Godwin’s Law in action
if a historian were to completely ignore original source texts, instead relying on the source material of someone who is blatantly biased against the source texts and the creator of the source texts, would his opinions stand up to peer review?
I love when people ask me for a cite and then say it doesn’t matter anyway. Am I supposed to provide one?
From the IMDB:
It’s pretty simple. He calls people to the carpet for being greedy and elitist when he’s greedy and elitist himself. He faults America for outsourcing but then goes and outsources as well. He bills himself as a working class stiff while living in a mansion and sending his kids to private schools. He claims to be a friend of the working class but abuses them.
Yojimbo - Who ever said I don’t watch and/or enjoy his movies? I do both. As far as “being a hypocrite, so what?”, the point is that the pot is calling the kettle black. I certainly don’t mind seeing people like Jack Welsch get some sort of come-uppance, so is it wrong to want to see Michael Moore get his as well?
There’s no need to turn this into a partisan debate. It’s about hypocrisy-- something I personally find to be a detestable trait in liberals or conservatives. Christ, there are many decent liberals who need defending, don’t pick Michael Moore as your champion.
Not to steal from kidchameleon, but a better example for this would be Hitler’s propaganda. I am familiar with the broad tenets of Hitler’s propaganda machine. If a source biased against Hitler were to cite evidence that the Jews were not responsible for Germany’s economic woes, and attacked specific slogans and posters of Hitler’s propaganda campaign… do I need to have seen every slogan, every poster, every film and newspaper of the campaign? Or is it enough that this second-party references at least a single first-party source wherein Hitler contradicts himself on the subject?
I’m not.
I have
-
talked about the Cold Dead Hands thing which to me is a silly and stupid criticism
-
Asked someone who is criticising a movie to actually watch it.
-
Said that even if he is a dick IRL it wouldn’t effect me while looking at his movies.
I am a fan 
of his but am very open to him being called out for actuall things that I find important.
Michael Moore can be criticized for a lot of things. I found the whole segment with Heston to be distasteful, no matter how it was edited. For some reason, the OP has an issue with Moore:
and starts a thread, halfway jokingly, about how there should be a documentary about what a hypocrite Moore is.
The assumption that he, in fact, is a hypocrite is based on other sources, and then we go off on a tangent about how a particular scene was edited, or if it was a ‘documentary’, something you claimed bothered you in the OP (but never came back to when you were told that it wasn’t competing as a documentary).
So far, you have only provided cites from a very biased sources, in support of your view that Moore is a liar and a hypocrite. Most of the other posters have actually seen the film themselves and are not resorting to finding equally biased cites that support Moore.
The result is that the debate is about how Moore made BfC, not what he was trying to say.
I suggest that you see the film. I’m pretty sure you’re going to come back after and still have a strong opinion con Moore, but at least we have common ground for a debate.
BTW - your whole idea about “truth”, “editing”, “camera angles” ASF is just too stupid. We’ll need to start with ‘Film making 101’ and ‘Journalism 101’ and sprinkle it with some ‘practical philosphy - what is truth?’ before we can even get started.
I didn’t reply because it was a strawman. I objected to the film being classified as a documentary, I said. I do. Someone pointed out that it wasn’t competing at Cannes as a documentary… that’s great. I don’t think Cannes has a separate category for documentaries. So it would be impossible for the movie to compete as a documentary, then, wouldn’t it?
And as I’ve said before, this rant is not about Fahrenheit 9/11.
I’m really not concerned with his message, the debate should be about his methods.
As previously indicated, I will.
Stupid? So when I’m shown two angles of what is supposed to be a single take of a single scene, and a cameraman would have to be invisible to achieve the effect, and I doubt the veracity of the scene, I’m stupid?
Huh. I would say it means I possess a shred of common sense, not that I’m stupid.
Get a rope!
Except that it seemed like Moore used that line specifically to make Heston (and the NRA in general) look like rabid gun nuts, when in fact Heston was referring to a very specific antique musket worth a lot of money, and that was given to him as a gift, when he made that comment.
Heston (and this is my impression having seen the video of that speech) meant to use hypoerbole at that time, whereas the way I saw Moore having used it, he wanted to imply that it was not hypoerbole but just how ‘those NRA types and their leader’ think.
That’s why it bothers me.
Nah. Because the whole argument is flawed, showing either stupidity, ignorance or a blissful naïvety. There is no such thing as un-biased or truthful, be it in NYTimes, NPR, BBC, Le Monde, Fox News, BfC or [your media of choice].
If factual reporting (or lack tereof) is your basis for criticism of Moore, then this debate is beyond help, 'cause there is no such animal.
I think it’s interesting to debate what he’s saying, and with that as a basis, to question wheather the end justified the means (honest or dishonest). Any debate about thruth is about as entertaining as listening to the high school debate team - academically interesting for those involved, but without merit in the real world.
