# What will Michael Moore's legacy be ? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 9, 2004, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-michael-moores-legacy-be/273870 "2004-11-09T18:21:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2004, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-michael-moores-legacy-be/273870/61 "2004-11-11T19:21:12Z")
> [@Sample\_the\_Dog](#): > > Are you saying that the Spinsanity articles are inaccurate? These do not complain “that Moore made Bush look like an idiot”. (Spinsanity published an entire book attacking Bush.) They deal very concretely with Moore’s distortions and factual errors. Spinsanity admitted that the _facts_ in **F911** were correct; they disagreed with the _conclusions and opinions_ Moore drew from those facts. Even you can see that arguing Moore’s _opinions_ are “wrong” is right up there with debating what the flavor of purple is. ---
**Author:** ![Sample\_the\_Dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8797f3/32.png) [@Sample\_the\_Dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sample_the_Dog)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2004, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-michael-moores-legacy-be/273870/62 "2004-11-11T23:08:27Z")
> [@duality72](#): > > Speaking of Spinsanity, you should add to Michael’s legacy his existence as a target for political analysis groups to nitpick and equivocate his work with the far worse excesses of his opponents in order to appear “balanced”. Nonsense. Their objections are hardly nitpicks (see below). And crying “Well, the other guys are worse” (even if it’s true) does not change the fact that MM lies and misleads. (FWIW, I think Bush is a dangerous fool who thinks nothing of lying to the public. He’s an embarrassment to the GOP and the nation.) > [@rjung](#): > > Spinsanity admitted that the facts in F911 were correct; they disagreed with the conclusions and opinions Moore drew from those facts. This is blatantly untrue. Spinsanity accuses MM of stringing facts and speculations together in such a way as to deliberately mislead the audience. > [@Spinsanity](#): > > “Fahrenheit 9/11” is filled with a series of deceptive half-truths This is not at all the same as disagreeing with conclusions drawn from properly presented facts. Spinsanity repeatedly uses the term “lie” to describe MM’s statements in his work. Among Spinsanity’s points: **F9/11** > [@Spinsanity](#): > > Moore suggests that members of Osama Bin Laden’s family and other Saudis were able to fly out of the country while air traffic was grounded after September 11… The “after September 13th” clause may show that Moore’s claim was technically accurate, but it leaves viewers with the distinct impression that the Bin Ladens left the country before others were allowed to. Note that they are not disagreeing with MM’s conclusions and opinions, as you claim, but are directly accusing him of intentionally creating a false impression. > [@Spinsanity](#): > > [Moore] states: “September 11 guaranteed that United Defense was going to have a very good year. Just six weeks after 9/11, Carlyle filed to take United Defense public and in December, made a one-day profit of $237 million. But sadly, with so much attention focused on the Bin Laden family being important Carlyle investors, the Bin Ladens eventually had to withdraw.” Moore’s phrasing suggests that the Bin Ladens profited from the post-Sept. 11 buildup with the United Defense IPO but were forced to withdraw after the stock sale. However, Labash notes that the Bin Ladens withdrew before the initial filing, not afterward, missing the big payday Moore insinuates that they received. Again, Spinsanity is accusing MM of willfully misleading his viewers about a point of fact. In other words, he juxtaposes decontextualized data with his own commentary in such a way as to make his audience believe something that is not true. > [@Spinsanity](#): > > [Moore asks] “Why on earth would the Bush administration allow a Taliban leader to visit the United States knowing that the Taliban were harboring the man who bombed the USS Cole and our African embassies?” … Moore suggests that the US was indifferent to the Taliban’s harboring of Bin Laden, but… the administration met with the envoy in part to discuss the fate of Bin Laden, who they were pressing the Taliban to turn over. Again, MM’s “opinion” is disingenuous, omitting key information in an effort to deceive. > [@Spinsanity](#): > > [Moore states] “In 2000, [Ashcroft] was running for re-election as Senator from Missouri against a man who died the month before the election. The voters preferred the dead guy.” Of course, the governor of Missouri who succeeded Mel Carnahan… had promised to appoint Jean Carnahan, the governor’s widow, to the Senate if her late husband won the election, a fact voters clearly understood. Once