More Moore Dishonesty?

[peptoabysmal]

Moore is less.

 

[Segnosaur]

Moore has always stated that his work is an op-ed piece.

Does that include "bowling for Columbine"? If so, why did he accept the Oscar for 'best documentary'?

And if F 9/11 gets nominated for best documentary at next year's Academy awards, is Moore going to say "sorry, this isn't a documentary, its an op-ed piece so don't vote for me"?

In that way, he's no different that the extremely partisan (and often deceptive) TV commercials that air during the campaign for both the political parties.

But when people see campaign ads, they should be able to recognize the obvious bias and distorations in it. The problem I see is that people will assume that, being a 'documentary', F 9/11 is free from distortions. Yes, people on here are probably smart enough to at least see where the distortions could be (even if you oppose Bush), but the average American isn't going to be that smart, or have the proper references at hand.

 

[Segnosaur]

Then when you debunk the claims made in the movie you can do it fairly instead of resorting to what is said on The Rush Limbaugh Show, an anti-Moore website or Hannity and Colmes.

What about debunking the movie based on information presented in mainstream neutral (or even pro-left/anti-bush) media?

If someone in the mainstream press with a good reputation says "F 9/11 pointed out X", and you later find out that point X is wrong, why do you actually need to see the movie? Isn't it enough that you trust the mainstream press source you got the story from?

 

[Ladewig]

Originally posted by BPSCG
But today, he repents. It seems Michael Moore has fabricated a truth out of sneaky editing, a technique he used to great effect in Bowling for Columbine.

Sneaky editing. Another good example of that would be the ad from Swift Boat Veterans for Truth: Kerry's crew is shown in the background while the foreground contains people saying "I served with Kerry." Viewers are led to believe that the people talking were under Kerry's command.

 

[Cain]

Hmmmmm.... I always made the assumption that her son had died before Moore interviewed her. Although this might be because I read multiple reviews mentioning her story. Plus, let's face it, I'm extremely f*cking smart.

She is critical of war protesters, and thus such. Her daughter served in Desert Storm, and her son in Iraq.

Is he referring to the kitchen scene? In there I believe she said she used to hate war protestors.

MOORE:

What was your reaction to the protesters to say the Gulf war or Vietnam..

LIPSCOMB:

I always hated the protesters. I always hated the protesters. It was just a slap in my face. It was just like they were dishonouring my son. And I burned in my soul to tell them you don't understand. They're not there because they want to be there. But then I came to understand that they weren't protesting the men and women that were there, they were protesting the concept of the war.

http://www.redlinerants.com/index.php?subaction=showfull&id=1088581422&archive=&start_from=&ucat=1&

 

[KelvinG]

Does that include "bowling for Columbine"? If so, why did he accept the Oscar for 'best documentary'?

And if F 9/11 gets nominated for best documentary at next year's Academy awards, is Moore going to say "sorry, this isn't a documentary, its an op-ed piece so don't vote for me"?

Yes, but who says an op-ed piece can't win for best documentary. It's really up to the discretion of the Academy to decides what exactly is a documentary and what isn't.
You can look long and hard for a definitive definition of "documentary", but you won't find one.

But when people see campaign ads, they should be able to recognize the obvious bias and distorations in it. The problem I see is that people will assume that, being a 'documentary', F 9/11 is free from distortions. Yes, people on here are probably smart enough to at least see where the distortions could be (even if you oppose Bush), but the average American isn't going to be that smart, or have the proper references at hand.

Your above statement really proves exactly what I was saying. I paraphrase it as "We all know politicians, are lying, biased, deceitful scumbags, so we can't take their campaign ads to seriously."
But, we expect so much more from our filmmakers, especially those in "journalism."

Well, it appears to me that Moore has decided to fight fire with fire. He's decided to get down in the mud with the rest of the political system and play dirty.
Oh, but we can't have that. That cesspool is reserved for the honored folks who run the country.

I'm not saying this is right and proper, but it doesn't surprise me one bit.

 

[crimresearch]

Moore, and Limbaugh, and MoveOn, and Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, and Carville, and so on (plus the latest round of Mooresque flims) are no surpise...when was the last time someone got elected to high office by being modest and unassuming, and only discussing substantive details of issues?

Mudslinging works, politicians and those who control their campaigns know that, and they dropped any pretense of being worried that people might be turned off by mudslinging quite some time ago...people eat it up.

 

[KelvinG]

Moore, and Limbaugh, and MoveOn, and Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, and Carville, and so on (plus the latest round of Mooresque flims) are no surpise...when was the last time someone got elected to high office by being modest and unassuming, and only discussing substantive details of issues?

