# Should Michael Moore give back the Academy Award **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [May 13, 2003, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-michael-moore-give-back-the-academy-award/175017 "2003-05-13T19:17:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2003, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-michael-moore-give-back-the-academy-award/175017/21 "2003-05-13T22:07:01Z")
Well good, I’m glad we got that [settled](http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/06/23/1023864527074.html) . ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2003, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-michael-moore-give-back-the-academy-award/175017/22 "2003-05-13T22:12:38Z")
One final thing that apparently hasn’t been mentioned in this thread yet. In Roger Ebert’s Answer Man column for April 6, he says that Moore is currently assembling a point-by-point defense against those who have accused him of reporting inaccurately. It will be available online when it’s finished. ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2003, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-michael-moore-give-back-the-academy-award/175017/23 "2003-05-13T22:49:11Z")
I’m with **The Gaspode** on this one. I haven’t seen _Bowling for Columbine_ (yet), but judging from the criticisms of it I’ve seen, Moore does not do anything unusual. You think all other documentaries present the objective truth? You think _any_ other documentaries present the objective truth? Frankly, I’m surprised that anyone is surprised that _Bowling for Columbine_ shows Moore’s bias, that editing “tricks” were employed, that scenes were staged, or that facts were misrepresented or presented in a misleading way. Moore knows that’s the way the media works, even if some people in the audience (or this thread) do not. From what I know of the film, its value may lie less in what it has to show us about violence in America than it what it has to show us about the media in America. If it makes people question the things they see on the news or in documentaries and think about the way facts can be strung together to make a picture that does not present the whole true, then Moore has performed a valuable service. ---
**Author:** ![Troy\_McClure\_SF](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/troy_mcclure_sf/32/4150_2.png) [@Troy\_McClure\_SF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Troy_McClure_SF)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2003, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-michael-moore-give-back-the-academy-award/175017/24 "2003-05-13T23:28:13Z")
Saw this link on the boards last night. It goes through Moore’s little exaggerations point-by-point, and is well-cited. [http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth\_About\_Bowling.html](http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html) I thought the film was shite, and is one of very few that I actually felt offended by (and I don’t offend easily). ---
**Author:** ![Sengkelat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e36b37/32.png) [@Sengkelat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sengkelat)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2003, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-michael-moore-give-back-the-academy-award/175017/25 "2003-05-14T00:10:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mrs. CaptMurdock \* > **When books are classified as fiction or non-fiction, it is more important that the book be factual than be an enjoyable read, if it is going to be classified as non-fiction.** Um…so, all the books in the non-fiction section are all true? Even the ones that contradict each other? I think you know that “non-fiction” is a format, rather than a guarantee. Similarly, a documentary is a style of presentation. Watch some Discovery Channel or Learning Channel documentaries about BS like haunted houses or the made-up secrets of lost Atlantis; they’re still documentaries, they’re just bogus documentaries. > [@](#): > > \*\*According to the dictionary a documentary is a “movie or TV program presenting facts and information, especially about a political, historical, or social issue.” Where I never thought a documentary was unbiased or well balanced, I do think that when you present something as truthful and then do your best to fool me, that this is fraud and not artistic license. \*\* I think you’re a bit hung up on the term “facts”. Here are a few: The Panama Canal is 27 miles long. Greenland is the largest island. JFK was killed by a lone gunman. All of these are “facts”, but their veracity and accuracy is unknown. For instance, I made up the one about the canal. Check out one of Merriam Webster’s definitions of fact: **a piece of information presented as having objective reality** Do you notice that this doesn’t say it’s _true_? There you go. That said, if Micheal Moore purposefully falsified information to support his own agenda, I consider that dishonest. It doesn’t mean what he made wasn’t a documentary, but it is dishonest. But I don’t know if the accusations against him have any merit whatsoever, so I can’t form a proper opinion. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2003, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-michael-moore-give-back-the-academy-award/175017/26 "2003-05-14T01:24:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Lamia \* > \*\*From what I know of the film, its value may lie less in what it has to show us about violence in America than it what it has to show us about the media in America. If it makes people question the things they see on the news or in documentaries and think about the way facts can be strung together to make a picture that does not present the whole true, then Moore has performed a valuable service. \*\* Indeed. One of the scenes that stuck with me was a reporter on location, solemnly announcing some local tragedy. As soon as the camera shut off, he was yukking it up with his crew, obviously not personally affected by the news at all. Then when the camera turned on again, he turned right back into the sad solemn