Jump to content

Fahrenheit 9/11


diskobolus

Recommended Posts

Once again my previous quote seems appropriate - ?Those who completely dismiss this film as propaganda or reduce Moore to a simplistic caricature are in no position to be saying they are opposed to one-sided presentations.?  . . . in comparison Moore looks quite unbiased.

- Adam

Your wording is a rather general . . . but the jist seems to be that to oppose the techniques used in this film is to be one-sided. Aren?t we getting a little restrictive here?

That would be restrictive but that's not what I'm saying. And I don't see a lot of area for disagreement from your second post. I'm still curious about your first post, though, if you haven't seen the film (or if you have why you're not using that film for examples). Hlao-roo's question was very on point and very unanswered.

It should have been pretty clear but what I'm referring to is people who completely dismiss the film on the grounds that Moore's techniques can be manipulative. I'm referring to those people who give their own one-sided summary of the film. And especially in the case of those people who dismiss the film and, yet, haven't seen the film (therefore unable to offer any examples or evidence). I conclude that "in comparison Moore looks quite unbiased."

I'm not completely happy with this film as my comments should have indicated. Moore often resorts to sucker-punches in Farenheit 911 - leaving out context that would leave his enemies in a better light for example. (Although there's plenty of damning stuff I'd like to see on film that he left out.) However, for reasons that I've already mentioned, I see positive value in this film as well. I can be very critical of the so-called "objective" media but I would never dismiss it as having no worth. We should be able to approach documentaries in the same way, with an open-mind and a critical eye.

- Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 92
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The comment from Adam on the previous page about seeing Moore as beiong a 1 sided character as being ridiculous is IMO ridiculous in and of itself.

Simply put the man IS as 1 dimensional as they come. He makes the characters in Episode 1 look Shakespearian by comparison. Has Michael Moore ever taken an objective point of view on a poltical subject? No!

And you know he has not so dont even try and claim he has! The man is an ultra-leftist through and through. Now you can be as liberal as you want. However, IMO that is a dumb way to live. People should always try to look at both points of view on a subject logically before they make up their minds. Liberal zombies like Moore just follow whatever their "political ideology" tells them to do. Making them hardly credible folks for making documentaries.

As for Roger Ebert's opinion on what documentaries should be: I personally care what the man who claimed Tomb Raider was "A very good film" has to say on movies. His positive opinion on that as well as many other stinkers has made his opinion suspect to say the least.

Oh and regarding the question of whether documentaries should take sides or not. Most documentaries I've seen have not. IMO the best documentaries present the facts to the sudience and let THEM make up their mind without screaming in their face the filmaker's point of view.

However, even most of the documentaries I've seen which do takes sides AT THE VERY LEAST take the courtesy to present both sides of an argument and try to be fair.

Moore does neither of these things. That is what seperates documentaries from propaganda. Which is what the moore movie is!

BTW I find it rather ironic that that one person put up that quote from Ebert stating documentaries which takes sides are completely valid seeing as how Roger Ebert agreed with Richard Roeper on their TV Movie Review show that 9/11 clearly crossed the line into propaganda territory. They both agreed it was a well made statement but it was too biased to be considered a true documentary. Roeper seems to have more problems with Moore than ebert does.

I guess he has alot more common sense than Ebert does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not going to bother responding to everything you've said, Rogue Leader, because you're clearly not taking your own comments seriously and I doubt that we should either. Your ability to be (or perhaps pretend to be) 100% certain about matters that you no so little about is truly awe-inspiring.

As far as I can tell your tantrums on this matter mostly serve to buttress my earlier points. It would be easier to discuss Moore's many weaknesses and the film's many weaknesses if you demonstrated that you had some concern for the rules of rational discourse.

Moore is a liberal activist - that's hardly news. You've finally come clean on your ideological opposition which may help explain why you're so determined to smear someone and something you know so little about.

- Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clearly the discussion will go nowhere. We have folks here who are satisfied with sidestepping the actual arguments by discrediting the person who makes them. That's their prerogative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At least I agree with the fact that Ebert sometimes celebrates the wrong movies. It makes him ... questionable.

