Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > Michael Moore - not quite the truth....      Home login  
Joined: 4/2/2006
Msg: 51
Michael Moore - not quite the truth....Page 3 of 6    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)
we just had pundits argue about who "scored" with the public regardless of truth in the statements."

You know, fireknight, I think it would be a fascinating program - a show about the issues of the day that points out who lied about what and who is misleading whom with a selective use of facts. Moore would NOT fare well on such a program.
Problem is, the talking heads/pundits we have now are too full of their own egos - they want to put out their own point of view, not actually discuss what someone else said, other than to mock it or belittle the speaker.
The meaning of pundit is 'learned man' or critic - we don't see a lot of criticism from these people on the issues, just more blither about their particular point of view, right or left.
I've been on some of these shows as a guest - the format is set up to be confrontational, to provide 'good' tv - and guests are selected primarily on that basis - the 'attack dog' approach will often get your point of view on the tube, rather than cogent and balanced thinking.
As I said, it's a problem.
Joined: 4/2/2006
Msg: 53
Michael Moore - not quite the truth....
Posted: 11/2/2007 1:11:06 PM
Fireknight, you're dancing around the point I'm attempting to make, plus, with all due respect, letting your left wing bias get in the way of your thinking. We can't just deal with 'some' of the facts - we need to deal with them all, and when the selection is made in the manner in which Moore makes it, a very warped version of the truth come out of the process.
And when someone with the audience that Moore has intentionally dupes these people, we get further from the truth, further from a rational examination of the issues. To inflame people using half-truths and deception isn't serving 'truth' or creating progress - it is, to be blunt, impeding it.
My argument and this thread don't concern the health system per se, but rather, the manner in which Moore deals with the facts. You would be incensed, as a Democrat, if I were to put together footage of one of the left's heroes - doesn't matter who - and made that individual appear to say something like - "let's kill all the queers and jews". But the fact remains, it is entirely possible to do that kind of thing with today's digital imaging technology and it is that which Moore has done, in BFC, in his portrayal of Charlton Heston. How can you countenace that, or tell me that it contributes to the discussion?
Moore's cavalier treatment of the facts, and truth, is and must be suspect from the first time he does something like that. Just as we learned that Jayson Blair was a liar and plagerist, so too we have learned that Moore is dishonest and deceitful.
p.s. when you comment on the 'use of facts' by the left, would that be in the manner of, say, a certain Willy Clinton? That sort of use of facts? Goes both ways, doesn't it?
Joined: 4/2/2006
Msg: 54
Michael Moore - not quite the truth....
Posted: 11/2/2007 5:59:40 PM
"all of the words additudes and expressions were his they were factual, fair no, but completely accurate."

Yep, I can see where intelligent discourse in this thread is about to end - the typical leftwing/right wing accusations are beginning. Tell me something fireknight - if you can see past your progressive center viewpoint - if you completely misrepresent what someone says, by linking together words and phrases from different times, places and context - how in blazes can you call that completely accurate? Particularly when the intent, as is Moore's, is to ridicule and malign a political enemy? The intent is what makes this such a malicious thing by the way.
You can't, plain and simple. To even attempt to say so is ridiculous and I say that now after having tried, gently, to point out the logical fallacies to you. I had a long and interesting career searching out 'facts' and being able to discern what was and wasn't true. I stand by my analysis of Moore's work and I suggest that you rethink the meanings of words like 'true' and 'accurate' and 'misrepresentation'.
I said quite a bit earlier in this thread that if anyone could point out a right wing documentarist doing what Moore is doing, we can equally castigate him/her for that. No one yet has done so - including yourself - so don't tell me "the group that has been doing that for the most part is the right" without any proof of that. That puts you firmly in the camp you're deriding, i.e. the right wing, making statements you cannot support.
I've managed to avoid making any strongly overt political comments about the left so far or any persons' opinion, but if you continue with this kind of bogus reasoning, you're going to tempt me beyond my ability to ignore it.
Joined: 4/2/2006
Msg: 55
Michael Moore - not quite the truth....
Posted: 11/2/2007 6:07:53 PM
cktoronto, I think you were asked once already to adhere to the topic? The topic happens to be truth in documentaries - not inappropriate comments about one or the other sides of the poltical spectrum. If you want to call down the right wing, may I suggest that you start your own thread - and I promise to come there with such undeniable vilification of the left that you'll rethink your very political existence, ok?
Such as that may be, your comment: "This thread is a perfect example of pretending right-wing rhetoric represents the view of the average person" is offensive. You may not have noticed, but in this entire thread, I've represented no one's thinking but my own. Now, please refer again to the first sentence of this post and, if you can't contribute, please go away. Please note, if you can contribute intelligently, you're welcome to do so. Thank you.
Joined: 4/2/2006
Msg: 56
Michael Moore - not quite the truth....
Posted: 11/2/2007 6:12:21 PM
@ unicycle: "but fails to understand that OP does same thing"..."So while admonishing other posters to treat the "facts" fairly it is Okay for Op not to"
I'd appreciate you showing all of us where I have done this. Or are you still miffed at me for not being impressed by your earlier post? I told you, the link was broken and in any case, the reference didn't seem germane. But if you care to repost it, I WILL look at it.
Joined: 10/28/2007
Msg: 57
view profile
Michael Moore - not quite the truth....
Posted: 11/2/2007 6:43:36 PM

