"Fahrenheit 9/11" used fake headlines?

[Right_Wing]

Core message of the film, with links to references:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/f911notes/

o and im sure that we can trust michael moores website!!! lol gosh

 

[Lillithspeak]

Let me get thhis straight. You're saying that if you take a headline from a letter to the editor, edit it to appear as the front page headline of a newspaper, put it in a documentary and porteray it as fact, it's not lying, it's artistic license and therefore it proves that GWB did indeed lose the election?

Remember the old saying about swallowing an elephant whole while straining at a gnat? That's this issue. The words were not edited, the placement of the headline was for dramatic effect. ARTISTIC LICENSE. And that "headline" isn't necessary, we all know how the election was won.


Now, why don't you deal with the truth in the documentary and explain the tarnish on your heroe's crown. How about that Carlyle group? How about those failed businesses he walked away from with money in his pocket? How about those Saudis and the Taliban buddies?

 

[Lillithspeak]

This is why they are called "Liberals". Even the lie isn't a lie.

Patience, patience. There was no lie. The words were not changed. The text was moved to a more dramatic presentation. That's called artistic license. If you all watched real movies instead of ARRRRNOLD, you'd know about these things.

 

[Blemonds]

Remember the old saying about swallowing an elephant whole while straining at a gnat? That's this issue. The words were not edited, the placement of the headline was for dramatic effect. ARTISTIC LICENSE. And that "headline" isn't necessary, we all know how the election was won.


Now, why don't you deal with the truth in the documentary and explain the tarnish on your heroe's crown. How about that Carlyle group? How about those failed businesses he walked away from with money in his pocket? How about those Saudis and the Taliban buddies?

Is there any extreme to which Michael Moore could go where you would disapprove? Presenting a headline of a letter to the editor as a headline news story is dishonest, any way you look at it. In this case, he used the headline to portray an event that never happened. That makes it a lie, and we know how Democrats hate liars.

 

[Teh Wiccan]

To be honest, I have to agree on Artistic License.. In Bowling for Columbine, Moore used footage from a speech that wasn't at the one at the town, of the President of the NRA holding a gun over his head saying "From my cold dead hands!" Was it from the same speech? No. Moore's comment (off of memory) was that it was used to introduce him. Most people would likely recognize him that way.

I don't like that the headline was changed, however the content was not.

 

[Doctrine1st]

Wait a minute, I think I found one reason why other countries are so anti-American:

Most of you foreign born children aren't worth responding to, but I'll jump at this anyways.

There used to be a time they loved us, then they seen us as arogant, then they took pity on 9/11, and now they hate us in no time flat.

At least Bush sticks to his guns.

Problem is he took those guns once aimed at the proper source, redirected them to the wrong source for the wrong reasons, and now the original source is saying, "hey, were are those guns."

~take care

 

[watcher16]

Are you trying to say something here? Could you perhaps render it in a sensible manner?
If you are saying that 30% of Moore's movie is true, could you possibly point out which 30%? (Of course, that would include what Michael already has pointed out, he got it right that Bush is President, and can play golf.)

Well, I say not 30% is true, I ask you for the sake of the discussion to accept that 30% is true.

For instance the fact on video how he reacted on 9/11 in the school.
That is mighty strange, not to say unbelievable absurd.

For instance the fact that the Bush family has enormous intrest in the oil industry.

For instance that the Bin Laden Family is long time good friends with the Bush Family.

That kind of info I think is in the film, I will go see it tomorrow btw.

I read in the papers Bush is not accessable for very important government officials, like the one responsible for the war on terrorisme!!!
I read Bush hardly gives interviews, more bad: hardly comes into congress or the senate to discuss his policies!!!

Really the Moore movie is only disclosing the top of it. You may already have lost your democracy...

 

[Blemonds]

Well, I say not 30% is true, I ask you for the sake of the discussion to accept that 30% is true.

For instance the fact on video how he reacted on 9/11 in the school.
That is mighty strange, not to say unbelievable absurd.

For instance the fact that the Bush family has enormous intrest in the oil industry.

For instance that the Bin Laden Family is long time good friends with the Bush Family.

That kind of info I think is in the film, I will go see it tomorrow btw.

I read in the papers Bush is not accessable for very important government officials, like the one responsible for the war on terrorisme!!!
I read Bush hardly gives interviews, more bad: hardly comes into congress or the senate to discuss his policies!!!

Really the Moore movie is only disclosing the top of it. You may already have lost your democracy...

I had planned to see the movie this week (for free of course), but this thread has changed my mind. The purpose for me to see the movie would only be to offset the old mantra, "You can't criticize it if you haven't seen it". But this thread has shown me that criticism won't be accepted if you have seen it. Criticism won't be accepted period. Moore can say anything he wants and if it is a blatant lie, as has been shown, the response is "Artistic License". So under the guise of artistic license, Moore may lie about the president to sway public opinion (the noncritical thinking public in my opinion) against his presidency. Meantime, Moore has the blood of American soldiers in Iraq on his hands. He will have to answer for that some day as will his followers.

 

[Vxer1000]

Patience, patience. There was no lie. The words were not changed. The text was moved to a more dramatic presentation. That's called artistic license. If you all watched real movies instead of ARRRRNOLD, you'd know about these things.

So I see. I need to be more patient(and complacent) so that in time I will learn to accept lies as being acceptable. Yes, that's it, I get it!!! Am I a liberal now?

 

[Vxer1000]

Wait a minute, I think I found one reason why other countries are so anti-American:

There used to be a time they loved us, then they seen us as arogant, then they took pity on 9/11, and now they hate us in no time flat.

Problem is he took those guns once aimed at the proper source, redirected them to the wrong source for the wrong reasons, and now the original source is saying, "hey, were are those guns."

~take care

They are only anti-American until they need us to bail them out of some war. Even then, we only get a glimpse of respect. If it wasn't for the USA(I am a proud veteran of the Navy) a much larger part of the world would be under Communist rule.

 

[Firscherscherling]

I had planned to see the movie this week (for free of course), but this thread has changed my mind. The purpose for me to see the movie would only be to offset the old mantra, "You can't criticize it if you haven't seen it". But this thread has shown me that criticism won't be accepted if you have seen it. Criticism won't be accepted period. Moore can say anything he wants and if it is a blatant lie, as has been shown, the response is "Artistic License". So under the guise of artistic license, Moore may lie about the president to sway public opinion (the noncritical thinking public in my opinion) against his presidency. Meantime, Moore has the blood of American soldiers in Iraq on his hands. He will have to answer for that some day as will his followers.

Nope. Time and again its been said and still I'll say it again. No one is arguing that this isn't an opinion piece. That's what it is. But the imagery is not fake. You don't like the commentary, or you disagree with it, that's fine. But look at the imagery and the facts in it and make your own decisions. It sin't hard to tell what the facts are. I just don't know what you guys are afraid of.

 

[arnegrim]

Really, do you remember where it was, I'll go check it out because I'd sure like to see it. Had I seen it, I would have responded.

http://www.christianforums.com/t720264