Although I don’t know why I find it interesting, because the tendency is as old as dirt, but I am intrigued by the automatic response to anyone delivering bad news. The response is typically to attack the messenger.
If I think about it on the level of someone who kicks his dog after a bad day at work, I can kind of understand that reaction. Otherwise, not at all. It shouldn’t matter if Moore is a lifetime crack addict with three murder convictions whose main hobby is torturing fuzzy rabbits. What should be of concern is his message only.
[quote=“seeker4”]Although I don’t know why I find it interesting, because the tendency is as old as dirt, but I am intrigued by the automatic response to anyone delivering bad news. The response is typically to attack the messenger.
If I think about it on the level of someone who kicks his dog after a bad day at work, I can kind of understand that reaction. Otherwise, not at all. It shouldn’t matter if Moore is a lifetime crack addict with three murder convictions whose main hobby is torturing fuzzy rabbits. What should be of concern is his message only.[/quote]
So the fact that his “messages” are poison propaganda filled with distortions and outright lies should have no bearing on what we think of him?
Moore is a bit like an impressionist artist. You might quibble that the flowers look like blobs of color when you examine them up close, but you can’t argue that a summer day in southern France doesn’t look just like that.
Like I said: a person’s impression of Michael Moore or Rush Limbaugh is going to depend primarily on that person’s political viewpoint. Hondu Grease agrees with MM, so his work is “relevant and successful.” But if you were of a conservative stripe, you’d think exactly the same thing about RL.
MM’s distortions are known, as are RL’s. But both continue to attract large audiences. This is not attacking the messenger as much as criticizing the present state of political dialogue in the US, which has reduced everything to entertainment, enabling performers like MM and RL to achieve an importance they would otherwise never have.
A critical thinker will find much to criticize in both MM and RL.
Limbaugh is, in nearly every respect (voice, size, etc.) but color the same as Barney the Purple Dinosaur. Both shows are aimed at the same mental demographic.
Oh, and by the way, Limbaugh’s views are now only held by the tiny minority of Americans who haven’t yet caught on that Bush and the GOP leaders are sacks of crap.
Well, I don’t like Limbaugh any better than I like Moore. But on the radio, Limbaugh’s ratings are above all identifiable liberal commentators. By a wide wide margin. (Here’s a link from people who broadcast RL, so it’s not objective, but there’s no reason to doubt the numbers ww2.abc7chicago.com/Global/story.asp?S=4043813 .) Does that mean his views are popular? I dunno.
But like I said before: most people – like mofangren here – react to the political content of one or the other, not to their truthfulness. Neither RL nor MM is honest and aboveboard. Both use similar tactics for similar purposes, just for different parties.
A critical thinker would find much to criticize in each man.
Uh, I’m sorry. I’m certain that if you discovered that Fred Smith, for example, had used incorrect data, manipulated the facts or fabricated facts, you would attempt to grind the same into his argument. I doubt that you would be willing to “think about his message” in such circumstances.
So, why should you be willing to “think about MM’s message”?
For the sake of discussion, let’s say I agree with you… however, I draw the line on giving credence to a message admittedly based on falsities and distortions.
Well, I guess some of us have high standards. And some of us have double standards. :s
Uh, I’m sorry. I’m certain that if you discovered that Fred Smith, for example, had used incorrect data, manipulated the facts or fabricated facts, you would attempt to grind the same into his argument. I doubt that you would be willing to “think about his message” in such circumstances.
So, why should you be willing to “think about MM’s message”?
For the sake of discussion, let’s say I agree with you… however, I draw the line on giving credence to a message admittedly based on falsities and distortions.
Well, I guess some of us have high standards. And some of us have double standards. :s[/quote]
Nicely written post Tigerman. Sounds like a lawyer could have written that. Problem I see is that you do not support any of your allegations while you do require facts yourself. So I return the questions. Links? Facts? The truth?
Uh, I’m sorry. I’m certain that if you discovered that Fred Smith, for example, had used incorrect data, manipulated the facts or fabricated facts, you would attempt to grind the same into his argument. I doubt that you would be willing to “think about his message” in such circumstances.
So, why should you be willing to “think about MM’s message”?
For the sake of discussion, let’s say I agree with you… however, I draw the line on giving credence to a message admittedly based on falsities and distortions.
Well, I guess some of us have high standards. And some of us have double standards. :s[/quote]
Nicely written post Tigerman. Sounds like a lawyer could have written that. Problem I see is that you do not support any of your allegations while you do require facts yourself. So I return the questions. Links? Facts? The truth?
bobepine[/quote]
seeker4 acknowledged that MM does not always “get his facts right”.
If you want links or support regardiing the actual distortions contained in MM’s work, do a Google search.