Mudslinging works, politicians and those who control their campaigns know that, and they dropped any pretense of being worried that people might be turned off by mudslinging quite some time ago...people eat it up.

Yep.

 

[Ladewig]

Moore, and Limbaugh, and MoveOn, and Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, and Carville, and so on (plus the latest round of Mooresque flims) are no surpise...when was the last time someone got elected to high office by being modest and unassuming, and only discussing substantive details of issues?

Mudslinging works, politicians and those who control their campaigns know that, and they dropped any pretense of being worried that people might be turned off by mudslinging quite some time ago...people eat it up.

From the song "Popular" in the broadway musical Wicked

Think of celebrated heads of state or
Specially great communicators;
did they have brains or knowledge?
Don't make me laugh!

They were popular! Please -
It's all about popular!
It's not about aptitude
It's the way you're viewed
So it's very shrewd to be
Very very popular

 

[Snide]

Are you talking about the Saudis who supposedly left the country when nobody else could? I thought that issue had been exposed as another of Moore's patched-together lies.

You're questions and reasoning are fair. But regarding this issue, the point about "nobody else could" was not that no one else was allowed to, but because things were so backed up once flights continued, many (not "no one") were not able to, yet special favors were given to let the Saudis out. I missed any lie there.

 

[crimresearch]

You're questions and reasoning are fair. But regarding this issue, the point about "nobody else could" was not that no one else was allowed to, but because things were so backed up once flights continued, many (not "no one") were not able to, yet special favors were given to let the Saudis out. I missed any lie there.

It all depends on what you mean by 'lie'.

 

[Snide]

It all depends on what you mean by 'lie'.

I have a pretty broad definition...anything intentionally deceiving is good enough to qualify. Maybe Moore did, but because I didn't fall for it, yet still thought it was a point worth making (that the Saudis were given favorable treatment while others had to wait), maybe the "lie" went over my head.

 

[crimresearch]

When you saw the newspaper with the banner headline 'Bush Loses By All Recounts', was your first thought "I'll bet the real headline was removed, and that was really fabricated out of words taken from inside the paper in the wording of the Letters to the Editor"?

To some folks that was a lie...I'm sure others can explain how they think it was not.

 

[BPSCG]

You're questions and reasoning are fair. But regarding this issue, the point about "nobody else could" was not that no one else was allowed to, but because things were so backed up once flights continued, many (not "no one") were not able to, yet special favors were given to let the Saudis out. I missed any lie there.

Check the link to the movie's deceptions.. As I said, it's very long, but if you click Edit/Find on your browser (assuming IE) and search "Saudi Departures from United States", you'll get to a lengthy, detailed vivisection of Moore's claims. There are four lies/deceits just in this one area: 1. Departure dates for Saudis, 2. Omission of Richard Clarke's approval for departures, 3. Lying to Jake Tapper about whether Clarke's role was presented in the movie, 4. Moore himself wanted to fly when he says only the bin Ladens did.

The innuendo here is truly vicious. Moore's trying to imply - without ever actually coming out and saying it - that Bush and his cronies were circumventing the travel ban to get their terrorist friends out of the country.

 

[Skeptic]

Moore has always stated that his work is an op-ed piece.

Gee, I thought it was a "documentary" that exposes "the truth"? Guess I was wrong...

Of course, Moore has a right to make such a movie. He has a right to make a movie claiming, with proof from scripture, that Bush is the antiChrist and that Kerry is Jesus reincarnated, too. That's not the point; the point is, why should anybody believe it?

In that way, he's no different that the extremely partisan (and often deceptive) TV commercials that air during the campaign for both the political parties.

True, but such commercials are usually not nominated for prizes in the "documentary" category. Moore wants to have it both ways: to win accolades as "exposing the truth" in his "documentaries", and to avoid criticism for bias and misleading the viewers by claiming it's just an "op ed piece".

Then again, Moore's entire life is one of hypocritical "having it both ways"--he is a multimillionaire, overweight, overconsuming white male who lives in a ritzy neighborhood and sends his daughter to an exclusive private school... who wants to take credit as being the "champion of the workers" against those overwheight, overconsuming, multimillioanire white males who send their kids to private school while living in a ritzy neighborhood.

