He was emphasizing the point that Heston is the head of NRA. This should be obvious to any English speaker. How could that possibly constitute a lie?
Because the Moore-bashers are so desperate to discredit him they’ll split hairs until doomsday to try to “prove” their point?
C’mon, guys, let’s apply common sense to the issue: if Michael Moore was really as big of a prevaricator as his critics claim, he’d have been pimp-smacked with a libel lawsuit and/or have his stuff exposed on a prime-time news program years ago. Surely nobody believes that someone “wronged” by Moore is going to be afraid of a big tubby unshaved filmmaker from Flint, MI, do they?
And that’s precisely what is so disturbing. Moore said that the reason he didn’t release the footage is because he was afraid of a backlash accusing him of doing so to gain publicity. So the public’s opinion of Moore is more important than whether or not people are being tortured?
Also, somebody said something about Moore never claiming to be a journalist, and that may be true, but he’s never gone out of his way to deny it when he’s labeled as such either.
I’ve only seen one of Moore’s movies, Bowling for Columbine, and what irritated me the most was that he doesn’t show anyone who can rationally put up an opposition to whatever Moore is arguing for. He couldn’t find anyone? C’mon. I realize that Moore does ambush journalism, but he couldn’t find a single person who didn’t look like and/or act like an idiot? He goes out of his way to not show the other side’s argument except for those points he feels are the weakest.
As for the lack of lawsuits claim, Moore is not stupid and even admits to having lawyers go over his stuff before release so that he can’t get hit with a libel suit. He runs up to the line and implies all sorts of mean stuff, but he pulls back before he goes too far. Let’s not forget that libel suits brought by public figures are also harder to prove. Just because Moore hasn’t been hit with a libel suit doesn’t mean he hasn’t told lies, at least by what would be considered a reasonably expansive definition of lies, and that doesn’t mean he hasn’t gone out of his way to get people to believe things about people and entities that are untrue, or used facts that if viewed in the proper light would reveal that they don’t really support his case.
Moore wants people to believe anything, including info about him, that he thinks will further his agenda. He’s not worried about presenting facts impartially or fairly, he’s more concerned with twisting them until you agree with his beliefs and he’s definitely not concerned about you viewing the facts and making up your own mind, which is extraordinarily hypocritical considering his dim view of mainstream media.
But you know what pisses me off the most. There are people on this board who claim to be devoted to fighting ignorance who feel that Moore has done nothing wrong. They defend his arguments, that they will admit are skewed, by claiming that he is not a journalist or even a documentarian and he therefore is not required to be even-handed or fair. As long as Moore espouses views they agree with everything is just peachy by them. That’s the ends justifying the means, and it’s something they would be up in arms about if someone with views that opposed their own used the same tactics. They don’t want to fight ignorance, they just want others to agree with their views and many of them are snide and condescending to those who don’t.
And on preview: rjung, what do you want? I’ve seen more splitting of hairs defending Moore than I have seen by those trashing him. He goes out of his way in BfC to imply an important link over a hundred years old between the NRA and the KKK. It’s splitting hairs to try and deny it.
That’s it, that’s the most explicit lie you can find?
If it was that important to Moore to establish that link, why didn’t he just say it, why imply?
To be fair, such argumentation occurs on both sides of the political spectrum.
However, I don’t see how admitting that Moore occasionally “skews” his arguments in his favor is claiming that “Moore has done nothing wrong.” Rather, it appears to acknowledge that Moore presents his arguments from a particular point of view.
No, of course not. The point is that the abuse he had evidence of (abuse, not torture, BTW) would have been dismissed because he was the source. Until there was further, more compelling evidence, it would have been useless.
I’m getting tired of saying this already, but that is what the media do. Expect it, challenge it, and try and ascertain what you think the reality behind the spin is - but don’t expect everyone, everywhere to be giving you an objective perspective on everything. Sheesh!
No, they don’t. cmason32 has it right. There’s a difference between defending a point of view (ie. Moore is not an out and out liar) and saying that he is always right. It’s even more of a leap of faith to say that he holds views we all believe in and will defend to the hilt.
If the movie had said flat out that the NRA and KKK have some sort link going back to the nineteenth century he would have been batted down rather quickly and definitively. Ask yourself this question: if the KKK has nothing to do with the NRA and Moore wasn’t trying to imply that they do then why have the animated scene with the two while mentioning that the NRA was founded the same year the KKK was labeled a terrorist organization? Why was the KKK in that scene at all?
Also, you missed the point. Moore doesn’t do “explicit lies”, or at least he didn’t in BfC. He uses omission and innuendo to deliberately mislead people as to the truth, and that gives him the plausible deniability that you see so many using in his defense in this thread.
cmason32, yes, I am aware of both sides doing so, and it pisses me off to no end, but you missed the points I was trying to make. It is irresponsible and arrogant to present an argument that deliberately misrepresents facts in an attempt to bolster support for your views. It is hypocritical to condemn people who use such tactics when they have views that differ from your own but then give a pass to the ones you agree with.