more, this isn’t an “opinion” or “conclusion” – it’s a deliberate omission of fact intended to deceive. The point is, MM has simply become a more savvy deceiver, using sleight of hand to induce his viewers to come to their own erroneous conclusions, rather than indulging in blatant lies, as he used to do: **Bowling for Columbine** > [@Spinsanity](#): > > Moore has apparently altered footage of an ad run by the Bush/Quayle campaign in 1988 to implicate Bush in the Willie Horton scandal… He shows the Bush/Quayle ad called “Revolving Doors,” which attacked Michael Dukakis for a Massachusetts prison furlough program by showing prisoners entering and exiting a prison. Superimposed over the footage of the prisoners is the text “Willie Horton released. Then kills again.” This caption is displayed as if it is part of the original ad. However, existing footage, media reports and the recollections of several high-level people involved in the campaign indicate that the “Revolving Doors” ad did not explicitly mention Horton… In addition, the caption is incorrect – Horton did not kill anyone while on prison furlough (he raped a woman). > [@Spinsanity](#): > > He claims that the U.S. gave $245 million in aid to the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan in 2000 and 2001… Contrary to his claim, the aid did not go to the Taliban – it actually consisted of food and food security programs administered by the United Nations and non-governmental organizations to relieve an impending famine. > [@Spinsanity](#): > > The film makes reference to “weapons of mass destruction” being manufactured in Littleton… In fact, the Lockheed Martin plant in Littleton makes space launch vehicles for TV satellites. > [@Spinsanity](#): > > The scene in a bank in Michigan that that opens the film was staged. Customers who open long-term CDs at the bank actually have to go to a gun store to pick up the weapon after a background check. Yet the film clearly indicates that the bank itself stores and hands out guns to customers and Moore even jokes as he walks out, “Here’s my first question: do you think it’s a little dangerous handing out guns at a bank?” **Roger and Me** > [@Spinsanity](#): > > He famously shifted the actual timeline of events for dramatic effect **Stupid White Men** > [@Spinsanity](#): > > Moore claims that five-sixths of the 2001 defense budget went towards a single plane and that two-thirds of President Bush’s campaign funds came from just over seven hundred people. Both facts are obviously untrue to anyone remotely familiar with the defense budget or campaign finance law and are disproved by the very sources Moore cites. > [@Spinsanity](#): > > In a blatant misrepresentation, he states: “We’re number one in budget deficit (as a percentage of GDP).” When Moore wrote his book last year, the United States was running a budget surplus, as it had for the previous three years. The list goes on and on… ---
**Author:** ![Sample\_the\_Dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8797f3/32.png) [@Sample\_the\_Dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sample_the_Dog)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2004, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-michael-moores-legacy-be/273870/63 "2004-11-11T23:15:48Z")
So, back to the OP… When all the dust settles and the names of Bush and Clinton evoke no more passion than the names of Polk and Cleveland do today, Moore will be rightly viewed as a man who debased the documentary form for political and personal gain. He will become a textbook case of how not to produce documentary films. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2004, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-michael-moores-legacy-be/273870/64 "2004-11-11T23:19:32Z")
Great post Sample\_the\_Dog…pretty much what I was saying but didn’t want to get into all the gory details. I (of course) also agree with your assessment also. Thought I’d make rjungs day though…MM is appearently thinking of doing a [sequel](http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/Movies/11/11/film.fahrenheitfollow.ap/index.html). Enjoy rjung! -XT ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2004, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-michael-moores-legacy-be/273870/65 "2004-11-11T23:24:27Z")