But almost always thy're a re from the same terrible genre, so he just has a weakness for it. (Tomb Raiders, Van Helsing, Speed 2- legendary bad movies)

I plan to see F911 next Friday. But I'm far more excited about Shrek 2, and I'm even gonna see The English Patient (A film I HATE) again, as Anthony Mighella is gonna be on hand for a Q&A.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I am glad to see Adam unlike some people could tell I was being a little jokingly (well half- jokingly) over-the-top to get my point across.

However, like I said, even though I was not being totally serious with those comments I did mean every one of em.

Look its fairly obvious this is a pretty pointless discussion. Your opinion on this movie depends laregly on your opinion of Moore himself. This movie is really critic and audience proof. Really if you like Moore you'll like the movie. Liking his liberal way of thought does not even gaurantee you'll like this movie because I know several people personally and have seen MANY more people online who dislike President Bush, but dislike Moore even more so. I myself am a member of this group.

BTW despite Moore's claims that he hired a fact checker to personally verify all of his claims in this movie several articles have already appeared online debunking several of the accusations in this movie. Imagine how many more there will be in a few months time?

This guy's credibility is running thin. I'll refrain from adding any weight comments to that line, but I think you get the picture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if not every fact is true doesn't mean you have to hate him. I would understand your hate if you don't like where he's digging.

----------------

Alex Cremers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hlao-roo succinctly touched on one of the main issues. Its much easier to shoot the messenger then try to engage in the issues with an open mind and a wilingness to gain a broader perspective. The tendency I'm mostly reacting against is the tendency among ideological foes to latch on to Moore's errors or style as an excuse to not have to think or to not have to recognize aspects of the film that are honest and reveal uncomfortable realities about ourselves and our political culture.

Moore should be pressed to meet a higher standard of integrity but so should many of his oppenents, who in their own way, reveal that their intellectual standards are no better.

- Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We should be able to approach documentaries . . . with an open-mind and a critical eye. . .

Moore should be pressed to meet a higher standard of integrity but so should many of his oppenents, who in their own way, reveal that their intellectual standards are no better. . .

. . . what I'm referring to is people who completely dismiss the film on the grounds that Moore's techniques can be manipulative. . .

- Adam

I agree with many of your points and appreciate your candor regarding weaknesses of Moore?s films. At the same time, my biggest problem with Moore is not his manipulation of viewers (that speaks for itself), but his dishonest insinuation of wrong facts.

Just one example from Fahrenheit: Regarding a delegation from the Taliban visiting the United States, there is a strong implication made that as the Texas governor, Bush had a direct connection with their visit. If you check the facts however, they were there to meet with a privately owned company, and the only govenment officials they met with were from the Clinton administration (who gave them permission to come in the first place).

Moore says he didn?t say anything that wasn?t factual- maybe not. But by selectively omitting facts, it is possible to distort the truth of a story and I think Moore is very well aware of this fact. If you watch his films carefully, you will notice sentences that are strategically clipped, and footage that is chronologically out of sequence in a way that distorts the content.

I would concede that conservatives who stoop to the same level should be equally chastised, but in the genre of film, I can?t think of another director who so distorts footage and facts in an effort to make his point. Again, we should be careful about lampooning Fox or Limbaugh (the ?messengers?) simply because we disagree. Anyway I don?t think they?re good parallels.

IMO, a better parallel for Moore would be conservatives who are kooky about conspiracy theories/ black helicopters etc. Personally, I have always felt that those folks discredit their cause because of their tendency torward speculation and disregard for known facts. If my political leanings were torward the left I would be equally concerned about loose guns like Moore. True that they bring certain points to the forefront, but in the end they discredit the side they are trying to support.

Most importantly, to intentionally insinuate untruths evidences an ?end justifies the means? code of ethics. As I said before, that kind of purposed dishonesty has the potential to wreak a lot of damage for all involved. It should be condemned regardless of one?s political stance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So as to provide a fair counter to the film without becoming political on this board, here are a few links (though there is a lot of overlap) for those interested...

http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-D...renheit-911.htm

http://s88251339.onlinehome.us/smartercop/...ves/002017.html

http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20040702.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your response is constructive, nja, and while I basically agree with your post, I?m simply saying its a mixed bag with regard to Moore?s perceptiveness and honesty. In Bowling for Columbine you have the contemptuous dishonesty that you?ve very rightly pointed out and other cases where he?s just drawing the wrong conclusion or connecting things that shouldn?t get connected. But then we also get honest facts or insights that the vast majority of the population is kept in the dark about. So while I?m disgusted that Moore would resort to the former, I?m heartened that he?s reaching an audience with the latter and disheartened that his enemies would cynically use the former to discredit the latter rather than engage in the issue.