Even if it is simply a case of acknowledging that “Moore presents his arguments from a particular point of view” why doesn’t it bother people more that the particular view he presents is so highly and unreasonably skewed? If you know it is why even bother to go to Moore at all? All that Moore’s movies do is promote more vitriol in debate, and any reasonable point he might make gets drowned out in all the name calling that follows.
And for everyone who says that Moore isn’t serious, are you kidding me? Yes, he uses humor in his movies, but do you really think that he doesn’t believe the message he’s sending and that he wants you to believe it, and that’s the primary reason for his making movies? That sounds pretty damn serious to me.
There was no way in the world that Michael Moore could have gotten that footage out? People are being tortured, Moore has proof, but he’s not willing to take the risk that people won’t believe him to try and get something done about it? If his rep is that tainted why couldn’t he have given the footage to someone with a bit more clout? Hiding behind people potentially disbelieving him is a cop out for not trying to stop torture months earlier. Besides, he uses the footage in his movie so what difference does it make when he makes it available to the public?
You might not get tired of saying it if you realized that it has dick to do with my criticisms of Moore. Just because others do it doesn’t justify Moore doing it and/or mean I can’t/shouldn’t comment on it. Sheesh yourself.
I’ll back off the “done nothing wrong” and instead say some feel that “he’s not that bad”. I’ll also admit that viewing my post it might seem that I was painting with a broad brush. I do not believe that Moore’s defenders believe that he is always right, that would be ridiculous, and while I don’t think that every Moore defender in the world agrees with his views I’ll bet money that most of the ones in this thread do and since they do they are defending his tactics. Do you disagree with Moore’s views? Does anyone is thread who is defending him disagree with the majority of messages that he sends in his movies and books? Maybe one or two posters in this thread honestly don’t like his message and don’t have a problem with his tactics, but it doesn’t seem at all unreasonable for me to assume that the majority of his defenders agree with him.
Umm, no. “his own NRA website” - let’s diagram that, shall we?
Website - the noun, object of ‘his’
NRA - an adjective, cannot be the object of a possessive. Modifies ‘website’.
If one wanted to craft a grammatically correct structure saying that “Charlton Heston’s organization, the NRA - their website” it would more properly be “his own NRA’s website” - with the extra apostrophe-s. That would show the proper possession.
Which would still be a ludicrous thing to say because even though Heston is the president he isn’t a founder or owner of the NRA. And even if he were, that wouldn’t mean he’d looked at the website.
There are many people who misrepresent facts to make their point. Why single out Moore?
Well, whether his views are highly skewed or unreasonable is subjective. People can see the movie and come away with different ideas about it. And, whether debate on the movie contains vitriol is the fault of the debaters, not Moore.
Who’s singling out Moore? There has already been plenty of criticism of Limbaugh, Coulter, Franken, O’Reilly, etc. I certainly don’t believe that Moore is the only person guilty of being misleading if not an outright liar.
The point of this thread is to debate whether or not Moore is a liar, so your first two sentences just recapped the overall debate in this thread. As for your third sentence, while I am aware that people can bring plenty of vitriol to the table all on their own Moore is the sort of person that specializes in it and thus contributes to the name calling that passes for discussion so often in this country, i.e. he’s part of the problem. Also, when specifically discussing Moore’s movies you are unlikely to get a reasonable debate out of them on what can actually be important issues because the snide tone of his works and the tactics he employs pretty much preempts that. So ironically he’s working counter to improving the country contrary to his claims otherwise.
If the purpose of this thread is to debate whether or not Moore is a liar, then it is clear that Moore has been singled out - at least in this instance. However, that isn’t really relevant to this matter.
When I think of the word vitriol, I think it to mean abusive language and invectives. It’s not clear to me that, despite his biases, Moore engages in such behavior. While his message may be provactive, that is not the same as vitriol. And while provacative messages may lead to vitriolic debate, that fault lies with the debaters, not the messenger.
There’s been threads on everyone else I mentioned (Limbaugh, et al), so what’s the problem with Moore having his own thread? Overall Moore’s not being singled out any more than any number of other public figures. And if it’s not relevant then why’d you bring it up?
Moore compares the NRA to the KKK, even going so far as to imply a kinship between the two. He got up in front of an audience of millions and called the president “fictitious”. Why don’t those examples qualify as vitriol?
When the messenger is trying to incite emotion as opposed to debate at least part of the fault lies with him because he is encouraging like action. Do you think that Moore is trying to encourage debate or outrage? And if you think that he is encouraging outrage and don’t see a problem with it, why not? Contrary to what Moore would have you believe he doesn’t know everything and he may in fact be wrong, but if he feels that his argument is strong enough he should present it in as objective a fashion as possible (can the jokes and the ad hominems) and leave it to the audience to decide if he is correct or not. I could see a legitimate call for outrage on Moore’s part if he had presented a fair case for his position, but his evidence is anything but fair and a disservice to any who take it seriously as anyone who is familiar with Moore but do not agree (not just those opposed, but also those undecided) with him would be highly unlikely to consider him a reliable source. Also, those who are familiar with Moore and don’t agree with him are likely to simply blow off those who do if not being outright rude, feeling justified in doing so because Moore acts in the same way.
