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

[demon]

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

Yes, indeed. Don`t we get that all of the time by the media?

But the reality, revealed by Mr. Moore, is that Mr. Bush has always lived in a bubble of privilege. And his family, far from consisting of regular folks with deep roots in the heartland, is deeply enmeshed, financially and personally, with foreign elites - with the Saudis in particular.

But give Michael Moore some credit - he sticks to the present generation and, in the United States of Amnesia (copyright G. Vidal) that's probably a good idea.
Have you read the Krugman article on Moore? (http://www.iht.com/articles/527698.html) My respect for Krugman him has risen. This is a deeply unpopular thing to say among the people he works with, and he goes right for the jugular - media's not doing its job, keeping the public in ignorance of basic facts and stories.

 

[corplinx]

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.

Mike Moore uses many innocuous raw facts in his film but pools them together to drag his audience by the nose to certain ideas and conclusions:

Here is what Mike Moore wants you to take away from his film:

1. A major reason we invaded afghanistan was to secure a natural gas pipeline.

2. The Bush family has links to the Saudis and Bin Ladins and there is a conspiracy operating behind the choices the Bush admin has made in the war on terror.

3. The decision to go to war in Iraq was heavily influenced by Cheney's desire to see Halliburton succeed.

Now, even the worst anti-Bush people on this forum might laugh at the woo-woo conclusions the film leads us too. They forgive Moore because he shows Bush looking like a moron or jackass and they find it entertaining. Since the conspiratorial nature of the film isnt explicit enough for Moore to commit to and stand by, people can just dismiss it since "thats only part of the film" or "if only what half of what the film says is true".

Perhaps Moore and Oliver Stone should join together and do a biography of the Bush Presidency.

 

[RandFan]

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

Yes, indeed. Don`t we get that all of the time by the media?

But the reality, revealed by Mr. Moore, is that Mr. Bush has always lived in a bubble of privilege. And his family, far from consisting of regular folks with deep roots in the heartland, is deeply enmeshed, financially and personally, with foreign elites - with the Saudis in particular.

But give Michael Moore some credit - he sticks to the present generation and, in the United States of Amnesia (copyright G. Vidal) that's probably a good idea.
Have you read the Krugman article on Moore? (http://www.iht.com/articles/527698.html) My respect for Krugman him has risen. This is a deeply unpopular thing to say among the people he works with, and he goes right for the jugular - media's not doing its job, keeping the public in ignorance of basic facts and stories.

I think the only value in Moore's work is that it is grist for discussion. It has stirred debate and awoken people who otherwise accepted Bush's policy. This is NOT a bad thing. And I think the media is often asleep at the wheel. But confusing these issues with providing truth is a mistake.

Moore's film suggests conspiracies and theories that are simply wrong and contradicted by his own hero Clarke.

I find it odd that folks come to Moore's defense so quickly and refuse to acknowledge that the conclusions and theories are demonstrably false.

 

[Skeptic]

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.

Moore reminds me, more than anybody else, of the "historian" David Irving.

Like Moore, he claims to be telling the "true story" (in Irving's case, how the holocaust never happened) that "they" don't want you to know about. Like Moore, he makes a big bruhahaha about evil conspiracies and keeps pointing out "connections" that aren't there. Like Moore, his strongest weapon is to never, ever, actually say explicitly what he means ("Bush knew about 9/11 in advance"; "the jews invented the holocaust") but instead use innuendo, out-of-context quotes, and, above all, deliberately "selective" quotation and editing to create a distorted picture.

Like Moore, Irving claims that if there are any mistakes in his work, they are unintentional and not biased. This of course is nonsense. As the Defense in his trial vs. Deborah Lipdstadt showed, when every single piece of editing you do is done in order to distort things to support your view, the "I edited it for time and artistic reasons" excuse (exactly Irving's excuse too, claiming that he edited quotes due to "space and stylistic constraints") doesn't fly.

Two more glaring similarities between Moore and Irving are their reactions to criticism. First, both claim that the criticism is really an expected reation by "the establishment" to them telling "the truth" (of course). Second, and more important, they both do not--as the judge in his trial remarked to Irving--"grapple with the main points of the criticism" against them. Instead of dealing with the main point--that they deliberately distorted the truth for political reasons--they try to find some small point, on a side issue, where their critics were less than 100% accurate, and start arguing about THAT as a diversion.

The pattern is so similar, I doubt it's a coincidence. I think that it is more likely both are of the same narcissistic, paranoid mindset.

 

[RichardR]

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

Typical of the anti-moore folks, they continue to attack this film with criticisms of another one.

No, I was replying to Batman Jr.'s claim that Moore had rebutted criticisms of his work (including Columbine).

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.

Did you read the thread I referenced? My observations had nothing to do with the "our mixed ethnicity" quote.