Uh, I’m sorry. I’m certain that if you discovered that Fred Smith, for example, had used incorrect data, manipulated the facts or fabricated facts, you would attempt to grind the same into his argument. I doubt that you would be willing to “think about his message” in such circumstances.
So, why should you be willing to “think about MM’s message”?
For the sake of discussion, let’s say I agree with you… however, I draw the line on giving credence to a message admittedly based on falsities and distortions.
Well, I guess some of us have high standards. And some of us have double standards. :s[/quote]
Nicely written post Tigerman. Sounds like a lawyer could have written that. Problem I see is that you do not support any of your allegations while you do require facts yourself. So I return the questions. Links? Facts? The truth?
bobepine[/quote]
seeker4 acknowledged that MM does not always “get his facts right”.
If you want links or support regardiing the actual distortions contained in MM’s work, do a Google search.[/quote]So not having your facts straight equals to distortion of facts and lying? I’m sorry, that’s too broad, you would definitely need to give me a lead. That search didn’t bring up anything. When I wrote distortion and lies, unfortunetly, it’s all Bush-bashing links google could come up with.
Besides I’m not talking about what seeker wrote, I’m talking about what you wrote. In all due respect, I don’t see the relevance of your reply. I’d say just about 100% of what you read in IP could be googled. I wouldn’t bother posting with this attitude personally.
Which obstacles would those be? The truth? Facts?
[/quote]
Do you really think that the biggest obstacles of a single journalist/movie maker who is going against Bush are facts and truth? That’s very naive unless you mean that the obstacle is to actually expose the facts and the truth. Only then would you actually make sense.
[quote=“mightyChip”]a person’s impression of Michael Moore or Rush Limbaugh is going to depend primarily on that person’s political viewpoint. Hondu Grease agrees with MM, so his work is “relevant and successful.” But if you were of a conservative stripe, you’d think exactly the same thing about RL.
MM’s distortions are known, as are RL’s. But both continue to attract large audiences. This is not attacking the messenger as much as criticizing the present state of political dialogue in the US, which has reduced everything to entertainment, enabling performers like MM and RL to achieve an importance they would otherwise never have.
A critical thinker will find much to criticize in both MM and RL.[/quote]
:bravo:
Well said, mightyChip. In the interest of full disclosure, I must confess that I have never listened to/seen one of the diatribes of either Mr. Limbaugh or Mr. Moore. From the pieces that I have experienced, however, I believe that your analysis is very much on the mark. For this reason, I also respectfully disagree with mofangongren (and seeker4’s “bullseye” confirmation of his impressionism comment) only because from what I can tell, Mr. Moore’s “big picture” Gestalt is no less misleading or dishonest than his details are. From the reviews I have read, Moore’s Fahrenheit film portayed Saddam Hussein’s Iraq as some kind of idealic peaceful state, with children flying kites in the beautiful sunshine and so forth.
Whatever one’s views are about whether the current situation is better or worse, there is no question that the “impressionist” image of Saddam’s Iraq as some kind of fantasy variation on a “summer’s day in southern France” has no more truth to it than any of the other colorful fictions Mr. Moore seems to have invented to make money selling his films to 40% of the public.
Respect Mr. Limbaugh and Mr. Moore for their ability to make a fat pile of cash off of the hardcore followers of one side of the political spectrum or the other? Sure. Respect either of them as noble tellers of truth (whether impressionist or otherwise)… no.
I used to frequent these boards a wee while ago and I seem to remember it being decided that facts and truth didn’t necessarily need to exist together, and so it is quite possible to argue with facts but not the truth. (I think it was Bush lied/ didn
I have seen Farenheit twice and honestly I don’t recall much in the way of commentary depicting Iraq as any sort of idylic paradise. Nor do I imagine that that was what mofangren was referring to with his analogy.
In any case impressionist paintings are not intended to be accurate representations of the things they represent. They are intended to be acurate representations of how those things are experienced through the subjective filter of emotion, mood and atmosphere and all of the other things that affect perception. Moore’s films are similar except the filter he asks us to use in our observation of the bush administration is not the filter of emotion or mood but the filter of ethical sensibility. The details might not always be spot on but the over all effect of a Micheal Moore film is. Mofangrens analogy was brilliant. In case you missed it here it is again…
I’d say your research skills are woefully lacking. Look here.
In any event, seeker4 acknowledged that MM sometimes has trouble with the facts. Considering the fact that it is well documented that MM has distorted and minipulated and fabricated facts in his movies, it is clear what is referred to… at least to most people.
Well, I can’t help that. You know the old saying… you can lead a horse to water…
[quote=“butcher boy”]I used to frequent these boards a wee while ago and I seem to remember it being decided that facts and truth didn’t necessarily need to exist together, and so it is quite possible to argue with facts but not the truth. (I think it was Bush lied/ didn
