[quote=“tigerman”]
If he has to distort reality to illustrate absurdity, it isn’t legitimate, IMO.[/quote]
Distortion of reality, unfortunately, is something Moore has in common with Bush and claims of WMDs in Iraq, IMO.
[quote=“smerf”][quote=“tigerman”]
If he has to distort reality to illustrate absurdity, it isn’t legitimate, IMO.[/quote]
Distortion of reality, unfortunately, is something Moore has in common with Bush and claims of WMDs in Iraq, IMO.[/quote]
I disagree. Bush was wrong about WMD. That doesn’t mean that he intentionally distorted reality. There is no question that MM distorted reality in his film. He’s admitted doing so.
[quote=“smerf”][quote=“tigerman”]
I disagree. [/quote]
I would have been shocked if you hadn’t. Republicans are so easy to bait. 
[/quote]
HaHa… That’s not nice.
These are all from Spinsanity:
Not necessarily directed at smerf… anyone who wishes to defend the integrity of MM, please first read the above links.
I saw that Columbine thing recently, and the only thing I can remember is thinking: “Come ON Charlton, he’s on your property. Kick that fat slimy fucker’s ARSE!”
Moore is a stupid fucking prick who talks a load of unadulterated shite. He makes me embarrassed to be liberal. I just can’t believe that film won an Oscar or whatever it was.
That film was supposed to be a documentary. Guess again, after all the mistakes and things, it was a fictional look at the issue with creative license. He should have been sued for libel. Anyone who cuts and pastes quotes out of context to that degree is completely unethical. Sandman: You are only embarrassed to be a Liberal because of people like Michael Moore? 
I doubt it. After all, it was his documentary and he fluffed the chance there. I think any answers are likely to be far too complex or nuanced for his flitting attention span.
Each to their own, I guess.
Free thought is fine. But MM’s thought processes are unconstrained by any kind of commitment to reasoned argument. Bawling for Columbine was too much of a stream of consciousness for my liking.
But I guess that was precisely why others liked it.
Yes. I agree with FS. This was particularly annoying. It wasn’t documentary standard (or class) at all. MM is a perfomer, not a researcher.
um i’m not going to keep arguing on this but i still dont get all the moore bashing…i looked at his website and he is quite prepared to address all the questions being raised about the movie…he claims there were 3 fact checkers and 2 lawyers employed to make sure the movie was water proof; and the fact of the matter is no one has even tried to sue him over anything in the movie. one example in a link above…the scene in a bank where he gets a free gun on the spot for opening an account…in his website he re-states this was shot as it happened and there were no tricks involved…i haven’t read his book but shall do; again tho’ i don’t understand why the right wing needs to demonise him in this way and nit-pick over factual inexactitudes. the only explanation i can see is that they don’t want to address the issues he raises (and yes he is only trying to raise issues; he doesn’t claim to have any answers…he is after all a movie maker/writer not a politician)
If he produced comedies or fiction, that would be one thing. However, he claims to produce documentaries, and that makes his misrepresentations and distortions an entirely different matter. It has already been established beyond any doubt that he is loose with the facts and that he purposely distorts the truth.
If you cannot understand why the people who MM criticizes with his “documentaries” are eager to point out his factual inaccuracies, then I see no reason to continue dicussing this matter with you either, as the reason really should be obvious.
But hey, take a look at this, and this, Only Stupid White Men Believe Michael Moore.
Fire them.
Looks like I was guilty of being too lenient towards MM.
Also I believe the Wall Streeet Journal (very thoroughly) went through bit by bit to discredit the movie Bowling for Columbine. The newspaper editor was particularly shocked at the number of quotes that were out of time sequence (i.e. quoting Heston after Moore but for something that occurred one year PRIOR to Columbine) and making it look like an immediate reaction to the news. I regrettably to not have a subscription to the WSJ.
[quote=“bear64”]“but what’s accouracy when you’re throwing around trite rhetoric, right?”
um well I think the little website you’ve introduced us to is the master of trite rhetoric there flippa…and as to my anti-USA media…well I use the internet and haven’t lived in NZ for years so I read all media…just that it’s pretty obvious that mainstream American media is so biased against anyone such as mike moore that it’s not worth reading…i prefer pinko liberal rags such as the guardian:
guardian.co.UK/israel/Story/ … 29,00.html[/quote]
you know nothing about america, bear. only what you get through your filtered foreign media. all americans are conservative republicans. lol. it’s easier to stereotype, isn’t it?
and ironic that you would whine about biased conservative american media when the thread is about a liberal loudmouth who won an academy award for his non-factual documentary. wait, but we americans don’t get irony, so nevermind.
