Michael Moore Strikes Back (But You Don't Listen)

[Batman Jr.]

Lately on the board, accusations bringing into question the truthfulness of Moore's films and books have been immoderately pouring forth, though no one seems to pay attention to what Michael Moore himself has had to say about the charges constantly being levied against him. In noticing our erring in this respect, our bringing of a man to trial improperly assuming beforehand his indefensibility, I have provided links to his responses to the most common of the allegations against the validity and cohesiveness of Bowling for Columbine, Fahrenheit 9/11, and Stupid White Men (addresses the supposed Fred Barnes Interview Fabrication).

 

[corplinx]

I'm glad the astro turfers are here. Moore's responses to his liberties in bowling for columbine have been posted here before in threads on that topic. We are well aware he has a response team to respond to F911 criticisms also.


I find F911 to be better that columbine in that Moore didn't have to fabricate much to get his message across, instead he just plays the right music, makes the right quip, and implies the accusation.

I would like to see Moore respond to his recruitment drive where he tried to get congressmen to sign up their kids for Iraq and the fact that he edited that scene to make one congressmen whose nephew is in Iraq look bad. He deleted the part of this scene that didn't support his implication. That isn't documentary making.

Like columbine, instead of making a documentary he crosses the border into propaganda and comes out with something that is a bit of each. Mind you, I loved bowling for columbine but I did see it for what it was.

 

[evildave]

We-e-e-ll, it was certainly an older audience that saw it tonight when I went to see it. Most of the people who were sitting there were in their 50's~60's, on average. I was one of the few 'younger' people at 37. The kids were all watching Spider Man (heh, I already watched that).

Nobody outside protesting. Nobody made a scene at all.

I didn't see anybody get up and storm out of the theater, and I was sitting near the back. Most of the audience responses were approximately what the cinematography called for. I laughed at a few 'inappropriate' spots, but I'm evil, so what can you do?

The film had a message, and it was heavy handed and blunt enough to penetrate even the densest of American sensibilities. Moore certainly understands his drooling, knee-jerking audience. My neighbor walked out pissed off at Dubya, instead of Iraqis. She said she never liked him, anyway. 'Sinister, cheshire cat grin. Beady eyes.', etc.

It even had a 'local' touch to it with the story about the Fresno anti-war group that the Fresno spent taxpayer dollars to 'infiltrate'. I had seen them demonstrating on a few occasions driving through Fresno on errands. Eventually a 'pro-war' demonstration started ans was consistently present across the street. The pro-war people were the ones who'd jump out at your car with a sign and scream at you, and always seemed to be right on the edge of starting a violent riot. Go figure. Of course, that's just my impression from the two or three times driving through the intersection of Blackstone & Shaw, where they tended to gather.

Anyway, considering the quantity of pure state-funded propaganda and lies that have been dumped on us for the last three years, a little privately funded propaganda doesn't seem so amiss.

All it would take to put Moore out of business would be honest, well-managed government, and we all know that's never going to happen.

 

[Batman Jr.]

I would like to see Moore respond to his recruitment drive where he tried to get congressmen to sign up their kids for Iraq and the fact that he edited that scene to make one congressmen whose nephew is in Iraq look bad. He deleted the part of this scene that didn't support his implication. That isn't documentary making.

The man with the nephew is Representative Mark Kennedy, a republican for Minnesota's 6th district. One of his nephews is serving currently in Afghanistan, not Iraq. Another one is enlisted, but I don't think deployed. In the unedited transcript of Kennedy's encounter with Moore, Kennedy says that he will make sure to pass out recruitment brochures to others in congress. He never followed through on that. Everybody lies on some level. I'm not here to cover for Moore. It's just that a lot of people completely ignore his attempts at deflecting criticism, which is wrong.

 

[corplinx]

It's just that a lot of people completely ignore his attempts at deflecting criticism, which is wrong.

Name names. Let's "out" these people.

 

[Batman Jr.]

Name names. Let's "out" these people.

Of all the recent posts I've read concerned with possible inaccuracies in Moore's films which are also discussed in the articles linked to above, none have referred to those articles, not even in a refutation of any of those articles. Maybe I just haven't been posting here long enough. If you could dig up any old threads where what I say does not hold true, I'd be much obliged if you would please link to them in this one. Only include threads which discuss his rebuttals constructively. Ephemeral references to them don't count in my book.

Also, does anyone know when Mark Kennedy's nephews enlisted?

 

[RichardR]

Lately on the board, accusations bringing into question the truthfulness of Moore's films and books have been immoderately pouring forth, though no one seems to pay attention to what Michael Moore himself has had to say about the charges constantly being levied against him. In noticing our erring in this respect, our bringing of a man to trial improperly assuming beforehand his indefensibility, I have provided links to his responses to the most common of the allegations against the validity and cohesiveness of Bowling for Columbine, Fahrenheit 9/11, and Stupid White Men (addresses the supposed Fred Barnes Interview Fabrication).