The thing I hate most about the far right is most of them pretend their opinions lie somewhere in the middle of the spectrum. This thread is a perfect example of pretending right-wing rhetoric represents the view of the average person.

What constitutes 'far right'?
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 58
Michael Moore - not quite the truth....
Posted: 11/3/2007 5:45:33 AM
>>> Ummm.. Jiperly is a 'he.'

Awesome-sause! You remembered!

But yea, the story behind that is the Admins whittled away all my images till there is only the one with my sister in the center and me off to the side, and I haven't bothered getting new images(plus I'm pretty disenfranchised over it too)

You're not the first to be confused by this, though, and nor will you be the last I fear, so I'm not really offended.....


>>>The only thing Moore could be accused of is only showing one side.

Exactly- I thought I was seeing things as they unfolded- but they didn't- the NRA didn't hold their convention in Bowling because they hate children- they held it because they would be charged if they canceled. Moore ignored this fact because it was inconvenient to the story he was trying to sell....

I could go on, but you basically summed it up- he only showed people what he wanted them to see- he manipulated them, and left or right, I find any action like that to be completely deplorable.


>>>Where's your disgust at your government and media ? Why are the same people that attack Moore not speaking out on far worse examples of this type of mentality ?

I have great disgust for the Government and the Media- if you're referring to the War on Iraq, I've always opposed it, and having in recent years accepting a more Libertarian view, I've opposed the Government even moreso- but I've argued it many times on many different forums, and I'd rather leave it in this forum to more interested members.

>>>How many people died , 'cause Moore lied ?

And that justifies lying? Because there are more liars out there?

That is no way to gain the respect of people, to denounce the liars by lying yourself.
Joined: 4/2/2006
Msg: 59
Michael Moore - not quite the truth....
Posted: 11/3/2007 10:45:52 AM
Jiperly has pointed out what you, fireknight, could have found out by doing adequate research: the NRA was mandated by federal law to hold the meeeting. As Columbine occured 11 days before the meeting date, and - BY LAW - members had to be notified a minimum of ten days prior of any change, it was impossible for the NRA to change the time and place of the meeting - a fact that, as Jiperly noted, was simply too 'inconvenient' for Moore to consider. That Moore then used that omission of fact to discredit the NRA and Heston is indicative that he is an ideologue and not a documentarist. Point made, let's move on.
Your statement: "That is very different then forexample using a digital recreation to make someone say something they never said or believed" tells me that you are so mired in your beliefs and so unaware of what truth actually is that you are not worth discussing the issue with. Anyone who believes that a total misrepresentation of a public figure's words on an issue of national importance doesn't matter is simply too damn stupid to bother with.
You of course will now trumpet my refusal to debate with you as a sign of your intellectual superiority and the greater worth of your arguments. Be my guest. But until you return with some common sense arguments that recognize facts rather than your poorly researched assumptions, I'm not going to treat with you. I will, however, look up "Path to 911" since you've brought it up, even though you didn't bother to research it well enough to provide any appropriate links. In return, I hope you have the intellectual honesty to read the material at - although, like other ideologues, I suspect you'll find that too 'inconvenient'.
As for my 'bias', I've made no secret of it at any time, just indicated that, outside of the realm I would argue from, it wasn't going to be a factor in this thread and that I hoped right/left bickering wouldn't happen here. However, other than you, everyone has respected that request. I'll ask again - stick to the issues, leave posters and political affiliations out of it.
Joined: 4/2/2006
Msg: 60
Michael Moore - not quite the truth....
Posted: 11/3/2007 11:32:50 AM
Examples please Artz - give us some examples to work with here. Otherwise, the one baying at the moon is you. So far, the only one we've proved to be knowingly lying is Michael Moore. Of course, perhaps I have a bit stricter interpretation of lying than some - I include lying by omission, lying by deceit, lying by miscontruing people's words...could it be that Michael Moore and his cohorts have a less stringent definition of the truth? After all, with a known truth teller like Bill Clinton as one of their heroes, you get a lot of latitude.
For the sake of this discussion thread, and the elucidation of certain people who have trouble comprehending what it means, here is the definition of the truth, as on This is the standard we will use from here on in.

