What do people have against Michael Moore?

ShawnaAnn · Jul 14, 2005

SoupySayles said:
Yet your kicking and screaming at anyone who calls Moore a liar.........I guess its only bad when Republicans do it

Sorry, but this thread is 5 pages long, and nobody showed me any lies yet. So yeah, it would be bad if anyone called him a liar.

BourbonFromHeaven · Jul 14, 2005

Well, so much for civility eh?

I still have yet to see you make a point of anything other than speculation.

When you change the point size of a headline to make it appear more significant then it really was, to give a false impression that Gore had the majority vote in flordia ( which he didn't ). That is being dishonest.

When you interview a State Trooper, under the pretense how making a documentary about underfunded state facilities and then 2 days before the "Documentary" is shown, you have them sign a release form for something completely different, that is being dishonest.

I also don't see how Moore manipulated headlines by making them a different size.

For example, Headlines are 24 points, Next step down from Headlines are 18 point and after that is 12 points, the actual body is somewhere near 8 or 9 points.

Editoral Headlines are 12 points, unimportant news, like opinion colums have this. Front page news are 24. So he takes this editoral, changes the font line from 12 to 24, and then makes the text body fuzzy, followed by a tiny itty bitty source refrence, it becomes aparent Moore isn't at all intrested in preserving the truth, but rather, making a poltical film to support his views.

The Newspaper in question, who more often then not, agrees with Moore, was upset enough by the alterations to go public with them.

ZaraDurden · Jul 14, 2005

Moore does not let the Democrats off the hook. They are cowards who are also profitting off of our imperialism, and he labels them as such.

I am no real fan of Michael Moore. I thought F 9/11 was pretty lame, although his earlier docs were decent.

Some people have claimed Michael Moore is just another profitteer. Maybe, but I don't believe so. As far as documentaries go, F 9/11 was a rather poor one. But you have to stop and think, who in American watches documentaries? No one! Michael Moore is actually very smart--he realized that without sensationalizing, with creating controversy, no one would pay attention to his film, no matter how ground breaking or shocking the information contained within.

So he sold out, at least to some extent. Those who cricticize him for his poor tactics are probably somewhat justified: he's not a genius, he's not a professional filmmaker (well, i guess now he is) and he's not a professional journalist or investigator or historian.

However none of this negates the importance and usefulness of his tactics. The Bush admin is extremely shady and underhanded, and you know what? If it looks like a rat, and smells like a rat, you're usually right. People in the US are not at all cynical of the actions of their government, and that is a mistake. Michael Moore views this as a problem as well, and he's tackling it the best way (and maybe the only way) he knows how.

AmariJah · Jul 14, 2005

cyberfugue said:
He is an opportunist and a liar. He's taken so much so far out of context that none of his works could EVER honestly be classified as "documentaries". More like complete works of fiction.
Wow, it sounds like you are describing the Bush Admin. and their usual tactics!
So it is evident that you don't like it when someone plays by the same rules as the ruling crooks!
http://www.farenhype911.com/

The sad thing is, the man is talented. There is plenty he could have honestly criticized about the present administration without the necessity to lie.
Yes, I believe you are correct in this assessment!

I think he knows exactly what he's doing and doesn't care because he has capitalized on a sentiment sweeping the world. That's what I meant when I said he is an opportunist. Which makes him worse, IMO than if someone actually put out something similar to 'Farenheit 9-11' and believed it themselves.
Could well be?

He's done his share of damage to our international reputation.

Honestly, I don't think that the Bush Admin needs any help- since they have utterly destroyed any crediblility or reputation that we may have formerly had in the international community!

AmariJah · Jul 14, 2005

What I see in this thread is a great deal of hypocrisy and people with double standards. While I would have to agree that F9/11 was clearly biased, (and with typical journalistic technique and style the interviews and facts were used to make his biased point) MM did however make some very good points in an effeort to wake Americans up to the rampant lies and corruption of the Bush Admin. By using the same methods and tactics use by the Bush spin-masters he did create quite a stir.
Would it have been better of more widely received had he not played by their rules? Very hard to say... But I suspect that even if his methods and tactics were impeccable with no bias or spin that many Bush supporters would still grasp for ways to discredit the source and critisize the work.
I actually find it quite humerous that many people get all riled up about a stupid documentary film because MM allegedly lied and misused some of the information to make his point, Yet at the same time they apparently don't have any problem with a chronic liar for President and a compltely corrupt imperialistic Administration which continually uses the exact same tactics and more to make their case for war and big business at the expense of "We The People" and nearly 1800 American lives.