So, to take only one example, one of the themes in Bowling for Columbine is the role that fear plays in American culture. Its an important point that media coverage of violent crime was increasing during the 1990s even as violent crime was decreasing. The predictable result of this was that the population?s fear of crime was increasing even as they were becoming safer. We can debate why that happened but that it happened is a fact - undisputed. And we learn something important about the propagandistic role the media can also play - only unlike Moore, who makes no pretense of being objective, the media?s self-image is quite different. That?s just one example, but it starts to touch on issues that could teach us a lot about ourselves. I?ll be waiting a long time for a backlash against the media for this one example that is on par with the intensity of the backlash (somewhat deserved) we?re witnessing against Moore.

In Farenheit 911 its the same kind of mixed story. How it all balances out with the general public isn?t clear at this point but, whatever the case, that shouldn?t stop us from trying to approach the film with a willingness to learn. Keep in mind that administrations past and present have used massive PR to shape their image, spin events in the best light, suppress discussion that would be embarassing, etc. The Bush record on this is well documented. So I agree with your call for consistency but that applies pretty widely to the whole political culture. It doesn?t lessen Moore?s culpability but it suggests avenues for our outrage that are of an even more urgent priority given the relations of power and influence.

- Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmmmm well it seems I was right. This movie looks like a one weekend wonder.

The movie dropped off nearly 70% on Friday in its per theatre average. The actual overall average was milder thanks to an increased theatre count.

I think liberals were hoping this was going to be there "Passion of the Christ". Well, it just aint working out that way.

Judging by the looks of it this film is not finding much success beyond liberal audiences so it wont have any real impact on the election as Moore might have hoped. Not that anyone with a clue ever really thought it would.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So? He's not pretending that it isn't! (Unlike Fox News, which pretends to be journalism)

Haha. That's harsh. But if they weren't journalism, then why are they # 1? It's because they present both sides. I hope your not making you decision based on Bill O' Reilly or Sean Hannity. They're not journalists, they're commentators who give opinions. So don't get that twisted with journalism. To me Fox News is more represenative of America's diversity of ideologies. They're a lot more moderate that the overwhemely leftist media and it's good to hear a difference in opinion once in a while. Don't you think?

Now, about Michael Moore.....

To begin I'd like to define what a Documentary is....

Britannica defines it as a Fact-based film that depicts actual events and persons.

Websters Online defines a Documentary as:

In it's Adjective form

1. Relating to or consisting of or derived from documents.

In it's Noun form

1. A film or TV program presenting the facts about a person or event.

That fact is, a documentary must contain facts. Now objectivity is ok, but you should stick to the facts.

Now I have many problems with this film, but I'll let info from other sites prove my point.

Here are two sites that check Moore's validity in this movie:

Newsweek. Everyone's heard of this magazine:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5335853/site/newsweek

&

moorelies.com

These sites show that he's twisted and spun the facts. But let's not act like we don't know why he did this. And, to be fair, I won't say that he can't do this, because this is America. Free speech is key! But I also this that he shouldn't have labeled this a documentary. Instead, it's an Op-Ed piece put on film. And he's intitled to his opinion, but as a "documentary" he owes movie-goers a duty of care to present the facts honorably. And not in a duplicitious manner. That's the problem. And for people to say 10 year old's should see this movie is pretty shameful. We shouldn't expose children to our views, or a movie such as that at that age. Let's give them a chance to make up their own minds. Instead I recommend a movie like Spiderman 2, Harry Potter, or Shrek 2 to children. There's enough crap out there for children to deal with then for them to have to deal with that movie. I seen it, and was saddened that he'd put some of the things he did in there. Plus when you have terrorist organizations promoting it (Hezbollah, Al Qaida etc) and urging people to see it, I think you might have gone a little too far.

So those are my thoughts on that movie, and your welcome to disagree. In fact I encourage it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for Fox News I will admit they have a slightly conservative slant, but no more of a conservative slant then CNN has a liberal slant.

Plus I do believe they are for the most part "Fair and balanced" as they claim to be. They do almost always present both sides of an argument.