1. the true or actual state of a matter.
2. conformity with fact or reality; verity.
3. a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like.
4. the state or character of being true.
5. actuality or actual existence.
6. an obvious or accepted fact; truism; platitude.
7. honesty; integrity; truthfulness.
8. (often initial capital letter) ideal or fundamental reality apart from and transcending perceived experience: the basic truths of life.
9. agreement with a standard or original.
10. accuracy, as of position or adjustment.

You'll notice that much of Moore's work does not conform to the above noted definitions of truth - particularly #2 and #7. Numbers 9 and 10 are suspect too.
Joined: 4/2/2006
Msg: 61
Michael Moore - not quite the truth....
Posted: 11/3/2007 11:56:13 AM
Just to hammer the point home a bit more effectively, here is the definition of the word 'lie'
1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture.
3. an inaccurate or false statement.
4. the charge or accusation of lying: He flung the lie back at his accusers.
–verb (used without object)
5. to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive.
6. to express what is false; convey a false impression.
–verb (used with object)
7. to bring about or affect by lying (often used reflexively): to lie oneself out of a difficulty; accustomed to lying his way out of difficulties.

It appears that every single one of those definitions, other than #4 and to a lesser extent, #7, applies to Moore's work. Ok, Moore supporters, let's now twist the definitions of 'truth' and 'lie' to suit your worldview - I can hardly wait for the explanations we're about to get here now.
Joined: 3/8/2004
Msg: 62
view profile
Michael Moore - not quite the truth....
Posted: 11/3/2007 12:38:09 PM

Documentary, as it applies here, works to identify a "filmmaking practice, a cinematic tradition, and mode of audience reception" that is continually evolving and is without clear boundaries.

Film theorist Paul Rotha offers a more in-depth and analogous definition:

"Documentary defines not subject or style, but approach. It denies neither trained actors nor the advantages of staging. It justifies the use of every known technical artifice to gain its effect on the spectator....To the documentary director the appearance of things and people is only superficial. It is the meaning behind the thing and the significance underlying the person that occupy his attention....Documentary approach to cinema differs from that of story-film not in its disregard for craftsmanship, but in the purpose to which that craftsmanship is put. Documentary is a trade just as carpentry or pot-making. The pot-maker makes pots, and the documentarian documentaries."

Indeed, producing a documentary is a complex craft and just as any other creative endeavor, it demands several layers and a focus on the overall intent. The purpose of making a pot or building a home seems quite apparent. Yet why do documentarians make documentaries? As with any art, the purposes are multifaceted and are both functional and aesthetic. One "purposive" characteristic of film is that it is "intended to achieve something in addition to entertaining audiences and making money." 4 A documentary teaches at the same time it appeals to the heart. Michael Renov believes there are actually four distinct although sometimes overlapping purposes of documentary film: 5

to record, reveal, or preserve
to persuade or promote
to analyze or interrogate
to express

Now that the definition of documentary is more clear, how does one "read" a documentary? What codes are embedded into the production and how are they then translated by the viewer? It is important to remember that although one of the purposes of the documentary is to present reality, it is constructed and can only be a representation of reality. By using specific techniques to form the production, documentarians can make their footage seem like the absolute truth and control to a large extent how the film is received by the viewer.

A personal point-of-view documentary meets the general definition of a documentary (takes a non-fictional approach to representing reality, informs the audience and offers an analysis of a given subject) and also has the following features:

* the documentary project is based on an original narrative and cinematographic construction and a treatment of the subject that are strongly influenced by the personal vision of the director; the project generally forms part of a continuum with regard to previous works;
* the director not only has total control over the project during the shoot, but is also the instigator of the project and, whatever the production framework, retains editorial independence and creative control at all times during project development and realization up to and including the final master.