Oh, totally missed this: > [@rjung](#): > > The right-wing media, I’d imagine – if Moore had actually made a factual error in his high-profile incindiary movie, I have no doubt that it’d be trumpeted across Fox News, The Drudge Report, and Rush Limbaugh’s HappyFunTime Hour in a New York second. The fact that the conservative insta-pundits such as yourself haven’t been able to puncture the facts is a sign of their robustness. QED. I already said (if you had of read my post) that MM didn’t make (many) FACTUAL errors…but that he used slight of hand and viewer ignorance (not pointing any fingers here :)) to mislead. In other words he told ‘not lies’. The fact that it HAS been punctured (hell, its even been punctured on [factcheck.org](http://factcheck.org) man) and you can’t seem to grasp that is more telling about YOU, wouldn’t you think? BTW, when exactly did I become a ‘conservative insta-pundit’?? I didn’t even know I was a conservative (well, ok…I’m a fiscal conservative I suppose), let alone an ‘insta-pundit’. 😉 -XT ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2004, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-michael-moores-legacy-be/273870/66 "2004-11-11T23:39:32Z")
I especially love this part: “Fifty-one percent of the American people lacked information [in this election] and we want to educate and enlighten them,” Moore was quoted in Thursday’s edition of Variety. “They weren’t told the truth. We’re communicators and it’s up to us to start doing it now.” Gee, just think…by this logic if only he could have “informed” and “enlightened” all 100% of us, we would have had the first election in the country’s history where 100% of the population voted for the same candidate. Hey, Mikey…we heard it, we saw it for what it was, we saw you for what you are. You’re lucky the election wasn’t more lopsided. What you don’t realize is that people (most people, anyway) see things for what they are. Your devious, deceptive ways backfired on you and the end result was that you actually _drove_ people to the other side. The perception is that anyone who has to resort to the kinds of tactics and verbosity you employ couldn’t have much substance to their complaints, so the opposite becomes even more believable. What an arrogant, self-important putz! :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2004, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-michael-moores-legacy-be/273870/67 "2004-11-12T02:00:58Z")
All the stores I go to have stacks of unsold MM masterpieces. Have to wonder how well received his next hit-piece will be by the giant (and therefore evil) chain stores who wanted to make a profit from his savant-like genius. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2004, 6:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-michael-moores-legacy-be/273870/68 "2004-11-12T06:13:33Z")
> [@Sample\_the\_Dog](#): > > > [@Spinsanity](#): > > > > Moore’s phrasing suggests that the Bin Ladens profited from the post-Sept. 11 buildup with the United Defense IPO but were forced to withdraw after the stock sale. However, Labash notes that the Bin Ladens withdrew before the initial filing, not afterward, missing the big payday Moore insinuates that they received. > > Again, Spinsanity is accusing MM of willfully misleading his viewers about a point of fact. Moore neither said nor implied such a thing; just because Spinsanity inferred such a point doesn’t mean it was made. > [@Sample\_the\_Dog](#): > > > [@Spinsanity](#): > > > > [Moore asks] “Why on earth would the Bush administration allow a Taliban leader to visit the United States knowing that the Taliban were harboring the man who bombed the USS Cole and our African embassies?” … Moore suggests that the US was indifferent to the Taliban’s harboring of Bin Laden, but… the administration met with the envoy in part to discuss the fate of Bin Laden, who they were pressing the Taliban to turn over. > > Again, MM’s “opinion” is disingenuous, omitting key information in an effort to deceive. Again, Spinsanity is inferring something that was neither claimed nor implied. I guess the idea of a “rhetorical question” never popped into your mind. > [@Sample\_the\_Dog](#): > > > [@Spinsanity](#): > > > > [Moore states] “In 2000, [Ashcroft] was running for re-election as Senator from Missouri against a man who died the month before the election. The voters preferred the dead guy.” Of course, the governor of Missouri who succeeded Mel Carnahan… had promised to appoint Jean Carnahan, the governor’s widow, to the Senate if her late husband won the election, a fact voters clearly understood. > > Once more, this isn’t an “opinion” or “conclusion” – it’s a deliberate omission of fact intended to deceive. It’s called a “joke,” son. Look it up sometime. The fact that Spinsanity has to scrape this low to find a “lie” in **Fahrenheit 9/11** speaks for itself. Don’t get me wrong – I recognize and don’t contest that Moore has played fast and loose with the facts in the past. On the other hand, given the high-profile nature of **Fahrenheit 9/11,** and the extensive fact-checking Moore put the movie through before it was released (including having it [vetted by independent lawyers](http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0128-10.htm)), I think it’s also a telling point that his opponents _haven’t_ been able to poke holes in [the facts presented.](http://www.michaelmoore.com/books-films/f911reader/) And as I wrote above, while you can disagree with his opinions, that’s _not_ the same as saying the guy is lying in this film. > [@Sample\_the\_Dog](#): > > The point is, MM has simply become a more savvy deceiver, using sleight of hand to induce his viewers to come to their own erroneous conclusions, rather than indulging in blatant lies He’s just using the techniques of the Bush Administration against itself. 