reporter. I can barely stand to watch local news anymore, for just that reason. They put an emotional spin on everything, not because they’re actually feeling those emotions, but because they want _me_ to feel those emotions. ---
**Author:** ![j.c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/73ab20/32.png) [@j.c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/j.c)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2003, 6:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-michael-moore-give-back-the-academy-award/175017/27 "2003-05-14T06:15:18Z")
**Duke of Rat** Great post. Many people could argue that “When We Were Kings” didn’t present the “true” story of Ali because it left out this that or the other thing, or made this seem good or bad when it wasn’t really, but no one could say that the events depicted in that film did not happen. I loved it. But I’m sure a racist could come up with reason why the point and tone of that film was evil and awful (because it presents a black man as heroic, Ali didn’t serve in Viet Nam, etc.), but even the most vigilant member of the KKK couldn’t marshal a list of historical errors or show that the filmmakers had deliberated presented information they knew to be false. > [@](#): > > I recently saw When We Were Kings which also won for best documentary. I’ve never been a Ali fan, but after watching that documentary, I had a much greater respect for the man. A fine documentary, very entertaining and informative. > > And not bastardized by lies. **The Gaspode** Your post really disturbs me. I’ve heard many journalist say this, often they conclude by citing the one paper or magazine that can be trusted. Certainly, we can all agree that a reporter is only human, that a TV anchor is under pressure from the suits, and that magazine writers need to engage their readers and these things all affect the story. However, I have never in my life heard a mental health professional say “there is no such thing as objective.” Never. These are people who work with people who might be unpleasant - sometimes people who have done horrible things - and they do their best to leave their own opinions at the door, sit down with that client, and get to the heart of the matter - and they trust their colleagues to do the same. Why don’t journalist like yourself assume this standard? I’m sorry, it just sounds like you don’t feel obligated to try. Especially when so many reporters do seem concerned about putting things in perspective. ---
**Author:** ![Charlie\_Tan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/charlie_tan/32/12582_2.png) [@Charlie\_Tan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Charlie_Tan)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2003, 10:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-michael-moore-give-back-the-academy-award/175017/28 "2003-05-14T10:42:36Z")
Well. Putting things in perspective is giving it a slant, isn’t it? From someone’s point of view. I’ve worked in or around newsrooms for 20 years. I have quite a few friends who’re working in the media in one position or the other, in Sweden, the U.S. and Spain. I can honestly say that objectivity, as most people believe it, is not to be found. This hasn’t been brought up in this thread, but I got out about a year ago, for a number of reasons. One, while not being the major reason, is that I’m getting more and more sick about how news is handled. In papers, tv, radio ASF. I don’t watch broadcast news anymore. I think I get a better view of reality by reading things that are clearly biased and marked that way. To frame it in American terms - after reading Studs Terkel and Rush Limbaugh I can start forming my own opinion. Anyone in this thread who’s upset about Michael Moore’s methods must be truly naive. This goes on in newsrooms everyday. MM got caught because he brought up a very controversial subject. After doing this, of course a lot of people who were offended are going to try to dig up some dirt. And they’re gonna try harder and with more force than what happens after a normal ‘factual’ news story runs on the local tv station. There are of course people who has seen that smaller story and are upset, but they’re not anough people to make waves big enough to get noticed. I get some feeling about this thread. 1. People are angry with Moore, because they don’t agree with what he’s saying, not because of his methods. 2. We’re quickly moving towards GD territory. And I for one don’t want this to be converted into a gun controll/NRA debate. 3. I’m surprised that anyone who’s ever seen or read anything made by Moore is surprised. The man is a walking hyperbole. For me, that’s part of the entertainment. this big dofus (sp?) walking around with his hat and baggy jeans, with a perpeptual smile and throwing around outrageous accusations. How could anyone ever think that he was making an un-biased documentary? I stand by my opinion. I think MM is right about us living in a culture of fear (but it’s not limited to the U.S.) and I think that’s something we need to debate. ---
**Author:** ![RTA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b4bc9f/32.png) [@RTA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTA)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2003, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-michael-moore-give-back-the-academy-award/175017/29 "2003-05-14T12:55:47Z")
The attacks on Moore are merely proof that his material cuts deep, and has drawn blood. Obviously if his message was not getting through to people effectively, then other people wouldn’t be bending over backwards to find errors or omissions. This whole thing reminds me of [fair.org](http://fair.org) and their tireless efforts to “prove” that Limbaugh is a windbag and a liar. Moore’s next movie _Fahrenheit 911_, comparing and contrasting the careers of Pres. W and Osama bin Laden and exploring the links between the two families, due to be released before next year’s election, has many Republicans freaking out already. (Witness the story circulating this last weekend about how DISNEY (through Miramax) is funding MICHAEL MOORE, of all people … the OUTRAGE! … will a push for a Disney boycott be far behind?) ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2003, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-michael-moore-give-back-the-academy-award/175017/30 "2003-05-14T13:13:48Z")