It was Grierson who
described the documentary as ‘a creative treatment of actuality’ to signify that there
was an element of art involved in the capturing and construction of images from
actuality into a coherent work with an argument and a point of view. Grierson’s own
particular view of the purpose of documentary was to use it as a tool of information
and education, rather than as a form of popular entertainment.

Documentary - A Definition for the Digital Age

Documentary texts are supposedly those which aim to document reality, attempting veracity in their depiction of people, places and events. However, the process of mediation means that this is something of a oxymoron, it being impossible to re-present reality without constructing a narrative that may be fictional in places. Certainly, any images that are edited cannot claim to be wholly factual, they are the result of choices made by the photographer on the other end of the lens. Nonetheless, it is widely accepted that categories of media texts can be classed as non-fiction, that their aim is to reveal a version of reality that is less filtered and reconstructed than in a fiction text. Such texts are often constructed from a particular moral or political perspective, and cannot therefore claim to be objective. Other texts purport simply to record an event, although decisions made in post-production mean that actuality is edited, re-sequenced and artificially framed. The documentary maker generally establishes a thesis before starting the construction of their text, and the process of documentary-making can be simply the ratification of their idea. Perhaps, to misquote Eco, the objectivity of the text lies not in the origin but the destination?

The documentary genre has a range of purposes, from the simple selection and recording of events (a snapshot or unedited holiday video) to a polemic text that attempts to persuade the audience into a specific set of opinions (Bowling For Columbine). Audiences must identify that purpose early on and will therefore decode documentary texts differently to fictional narratives.

Documentaries are artistic productions, and in the case of politically focused ones, will focus on the beliefs of the artist - as any art does.

If we take that "gun in bank" scene in BFC, and use your logic, then BFC's entire film would have been probably oriented on capturing every single step in real time. The initial contact with the bank, their inner process, the person on the other end doing the check.....Every second of the process detailed and shown.

That would have been BFC.

It would have been ignored.

The KEY point, the one needed to attract attention, would still be the same, but the focus would have been lost. No tree, just forest.

The key point is " I just got a bank to get me a free gun, and here I am standing in it holding it. "

That's the focus.

Again, the reaction outside of the US to that seen was total shock and laughter at the mere possibility that something like that could happen - no matter what was involved.
Joined: 4/2/2006
Msg: 63
Michael Moore - not quite the truth....
Posted: 11/3/2007 1:24:55 PM
Montréal Guy, when you beat up on a guy, you really do it well!
Ok, here are dictionary definitions of 'documentary' - I personally prefer to get to the original source - as a rule, anything beyond that becomes less accurate due to interpretation - I think it's appropriate to start from the dictionary meaning of the term, but I do recognize now where much of the dissent to my opinion is coming from. In this case, the dictionary definition of the word is an original source of meaning. Wikipedia is a secondary source and most certainly an 'interpretation' of the definition of the word.
1. pertaining to, consisting of, or derived from documents.
2. Movies, Television. based on or re-creating an actual event, era, life story, etc., that purports to be factually accurate and contains no fictional elements.
3. Movies, Television. a documentary film, radio or television program, etc.
[Origin: 1795–1805; document + -ary]

—Related forms
1. Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.
2. Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.

n. pl. doc·u·men·ta·ries
A work, such as a film or television program, presenting political, social, or historical subject matter in a factual and informative manner and often consisting of actual news films or interviews accompanied by narration.

1. relating to or consisting of or derived from documents
2. emphasizing or expressing things as perceived without distortion of personal feelings, insertion of fictional matter, or interpretation; "objective art" [syn: objective]

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

From the wikipedia information you accessed, this reference is given further on and references Moore's Roger and Me, discussing stylized re-enactments, a tactic Moore uses:

" Indeed, the commercial success of the documentaries mentioned above may owe something to this narrative shift in the documentary form, leading some critics to question whether such films can truly be called documentaries; critics sometimes refer to these works as "mondo films" or "docu-ganda."[5] However, directorial manipulation of documentary subjects has been noted since the work of Flaherty, and may be endemic to the form.

