FAIR? How does one begin on something that monstrous? FAIR is a left-wing tool; and all one has to do is actually READ the stuff to know that.
That said, read the rebuttal and their absolutely lame-assed attempt to refute that rebuttal LMAO. It’s pure gold!
Can you give us a link to a specific example of what you’re talking about? I like lame-assed rebuttals, but don’t have time to ferret it out today. 
Your point being? Maci appears to understand the situation correctly. The Columbine shootings occured on April 20, 1999. The NRA held their meeting on May 1, 1999:
Ironic that those accusing Moore of misrepresenting events don’t even seem to know when those events occured. Please, if you’re going to accuse someone of distorting information, don’t distort information yourself.
I’ll give you a hand. The right’s beloved (and fair and balanced) hardylaw.net site accuses Moore of portraying one part of Heston’s speech as having been spoken at the Denver meeting. As the kuro5hin.org link explains:
The hardylaw.net site’s second issue with Moore’s portrayal of Heston’s speech at Denver is that Moore edited the speech. They accuse him of distorting Heston’s meaning.
Moore edited for brevity. Heston’s meaning remained unchanged, but Moore saved us from sitting through an extra couple of minutes or so of NRA meeting (thank god for that) so we could get straight to the point. This happens all the time in film-making. It usually isn’t controversial, but then again, the conservatives don’t usually have a stake in defaming the film-maker.
Well then they need to look at the film again. The Cold Dead Hands clip is a intro to Heston nothing else. He is wearing a blue suit and blue tie. In the rally in Denver which happened 10days after the killings (it is stated in the movie that it was organised before the killings) he is wearing a dark suit, white shirt and red tie. It is stated by Heston that the mayor asked him not to hold the rally “Don’t come here, we don’t want you here” because of the recent event but it was Heston said that “As Americans we are free to travel anywhere we want”
The movie is open to criticism no question but this thing about Heston just shows the lack of viewing skills of the people criticising it.
Well, if Anniee says that all of the criticism of Rush Limbaugh is crap, I’m convinced. Hail Rush!
I think you misread the slogan of this site. it is Fighting Ignorance, not Spouting Ignorance. Please cofrrect your error.
It might be ironic if it were true. You see, I live here. I was here when Columbine happened. I know all about the NRA meeting that happened shortly after. Maybe you are unaware that meetings of this size are scheduled four or five years in advance, not two weeks before.
The NRA and all associated with it (at that meeting) said and did nothing disrespectful at that time. It was an extremely abbreviated and low key event, with many events cancelled out of respect for those mourning. I happen to think that the NRA in general are a bunch of raving lunatics, but in this case they are being unfairly criticized, thanks to Michael Moore.
Going back to Maci’s comment:
there is a clear implication here that Heston said something at the Denver meeting that was outrageous. You have said that the documentary makes it clear that his combative remarks were not made at that meeting, so how do you explain the impression left on this viewer?
Dictionary.com defines “Documentary” as “presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film”. Bowling for Columbine defies both of these conventions, and thus by definition is not a documentary.
By the definition of “documentary” used by the Academy Awards (you remember them, right?), however, it is.
Now, if Merrian-Webster were to award Bowling for Columbine an award for documentary filmmaking, you may have a point. But until then…
Ha! You know they would give it to Spellbound instead! Great product placement (better movie, too). 
Incidentally, I personally spoke to one of the other Documentary nominees a little while back about the Academy Awards ceremony and a couple things came out:
(1) Not all the nominees who appeared with him on stage were aware of what he was going to say, and not everyone was happy to be on stage when he went on his diatribe (despite their similar anti-war sentiment).
(2) When Michael Moore suggested that the other nominees join him onstage if he won the Oscar to show solidarity in the anti-war message, another nominee suggested that he do the same if one of the other nominees won. Moore refused.
So if there was any doubt that that moment was not about the message but all about himself, that sealed it for me (not to mention that he could’ve thanked the Columbine kids he arguably exploited in his film, but was too busy indulging in his little rant).