As for Bill O'Reilly, the guy is no big Bush cheerleader. The man has been openly critical of Bush's Iraq War failures.

Though IMO he should be alot more critical, but I guess he tries to keep the vitriolic attacks to a minimum when it comes to the main Presidential candidates. I have not even seen the guy criticise John Kerry once so far. Of course Kerry aint a President so its not like he controls our foreign policy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But if they weren't journalism, then why are they # 1? It's because they present both sides.

...We can deduce, then, that reality TV series are popular because they are witty and sophisticated shows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reality TV shows are not the most popular programs on TV. They are watched by alot of airheads but classic sitcoms still carry the most viewers overall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is that Moore speculates about problems yet never speculates on solutions. We have the 'media-driven culture of fear' theory (ignoring that polls show Americans as among the most confident people in the world, and among the most skeptical of the "if it bleeds, it leads" media), but that in itself is fear-mongering--television is killing us, oh no!--and Moore depends on his audience's shock or shame. Incitement is his narrative point.

I would love to believe he encourages self-reflection and debate, but his name-calling and misrepresentations make that virtually impossible, and have the effect of legitimizing name-calling and misrepresentation in return. In that way, he is little different from John Derbyshire, Noam Chomsky, Ann Coulter, Maureen Dowd, Sean Hannity, Susan Sontag, Rush Limbaugh, Robert Fisk, etc.--commentators that refuse to allow such things as reason, civility and fact to get in the way of their agendas. Because of the low standards and abusive tone his works set for subsequent discussion, people are less able to honestly address the issues he raises.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The world media, as a collective, is possibly the most corrupt institution on Earth, and since I already view reasonable skepticism as a part of my social responsibility, I make a point to seek out multiple sources and fact-check major reports myself. I would say FOX News' journalism is every bit as biased as CNN's (and for that matter, only a step worse than the best of the international lot, the BBC). The popularity is not because it is "fair and balanced," but perhaps because it has less competition: FOX offers a right-wing editorial voice amidst America's predominately left-wing media. Anyone with a right-of-center position is not as well served by the other major news sources, so FOX almost has a monopoly on conservative television news in the US while the other networks must compete for differently inclined viewers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for Fox News I will admit they have a slightly conservative slant, but no more of a conservative slant then CNN has a liberal slant.

That is just not true. Because it's the only American New channel broadcasted here, we watch it a lot, and it is redculesly Conservative Republican.

Plus I do believe they are for the most part "Fair and balanced" as they claim to be. They do almost always present both sides of an argument.

Well, there isn't always room. But seeing here, they almost always bring in their angle. I don't know if CNN is any better (We only get the European edition), but I know that my grandmother, who used to be a liberal democrat, has become a Conservative Republican after watching only Fox for the News for a year. The war in Iraq is going great, it a good thing it happened, Bush is a great leader who will persevere despite all those trouble makers on the other side. It's not too far from what the Simpsons said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Morlock, you're under arrest. Government Knows Best Act!

...Or were you talking about a different episode?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL I forgot that one. No, I'm talking about the one where Krusty(A Rebublican) runs for Congress. They have the debates on Fox News.

The Newscaster begins "This is Fox News, your voice for evil", and continues to insult the Democratic nominee. He praises Krusty, and they end by running an ad for the Krusty campaign.

Supposedly Rupert Murdoch was VERY pissed off at this episode, and told it to (Exec-producer) James L. Brooks in very vivid language.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haven't watched The Simpsons is some time. The show is WELL past its prime. Its become more of a joke than SNL even. Seriously its time to put this horse to pasteur.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the interest of moving on, this will be my last post on this subject.

Adam, while I appreciate many of your objective comments regarding Moore?s films, I would still have to take issue with certain stated and implied premises on a principial level.

. . . I agree with your call for consistency but that applies pretty widely to the whole political culture. It doesn?t lessen Moore?s culpability but it suggests avenues for our outrage that are of an even more urgent priority given the relations of power and influence.

I would highly question a comparison of Moore?s work to political rhetoric or spin. Such broadening of the scope would inevitably migrate in the direction of former presidents (I?ll stop there) proceeding to other ?dishonest? politicians on both sides (aren?t they all to some extent)- which is a different discussion altogether. Moore is a film-maker falling somewhere in the journalistic category (based on his own adoption of the term documentary) and as such, is best compared to other film makers or directors of documentary.