I won't say that you weren't a bit disingenuous here MG...fact is, based on the dictionary definition of documentary and at least 'some' definitions of the term as noted above by some critics, Moore's work is not a 'true' documentary - that is, it "purports to be factually accurate and contains no fictional elements" or "Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter". There are clearly 'fictional' elements and there is clearly 'editorializing'.
Perhaps I should have made my opening point more detailed and indicated just what I (and many others if we're to believe the dictionary!) believe a 'documentary' to be.
And I'm trying not to giggle overly that 'March of the Penguins' is considered a documentary. The 'penguin sex' was amazing!
Joined: 3/8/2004
Msg: 64
view profile
Michael Moore - not quite the truth....
Posted: 11/3/2007 1:55:28 PM
Just look at the flak Ken Burns took when he was trying to make his latest documentary “The War”, about WW2.

He's arguably the best documentary film maker in America today, in my opinion. Brilliant doesn't even begin to describe his history of work.

The "Civil War" one took my breath away , the first time I saw it. I taped every episode, and have them all on DVD now. My worst regret was that I had traveled in the USA , through many areas like Gettysburg, and I had not been exposed to this side of American history.

I regret deeply all those place I missed, in my ignorance.

I really don't like baseball, but I watched every minute of his documentary on that American pastime.

Loved it , too.

Now given all that great body of work, Burn's STILL had heavy opposition from people who thought he was ignoring certain aspects of WW2 - especially from Latinos and women.

Had Civil War vets been still around, he probably would have been denounced as not portraying the "real story" as well. No artist can take the totality of the time, and reproduce that perfectly.

Even those that were actually there will only reference THEIR story, because that's all they know. If that fits with the documentary, it's OK. If it doesn't , the documentary is "wrong".

To do a documentary, one tells a story. That story must be done in a way that entertains and enchants the audience. The best ones open your eyes to an entirely new world. Once that is done, the search for more information can begin.

It's not the final destination, and it's never intended to be.

It's the first step.
Joined: 4/2/2006
Msg: 65
Michael Moore - not quite the truth....
Posted: 11/3/2007 3:31:42 PM
Fireknight, it's not hard to take MG as more credible than you, he argues from an intelligent and informed perspective and, despite his differing views, it appears he is willing to consider other's viewpoints rather than cling blindly to partisanship. That being said...
"Can you prove beyond any certainty and doubt that the NRA would not have held the meeting": of course I can't - it's impossible to 'disprove' a negative. You're pretty safe arguing from that perspective, aren't you? I'm kind of hoping there is someone here with knowledge of the rules pertaining to that sort of thing who can clear the issue up and, likely, prove you wrong in the process. The fact remains - the law is the law and let's face it, it's people like you who would howl the loudest if the NRA ever broke the law.
"Since an object in motion tends to stay in motion, a quote by an idiot is likely to be a quote by that idiot at any point in time." I don't think Newton had idiots in mind with his First Law, but I'm beginning to dearly wish to discover what it will take to deter you from your course - of course, you may well be the 'unbalanced force' referred to by Newton in this law, in which case my paraphrasing of your paraphrasing of that law is superfluous.
"Nor is it my responsiblity to provide you research or links." No, it isn't, but if you're going to make claims, it is only appropriate to cite sources (as everyone else does), since we have no proof that you know anything at all. In fact, I believe it is safe to say that to presume the opposite is quite a safe bet, based on reading your posts.
"...and then you desire me to accept as gossipal " - I have not suggested anywhere that you accept what I say, or links I suggest you read - as gospel.
I am here to learn, not win or lose - and, as much as you might find this hard to believe, I have learned quite a bit - so much so that I am changing my point of view on several issues. But, and I assure you of this, I have learned nothing from blowhards like you and, although you may have missed it, you are the only person here to whom I have been less than respectful. Others, who present valid points of view, or who debate in an appropriate manner, get a respectful response from me.
And would you please, please, buy and learn to use, a spellchecker? It's painful enough having to try to understand your blither without having to correct your grammar and spelling as well. If you want to be seen as credible, that would help. Oh yes, arbiter is a noun, not a verb.
Joined: 4/2/2006
Msg: 66
Michael Moore - not quite the truth....
Posted: 11/3/2007 3:36:46 PM
nice guy, you've got me on HR 676 - but that isn't the point of this thread...the information about the stock purchase is interesting, but I would say that, if one wanted to protect oneself from harmful publicity, that would be the wrong way to do it, attracting the kind of attention that it does. Might it actually have been an investment for investment's sake?
And, is there someone who can tell me how to post quotes so they come in the white box? I cannot figure it out and I feel so amateurish doing it the old fashioned way, with "quote" marks...
Joined: 4/2/2006
Msg: 67
Michael Moore - not quite the truth....
Posted: 11/3/2007 3:47:32 PM
"It's not the final destination, and it's never intended to be.
It's the first step. "
Moore has certainly gotten a discussion going, but in using mistruths and deception, he's polarized the discussion even more than it was. That isn't an improvement to my mind. People busy arguing about the politics of a situation are far less likely to come across the solution to it, which is what's needed. By publicizing his enmity towards the NRA and the right wing in general, Moore has made it far less easy, and likely, for any movement by that camp towards the center, much less a solution. He's merely pushed the two sides further apart.
The truth of the health care situation in America is bad enough without Moore's mistreatment of the truth - according to a radio ad I heard in the Carolinas and Florida a few weeks ago, one in seven people is without insurance. That isn't good. Far too many (any figures anyone?) don't have a family doctor - that isn't good for long term health. Far too many people use emergency rooms as a substitute for a GP - not good. I could go on and on...but again, that's another thread.
Ultimately, there's more than enough material available to make a story without deception and lies and partisanship. In many ways, Moore has not helped his cause. His bank account, yes, but health care? I doubt it.
Joined: 8/1/2007
Msg: 69
view profile
Michael Moore - not quite the truth....
Posted: 11/3/2007 5:09:45 PM

