Questions about Moore's Fahrenheit 911--but factual, I swear!

[rjung]

@Bill H.

I saw the first 5 minutes, including the things you describe. After 3 big mis-truths, I turned it off. As you point out, the size of the commotion during Bush’s inauguration and the idea that Fox overturned things were the first two.

Are you sure those are mis-truths?

Media Watch: Election Night
Ten minutes after the top of the hour, network excitement was again beginning to build. At 2:16 a.m., the call was made: Fox News Channel, with Bush’s first cousin John Ellis running its election desk, was the first to project Florida – and the presidency – for the Texas governor. Within minutes, the other networks followed suit.

“Shouting slogans like ‘Hail to the Thief’ and ‘Selected, Not Elected,’ tens of thousands of protesters descended on George W. Bush’s inaugural parade route yesterday to proclaim that he and Vice President Dick Cheney had ‘stolen’ the election.”
Michael Kranish and Sue Kirchhoff, “Thousands Protest ‘Stolen’ Election,” Boston Globe, January 21, 2001.

References courtesy of Fahrenheit 9/11 notes.

[Bill_H]

rjung wrote

Are you sure those are mis-truths?

I specifically called them “mis-truths”, as opposed to “lies”. Like much of Mr. Moore’s work, he may be telling the truth, but he’s not telling the whole truth, or nothing but the truth. There’s a reason that phrase is used in court. Telling the truth is not enough. One must also leave nothing out of the truth, and one mustn’t embelish the truth in such a way to imply it’s opposite.

In the case of FOX, it may very well be true that Fox was the first to announce Bush won Florida, and it may very well be true that Bush’s first cousin was running their election desk. You and others claim it, and I believe it. But the higher level implication is that somehow this caused the election to go to Bush. And that’s just silly in the extreme. It was an extremely close race in Florida, and a given TV station calling it one way or another doesn’t change or even influence the fact that a fight was destined to be.

In the case of the protesters, yes it’s true that Bush’s inauguration was protested. It’s also true that it was protested more heavily than say Clinton’s or Bush Sr.'s. However, Mr. Moore’s implication is clearly a much bigger message than that. His message is that all of America was disgusted by Mr. Bush, and his inauguration was a disaster as a result. And again, that’s just nonsense. And it also ignores the idea that had Gore won, he probably also would’ve been heavily protested. It was a close election, and that’s the nature of such things.

And in the final case, Mr. Moore claimed that Bush’s father had controlled the Supreme Court, which ultimately awarded Bush the election (well sort of. all they really did was refuse to overturn Florida’s decision to award it to Bush). And yes, it’s technically true that Bush Sr. had put two people on the Supreme Court. But guess what? Only one of those people voted in favor of Bush Jr. And guess what? Gore’s administration had also put two people on the Supreme Court, and in his case, his was the previous administration, the most empowered administration at the moment. And both of Gore’s administrations appointees voted in favor of Gore.