 

[Snide]

Check the link to the movie's deceptions.. As I said, it's very long, but if you click Edit/Find on your browser (assuming IE) and search "Saudi Departures from United States", you'll get to a lengthy, detailed vivisection of Moore's claims. There are four lies/deceits just in this one area: 1. Departure dates for Saudis, 2. Omission of Richard Clarke's approval for departures, 3. Lying to Jake Tapper about whether Clarke's role was presented in the movie, 4. Moore himself wanted to fly when he says only the bin Ladens did.

The innuendo here is truly vicious. Moore's trying to imply - without ever actually coming out and saying it - that Bush and his cronies were circumventing the travel ban to get their terrorist friends out of the country.

Been there, done that, but I'll do it again and compare with Moore's response to the criticisms. I must have missed the "circumventing the travel ban" implications. Again, I took it as a"circumventing the airport logjam problems others experienced" implication.

 

[RandFan]

Then again, Moore's entire life is one of hypocritical "having it both ways"--he is a multimillionaire, overweight, overconsuming white male who lives in a ritzy neighborhood and sends his daughter to an exclusive private school... who wants to take credit as being the "champion of the workers" against those overwheight, overconsuming, multimillioanire white males who send their kids to private school while living in a ritzy neighborhood.

Bears repeating.

And not exclusive to Moore. We have the likes of Hienz Kerry and Striesand who want us all to save energy and clean up the air or something along those lines but they have mansions and travel in private jets SUV's and limos and consume at a rate the rest of us can only dream of.

But hey, as long as they support environmental or liberal issues then they get to do so guilt free. It must be good to be rich and liberal.

Sorry for going off topic.

 

[BPSCG]

True, but such commercials are usually not nominated for prizes in the "documentary" category. Moore wants to have it both ways: to win accolades as "exposing the truth" in his "documentaries", and to avoid criticism for bias and misleading the viewers by claiming it's just an "op ed piece".

Predictions:

• F911 will win the Oscar for best documentary next March (yeah, that's a tough call, isn't it...?).
• If Kerry wins in November, Moore will make the most obnoxious, repellent, gloating, self-congratulatory speech you can imagine at the awards dinner, taking the credit for having defeated Bush, and igniting a nationwide boycott of all things Hollywood. The final Star Wars episode will actually lose money.

 

[HarryKeogh]

Then again, Moore's entire life is one of hypocritical "having it both ways"--he is a multimillionaire, overweight, overconsuming white male who lives in a ritzy neighborhood and sends his daughter to an exclusive private school... who wants to take credit as being the "champion of the workers" against those overwheight, overconsuming, multimillioanire white males who send their kids to private school while living in a ritzy neighborhood.

Has he ever said he was against capitalism? Though from the books, tv shows and movies he's done and I've read or watched he certainly seems to be against the type of capitalism that screws employees for the sake of profits.

To take two extreme examples, He wasn't againt the founders of Ben and Jerry's getting rich (as they took great care of their employees, benefits, good pay etc.) but he had a problem with the folks at Enron.

I don't think he's anti-capitalism, just anti-selfish. And if he's ever said capitalism stinks I would whole-heartedly disagree with him (though it has its flaws).

How would you like him to live? Since he's an activist he needs to donate his income to charity? He should live in a 2 br apt. in East New York? And yeah, he's a fatty , just like most American males his age. Big woop.

O'Reilly claims to be a man of the people too. Where does he live? what kind of lifestyle does he have? Does he do his own laundry? What? It doesnt matter? exactly! He's earned his money fairly, never cooked the books, so let him enjoy it the way he chooses. Just like Moore.

 

[RandFan]

One of the things that has bothered me is the attention given to the fact that Bush didn't do anything for 7 minutes following the attacks. He sat and read a book. This is supposed to reveal something missing in Bush's character.

It is spoken of as so illustrative of Bush's inability to respond quickly as a leader. But then we find out.

Kerry Admits "Unable to Think" for 40 Minutes on 9/11

John Kerry's 40 minutes of inability to think versus George W. Bush's seven minutes of sitting still. Noting how "Senator John Kerry sharply criticized President Bush this week for remaining in a Florida classroom for about seven minutes on 9/11" after being informed of how a plane flew into the World Trade Center, on Fox News Sunday, Brit Hume pointed out how in an interview with Larry King last month Kerry recalled how he "sat at a table in the Capitol quote, 'unable to think,' unquote, from the time the second plane hit the World Trade Center and another plane hit the Pentagon. Total 'unable to think' time? 40 minutes."

God forbid that if Kerry is elected president, and I think he will be, he has any "unable to think" moments. I suppose we could assume that had he been president his brain would have worked differently. And to be fair it wasn't his responsibility to think. Still, one can't help but wonder if he would have indeed responded more quickly than Bush did?