I’m sorry, I must have missed that thread but as you can see I only have 15 posts here and must have missed it during my period of lurkdom. I brought it up because it was mentioned in a few other posts in this thread. I wasn’t aware that thread drift was a problem. It won’t happen again.:smack:
I heard someone speaking on radio today who discussed Michael Moore being “booed off stage” as proof of the unreliability of eyewitness evidence. He said that shots of the audience clearly indicated that the audience wasn’t booing and that it had been established that it was the stagehands, closest to the mikes, that had been booing - thus Steve Martin’s teamster remark. His other example was CNN’s coverage of the gulf war in 1991. Apparently a huge percentage of Americans can recall watching the footage of the first air strikes on Baghdad but no footage was shown, just stills of the reporters.
I just saw the footage again, aired on CNN. I watched very carefully, and I only saw ONE person clapping. And I saw one person in the audience booing. The rest of the people just sat there. And I heard a lot more boos than claps, matching the MP3.
Moore is on CNN right now, and he’s now saying that the booing started in the balcony, as if that explains anything ( I guess a lower class of people sit in the balcony or something), and the people down front who started booing were booing the people in the balcony.
Does this sound likely to anyone? After the Oscars, he ran around backstage telling the media to ‘tell the truth’ - ‘the truth’ being that the audience was totally behind him. Now he’s saying that the audience was booing itself, and not him.
What an ass.
You know what I find a lot?
When people say “Hrumph, this is awful, you shouldn’t criticise the president/water the lawn/iron your socks/protest the war at this time,” ie during a war or some other politically sensitive time, that those people tend not to believe that one should criticise the president/lawn/socks/protest at all.
In short, people use events to back up their prejudices about what people should and should not do or think, rather than actually informing them.
I mean, I might be well out here, but I haven’t spotted anyone here who I would ordinarily peg as being likely to agree with Moore as coming out and saying “ahh, the guy needs to shut up,” or anyone who I would peg as ordinarily disagreeing with him saying “ahh, freedom of speech, the guy done good.”
Just an observation, y’all…
Really? You got this novel theory from whom?
Wrong. I have it on tape. Moore used up all of the 45 seconds allowed for acceptance speeches before the orchestra started playing.
I’d like to know what Moore meant by a “fictitious president”. Presidents are elected by electoral votes, not popular votes. The Constitution leaves it to the states to decide how they will choose their electors.
All of the votes in Florida were counted twice, and each time Bush came out several hundred votes ahead of Gore. Gore filed a lawsuit to have the votes in three counties re-counted, three counties that were most likely to favor Gore. The Supreme Court ruled that recounting votes in only three counties of a candidate’s choice was denying equal protection for voters in all the other counties.
The ironic thing is that a consortium of news media later had accountants recount the votes in those three counties, and it turns out that if the recount had gone forward as Gore wished, he still would have lost. Did Moore somehow miss reading about that?
Maybe he should have said “fictious democracy” instead? 
Nice try. Same article further points out that if all the votes in Florida had been recounted, ignoring Gores specificity, Bush would have lost. Still, nice try.
Same articledoesn’t say that.
It’s fine having a war ‘n’ killing ‘n’ bombing ‘n’ stuff, but don’t you going spoiling the actors’ fun night-out by talking about it!
And let’s not worry about what he said; let’s fret about how the actors reacted to it. That’s what’s important! I need to know what actors think about what Moore thinks. Did they boo? Did they cheer? I take my lead on international affairs from people who look good and make movies.
Moore’s comments were inevitable. It’s exactly who he is, whether you agree with him or not. No-one expected him to go up there and thank his mother and crew and depart without so much as a whimper. Whether he was booed or cheered matters not a jot, it was his right to use the time allocated to say what he wished and what he thought was important. Doing exactly that was what got him the Oscar in the first place.
Moore has now told his side of the story for the LA Times. michaelmoore.com
What I would like to see is the story told from the perspective of the other nominees who found themselves onstage with all this going on.
Well, from Moore’s L.A. Times’ editorial, he said that he told the other nominees that he wanted to “make a statement about Bush,” and asked if they wanted to join him. At a minimum, that implies that they knew ahead of time that he was going to get political onstage.
But Moore plays pretty loose with the truth. Did they really understand what they were getting into? Maybe, but I’d like to hear from them and not Moore’s spin on it.