If you had read the other thread you would know that Moore asked Heston why he had visited Flint a few days after the shooting (I forget the exact wording). Heston was confused, because he didn't remember visiting flint a few days after the shooting. So Heston looked shifty, as if he was denying the visit. In reality Moore was lying, because he knew that Heston had not visited Flint until eight months later, at a Republican "get out the vote" meeting (not directly to do with the NRA). Moore fabricated the whole thing so that he could leave a picture of the little girl outside Heston's house, implying Heston was to blame somehow. But there was no connection. The little girl was shot by a kid who got the gun from a crack house – most likely an illegal gun, not something the NRA supports anyway. And Heston didn't visit Flint "within 48 hours" of the shooting as Moore told us. And Moore does not even mention this in his "rebuttal" of the "lies" told about him.

This was way more than "truth stretching here and there by Moore" and it most certainly did affect the conclusions you would draw.

 

[Batman Jr.]

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

No, I was replying to Batman Jr.'s claim that Moore had rebutted criticisms of his work (including Columbine).

I never made the claim that he rebutted every single criticism. You read what I said the wrong way whereupon I forthwith restated myself more clearly.

Originally posted by Batman Jr.
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.

This is not about Moore's reputation. This is being diligent about salvaging information from his movies and books. Use "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" parable to make yourself feel better about turning a deaf ear to him if you'd like, but remember, the wolf came in the end.

 

[RichardR]

I never made the claim that he rebutted every single criticism. You read what I said the wrong way whereupon I forthwith restated myself more clearly.

I know. I was replying to MacGuffin's "Typical of the anti-moore (sic) folks, they continue to attack this film with criticisms of another one". I was not continuing to attack this film with criticisms of another; I was answering your point.

This is not about Moore's reputation. This is being diligent about salvaging information from his movies and books. Use "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" parable to make yourself feel better about turning a deaf ear to him if you'd like, but remember, the wolf came in the end.

Again, I am at a loss to understand your point here.

 

[RandFan]

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

Originally posted by Batman Jr. This is being diligent about salvaging information from his movies and books. Use "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" parable to make yourself feel better about turning a deaf ear to him if you'd like, but remember, the wolf came in the end. [/B]

Interesting, I happen to think there is value in listening to all points of view. I doubt there are many who are anti-Limbaugh who would agree with you but I do.

My only request is consistency, if one thinks Moore should not simply be dismissed fore the mere fact he is an ideologue and his work is polemic and that Moore paints a distorted picture of the events that surround 9/11 then one should not dismiss Limbaugh for similar sins.

Of course one can take the AUP approach and find justification as to why Moore and Limbaugh are different. One sees what one wants to see. Some of us actually want to see the truth.

 

[Segnosaur]

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.

Not only that, when Moore does address criticisms, he does so in intellectually dishonest ways, mostly through presenting a "false dicotomy".

For example, in the criticism that the bank scene was "staged", Moore suggests the 2 possibilities are 1) that he hired actors, created a false bank, etc., or 2) things happened exactly the way they are presented in the movie. Problem is, he is misrepresenting the position of his critics.

They aren't claiming that the bank scene was "staged" with actors, etc. They are claiming he misrepresented the ease at which he could get a gun because things like background checks had been done prior to filming.

 

[Batman Jr.]

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

Not only that, when Moore does address criticisms, he does so in intellectually dishonest ways, mostly through presenting a "false dicotomy".

For example, in the criticism that the bank scene was "staged", Moore suggests the 2 possibilities are 1) that he hired actors, created a false bank, etc., or 2) things happened exactly the way they are presented in the movie. Problem is, he is misrepresenting the position of his critics.

They aren't claiming that the bank scene was "staged" with actors, etc. They are claiming he misrepresented the ease at which he could get a gun because things like background checks had been done prior to filming.

What you call a "false dichotomy" is something I would just call "sarcastic." Moore says the background checks were completed in ten minutes. He links to outtakes that supposedly prove his claims, but they're down at the moment, so I can't be certain yet as to whether or not he was telling the truth.

 

[Segnosaur]

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

What you call a "false dichotomy" is something I would just call "sarcastic." Moore says the background checks were completed in ten minutes. He links to outtakes that supposedly prove his claims, but they're down at the moment, so I can't be certain yet as to whether or not he was telling the truth.

I have no doubt that the outtakes do show a very quick background check. Again, nobody is denying that he filled out the paperwork and got the gun legally and relatively quickly. What is the subject of criticism is the fact that not everyone who opens an account will get a gun right away; most people will likely be subject to lenghier waiting periods. The shorter waiting period that Moore had could have been due to either prior arrangements being made with the bank, or the bank speeding up the process because of Moore's famousness, neither of which would likely appear on an movie "outtake".

Had Moore come out and said either "we did prearrange things because it made the movie flow better", or "I got the gun faster because I was famous, most people will have to wait", then fewer people would be complaining.

And look at one of the other areas of criticism: that the Locheed plant made "weapons of mass destruction". There, the "false dicotomy" he creates is either that the plant made WMD (which he mentions the history of the plant, and current activities), or that he snuck in and painted "U.S. Air Force" on the missles. Again, nobody is claiming he did such a thing; at the time of the Columbine shootings, the plant was not engaged in creating nuclear missles.

