And I disagree, obviously.
:sigh: It feels like I’m trying to have an argument who puts fingers in the ears and go la-la-la. I can get away with that here, since it’s the pit, but you are frustrating.
I don’t care about Moore. I don’t care about what he said in one interview or another. I don’t care how he cross edited, staged or tweisted things to support his purposes. That’s common practise, which I know with 27 years as a journalist in broadcast media, including one of the biggest indie stations in the US. I watched BfC and found it somewhat entertaining but very clumsy. Subtlety is not Moore’s forte.
So I’m not here to defend Moore. I do care about fighting ignorance (which you show a large amount of), especially when it’s my own field of expertise. And the minute I read your OP (and the subsequent posts, which made me catch you as not having seen BfC), my warning bells went off.
There was a lot of debate last year about him getting the Oscar. Right-wing pundits cried that it shouldn’t have been given to him, since BfC wasn’t a ‘documentary’, but Moore still has his Oscar, which I guess the tin foil hat crowd wants to blame on the ‘leftists of Hollywood™’.
But your whole argument in this thread is based on a fatal misconception about how movies and news are made, and the agenda behind the movie or news segment.
Most of the other posters in this thread are saying that you’re just parroting something from a webpage, and I agree. I haven’t even bothered checking out the different interviews you mention, because they’re not interesting. Moore has simply done what every reporter does. The difference is that the storm to discredit him has been extremely strong, taking away the focus from what he was trying to say, [tin foil hat on] which I guess is what his critics wanted[/TFH off]. If he’s not entirely consistent in his answers, is that so strange? Does Rumsfeld answer the exact same question in the exact same way every single time? Does anyone?
You said that I think the end justifies the means. I didn’t say that. I said that the end result is interesting and in a previous post I stated that one can examine the means in the light of the end, to see if they were indeed justified.
But all of that is just me. We’re up to 140 posts as I write this and seeing how many you’ve made, I hope to get some straight answers from you, without pointing to previous posts:
Did you start this whole thread to say that Moore is a liar?
Do you get your notion about this from Bowling for Truth?
Why would you believe them and not Moore?
Why did you point out your political bias in the OP?
Then you’re in the wrong thread. Seriously.
I started this thread out of a general curiosity as to why, when Moore cobbles together a Frankenstein Film of untruth, no one has done a documentary exposing the tricks he uses. Apparently, someone has begun such a documentary, so my question was answered.
Bowling for Truth and the sources it references are part (and a large part) of my “notion.” Actual clips from Bowling for Columbine, and Michael Moore’s public appearances are others. I believe them and not Moore because they provide at least token nods to opposing viewpoints and document their sources. I pointed out my political bias so I wouldn’t have to listen to five pages of people accusing me of being a rightwing nut, when I am in fact not rightwing and not a nut. Because that’s what tends to happen around here.
Well, they are paid in Canadian dollars… 
And just to add to the pile of material indicating Moore is less than chummy with facts, consider this thread from a couple of years back, where Moore utterly misrepresents events at a book-signing in San Diego.
I’m not so good at foreign affairs: how much is that in real money?
Daniel
40 pence
Well, I hope no one ever comes after me based solely on such unclear evidence.
I finally decided to go to the source that Gamera uses. Of course, I expected it to be biased but using something that stupid… It’d be fun to rip all the arguments to shreds, but this is not the place, and I don’t have the time. I want to share a quote from bowlingfortruth.com. It discusses the segment where Moore interviews Heston about why the US is such a violent country. The site goes off on a tangent, trying to say that it really isn’t so and then offers the following gem as explanation:
Can I just say :rolleyes: ?
And do I need to repeat that I disregarded the opinion-piece segments of the site entirely?
I’ve been saying that for 3 pages Gaspode, and all I’m getting is the fingers in the ear “lalalala” treatment.
Only, there isn’t much left if you take away all that. The guy who wrote it doesn’t have a clue either, so it’s no surprise you don’t ujnderstand it. If he accepts PayPal, I think I have a buck left in my account and I can send it to him so he can buy a clue. Even the amount he’d get for $1 would raise his awareness in the order of several magnitudes.
I’m still questioning your motives, but I guess we’ll never know. My WAG is that you thought you had produced a clever and witty rant, and when people showed up and said ‘huh?’ and started saying youre rant wasn’t very clever at all, there was no way to back pedal. Hence the la-la-la treatment.
BTW, Gaspodes quote wasn’t in the opinion piece section.
So, I guess, every time you imply I haven’t said why I started this thread, I guess I’ll just quote the explanation that you apparently refuse to read. I’ve responded to every point you’ve raised, to my knowledge, while ignoring most (but not all) of the items that look like attempts at personal attacks… so I don’t know where you’re getting the la-la-la crap. Is it because I refuse to debate you on the meaning of Moore’s film - the “message”? I don’t care at all what his message was. Is it because I refuse to accept your “well-defended” assertion that this sort of tactic is used by all media, everywhere, all the time? If that’s the case : Ha!
There’s an opinion piece section? With the exception of actual quoted materials with references, or the line by line summaries of the film, I was regarding the entire website as an opinion piece.
but he doesn’t. The site you keep referencing is incorrect, as I’ve shown.
earlier when I pointed out the “Bowling for Falujah” section, you said to ignore the opinion section and focus on the actual arguments the site puts forward. Now you are saying the whole site is an opinion piece. What’s up with that?
I’m saying everything but the referenced facts are opinions. Umm… that’s pretty self-evident. It’s a tautology even. There was one suggestion of a mangled fact on the site regarding an edit in the Heston interview, which I intend to check out.
And as you’ve shown? All you’ve shown to me is that you’re incapable of reading my posts … if you applied the same skill to the BfT website, I’m surprised you didn’t come up with something about Smurfs.
Incidentally, here’s a reprint of the post to which you referred, Twist.
BfT’s opinion pieces. The pieces of BfT which are opinions. IE : The parts other than the facts.
In the future I intend to disregard any rantings that are answered by my previous posts, FWIW. I’m getting tired of backtracking through the thread and doing people’s reading for them.
Strange coz you don’t seem to mind other people doing your viewing for you
Sorry couldn’t help it.
I’ll leave now.
Not at all strange. I’m lazy.
Simple - it’s because you say one thing, but I perceive another. The OP where you put the word documentary within " - " and then when it became obvious that you: 1, hadn’t seen BfC and 2, didn’t know squat about documentaries, filmmaking or journalism. But since you don’t want to debate, apart from saying that you don’t care about content, that you only care that Moore is a liar, I simply don’t get it. Call me stupid if you want, but you weren’t lied to, since you haven’t seen his films, read his books or anything. So I really don’t understand why you started the thread in the first place. Re-quote yourself as much as you want, I don’t get it.
BTW - filming segments after the interview is done every day. Whenever you see the reporter nodding, to confirm a reply, that’s because it was done outside of the interview itself, to provide something that can be used when editing the material. Sound is easy to cut and splice together again, pictures are trickier, which is why it’s done that way. You call that practise lying, and yes, it’s lying in the strict sense that the reporter is in fact staging part of what you see on tv. If that upsets you, I suggest you sue them. Sue them all. Good luck.