The major difference I see between MM and the Bush Admin is that the results of F9/11 were that many people were stirred up and some were motivated to think a little deeper than before, and question the facts and motives of big oil governemnt, whereas the results of the big "show" being staged by Bush and his business partners has caused irreparable damage to this Nation and others as well. Many many people have been murdered and maimed, infrastructures and utilities and homes have been bombed and destroyed and our children and grandchildren have been saddled with excessive unmanagelable debt... and all to further the agenda of the international bankers to whom we are all indebted because ultimately they are the war profiteers. If it were not soo very sad it might be kind of funny!

ShawnaAnn · Jul 14, 2005

BourbonFromHeaven said:
Editoral Headlines are 12 points, unimportant news, like opinion colums have this. Front page news are 24. So he takes this editoral, changes the font line from 12 to 24, and then makes the text body fuzzy, followed by a tiny itty bitty source refrence, it becomes aparent Moore isn't at all intrested in preserving the truth, but rather, making a poltical film to support his views.

Sorry, but are you trying to say that the position of the headline in any given newspaper reflects it's credibility?

I'm sorry, but I don't see how any person can get so caught up in such a minor detail.

If you're concerned about Changing text size as a underhanded act.... Then, I really dont' know what else to say to you.

Moore isn't at all intrested in preserving the truth

Here, on Michael's very own website, he posts all of the references he used in his movie. Out in the open public, so anyone can double-check anything he ever said. Michael even said it himself that he dares anyone to challenge any truths in his movies. Ever wonder why Bill O'Rilley never calls him a liar? He calls him a lot of other things, but not even the biggest liar on FOX news wouldn't risk it.

Here is the one of the full ("distorted") articles I think you're talking about here.

Michaelmoore.com said:
FAHRENHEIT 9/11: Gore got the most votes in 2000.

[A] consortium [Tribune Co., owner of the Times; Associated Press; CNN; the New York Times; the Palm Beach Post; the St. Petersburg Times; the Wall Street Journal; and the Washington Post] hired the NORC [National Opinion Research Center, a nonpartisan research organization affiliated with the University of Chicago] to view each untallied ballot and gather information about how it was marked. The media organizations then used computers to sort and tabulate votes, based on varying scenarios that had been raised during the post-election scramble in Florida. Under any standard that tabulated all disputed votes statewide, Mr. Gore erased Mr. Bush's advantage and emerged with a tiny lead that ranged from 42 to 171 votes. Donald Lambro, Recount Provides No Firm Answers, Washington Times, November 12, 2001.

The review found that the result would have been different if every canvassing board in every county had examined every undervote, a situation that no election or court authority had ordered. Gore had called for such a statewide manual recount if Bush would agree, but Bush rejected the idea and there was no mechanism in place to conduct one. Martin Merzer, Review of Ballots Finds Bush's Win Would Have Endured Manual Recount, Miami Herald, April 4, 2001.

See also, the following article by one of the Washington Post journalists who ran the consortium recount. The relevant point is made in Table I of the article. http://www.aei.org/docLib/20040526_KeatingPaper.pdf

cyberfugue · Jul 14, 2005

ShawnaAnn said:
Sorry, but this thread is 5 pages long, and nobody showed me any lies yet. So yeah, it would be bad if anyone called him a liar.

Are you blind, or just stupid? Bourbon pointed out two different concrete examples, and you have chosen to ignore them (as well as all of my posts).

Yeah, that's the way to win an argument.

:doh:

AmariJah · Jul 14, 2005

cyberfugue said:
Are you blind, or just stupid? Bourbon pointed out two different concrete examples, and you have chosen to ignore them (as well as all of my posts).

Yeah, that's the way to win an argument.

Yah! Exactly like all those Shrub lovers who simply refuse to acknowledge the multiple and ongoing lies of the President and his Administration? :scratch:

one love · Jul 14, 2005

How bout the title of the movie. IT has already been substantiated that the two killers were not bowling the morning of the shootings. They skipped class.

Jetgirl · Jul 14, 2005

ShawnaAnn said:
Still, nobody addresses the fact that Michael relenquished his right to win best documentary movie just so he could play his movie on television.

Television = $$$$$$

Though I understand perfectly, I think it would be shortsighted to chalk up his refusal to perfectly altruistic motives.

ShawnaAnn · Jul 14, 2005

cyberfugue said:
Are you blind, or just stupid? Bourbon pointed out two different concrete examples, and you have chosen to ignore them (as well as all of my posts).

Yeah, that's the way to win an argument.

Sorry, look at post #46. :sorry:

ShawnaAnn · Jul 14, 2005

Jetgirl said:
Television = $$$$$$

Though I understand perfectly, I think it would be shortsighted to chalk up his refusal to perfectly altruistic motives.