It raised issues. If there were some factual mistakes in it, then so be it, I won’t look at it as a documentary anymoreif that’s what you are going for, tigerman. You can’t deny, however, that it does ask some interesting questions, and nobody put words into Charleton Heston’s mouth when he started shooting himself in the foot, pun fully intended, on his theories for why there is more crime. Some segments didn’t really seem to make sense such as the K-Mart scene using the kids from Columbine as tools, but he brings up some issues that no one seems to be wanting to disprove such as racial profiling, constant disapproval from gun advocates on safety measures on guns, and the fact that America has one of the highest violent crime rates of first-world Western countries. Nitpick facts, whatever, but I don’t see a rebuttal from conservatives beyond that.
amen to that imani
and to flippa…" you know nothing about America, bear. only what you get through your filtered foreign media. all Americans are conservative republicans. lol. it’s easier to stereotype, isn’t it? "
sorry but i know all americans aren’t conservative republicans…if they were then bush would have got 100% of the vote innit? my point is that mainstream america and the powers-that-be seem to have moved so far right that intelligent debate with americans is becoming harder and harder to find…you’re the one quoting from a rabid right wing website that portrays all liberals as “pinko’s” and all arabs as muslim extremists…and my knowledge of america is improving all the time thanks to the input of people such as yourself…keep up the education!
[quote=“bear64”]amen to that imani
and to flippa…" you know nothing about America, bear. only what you get through your filtered foreign media. all Americans are conservative republicans. lol. it’s easier to stereotype, isn’t it? "
sorry but I know all Americans aren’t conservative republicans…
[/quote]
then why did you say this:
please rationalize for me why you think stereotyping is ok.
[quote]if they were then Bush would have got 100% of the vote innit? my point is that mainstream America and the powers-that-be seem to have moved so far right that intelligent debate with Americans is becoming harder and harder to find…
[/quote]
you gotta be kidding me. there is more healthy debate about iraq in the us than anywhere else in the world. how exactly does one have a healthy debate when everyone thinks the same thing?
actually, i got that link off of andrew sullivan’s blog. and as always, if you can’t attack the message, attack the messanger. you still haven’t even tried to dispute any of the points in that critique of moore. such as his blatant misrepresentation and fabrication of bush’s words. maybe in new zealand lying to get your point across is considered ok?
The issues have been around for a LONG time. I can’t think of a single issue that MM brought to light from darkness in his film.
Nothing new. The questions have been asked and debated for many years. That is why, coupled with the fact that he deliberately distorted facts and reality, I am very doubtful that his goal was innocently merely to raise awareness of any issues. No, I think his goal was political… he has an agenda and rather than debate the issues honestly, he raised strawmen… I’m certain that you recognize that doing so is not considered acceptable form in debate. One loses points in a debate when strawmen arguments are recognized and pointed out.
I’ve been looking at debates regarding these issues for years. I don’t understand why you think these issues are not being debated.
First, I’m very surprised that you are so apparently willing to refer to protestations regarding distortions and outright lies as “nit picking” re facts. How does one formulate a good, sound argument without facts that support the same?
Wow! Check out some conservative sites and commentators.
I’m in no way defending MM, who I have disliked since Roger and Me, but I suspect most of you are pretty clueless about the liberties with time, perspective, editing, facts, and so on, that documentaries regularly take. When Roger and Me came out I was dating a film student and criticisms such as the above were laughed off the table. There is no such thing as an objective documentary. It’s simpy a matter of where you draw the line with your distortions. If enough people agree that you have been fair does this make it so? That seems about the extent of things. MM has not done anything other filmmakers, or writers for that matter, don’t do. All creative works, from films to paintings to journalistic pieces employ a host of rhetorical tricks to enhance the message. You want the plain truth, read Pilgrims Progress.
Now that I’ve established myself as an amoral postmodernist, I must state that I believe MM has gone beyond what can reasonably be tolerated of a documentary filmmaker. But by doing so I confirm the very conservativeness of my expectations of documentaries, an expectation that is in no way universally shared. MM knows very well what he has done. He just has to justify it in terms most unsophisticated americans can understand to get the film accepted. “I had fact checkers. I am a serious documentarian.” Right, except liberal cultural elites don’t believe in facts anymore so the only critics MM cares about have already pardoned him. In fact they see no crime.
As I get older (and busier), I become much choosier with whom I am willing to spend time chewing the fat. Life is too interesting and short for drivel. There are certain statements that kick off my “wanker alarm bells”, and praise of Mike Moore is among them.
A: “Wow man, I just read this really cool book by Mike Moore. Wow, it really opens your eyes about what’s going on, man.”
B: “If you ever talk to me again, I’m going to maim you.”
There are many strong arguments for tighter gun control in the U.S. so there is certainly no need for his fabrications.
Moore is such an asshole, he actually makes me want to lose weight. 
Ditto the statements and portrayals of reality made by politicians.
Let’s talk about Rush Limbaugh, the other flatulent pig blowhard who likes getting people’s backs up. He hasn’t nearly the charisma of MM. At least MM doesn’t appear to be a racist, fascist, sexist homophobe. Seems more like a pretty open minded guy who likes pointing things out to bait morons.
Who gives a crap about the so called ‘facts’. What the hell does that mean anyway ??? HA!
Majority of you just don’t like him cause he named a book after you. 