Except he doesn't answer all the criticisms – he cherry picks the sillier ones and ignores the substantive ones.

Columbine was discussed on this thread. I discussed how Moore fabricated facts about two Charlton Heston speeches, and demonstrated how if he had represented them honestly, it would have completely changed the impression given of the NRA, and of how Heston was portrayed in his interview with Moore. On the link you cite, Moore completely ignores the fact that he MADE UP the story about the NRA visiting Flint “within 48 hours” of a little girl being shot. Didn't happen, but Moore ambushes Heston with it, and closes the film leaving a picture of the little girl in front of Heston's house. Moore doesn't cover this in his rebuttal. He knows he can't so he ignores it.

He also ignores most of the comments about the first NRA meeting at Denver. He does tackle the fact that he spliced in footage from two speeches – claiming he was just "announcing" Heston with the "cold dead hands" clip. Well, if you believe that you'll believe anything. Regarding the additional editing of Heston's speech, Moore claims "Far from deliberately editing the film to make Heston look worse, I chose to leave most of this out and not make Heston look as evil as he actually was". Yes, Moore edited the speech to make Heston look better than he really was. Sure. After all, that is one of Moore's signatures – editing right wing characters to make them look better than they really are.

 

[Skeptic]

Re: Re: Michael Moore Strikes Back (But You Don't Listen)

Except he doesn't answer all the criticisms – he cherry picks the sillier ones and ignores the substantive ones.

Typical of his methods.

 

[rikzilla]

Of all the recent posts I've read concerned with possible inaccuracies in Moore's films which are also discussed in the articles linked to above, none have referred to those articles, not even in a refutation of any of those articles. Maybe I just haven't been posting here long enough. If you could dig up any old threads where what I say does not hold true, I'd be much obliged if you would please link to them in this one. Only include threads which discuss his rebuttals constructively. Ephemeral references to them don't count in my book.

Also, does anyone know when Mark Kennedy's nephews enlisted?

Well, there's this:
<iframe width="100%" height="400" src="http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&action=showpost&postid=1870526604"></iframe>

 

[Dorian Gray]

I find F911 to be better that columbine in that Moore didn't have to fabricate much to get his message across, instead he just plays the right music, makes the right quip, and implies the accusation.

Just like the Bush admin did with Saddam and 9/11 - interesting.

 

[Batman Jr.]

Re: Re: Michael Moore Strikes Back (But You Don't Listen)

Except he doesn't answer all the criticisms – he cherry picks the sillier ones and ignores the substantive ones.

That very well may be right, but these are still oft made criticisms that he addresses. Aren't we trying to gather information for ourselves, or are our intellectual goals whenever we watch a Moore film or read a Moore book just to polemicize him back?

Rikzilla, I don't know what relevance the post you cite has with what I'm asking. BTW, Cheney has been known to say over and over again how Hussein supported Al-Qaeda when he was in power. This is not very likely as Iraq is a secular state and Osama Binladen has denounced them publicly for being so. The peculiar thing about Moore is that he will sometimes pick an odd way to leave an impression on you when there are other, more honest avenues to that same general idea.

 

[rikzilla]

Re: Re: Re: Michael Moore Strikes Back (But You Don't Listen)

The peculiar thing about Moore is that he will sometimes pick an odd way to leave an impression on you when there are other, more honest avenues to that same general idea.

Yes...that is peculiar. I wouldn't call it odd though. Lies, to Mr. Moore are not oddities...they are old familiar buddies.

Which merely underscores the fact that if Moore told me the sky was blue I'd still go outside to check. Why people pay to be "entertained" by his lies is the true oddity.

...er, BTW,...are you a supporter/appologist for Moore? Because if so the above quote would be a great sig line for someone. (I don't do that anymore) With way-too-honest supporters like you BM jr....Moore doesn't really need enemies.

-z

 

[RichardR]

Re: Re: Re: Michael Moore Strikes Back (But You Don't Listen)

That very well may be right, but these are still oft made criticisms that he addresses. Aren't we trying to gather information for ourselves, or are our intellectual goals whenever we watch a Moore film or read a Moore book just to polemicize him back?

I'm afraid I don't understand your point. You said, "no one seems to pay attention to what Michael Moore himself has had to say about the charges constantly being levied against him". Well, Moore did not say anything about the substantive charges levied against him. Did you read the thread I referenced? Are they valid criticisms and has Moore dealt with them?

 

[Batman Jr.]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Michael Moore Strikes Back (But You Don't Listen)

I'm afraid I don't understand your point. You said, "no one seems to pay attention to what Michael Moore himself has had to say about the charges constantly being levied against him". Well, Moore did not say anything about the substantive charges levied against him. Did you read the thread I referenced? Are they valid criticisms and has Moore dealt with them?

I'm sorry. I wrote that incorrectly. What I meant to say is that your accusations may not have been addressed, but others that people speak of without respite have been. That was a malaprop on my part.