Well, the facts in question are Moore’s own recorded images and a quote from Moore himself. So is he biased against himself? Or just a lying hypocrite? Or maybe you’re saying he didn’t actually say that in an interview… since none of us were there, how can we know? Goodness. You might as well shut yourself up in a little box if you can only accept the plausibility of events you witness yourself.
I’m not interested in debating what he’s saying, but if you feel like it, go right ahead. I ask that you do it in a different thread though.
What are you interested in debating then?
Is he a liar? Sure. As is any other person working in media, reporting events to the public. Then is that valid criticism of Moore? Not especially, since anything reported as “fact” is biased to some extent.
For myself, I prefer to know the bias - that way I can weigh that bias with reporting from another source and form my own opinion.
If you’re just ranting for the sake of ranting - then say so. So far in this thread, I’ve only seen you rant against Moore for some not very well substantiated reasons, and the rant is, essentially, about common practise in media. In short - what are you going on about?
Afraid you’re having trouble reading, so I’ll repeat: a cite is fine if you want to provide one for your weird claim, but even if you can find a legit cite, so what?
Here’s the actual link to the IMDB article, and it does indeed say what you claim it says. Let’s look at some of the words in it:
Are you noticing what I’m noticing?
The lack, fer instance, of a byline?
The lack of any names of people whose stories can be verified?
The fact that all the sources in the story could conceivably be one disgruntled staff person?
Let’s look back on what I asked you for:
Now, I’m not saying this story is a total crock of shit. For all I know, it’s true. For all I know, however, the story was written by the same staff member who’s responsible for the death threat Michael Moore received in his dressing room in the theater not four weeks earlier.
I was unable to find any independent media verification of the Camden blow-up story, although right-wing media cites are gleefully tossing that IMDB link back and forth (without, strangely, bothering to verify it themselves).
At least you weren’t citing these pages to accuse Moore of hypocritically failing to check his facts, however; I’ll give you that.
As for the Canada story, I maintain: who the hell cares? Moore’s primary problem with outsourcing jobs seems to be that companies are sending them overseas so they can pay workers less; unless Canadian webmasters are getting paid pennies a day, this story is entirely irrelevant.
Daniel
Daniel
You honestly believe that Moore’s as truthful as the average local news station?
Look. In my view, Moore is a dishonest and hypocritical filmmaker. You say that all other people in media are as bad? Then I have to think you’re crazy and we’re not going to find common ground to debate on.
There’s bias, and then there’s bias. A biased newspaper reports more aggressively on stories favorable to its agenda. A biased newspaper does not tend to manufacture maudlin scenes cobbled together from scraps here and there to try to appeal to the audience’s emotions.
What’s that? Cite, you say? Well, it’s not the sort of thing we get a lot of reports on. (Gee, I wonder why.) However, I believe it. Why? Because if you are a major newspaper and you manufacture facts, not only might you be sued for libel, but your competitors will have a field day debunking your story and tearing you apart like pirahna. Competition injects a certain degree of control to the situation.
Moore, on the other hand, doesn’t have a competitor or network of competitors to serve this function, because the pop-documentary field is practically brand spanking new. He also has a built-in audience tabloid-reading reactionaries that wear tinfoil hats and want to believe anything that will give them an excuse to denounce the mainstream media.
His motivation is the same as the major media : money. He claims to denounce media for their methods and motivations, but he’s like an exaggeration of both.
YOU DON’T HAVE A VIEW!
you have been parroting nonsense from some wingnut site and taqking it as gospel truth.
go and see the movie for yourself, then you have are entitled to an opinion of BfC.
Obviously, you’re wrong.
Entitled? Who died and made you God?
I’m “entitled” to have an opinion of something the instant I have a shred of information about it. If I hear the title of a movie, and I so desire, I can legitimately say “it sounds stupid.” If I see the cover art for a DVD or the poster art for a film, I can say “it looks stupid.”
Here, I have actual detailed summaries, stills, and from places other than this I have seen clips. So that’s quite a bit more to go on. :wally
I read you right the first time on citing, I think you misunderstood what I said. As for the Canada story, I don’t know Moore’s postion, but the usual criticisms of outsourcing is that it takes jobs away from Americans and the exploitation of foreign workers takes a distant second.
I doubt it, but try me.
Regarding outsourcing, I disagree: having been intimately involved in fair trade circles since before GATT was renewed, the primary argument I’ve always heard is that outsourcing hurts all workers as it forces a race to the bottom in terms of wages. Hiring a Canadian webmaster is only an example of hypocrisy if the Canadians are getting paid far less than a US webmaster would be paid.
Daniel
But you have to see that if you base your opinion on such flimsy data then your opinion doesn’t hold as much water as, say, someone who has seen the entire film.
Didn’t Moore say in Roger and Me that he is a shareholder of Ford?
And did not Moore say that he is a card-carrying member of the NRA?
If a person can’t point to the excesses of the organizations and companies he happen to either partly own or belong to, who can? Sheesh. I have to think that there are too many ‘do no wrong’ people around here.