And regardless of whether or not Moore is at fault for the behavior of others that in no way justifies his tactics. Nor is it justified because others do likewise.
And if you don’t feel that Moore is a liar, then what is with the NRA-KKK link? Although the voiceover never explicitly claims that the two are connected why portray the two of them together at all? Why mention that one was founded the same year that the other was branded a terrorist organization? Why reference the Klan at all? And when you do answer these questions and refute my accusation that Moore lied please don’t use the most common definition of lie (deliberately and explicitly stating an untruth), instead use the alternative definition “Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.”
What is incompatible about political comment and humour? Never heard of satire?
Because his point is that both the KKK and NRA gained their power because of the level of fear in the population. Which, in case you didn’t notice, was the main argument throughout BfC.
I don’t have view on whether Moore is a liar. However the purported NRA-KKK link doesn’t convince me. Here’s why: I didn’t get the same impression you did from the film of some sinister & continuing link between the 2.
The implication is a matter of opinion and I’m not prepared to call Moore “liar” on the basis of opinions he permits to form. But that’s not my main point.
Instead, I thought the point of the NRA-KKK link or comparison was to show that when these organisations were formed it was a time when America was doing a lot of crazy stuff. Those orgs being examples. Not that there was a continuing sinister relationship between the 2. That was my impression.
I think it’s an opinion Moore should reasonably be allowed without accusations of liar. Unless there is some basic factual error, but I haven’t seen such so far.
Yes, I’ve heard of satire. Most satire however isn’t presented in such a way as to claim that it is giving you the whole story. Moore, however, goes beyond just the definition of political comment and humor and utilizes the alternate definition that emphasizes caustic remarks which he couples with a misrepresentation of the facts. If Moore is truly trying to present an argument instead of rallying the base then he should be fair about his argument.
Moore shows the NRA and KKK hand in hand at a cross burning. He states that the one was founded the year the other was outlawed. If he only wishes to draw similarities between the two then why is he so explicit about showing the two hand in hand and mentioning irrelevant shared dates between the two?
If the voiceover had said “Like the KKK, the NRA gained popularity through the exploitation of fear” and the animation was not there I would have less of a problem. I would still have a problem overall however, because comparing an organization to the KKK is nearly the equivalent of Godwin’s law in that it is a comparison that is likely to to at least unwittingly draw other negative comparisons that are not fair (e.g. the NRA is racist).
sevastapool, why have the NRA and the KKK lighting a cross together? If they were both born out of period of “craziness” why not mention that? If the NRA was a result of “craziness” why not be fair and mention that they were ardent opponents of the KKK back in that time, doesn’t that have any bearing on how crazy they are? Do you think that Moore expected his audience to be aware that that period was “crazy”? What of the nineteenth century NRA is at all objectionable? If Moore isn’t more explicit about the link then what does any of that sequence have to do with the NRA of today?
I’m going to take a “no comment” on whether he’s encouraging outrage or not, because I want to ask you what you think is wrong with being outraged. People are allowed to be outraged, aren’t they? Under certain circumstances I think they should be outraged. If Moore, or anyone, feels that we are under such circumstances, he has every right to encourage people to come around to his point of view.
*How is that contrary to what Moore would have us believe? He said almost exactly that in BfC. You did see the movie, right?
*No, he shouldn’t, and I’m frankly surprised that anyone would make such an idiotic suggestion. I guess the past few thousand years of rhetorical theory and practice just passed you by. There is no reason why Moore should be expected to make an objective film about a controversial issue that gives equal time and attention to all sides of the issue. Indeed, expecting such a thing of anyone would be about as fair as expecting them to produce the Philosopher’s Stone. If Moore had claimed that his film were objective and even-handed then it would be fair to criticize his failure to live up to his word, but he has always been upfront about his own views and political biases.
*Like so many claims that Moore is a “liar”, this one seems to rest upon interpreting his message in the most negative possible way and then blaming him for what you think he really meant to say.
Actually I don’t recall the cross burning sequence, so it didn’t make that impact on me.
Moore is making an argument about crazy ideas and what brought them on. You may disagree with the argument. You state facts supporting the idea that his presentation of the facts is not balanced.
I could be persuaded that you’re correct: Moore presents his facts in an unbalanced and tendentious way and omits facts you consider relevant.
That doesn’t make him a liar though. He’s just a man with a different view of the what are relevant facts, and making an argument.
Once again, Moore has never made such a claim, and his filmmaking techniques make it clear that he’s not even pretending to be a detached, objective commentator. The sequence that seems to bother you the most was a freaking cartoon narrated by a talking bullet. Does that seem like something that the audience was intended to take as a serious, balanced, and objective presentation of the cold, hard facts?
Ummmmm, didn’t you realise that was a joke? Or did you really think Moore was blaming the NRA for lynchings?
Wasn’t the whole animation sequence infused with a hint of craziness?
You are STILL missing the point, which I mentioned already - it’s all about FEAR, particularly the animation sequence.