. . . while I?m disgusted that Moore would resort to the former (dishonesty), I?m disheartened that his enemies would cynically use the former to discredit the latter (insights) rather than engage in the issue.  

Yet are Moore?s ?enemies? discrediting him or does he discredit himself? Or the larger question, does he discredit the issues he is trying to raise?

Moore is not alone in raising issues, hundreds of oped columnists and commentators of various political persuasions doing so on a daily basis. Assuming that his issues are distinctly important or not being raised elsewhere, he does them a great disservice by nesting them in faulty facts and dishonest insinuation. Some would respond that the controversy caused by the intentional fact-slanting is what entertains viewers and grants Moore his audience. No question that it does create an initial stir (as evidenced by this thread), but in the end, I would posit that it loses any ground it initially gained and severely damages real discussion of his issues.

Regarding efforts to distinguish Moore?s facts and his issues, I think it gets really tricky to do that. When someone shows a willingness to deal dishonestly in one area, that tends to cast serious doubt on their dealings in other areas and rightfully so.

Assuming that the points Moore raises are valid and worth considering, they are discredited by his intentional dishonesty in conveying them. You commented that some of Moore?s points have not received the attention they deserved. . . perhaps it is because they have not been taken seriously. Any true facts that he points out are tainted by the suspicion that they, like his other ?facts,? will not hold up under examination.

Perhaps most worrisome is the long-term collateral damage caused by Moore?s kind of work- inevitable counter-attacks fighting fire with fire that tend to plunge the overall level of discussion to new depths. In the interest of maintaining a high level of discourse and out of dedication to the issues Moore claims to support, I think it is of the utmost importance that we denounce his dishonest use of implied fact openly and without qualification.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course its true that Moore operates in a different category than a presidential administration. My point is that both show a willingness to manipulate facts and engage in ?propaganda? (and I?m certainly including Democrats, too) and that consistency would demand that we be at least be as outraged about our elected officials. I didn?t go into the differences but one of the biggest differences is that the effect of government manipulations is far worse. So, for example, its a shameful fact that the current administration continually insinuated a linkage between 9/11 and Iraq and this was fairly uncritically relayed through the media. The outrageous result was that at the time of the invasion of Iraq a majority of the American public thought that Iraq played a role in 9/11. Whatever one?s position on the war, we should find that extremely troubling and this goes way beyond anything attributed

to Moore. And that?s just one example.

You say ?it is of the utmost importance that we denounce his [Moore?s] dishonest use of implied fact openly and without qualification?. I?ve continually done this the entire thread (most recently referring to his ?contemptible dishonesty?). My only qualification has been to argue in favor of rationality. So if Moore tells us in his recent film that the Washington Post reported that Bush spent 42% of his first months in office before 9/11 on vacation do I a) dismiss this as propaganda because he?s engaged in propagand in the past? or b. ) approach it with skepticism and a willingness to find out the truth? (answer : b. and, yes, the Washington Post did report that) Of course, there are many irrational people for whom Moore plays into their hands. They will dismiss everything on the grounds that he can?t be trusted. That?s their choice but I don?t have to join in it. I?m much happier trying to be rational and open-minded and I?ll encourage others to do the same.

- Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adam, the Washington Post example may not be ideal for your argument. Moore's presentation of the item is certainly questionable...

1) He fails to mention that the Post's figure included government weekends off, which are when many Bush vacations occur.

2) He treats the item as unprecedented, although Bill Clinton's numerous vacations at Martha's Vineyard prompted similar criticism.

3) The brief shot of Bush hosting Tony Blair at Camp David is the film's lone reminder that the President only takes *working* vacations.

4) Doctors and scientists say we should get a lot of rest, and that taking work too seriously is counterproductive. Does Moore fault Bush for setting a healthy example? (Okay, judging by his own health...)

5) Besides, the President is in fact on call 24/7, regardless of where the POTUS goes or what the POTUS does.

Moore either did poor research or was deliberately misleading. It's no good either way.