😃 > [@xtisme](#): > > BTW, when exactly did I become a ‘conservative insta-pundit’?? I didn’t even know I was a conservative Yeah, and Bush says he’s a moderate, too. Doesn’t make him one, though… ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2004, 6:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-michael-moores-legacy-be/273870/69 "2004-11-12T06:47:40Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > Yeah, and Bush says he’s a moderate, too. Doesn’t make him one, though… Yes well…your own objectivity leaves a lot to be desired (to put it mildly), so forgive me if I don’t take YOU calling me a ‘conservative insta-pundit’ to heart, ehe? -XT ---
**Author:** ![Sample\_the\_Dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8797f3/32.png) [@Sample\_the\_Dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sample_the_Dog)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2004, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-michael-moores-legacy-be/273870/70 "2004-11-12T13:16:05Z")
**rjung** , I’m glad you post these responses. It shows anyone who reads this thread that MM can only be believed by people who are themselves willing to misrepresent the truth and turn a blind eye to facts. I chose Spinsanity b/c it is a clearinghouse of information (you can find links to originals there), backs up what it says, and isn’t a conservative or liberal shill. If you care to start doing any research beyond asking MM himself what he thinks, you’ll find these and other similiar charges made by many reliable people who also back up what they say. (And no, I’m not going to spend my time doing any legwork for you – especially since you’d certainly simply ignore it.) Spinsanity and others have shown that MM’s defenses do not actually address the problems either (see their articles). MM does in fact imply the things Spinsanity says he’s implying. I abbreviated the citations b/c the post was already very long, but you can look it up yourself. Btw, using the rhetorical question format does not free MM from his responsibility not to mislead viewers, which is what he is doing. MM has often used the humor defense, as you do here. As Spinsanity points out, many writers worth their salt (e.g., Twain) used humor to great effect. But saying “it’s a joke” is no defense for omitting information, staging supposedly documentary footage, and deliberately misleading an audience on points of fact. If you want to get technical, I’m willing to concede that MM does not use direct lies in F9/11 as he does in earlier films/books (and remember, the OP does not focus narrowly on F9/11, as you are so eager to do) – but only if you isolate each statement, ignoring its context. However, your claim that he’s merely drawing his own conclusions – that’s bogus. Telling half-truths in order to create false impressions – that’s deceit, plain and simple. Michael Moore uses the documentary format to deceive. He’s done it in evey film he’s produced, and he does it in F9/11. And you are either extremely gullible to the point of blinding yourself to the obvious, or you endorse his tactics and are attempting to use them here yourself, figuring that your opponents won’t agree with you anyway, but you might snare some folks who are willing to accept your claims without looking into them. “Check, please!” ::unsubscribes:: ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2004, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-michael-moores-legacy-be/273870/71 "2004-11-12T19:46:17Z")
Again I ask: Where was this unwavering demand for accuracy when the Bush Administration was painting Saddam Hussein as the 19th member of the 9/11 terrorist attacks? Hell, where was this stringent precision when Colin Powell went before the UN and did his we-must-invade-now-r-else-those-mobile-bioweapons-labs-will-kill-us song and dance? Every documentary is made to promote a certain point of view; every documentarian makes decisions about what to include, what to exclude, what to frame in a flattering or unflattering light. Criticizing Moore for doing this is intellectual laziness – but criticizing Moore for doing this _while ignoring the same distortions used by the Bush Administration in its rush to war_ is pure political hypocrisy. Your attempt to cast yourself as a Seeker of Truth™ would be more convincing if you didn’t don the mantle only when your ox is getting gored… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-michael-moores-legacy-be/273870.md?page=3)