Moore IS dishonest and self-absorbed, no doubt. I have no illusions he would lie to further his agenda or his own image. He has before. But **he did not break the rules.** According to the rules laid out by the Academy, his movie was an eligible documentary. Based on its eligibility, it was nominated by the Academy members, and it was voted the winner by Academy members. It was the Academy’s award to hand out, and Moore did not break their rules, so why should he give the award back? You could argue the movie was dishonest. You could argue it sucked. You could argue that Moore is a jerk. But I don’t see any rational basis for arguing that it should have been ineligible for that award. ---
**Author:** ![Wumpus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8c91f0/32.png) [@Wumpus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wumpus)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2003, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-michael-moore-give-back-the-academy-award/175017/31 "2003-05-14T13:26:16Z")
Crime’s going up, actually, ever since the economy went south. ---
**Author:** ![Zebra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/c0e974/32.png) [@Zebra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zebra)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2003, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-michael-moore-give-back-the-academy-award/175017/32 "2003-05-14T13:37:43Z")
I have not seen the film. (strange because I really wanted to see it but just never got around to it) Let me ask this. All these different speeches by Heston; Was he wearing the same suit of clothes? Was he standing behind the same podium? Was the background the same in all of them? If these things were different did Moore do anything to change them to look the same? (some sort of digital effects like Forrest Gump) Were all the speeches made by Heston? If they all are actual speeches by Heston what is the problem with stringing them together? If you are not clever enought to see that he is in a different suit and that means a different day how does that equal ‘give Oscar back’? Has Heston actually abandon the ideas presented in the speeches? I mean are the speeches really old and Heston has changed since then? As far as being incorrect about various state laws and how much money groups were given do you have PROOF that he knew the correct information and chose to give incorrect information? ---
**Author:** ![Typo\_Negative](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/typo_negative/32/484_2.png) [@Typo\_Negative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Negative)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2003, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-michael-moore-give-back-the-academy-award/175017/33 "2003-05-14T13:49:14Z")
He should give back the award?? Are you _serious???_ Get this. The members of the academy decide what the rules are. They decide which films are nominated, and which ones win. They decided that Moore’s film was the best that year. You got a problem with that? I don’t care. But it’s a problem with the Academy. Moore has the award. He’s not giving it back. Accept it. Maybe the problem was all the other documentaries sucked? Yes, I saw the film. Yes, I lked it very much. It had something interesting to say, which is fairly rare. But I did not go in to it thinking I was going to see an unbiased view of anything. ---
**Author:** ![Lochdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/edb3f5/32.png) [@Lochdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lochdale)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2003, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-michael-moore-give-back-the-academy-award/175017/34 "2003-05-14T14:00:54Z")
Interesting thread. I very much appreciate the posting of the Oscrar rules regarding documentarys. Reading these rules with an open mind leads me to conclude that Moore should keep his Oscar. That said, Moore really is an SIG (Single Issue Gobshite, it is what we called the anti-abortion protestors in Ireland in the early 9o’s) and that colours almost everything he does. He seems to have an almost pathological hatred of George Bush and, dare I say this, white middle America. Put another way, I think he is an interesting and entertaining character but I wouldn’t rate him as a serious or credible source of information/opinion. ---
**Author:** ![gex\_gex](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/94ad74/32.png) [@gex\_gex](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gex_gex)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2003, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-michael-moore-give-back-the-academy-award/175017/35 "2003-05-14T14:46:22Z")
**Lochdale** : What is that single issue? And to the right-wing nuts: get over yourselves. He won an Oscar for making a film that was, according to Academy rules, a documentary. He said some stuff that you didn’t like. Doesn’t mean he should give his award back. And the Heston complaint is truly grasping at straws. Moore cut down Heston’s speech to get to the point quicker. He didn’t change the meaning of it. And, hey, let’s have a look at the “revoke the Oscar” [webpage](http://www.revoketheoscar.com). > [@](#): > > The 75th Academy Awards® handed the Oscar® for “Best Documentary” to Michael Moore for Bowling for Columbine. Bowling is a nasty bit of anti-American propaganda. Viewers are taught that: > > America was founded on violence and fear, as quarrelsome pilgrims fled to the new world, where their paranoia led them to massacre the Indians, then the British, and then each other; Somebody can’t see tongue-in-cheek South Park humour when it’s right in their face. > [@](#): > > The Columbine murderers’ violence might have its roots in the fact that one had a father in our military (American soldiers are presumably murderers, and it must rub off on