 

[Batman Jr.]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Michael Moore Strikes Back (But You Don't Listen)

Yes...that is peculiar. I wouldn't call it odd though. Lies, to Mr. Moore are not oddities...they are old familiar buddies.

Which merely underscores the fact that if Moore told me the sky was blue I'd still go outside to check. Why people pay to be "entertained" by his lies is the true oddity.

...er, BTW,...are you a supporter/appologist for Moore? Because if so the above quote would be a great sig line for someone. (I don't do that anymore) With way-too-honest supporters like you BM jr....Moore doesn't really need enemies.

-z

What, are you trying to intimidate me or something like that? I never said I was an apologist for Moore nor do I think I purport myself to be. I just don't take accusatory remarks prima facie no matter whom they are aimed at.

 

[demon]

Well, at least some people are actually seeing the film before pronouncing on it:

** More people saw "Fahrenheit 9/11" in one weekend than all the people who saw "Bowling for Columbine" in 9 months.

** "Fahrenheit 9/11" broke "Rocky III’s" record for the biggest box office opening weekend ever for any film that opened in less than a thousand theaters.

** "Fahrenheit 9/11" beat the opening weekend of "Return of the Jedi."

** "Fahrenheit 9/11" instantly went to #2 on the all-time list for largest per-theater average ever for a film that opened in wide-release.
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?messageDate=2004-07-04

Or is he lying again?

The image I’ve got from reading about Moore’s film by Bus**tes, and previous experience of Moore I get the impression he has done a well focused attack on the Bush administration.

Moore is hitting the right wingers with there own bat. The right wingers had for years played the game that they are the little guys’ best friend against big government and the mean tax spending liberals in Washington. Bush stalking around on the ranch in jeans and a buckle twice the size his brain and pretending to be the plain simple cowboy.

Now Moore is the real thing and hitting hard on right wing big government fooling the honest working American. Moore also rips the right wingers’ patriotic mumbo jumbo right out of there hands and, I’ll guess, plays it as the real thing to his real fellow Americans.
With the right wingers, neo cons and Christian fundamentalists on the warpath against Moore he has his hands full for sure and it makes his message all the more interesting.

There is no point in complicating Moore too much. As the former democratic governor (?) in Texas said about the left and democrats, they talk too much when they try to address politics to the people; they keep on in a futile way trying to analyze things long after they should have stopped.
Most ordinary people have a struggle to make there own life’s stick together, and have other priorities than waste time on rambling political, analytical mumbo jumbo.
If you want to get attention from those people who aren`t "into" politics, those who don`t already know it all, then short, lucid sentences with a distinctive period after each one seems to be the way to go.
Add on Moore’s sense of humor and you are right on.

 

[rikzilla]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Michael Moore Strikes Back (But You Don't Listen)

What, are you trying to intimidate me or something like that? I never said I was an apologist for Moore nor do I think I purport myself to be. I just don't take accusatory remarks prima facie no matter whom they are aimed at.

Oh? I must have missed your support of Ann Coulter's earlier works then....

 

[MacGuffin]

Re: Re: Michael Moore Strikes Back (But You Don't Listen)

I discussed how Moore fabricated facts about two Charlton Heston speeches, and demonstrated how if he had represented them honestly, it would have completely changed the impression given of the NRA, and of how Heston was portrayed in his interview with Moore

Typical of the anti-moore folks, they continue to attack this film with criticisms of another one. Despite some creative editing in BFC I didn't support, I don't believe Moore forced Heston to say idiotic things like "Our mixed ethnicity" is the reason we have huge numbers of gun homicides in the USA. The guy was the president of one of the largest special interest groups in the country and should be able to state his case in the face of some relatively light questioning. So my impression of Heston has been based on his own stupid words and actions and some truth stretching here and there by Moore did not affect it one way or the other.

Share and Enjoy - Aaron

 

[RandFan]

If you want to get attention from those people who aren`t "into" politics, those who don`t already know it all, then short, lucid sentences with a distinctive period after each one seems to be the way to go.
Add on Moore’s sense of humor and you are right on. [/B]

Most importantly edit your work in such a way to paint a picture that is misleading.

I watched Mat Lauer take on Moore. I don't think Moore expected Lauer to challenge him.

I think the movie has value and I'm glad it has been put out though I want Bush to win the election. I hope those who see it find the truth and not simply accept Moore's polemic at face value.

Moore defends incendiary film

 

[Batman Jr.]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Michael Moore Strikes Back (But You Don't Listen)

Oh? I must have missed your support of Ann Coulter's earlier works then....

I don't see how you're contributing to this discussion. All you do is try to poke fun at me, and you're not even very good at that. If a claim, either baseless or well-founded, was made against Ann Coulter, as much as I hate that lady's guts, she deserves her response to be heard, and not even so much for her sake, but for the sake of what she says.