Of course, your point that there is some truth in Moore's film is undoubtedly correct. But when that truth is important, it would be best for people to find it raised by someone other than Michael Moore. Faced with a documentary that averages about one deceit every two minutes (not counting the extrapolations on those deceits), wouldn't a person be better off reading a well-researched book or even checking out a variety of sources online? Why bother with Moore's film when one can get more truth and entertainment in the same amount of time and at less cost? Why bother when, in order to accurately determine what parts of Moore's films are true, a guy will have to do that research anyway?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used that one fact as a way of making a more general point that we should have a wilingness to learn and be open to another viewpoint rather than take the easy way out. With regard to this specific fact, since I?m largely opposed to the current administrations?s agenda, I?m not necessarily in favor of him spending more time implementing it. So I don?t particularly care if he wants to take a lot of vacation. I didn?t and still don?t consider that an important part of the film.

However, this fact holds up better than you imply, although there are plenty of other cases in the film where lack of context gives facts a misleading twist. Personally, I assumed weekends were included in the 42% figure although it would be better to be explicit about it. If I leave for 7 days, I don't think of it as a 5 day vacation because I already have the weekend off.

The idea of a ?working? vacation, although not altogether false is not altogether true, either, and was made fun of in the film by using Bush?s own words as he fumbled around trying to explain to a reporter how he was going to be ?working? that day.

Clinton being criticized for taking vacation is not the same as saying it was anywhere near 42% if we use the same standards for measuring (although, again, I don?t really care if it was). And I doubt anybody watching the film isn?t aware that the most powerful person in the world is on call even when he?s on vacation. That?s not a piece of context that really has any bearing in my mind.

Should Moore have mentioned the health benefits of vacation? And if vacation is good, why would Moore's critics try to minimize the 42% figure? Maybe Bush needs to get it to 42% not counting weekends to be even more healthy. But, to be serious, if it were my movie I?d leave the topic of Bush?s vacation time out all together.

With regard to your final paragraph, of course their are all sorts of ways to learn about the world. And I know of many writers who I find extremely trustworthy. I thought Moore?s film was very flawed but had value in many respects which is not the same thing as saying it is the most efficient way a person can learn. Ultimately, if we?re really going to understand things we have to actively discover the truth for ourselves, which means using a lot of sources as you suggest and, of course, always reading sources critically. And there?s no avoiding the time and work that this entails.

- Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

In thinking about the film I find it hillarious how futile the arguments in this thread are, and any criticism of the film's politics are. This is not a documentry about Bush. This is not about the elections. This is not about the Saudis. This documentry is about Michael Moore. I cannot concieve of anyone making their mind up about Bush watching this film, for good or for bad. This is simply Michael Moore baring all his techniques, opinions and experience and wrapping it in one big bundle. The fact that he hates Bush is quite irrelevant.

I saw the film, and I personaly liked it, because I enjoy Moore's filmmaking. Do I like Bush any more or less? no. I cracked up at all the cheap shots, loved when he used the Dragnet theme, had a good time. I think this film is just taken waaaaaaaaaaay out of preportion, and while I still don't agree with critisizing a film (especialy so strongly) without having seen it, there is indeed no need to see it to discuss the movie, or to know whether you're gonna like it or not and to what extent (one of the very rare films where I think this is the case).

Now, The Passion on the other hand, deserves all the controversy. At least there people are yelling and screaming (on either sides) about the right things, and it's an important discussion to be had.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CNN is very moderate and Fox News is very right. If you want to see some left leaning media, try the Sydney Morning Herald.

Now, The Passion on the other hand, deserves all the controversy. At least there people are yelling and screaming (on either sides) about the right things, and it's an important discussion to be had.

Does it? Why is that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does it? Why is that?

Well, people are yelling about the right things, and the question of what the movie is trying to say and what the effect of it are are important (IMO at least).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everybody in this country has freedom of speech. That's a good thing.

However, people should be held responsible for accuracy and have to put up with people who point out your mistakes and inaccuracies. Michael Moore doesn't do this very well. Look how many sites point out the misinformation in Michael Moore's movies. This has nothing to do with supporting or not supporting President Bush. This has everything to do with Michael Moore. These are only a few:

http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-D...renheit-911.htm

http://www.centigrade911.com/

http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/index.htm

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5403841/

http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GuestCo...l20040731.shtml

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that's no more than Moore the other way around. I'm sure every single thing there could be just as easily refuted and credited to propoganda as anything in Moore's film. I still think it doesn't matter. Having all these concpiracy theories regarding the accuracy do the same things Moore's film seems to be doing- it's shooting yourself in the foot. I personaly find outlandish conspiracy theories about outlandish conspiracy theories stupid and desparate. It's just like ehat happened with the Passion. If some stupid people inherently opposed to the film had ignored it, there'd be no contreversy. Moore's film is stupid, the massive attempts to refute it are stupid and pathetic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moore's film is stupid, the massive attempts to refute it are stupid and pathetic.

