never claims to be an impartial dispenser of information. In a way, it’s the devotion he brings to his projects that’s his primary motivator. What’s more, he never describes his films as ‘documentaries’. Only the media does that. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2004, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-liar-why/250240/69 "2004-06-15T01:24:00Z")
> [@Lamia](#): > > 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 post is extremely insightful, and deserves to be read by everyone, which is why I have quoted it in its entirety. Does anyone who is virulently anti-Moore feel like responding to it? (Note, by the way, that **Lamia** doesn’t claim that Moore is perfect. But she does state that he has a basically honest character.) ---
**Author:** ![GorillaMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@GorillaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GorillaMan)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2004, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-liar-why/250240/70 "2004-06-15T01:30:21Z")
The detractors seem to _have_ to focus on the small details. They miss the big picture. They hammer on that “the NRA _had_ to hold a meeting blah blah”…they never turn round and say “Michael Moore said that Canada has less gun deaths because there isn’t the same infusion of fear permeating the society, and that’s not true, we’ve statistics to show you, see [www.bowlingforfear.com](http://www.bowlingforfear.com) [/quote] …etc”, because they don’t have an answer. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2004, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-liar-why/250240/71 "2004-06-15T01:54:52Z")
If I can’t trust a man because he tells me small lies, **GorillaMan** , why should I believe him when he claims to tell a larger truth? ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2004, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-liar-why/250240/72 "2004-06-15T02:48:05Z")
Dude, you may want to rethink what it is you just said, because you do realize that statements like that cut both ways, right? ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2004, 6:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-liar-why/250240/73 "2004-06-15T06:15:36Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > If I can’t trust a man because he tells me small lies, **GorillaMan** , why should I believe him when he claims to tell a larger truth? My opionion of Michael Moore is that he’s a basically decent-minded individual who has strongly held and sincere beliefs, but who, while attempting to communicate those beliefs, sometimes is willing to blur details of arguments, which can lead to ambiguity and even (occasionaly) outright falsehoods. (I hesitate to call them “lies”, in that that implies, to me, an active desire to mislead). What’s your opinion? That he’s an amoral, unprincipled opportunist? That he’s sincere but totally dishonest? And, for that matter, what is your point? Is it, “Michael Moore is a liar, therefore no one should watch his movies”? Is it, “Michael Moore is a liar, therefore you sould take what you see in his movies with a grain of salt”? Is it, “Michael Moore is a liar, therefore anyone who ever agrees with him about anything is a stupid liberal airhead moron commie pinko”? (I’m sure it’s neither the first nor the third, but I’m curious to hear you articulate precisely what it is…) And while we’re on the topic, do you, from your observations, agree or disagree with my overall opinion of MM, as stated several paragraphs above? ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2004, 7:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-liar-why/250240/74 "2004-06-15T07:43:05Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > If I can’t trust a man because he tells me small lies, **GorillaMan** , why should I believe him when he claims to tell a larger truth? If he tells you small lies, you certainly should be skeptical of the larger truths he claims to hold. _However,_ if you then investigate those larger truths, and find them to be accurate, then it’s silly to dismiss them just because of the small lies. The first is healthy skepticism; the second is an unhealthy continuation of your own ignorance. A fact delivered by someone you distrust remains a fact. ---
**Author:** ![Martiju](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e8c25b/32.png) [@Martiju](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martiju)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2004, 12:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-liar-why/250240/75 "2004-06-15T12:11:50Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > Read a fucking newspaper and quite blaming Michael Moore for your own ignorance. If you think you’re getting an unbiased, unedited truth from a newspaper then you’re seriously deluded, sorry! As has been said before, of course MM is presenting an argument that encourages a certain perspective. So does Bush. So does every TV station, every newspaper and every radio bulletin. Critical people take all these views into account - including the ones which present a reality that they find uncomfortable - and make an overall judgement of what is ‘truth’ based on this continual flow of information. Some may even adjust this judgement as more information becomes available. That’s what being a free-thinking adult is all about, isn’t it? I suggest that those who bash Moore with ad hominem attacks and try to argue semantics whilst ignoring the overall point are no closer to ‘the truth’ than those who do the exact same with regard to Bush, Blair, Rumsfeld, et al. J. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2004, 12:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-liar-why/250240/76 "2004-06-15T12:43:37Z")
More the grain of salt thing, from me. I can’t, for the life of me, understand how some people can view Moore as a serious political commentator. He’s an entertainer, and should be treated as such. That’s not to say that entertainers don’t have legitimate views as well, and a right to them. But his works are works of entertainment, and should be viewed in that light. ---
**Author:** ![TwistofFate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/cdc98d/32.png) [@TwistofFate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TwistofFate)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2004, 1:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-liar-why/250240/77 "2004-06-15T13:01:07Z")
Who exactly views Moore as a serious political commentator? He doesn’t even say that himself! ---
**Author:** ![Paladud](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Paladud](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paladud)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2004, 1:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-liar-why/250240/78 "2004-06-15T13:02:35Z")
Moore is just a partisan blowhard, much like Rush Limbaugh. Unlike Limbaugh, he actually has some functioning brain cells, which makes him funny to those who agree with him and worthy of derision to the rest. ---
**Author:** ![kidchameleon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/898d66/32.png) [@kidchameleon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kidchameleon)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2004, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-liar-why/250240/79 "2004-06-15T13:50:09Z")
> [@GorillaMan](#): > > What’s more, he never describes his films as ‘documentaries’. Only the media does that. Which is why he rejected his Oscar for best documentary. Oh wait… ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2004, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-liar-why/250240/80 "2004-06-15T13:54:52Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > I can’t, for the life of me, understand how some people can view Moore as a serious political commentator. He’s an entertainer, and should be treated as such. > > That’s not to say that entertainers don’t have legitimate views as well, and a right to them. But his works are works of entertainment, and should be viewed in that light. I’ve got to echo **Twisty** and ask _who_ views Moore as “a serious political commentator”. The only people who seem to treat him that way are his opponents, who often appear to want to hold him to a higher standard of journalistic integrity than…well…pretty much any real journalist on earth. Moore himself has no prententions to being a “serious political commentator”; he doesn’t even call himself a documentary filmmaker. He calls his movies “movies”, and although his main goal is probably expressing his point of view/persuading people to adapt his point of view, he’s also always been obviously interested in making people laugh. I suspect he’d consider himself a kind of political humorist. Speaking of humorists, when it comes to political discussions I’ve been party to (including those on the SDMB), I’ve rarely heard people refer to the works of Michael Moore to support their position. However, I have heard and read many people seriously quote the works of George Carlin, Chris Rock (who appears in _BfC_), and Matt Groening. This is material arguably much less serious than Moore’s work, but I have yet to see anyone get similarly upset that the words of these fine gentlemen are being given more weight than they deserve as mere “entertainment”. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-liar-why/250240.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-liar-why/250240.md?page=5)