It is possible to formulate responses without talking down to me. Regardless, the quote I referenced was not intended to question the integrity of various definitions supplied by various miscellaneous sources, but instead was intended to provide the factual, actual definition to counter people’s beliefs that it warrants the “documentary” title.
It is possible to formulate responses without talking down to me. Regardless, the quote I referenced was not intended to question the integrity of various definitions supplied by various miscellaneous sources, but instead was intended to provide the factual, actual definition to counter people’s beliefs that it warrants the “documentary” title.
It is possible to formulate responses without talking down to me. Regardless, the quote I referenced was not intended to question the integrity of various definitions supplied by various miscellaneous sources, but instead was intended to provide the factual, actual definition to counter people’s beliefs that it warrants the “documentary” title.
Hmm, well, seems I went a little overboard on making my point, haha. Anyways, the forum was acting up and implied I hadn’t posted my message…seems it despises me.
If only a handful of dumb yokels misunderstand the filmmaker’s intention, then you’re right. But if a substantial number of viewers come to one particular incorrect conclusion, then the filmmaker hasn’t done his job. That isn’t a failing on the part of the viewing public, but a failing of the filmmaker to show the events depicted with clarity.
Which leaves two possibilities: the filmmaker is incompetent, or the filmmaker is deliberately trying to distort the facts. By all accounts, Moore is a talented filmmaker, so we can presumably rule out incompetence.
My experience comports with John Harrison’s: most of the reviews I have read and people I have spoken with about the film came away with the same impression that Maci did: that Heston had made inflammatory statements at the Columbine meeting.
I would also put in a third possibility: he overestimated the viewers’ comprehension, or he wasn’t concerned with everybody getting that one point. Now, I admit that he probably could have done something a little better with the voiceover:
Moore: Meet Charlton Heston, president of the National Rifle Association.
Heston: I will DIE holding THIS GUN!!!
Moore: Just ten days after the Columbine killings, despite the pleas of a community in mourning, Heston came to Denver and held a large pro-gun rally for the NRA.
But I don’t think this is too different from what he actually did. Anyway, I can see where people are coming from with this point…
…but the Flint meeting? According to that “Truth about Bowling for Columbine” page, the images imply that the Flint meeting was rushed in response to the shooting. But, I didn’t get that impression at all. Moore’s portrayal of Heston is as an uncaring fanatic, in the way he refuses to apologize to grieving people, and won’t face the photo of young Kayla. Apathetic as probably are most Americans, yes, but not defiant. Anyway, I know Heston is probably better than that, but even Moore’s intended portrayal is not as bad as some critics seem to make it out to be. I think some people just see what they want to see.
Fourth possibility: that certain people might have entered the theatre already determined not to accept the film’s message, and that this might lead them to accept any interpretation of the film that worked against Moore provided by some right-wing source, without really thinking about whether it made sense.
Yeah, you’re probably right. However, I don’t think it was just the pro-gun people who made that mistake. Moore’s message wasn’t just “guns are bad”, and I think that it was easy for closed-minded people on both sides to assume that that was in fact his message.
Slacker, here’s a fun link on that. FAIR is one of the worst misnomers I’ve ever seen. I had assumed at first they were just a watchdog group but they clearly have an ax to grind.
http://www.fair.org/press-releases/limbaugh-response.html
Regardless, there should be a tag under every reporter’s stories listing his political bias (as if 99% of the time it isn’t utterly obvious) so that we could dispense with the misconceived idea of “objectivity” and be real for once. ALL reports are editorials and all reporters are editors. Anyone who doesn’t already know that has a lot to learn. Some at least admit this from the get-go; others try to put up a front and fail miserably. (Heh Bryant Gumbel anyone?)
And the point you missed is that since it was the members of the Academy that hands out those little trophies, it’s their definition of what constitutes a “documentary” that counts for the “Best Documentary” Oscar.