their kids) or that there was a defense contractor in the area; Y’know, in the film, it was a little bit more complicated than that. Who was accusing who of misrepresenting views now? > [@](#): > > Charlton Heston (one of Hollywood’s few upstanding men) is a callous fool; I agree that Moore presented Heston as a callous fool, I disagree that he is “one of Hollywood’s few upstanding men.” Still, it does show us the kind of mindless dittoheads running this campaign. > [@](#): > > The terrorist attack on 9/11 is related to past American foreign policy – in short, America’s own fault; The film never said that, in short or at length. So, let’s see criticism where it’s due. All those criticising Moore, what are your thoughts on this website’s drooling propaganda? Methinks the real issue is Moore’s politics, not his documentary. ---
**Author:** ![Gangster\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2003, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-michael-moore-give-back-the-academy-award/175017/36 "2003-05-14T15:25:02Z")
I could care less if he keeps his or not, but it really isn’t a documentary, IMO. It is clearly a piece of advocacy and is no more a documentary then if the NRA had made a movie on the benefits of gun ownership. ---
**Author:** ![Charlie\_Tan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/charlie_tan/32/12582_2.png) [@Charlie\_Tan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Charlie_Tan)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2003, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-michael-moore-give-back-the-academy-award/175017/37 "2003-05-14T16:18:12Z")
I find it very interesting that so much of the OP can be traced back to the site **gex gex** linked to. So, **CaptMurdock** or your Mrs - what’s your agenda here? Have either of you actually _seen_ the movie? ---
**Author:** ![gex\_gex](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/94ad74/32.png) [@gex\_gex](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gex_gex)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2003, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-michael-moore-give-back-the-academy-award/175017/38 "2003-05-14T16:25:37Z")
**Gangster Octopus** : It was a documentary. It was a doco by Academy standards and near any other standard you may like to put to it. A documentary is not necessarily entirely factual, and you are deluding yourself if you expect it to be. _Bowling for Columbine_ was a well made film. Pointing out the inaccuracies in sequences intended primarily for humour does not detract from the films true thematic worth. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2003, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-michael-moore-give-back-the-academy-award/175017/39 "2003-05-14T17:22:39Z")
> [@](#): > > Maybe I didn’t make myself clear. For me, it doesn’t matter if Moore lied or not. Also, it doesn’t matter if he’s right or not (with or without using lies and fabrication). The interesting thing is the deabte that ensues. By which logic, it would be OK if Moore made a movie accusing Al Gore of being a child molestor, with faked footage of children telling how he attacked them. Because actual truth is beside the point, because it triggers a discussion of child abuse. The debate is what is important, not the guilt or innocence of those accused. Hell, by that logic, all the accusations during the 90s that the Clintons had had their political opponents murdered were a good thing, because it triggered a debate on political corruption. And the debate is important - more important than whether or not the accusations are true. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2003, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-michael-moore-give-back-the-academy-award/175017/40 "2003-05-14T17:36:15Z")
I actually study and make documentaries. As **The Gaspode** said, everything you see on screen is a choice. That choice was made for some reason or another. Documentarians don’t just randomly put stuff up on the screen. They make carefuly choices, which inevitably are affected by their biases. Documentary is not journalism. It is not meant to be an unbiased presentation of facts. It was never meant to be that. It’s not even capable of being that. Every documentary edits misleadingly. Editing a documentary involves cutting down the boring and irrelevent parts. Michael Moore decided that the part where Charlton Heston says “Children shouldn’t shoot up their school friends” was irrelevent to his purposes (which are to illustrate the culture of fear). All documentarians decide what to include in their films. All documentarians decide against includeing things that will hurt their cause. Think of documentary as more of the op-ed section of the newspaper, not the front page. You know that famous photo of the migrant mother? Well, she wasn’t an Oakie, she was mostly Native American. She wasn’t migrating, she was waiting to get her flat tire fixed. Her kids were posed like that. The whole damn thing is a set up. Does that lessen it’s impact? Does that mean that the photo no longer makes a statement on the Great Depression? So what is documentary? Thats a highly contested subject. But the definition falls petty wide. It basically encompasses anything that isn’t a fictional narrative (like what we are used to seeing in theaters) or experiemental (although there is a fair amount of bleed-through here). The specifics decide what _kind_ of documentary you are making (nobody would call B4C _cinema varite_) but truth or lack thereof does not really affect something’s status as a documentary. Heck, I could make a documentary that is an outright lie, as long as it is based in reality. I could make one about how telephone poles are alien communication devices. As long as telephone poles exist, the people that I interview are real people and I really believe that telephone poles are alien telephones, it’d be a documentary. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-michael-moore-give-back-the-academy-award/175017.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-michael-moore-give-back-the-academy-award/175017.md?page=3)