To do a documentary, one tells a story. That story must be done in a way that entertains and enchants the audience. The best ones open your eyes to an entirely new world. Once that is done, the search for more information can begin.

imo, hands down the greatest documentary of our time will be those to college kids who did loose change. Regarless of peoples opinion of them, they took what to most people would have just left slip right on by and now have not only the majority of the nation but the majority of the world zoomed in on that day.

I dont think I have ever seen one single doc that attracted that much attention in my lifetime.

Joined: 3/8/2004
Msg: 70
view profile
Michael Moore - not quite the truth....
Posted: 11/3/2007 6:58:32 PM

By publicizing his enmity towards the NRA and the right wing in general, Moore has made it far less easy, and likely, for any movement by that camp towards the center, much less a solution. He's merely pushed the two sides further apart.

No matter WHAT Moore did, the very concept of his perspective would drive the NRA into a feeding frenzy.

Just look at the gun control thread.

Consider that like a documentary, in a way.

If you read my posts there, I make it QUITE clear that gun control (the Canadian model) will NEVER be possible in the USA - for quite valid cultural and political reasons. That's a given, no discussion needed.

Many other "gun control advocates" in that thread either agree, or make a special point of saying they are AGAINST banning guns, and FOR controlling access to them.

Almost instantly, a supporter of gun control will say something about "banning guns will not solve the problem".

Almost no one is proposing that in that thread.

That's what happens when you hit these red button subjects.

It may be gun control, or health care , but the instant reaction will be an all out attack with every possible effort to totally mis-represent the actual discussion.

One of the things I admire about Moore, is that being a liberal in today's America is almost an impossible task. People will do everything they can not to get slapped with that "yellow star".

Moore waves it proudly, and takes on all who attack him without backing down.

He posts rebuttals to his critics, and doesn't run from the battle.

If more liberals in America would stand up and wave the flag, things would improve quickly. They've been browbeaten into submission, and one cannot form any effective opposition when that is in place.

You spend your time defending, instead of attacking.

The best defense is a good offense , in my opinion.

Bear down, research, and go for the political jugular of the opponent.

Do it with patience and respect, at all times.

But do it.
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 71
Michael Moore - not quite the truth....
Posted: 11/4/2007 7:28:16 AM
Personally, I believe there are two different arguments being argued here.

Some people, like myself, are arguing for accountability and that Moore shouldn't manipulate both the situation and the people whom view the movie. Its an issue that this man creates Documentaries that at their best are misleading and at their worst are out right lying in hopes of gaining support from people who were formerly on the fence

Then there are some people who view Moore as a representative as the Liberal beliefs, and as of such, created this into a Liberal Versus Conservative debate, and ask why they do not call out all BS from both sides of the spectrum.