Movies make more money than television. A lot more. (typically)

one love · Jul 14, 2005

ShawnaAnn said:
Movies make more money than television. A lot more. (typically)

Yes, and movies on television also make money. None the less, Moore will be making more money.

BourbonFromHeaven · Jul 14, 2005

Sorry, but are you trying to say that the position of the headline in any given newspaper reflects it's credibility?

No. Credability has nothing to do with it. I'm not sure how I can break down what I said any easier, so..... I'll just leave it.

Here, on Michael's very own website, he posts all of the references he used in his movie. Out in the open public, so anyone can double-check anything he ever said. Michael even said it himself that he dares anyone to challenge any truths in his movies.

Which is why he is so easily taken apart in public. As an independant in my view, he lost his PR campaign and tasted quite a bit of shoe.

You can put Mike up on a petastal if you want, but there are other people out there who spend quite a bit of effort to show him for what he is. Thats who your beef is with, Most other people here are just the messengers.

You asked why I don't like Mike? Well, here I go; I think his books suck, they read like message board rants that are poorly edited. The paper quality was cheap and the printing was bad. His films are just another vehicle for him to promote his poltical ideals in the guise of journalism. To top it off, he has almost zero personality. Atleast Bill Mahr makes me laugh. To be frank, he reminds me of the kinda guy who you would see behind a comic book store counter.

Ever wonder why Bill O'Rilley never calls him a liar? He calls him a lot of other things, but not even the biggest liar on FOX news wouldn't risk it.

Now why go and turn this into a Conservative VS Libreal thing? Whats the point, other to degrade others and incite even more?

Here is the one of the full ("distorted") articles I think you're talking about here.

No. Nope. Not it.

I don't really see much to gain from going down this path. You've made it pretty clear you have made your mind up and the other side be damned.

Enjoy :wave:

Sycophant · Jul 14, 2005

one love said:
Yes, and movies on television also make money. None the less, Moore will be making more money.

Movies on television make much much less money than box office sales and home video and DVD sales. To make the movie available on public free to air television so soon is hardly a money making venture (as is may well have reduced the income from video sales). I doubt you could call his decision to put the movie on air a money-making one.

Glaz · Jul 14, 2005

ShawnaAnn said:
One of my favorite movies. Directed by Michael Moore.

.

By the way, one of my favorite movies too

I have a very conservative friend of mine who loves it too, he about died when I told him who directed it

There are things about Moore I appreciate, but he turns me off with the loudmouth baffoon act of his. Don't cry 'partisan!', I find the likes of Coulter just as distasteful. When did conducting ones self with class and courtesy go out of style?

Jetgirl · Jul 14, 2005

Sycophant said:
Movies on television make much much less money than box office sales and home video and DVD sales. To make the movie available on public free to air television so soon is hardly a money making venture (as is may well have reduced the income from video sales). I doubt you could call his decision to put the movie on air a money-making one.

He's removing the rights to his films so that they will be able to air them for free?

Oh, I've got to see this to believe it.

Sinai · Jul 15, 2005

ShawnaAnn said:
What do people have against Michael Moore?

Moore is very possibly the most effective and brilliant maker of propoganda films since World War II. Since his propoganda tends to have a far left bias, those on the far left generally love it while those on the far right tend to hate it.....

Milla · Jul 15, 2005

I don't really like Moore's films because they use a lot of appeal to emotion and fuzzy logic. I agree with a lot of his points, but I feel he could argue them better.

"" · Jul 15, 2005

Ahhhh Michael Moore....

Why do we dislike Michael Moore....

He's a tyrant.

His films are dishonest, and demagogic. He's a crowd pleaser, and to him it doesn't matter if there is a ring of truth in anything that he says or does, as long as it brings him popularity and money.

"the best lies are the ones that have a string of truth to them"
That's a direct Michael Moore quote

He's a fabricator for the purpose of promoting the most important thing in his life: Himself.

He's a political coward. He seeks to promote dissent ion, mainly through the massive doses of paranoid innuendo's that lace every film he's ever made, and every speech he's ever given.

In short. The reason I don't care for Michael Moore is because he's a liar.

What do people have against Michael Moore?

ShawnaAnn

Guest

Well-Known Member

Comfortably Numb

AmariJah

Guest

AmariJah

Guest

ShawnaAnn

Guest

Contributor

AmariJah

Guest

Well-Known Member

The cake is a lie.

ShawnaAnn

Guest

ShawnaAnn

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

My milkshake brings all the boys to the yard

Obama '08

The cake is a lie.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads