Farehnheit 9/11

[House of Mustard]

I don't know exactly what you're trying to prove, Gorgon, since you only list one bit of "evidence" (the thing about the NRA and KKK).

If you don't like that article, try the hundreds of others, which are all at your fingertips via the magic of the internet.  Or, go to a library.  Or watch the news.  The errors in Bowling for Columbine have been outlined by many many websites (which, granted are not authoritative), but the discrepancies (or lies, as they ought to be called) were also outlined by main stream media including Forbes, CNN, and the Los Angeles Times.

If you have specific evidence, then tell us what it is.  But, if you don't have any evidence other than your political views, then don't get upset that we don't believe the claims of a PROVEN LIAR.

[Spriggan]

Moore also likes to espoute (when people are acutaly asking him tough questions about his films) that they're more satire and political then actual fact.  Just the fact the man will say one thing when talking to one group then say the exact opposite to another group realy shows his credibility problems.

[stacer]

The NY Times reviewer looked at it as political satire. I'd link it, but I didn't read it online; my coworker forwarded to me. Besides, it's a site you have to register for, so if you're already registered and don't mind that, I'm sure you can find it on their site, www.nytimes.com, I think. It came out on the 23rd, so you might have to look for it.

An excerpt:

Which is to say that while Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" will be properly debated on the basis of its factual claims and cinematic techniques, it should first of all be appreciated as a high-spirited and unruly exercise in democratic self-expression. Mixing sober outrage with mischievous humor and blithely trampling the boundary between documentary and demagoguery, Mr. Moore takes wholesale aim at the Bush administration, whose tenure has been distinguished, in his view, by unparalleled and unmitigated arrogance, mendacity and incompetence.

Another quote:

...while he creates a strong impression of unseemly coziness, his larger point is not altogether clear.

After you leave the theater, some questions are likely to linger about Mr. Moore's views on the war in Afghanistan, about whether he thinks the homeland security program has been too intrusive or not intrusive enough, and about how he thinks the government should have responded to the murderous jihadists who attacked the United States on Sept. 11.

At the same time, though, it may be that the confusions trailing Mr. Moore's narrative are what make "Fahrenheit 9/11" an authentic and indispensable document of its time. The film can be seen as an effort to wrest clarity from shock, anger and dismay, and if parts of it seem rash, overstated or muddled, well, so has the national mood.

She goes on to say that he thinks that no matter what your political views, the movie could generate good political discussion. (At first I said the reviewer was a "he" but then realized the reviewer was A.O. Scott, who I believe is a woman. Someone correct me if they know better)

I don't go for Moore's methods, and I don't share his views. I just thought that this was an interesting take on the methods Moore uses.

That said, I'm not going to go see it, even if the NY Times person can find a little good in it. I think there are plenty of other ways to generate good political discussion. However, it's gotten us talking...

[House of Mustard]

This is my major beef with it:  Yes, it can be seen as an opinion piece, or a political satire, but I worry that the many viewers will take it at face value.

I do take heart, however, at this:  the same people that are dumb enough to believe Michael Moore's ranting are probably not going to vote.  Bush haters will like the movie, and Bush supporters will be enraged by it.  The only people whose opinions are likely to be swayed by the movie are people who are too uninformed to have opinions already in place.  And non-news watchers seldom vote.

[GorgonlaVacaTremendo]

I don't know exactly what you're trying to prove, Gorgon, since you only list one bit of "evidence" (the thing about the NRA and KKK).

If you don't like that article, try the hundreds of others, which are all at your fingertips via the magic of the internet.  Or, go to a library.  Or watch the news.  The errors in Bowling for Columbine have been outlined by many many websites (which, granted are not authoritative), but the discrepancies (or lies, as they ought to be called) were also outlined by main stream media including Forbes, CNN, and the Los Angeles Times.

If you have specific evidence, then tell us what it is.  But, if you don't have any evidence other than your political views, then don't get upset that we don't believe the claims of a PROVEN LIAR.

No, no, no.  I agree with you.  I am no fan of Moore.  I was just trying to point out that the way you are going about showing him to be a poor documentrist is not the way to do it.  

   The first article, I didn't even have time to look at the second one, used different phsycological tricks to get the reader to agree, which I listed a few (i.e. the title, "you would think", ect.) and they use information out of context just like Moore.  Not to mention they right out lied in the opening statements to sway the reader early, saying Moore mixed sentances in interviews to make it look like words were coming out of subject's mouths that they didn't say, which they have absolutely no evidence for whatsoever and would be absolutely impossible short of digital editing, due to variables in any given second of an interview.

  So all I was saying is if you are going to prove Moore to be a yellow journalist instead of a Muckraker, don't do it with a hippocritical article.  That's all.  And while that article did have a few good points, so did Moore's movie, so the article you used to make Moore look bad and Moore's movie are, in reality, one of the same.

[House of Mustard]

I must have misunderstood.  Sorry Gorgon.

I chose that article specifically because it seemed to be the best at outlining the problems, lie by lie.  But yes, there are several other sources out there, like I mentioned before.

[GorgonlaVacaTremendo]

No problem, I wasn't that clear.  I spent more time complaining and it must have sounded like I was defending (snicker...) Moore.  But yeah, he is a major yellow journalist, and I don't have to pay to see that.  It's called the six o'clock news...

[Spriggan]

Stacer, A.O. Scott is a guy.

[stacer]

Thanks. I've been trying to figure that out for a while--read a review he did of Harry Potter in my fantasy class a year ago and I think some people in my class thought it was a woman. If he'd use a name, dang it, I'd know how to refer to him!

[Spriggan]

I only know becasue they sometimes show his picture on rottentomatoes.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

F9/11 also has specific errors in it. Glaring errors that form most of his point. the current issue of Newsweek has an article about that.

[GorgonlaVacaTremendo]

I hate it when Moore makes up and twists facts.  I think he is bright enough to do the research to prove his points without lying...  And he ruins the chances of all liberalist hippies to prove their points to anyone intelligent...

hehehe, liberalist hippies...

[Entsuropi]

If the (rather interesting) analysis of Michael Moore comparing his behaviour to that of Narcissistic people is correct, then he would not even if he was.

[Spriggan]

Well alls not well with F9/11 right now.  One of the news papers which Moore used in the moive is sueing him for changeing the papers headline.  Basicaly he made up a "Gore wins Flordia" headline useing this newspapers name when that paper never had that as a headline.

The paper is only asking for an apology and is sueing for $1 since they have to have some monotery amount for the civil suite.

[Fellfrosch]

That's hilarious.