And personally, because of this confusion, we will never agree, because we are arguing different things.
Joined: 3/8/2004
Msg: 72
view profile
Michael Moore - not quite the truth....
Posted: 11/4/2007 7:47:37 AM

Some people, like myself, are arguing for accountability and that Moore shouldn't manipulate both the situation and the people whom view the movie.

The mere fact of doing a film is manipulation.

One decides to show some things, and not to show others, because you cannot possibly show all.

We all have biases. Every single one of us. We all see things differently because of sex, age, race, families, wealth , jobs, life experiences, culture , etc, etc , etc. We are not isolated from the effect of these pressures upon us, and they do have an impact on our views of the world - and of ourselves.

You know what bias actually is right ?

It's when the other guy brings up a fact you disagree with....

That's why we need the left and the right, because having only one of them causes us to not see one side of the issue. It blinds us to that other perspective. Without that, we all lose. Together, we can be far stronger, if this is done right.

I don't expect a documentary to do anything more that show us the view of it's director, right or wrong. I see it as a start in the debate, and Moore alone has triggered that debate all over the country.

Thousands of people discussing important issues, on both sides, like we do here regularly.

That's a good thing, in a democracy.
Joined: 4/2/2006
Msg: 73
Michael Moore - not quite the truth....
Posted: 11/4/2007 8:27:04 AM
MG, from my background in newspapers and jounalism, I'm going to have to respectfully have to agree to disagree with you. Truth, in my business, is the grail and the standard by which we measure our work.
IMO, had Moore not presented his documantaries as the 'truth' - which he has done - I could accept pretty much all of the comments I've read here. But the fact is, he did - and now we have people who believe that the NRA held a meeting after Columbine which even the most gnarly right winger would blanch at for its inappropriateness - we have him painting a very rosy view of the British NHS when, in fact, it is apparently riddled with problems.
What is the end of that in the viewers' mind, because not all of them are as discerning as some here, but each one of them has the same vote? Well - we get some poorly informed schmuck who says - "I WANT, and will VOTE FOR, the candidate who will promise me socialized health care JUST LIKE WHAT I SAW IN SICKO."
Does that solve the problem? Nope, it just creates a whole new set of problems, such as we have here in Canada with our system.
Sure, Moore has gotten people involved, but they're involved in arguing about false facts, the lies and deception which Moore has put out there, using his reputation to establish them as facts. Wouldn't it be better to be discussing the facts, not debating the lies and ultimately wasting time and effort?
The reason comedy works, I read once, is because people go to a club expecting to hear something funny - so they laugh. When I watch a documentary7, I expect to see the truth and I think a lot of others have that basic expectation, especially when it is presented as being true. Moore knows this and although I could never hope to prove it, I personally believe that he uses that expectation to defraud his viewers.
He does a disservice to his cause, even when he thinks he is advancing it.
Joined: 4/2/2006
Msg: 75
Michael Moore - not quite the truth....
Posted: 11/4/2007 5:33:57 PM
Goebbels points are rather frightening, not to mention disheartening to say the least. What bothers me is the thinking of this aide, which would be the same no matter what party he worked for I suspect. He talks about creating 'realities', and about creating 'new' and 'other' realities. That's a crock of manure. There is one reality only and anyone who tries to manipulate individuals or societies in this way is a major part of the problems this world faces.
Power doesnt' shape truth - truth is. Nothing 'shapes' it. It's inflexible, unchangeable and the only effect power can have vis a vis truth is to either accept it and work with it - or deny it, as communism did, and ultimately fail.
I believe that one of our society's problems is that truth is now seen to be flexible, or if you want to argue from the moral points of view, secular truth - truth is whatever you'd like it to be. The world simply doesn't work that way.
I'm a very simplistic person - I believe in a basic morality and in right and wrong - there are some things that are simply wrong and that have been throughouth the history of mankind, but this isn't the place to get into that.
I believe that the truth is the right way to deal with the world and that people are better for having to deal with the truth, rather than some assortment of lies, the mix depending on just who is in power.
Before I wander too far off into la-la land with those thoughts, I think I'll state here that this thread has probably reached a natural conclusion, and I thank everyone for their comments and participation. I've learned a great deal from all of you and I appreciate the education you've provided me.
I'll leave this open for some last remarks tho, and I'll be thinking hard of some equally interesting topic to continue this with. Stay tuned!
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > Michael Moore - not quite the truth....