Morlock, some people think that everything Moore said is true. Those sites just point out that Moore lies in his films, he's biased, and he doesn't let truth stand in his way. That's all. What's wrong with that?

After all, I hear Howard Stern ranting and raving all day and telling everybody to go see that movie. I don't have any problem with anybody seing it, just as long as they know the lies, half-truths, and misinformation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I'm saying is, I have no reason to believe there aren't just as many lies, half-truths, and misinformation in those sites. And unlike Moore, they do it under the pretense of being obejective and giving the whole truth and nothing but the truth. While Moore's film is certainly inaccurate and most probably lies at more than one point, it at least is not taken as more than one man's highly imbelished opinion, which is not what those people trying to refute it are saying.

And I think people know what they're getting when they're seeing Michael Moore. And ultimately, as I said, this film is not going to gain any supporters for the anti Bush league. The convinced on both sides will stay convinced, the undecided will either remain undecided, or decide what they think of Michael Moore. And as he is not a very likable guy in this movie, I think most pof those people will go the other way anyway. The same goes for Howerd Stern. People know what they're getting into, or else they would not be listening. Stern does not try to hide what he is, people either love him, hate him, or don't listen to him. Just like Rush Limbaugh over at the other end of the spectrum.

I guess, in short, seeing people stoop to the level of a Moore or a Limbaugh is very distasteful in my eyes. They are one person's opinion. No reason to make it a public health issue by having Democratic senators yelling at Limbaugh's unabashadly biased and stupid comments any more there is reason for having Pat Robertson and the 700 Club yelling at Moore's unabashadly biased and inaccurate film. Moore and his stupid film would be long gone if it weren't for the people yelling against it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I know what you're saying, and I'm not disagreeing with your overall sentiment, but I do disagree that you believe that those sites could be "wrong".

I, myself, always go by the facts. I never go by opinion. My opinion, and everybody's opinion should change if and when the truth is presented. For example, check out the first two or three sites there. They aren't Bush-supporters or right-wingers or Republicans or Conservatives. Some of those sites could be considered leftist or at the very least, centerist. They dont have an agenda. Rather, they are basically people pointing out innaccuracies and lies in Moore's films. To be fair to Moore, he did respond to some of them, but not all. And the ones he didn't respond to contain the most glaring innacuracies about his films. I agree that opinions can be manipulated, but I'm talking FACTS. The 1st site just states the facts, and not a right-wing biased opinion (the writer also expresses his problems with Bush, but being anti-Bush doesn't mean to lie about him). There is a difference. Calling both sides of an argument wrong without careful study really doesn't make any sense.

You and I may agree that Moore really isn't a likeable character, but not everybody thinks alike. Some treat him as a hero and a freedom fighter. Some people take his films as the truth and never explore if he's telling the truth or not. I think that those people should look at the facts. A documentary-type film based in facts and truths, I won't have a problem with. I do have a problem when someone filters their opinions, half-truths, and lies into a film and then call it a documentary. Be honest, Moore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do have a problem when someone filters their opinions, half-truths, and lies into a film and then call it a documentary. Be honest, Moore.

A documentary can very well just be a statement of somebody's opinion and still be a documentary. Not very different from a non-fiction book still being a book. The problem is people used to scientific and journalistic documentaries (the kinds you see in Discovery Channel) and thinking the word "documentary" must mean "objective dissection of facts". In this case, it's people's ignorance with the genre, not Moore's fault.

-Ross, who still doesn't like the contradictions between Moore's persona and his real self.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel that a documentary should just show the facts, every side of the argument, leave out opinions entirely UNLESS every contradicting opinion is also allowed equal access.

The difference between a documentary and propaganda is infusing facts with half-truths, one-sided opinions, and outright lies and falsehoods without corrections. This is my problem with so much in the media and schools nowdays. They will tell you what to think, and not how to objectively think on your own.

But, I'm pretty much done with this subject. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No documentry in the world could live up to that, save nature documentries. And even Jacques Custeou got in his own agenda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.