Yes, there is an element of sarcasm involved in his argument, but in presenting the argument as he did, he avoids addressing the real criticims.

 

[glsunder]

From the posts about bfc, it seems a lot of people think it's some big pro gun control movie. It seemed to me that in bfc, the nra was a bit callous, but not really at fault. Moore pins the problems on fear, not guns.

Although f911 is critical of Bush, it's really more of a statement about who controls the country and why decisions are made. The rich control the government and the media. There is no big conspiracy, it's just the way things work -- in any kind of government. Monarchy, Democracy, Theocracy. And the leaders, royalty, and extremely wealthy have more in common with each other than they do with the people they govern. That's what Moore seemed to be saying. Yeah, Bush is bad, but he's bad because he's rich and corrupt.

It's always been this way and no one has came up with a government that's immune to corruption. It takes alot of money and power to get there. Every American knows the line about getting a rich person into heaven is harder than getting a camel through the eye of a needle. It's not being rich that's bad, it's what people will do to get rich. The concepts behind F911 would hold in any century.

 

[demon]

National Center for Public Policy Research; Press Release: July 26, 2004

Fahrenheit 9/11 is Having "Devastating" Impact on Military Morale, Says Soldier Deployed Overseas

Soldier Says "Young and Impressionable" Soldiers Just Returned from Iraq Deployments Are "Being Made to Feel Ashamed" of Their Service


The National Center for Public Policy Research has posted online an e-mail received from a soldier, Spc. Joe Roche of the 1st Armored Division, who says Michael Moore's film Fahrenheit 9/11 is "making the rounds" among soldiers at U.S. military bases overseas and is "shocking and crushing soldiers, making them feel ashamed" of their service in Iraq. The letter has been published online by The National Center without abridgment. The full text can be found here . Some excerpts: "Michael Moore's ...ationalcenter.org/PRIraqFahrenheit911704.html

 

[Grammatron]

National Center for Public Policy Research; Press Release: July 26, 2004http://www.nationalcenter.org/PRIraqFahrenheit911704.html

What exactly is your point here?

 

[demon]

"What exactly is your point here?"

I thought it was an interesting article and wanted to share...you know how good I am like that

Seriously though, I know a lot of people`s hearts go out to those young soldiers. Like many soldiers before them, after being used as weapons by leaders who care little or nothing about them, they are being forced to confront the reality of their actions. If Fahrenheit 9/11 - images on a screen and an expression of ideas - is vicious, what adjective would properly describe the killing and maiming, poisoning of the physical and spiritual environments, and destruction of lives that has been/is being perpetrated in the Middle East?
Guess that`s my point.

 

[Grammatron]

"What exactly is your point here?"

I thought it was an interesting article and wanted to share...you know how good I am like that

Seriously though, I know a lot of people`s hearts go out to those young soldiers. Like many soldiers before them, after being used as weapons by leaders who care little or nothing about them, they are being forced to confront the reality of their actions. If Fahrenheit 9/11 - images on a screen and an expression of ideas - is vicious, what adjective would properly describe the killing and maiming, poisoning of the physical and spiritual environments, and destruction of lives that has been/is being perpetrated in the Middle East?
Guess that`s my point.

It's not that which the soldiers -- and I -- have problems with, it's the way he paints soldiers that generalizes them as trigger happy teenagers from poor families who don't care nor know better. Those scene don't add anything to the movie and if the movies is about how foolish Bush was to start a war with Iraq than they are downright pointless. Moore is simply trying to appeal to certain groups on the left who despise the military and I hate him for it.

I understand that War is bad, but is inaction worse?

 

[richardm]

From the posts about bfc, it seems a lot of people think it's some big pro gun control movie. It seemed to me that in bfc, the nra was a bit callous, but not really at fault. Moore pins the problems on fear, not guns.

That's right. After reading various threads about it here, I was actually astonished when I saw the film, because it seemed to be a different movie to the one I saw. People focus on the bits they can chip at - the NRA visit to Flint, the scene at the bank - and seem to ignore the actual message of the film.

 

[fishbob]

Specialist Janecek, from the article, says:

I just don't know what to think anymore,' is a common comment to hear.

This is good. Not knowing what to think is good. When Specialist Janacek and others get over worrying about their hurty little feelings, then they can begin to think for themselves.

 

[Snide]

That's right. After reading various threads about it here, I was actually astonished when I saw the film, because it seemed to be a different movie to the one I saw. People focus on the bits they can chip at - the NRA visit to Flint, the scene at the bank - and seem to ignore the actual message of the film.

One more "me too."

 

[Snide]

It's not that which the soldiers -- and I -- have problems with, it's the way he paints soldiers that generalizes them as trigger happy teenagers from poor families who don't care nor know better. Those scene don't add anything to the movie and if the movies is about how foolish Bush was to start a war with Iraq than they are downright pointless. Moore is simply trying to appeal to certain groups on the left who despise the military and I hate him for it.

Making a point that a group is, in the point-maker's opinion, too largely represented by a certain type, is not generalizing the whole group.

added a comma for easier reading