What's your opinion on Michael Moore?

[Dids]

As a lefty, I wish he'd shut the hell up. He's not helping.

1- I think his point of view is often pretty simple minded. Too much of what he says/does is for shock value, and it kills any meaninful point he's trying to make. Trying to paint something like Columbine as gun control issue (hint: mental health) is just being exploitive and stupid.

2- I think his econimic point of view is horrible. Roger and Me drove me nuts. Private companies shouldn't have an obligation to keep people employeed. It's government's job to sustain them once a company, in holding to the obligation it has towards it's owners/shareholds has to lay them off to save/make more money. Moore's approash is just goofy and simplistic.

[Patrick del Poker Grande]

He's a liar and a fraud. I don't see how anyone could take an honest look at him and his work and think he's anything but complete trash. Obviously, if you're on the right, it's easy to hate him. If you're on the left, you've got to be embarassed to have this guy play such a large part in representing your side. He'd be a whole lot more effective if he'd just tone it down a bit and just make films that are at least close to something you can legitimately pass off as having a bit of integrity.

[suzzer99]

Dids,

On #1 - I agree that his POV is very simplistic and sometimes just flat out wrong.

However I think you're missing the point a bit on #2. It's not so much about what corporations can and can't do, it's about shining a light on their activities. Let the public be the final judge. You don't have a problem with GM putting 10s of thousands out of work in the US to save a few bucks. Maybe others do. Maybe the threat of bad exposure actually enters into a corporation's thought process. In the grand scheme, there are often worse things that can happen than some shareholders don't get to squeeze every last drop of profit out of a situation.

Due to obvious natural "synergies", there's so precious little serious media scrutiny into corporate shenanigans. If it weren't for people like Moore and shows like Frontline there would basically be none at all.

[Dadswell]

He spins the info his way and shapes it to back up his arguments so it's still pretty biased. Saying that I like the controversy he stirs up and I've enjoyed the two films of his I've seen. I haven't read any of the books, so I can't comment on those. All in all I would say that I like him.

[JaredL]

I'm in the area between diablo, dids, and great poker patrick.

I think he is overall good for the left but certainly gives the right a lot of legitimate points to make which is bad. I think he's somewhat like a Sean Hannity type for the left, which is a pretty horrible thing to say about someone.

My big problem with Moore is that he very frequently is correct on some larger point but he gets the details wrong or is very misleading on them. Take Fahrenheit 9/11. One of the early scenes he either says or very strongly implies that a bunch of Saudis including bin Laden family members were allowed to fly out of the country while all flights were grounded. In reality they were apparently able to fly around within the country so that when they once again allowed all flights they could leave right away. Either way, this treatment is directly a problem and symbolically bad in terms of often giving Saudi Arabia such positive treatment when their country is a large part of the problem. So basically in this spot the truth is actually pretty damning. Telling it and not saying or implying that it was just a little bit worse than that is terrible. His arguments would be better served if he got the details correct on these types of things.

For example, I think there is a big difference between Michael Moore and Al Franken. Franken's books are somewhat similar in topic and he regularly attacks the right as well. I have a lot more respect for him, as do others because he makes his arguments intelligently and gets the details correct. He obviously is going to use selective information that furthers his point but he isn't completely misleading unless he's doing so in order to make the point that some of the tactics of people like Hannity and Coulter are very misleading, in which case he fesses up to it.

[NoahSD]

[ QUOTE ]

My big problem with Moore is that he very frequently is correct on some larger point but he gets the details wrong or is very misleading on them. Take Fahrenheit 9/11. One of the early scenes he either says or very strongly implies that a bunch of Saudis including bin Laden family members were allowed to fly out of the country while all flights were grounded. In reality they were apparently able to fly around within the country so that when they once again allowed all flights they could leave right away. Either way, this treatment is directly a problem and symbolically bad in terms of often giving Saudi Arabia such positive treatment when their country is a large part of the problem. So basically in this spot the truth is actually pretty damning. Telling it and not saying or implying that it was just a little bit worse than that is terrible. His arguments would be better served if he got the details correct on these types of things.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is a really great point. I realize that people get the details wrong a ton when they have debates (I'm sure I got a ton wrong in my tirade a few posts up), but when he makes a movie and presumably edits and fact checks and stuff and still manages to get easy crap like that wrong, it really hurts his credibility. More importantly, it hurts the credibility of all liberals by proxy.

[Pudge714]

What news sources outside of Fox to people believe have a conservative bias?
What news sources to people feel are reasonably objective?

I could make a documentary about a school shooting in Canada. Than wander around Canada trying to open doors film all the locked doors, wander around US trying to open doors film all the open doors and conclude and conclude the exact opposite Moore did. It wouldn't be particularly hard either, except for people potentially getting mad because I invaded there privacy/trespasses.

[pokerbobo]

[ QUOTE ]
As a lefty, I wish he'd shut the hell up. He's not helping.

1- I think his point of view is often pretty simple minded. Too much of what he says/does is for shock value, and it kills any meaninful point he's trying to make. Trying to paint something like Columbine as gun control issue (hint: mental health) is just being exploitive and stupid.

2- I think his econimic point of view is horrible. Roger and Me drove me nuts. Private companies shouldn't have an obligation to keep people employeed. It's government's job to sustain them once a company, in holding to the obligation it has towards it's owners/shareholds has to lay them off to save/make more money. Moore's approash is just goofy and simplistic.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't sound like a lefty....middle of the road dem maybe, but lefty?

[guids]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As a lefty, I wish he'd shut the hell up. He's not helping.

1- I think his point of view is often pretty simple minded. Too much of what he says/does is for shock value, and it kills any meaninful point he's trying to make. Trying to paint something like Columbine as gun control issue (hint: mental health) is just being exploitive and stupid.

2- I think his econimic point of view is horrible. Roger and Me drove me nuts. Private companies shouldn't have an obligation to keep people employeed. It's government's job to sustain them once a company, in holding to the obligation it has towards it's owners/shareholds has to lay them off to save/make more money. Moore's approash is just goofy and simplistic.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't sound like a lefty....middle of the road dem maybe, but lefty?

[/ QUOTE ]

Private companies shouldn't have an obligation to keep people employeed. It's government's job to sustain them once a company, in holding to the obligation it has towards it's owners/shareholds has to lay them off to save/make more money.



Thats pretty commie.

[Soulman]

[ QUOTE ]
Private companies shouldn't have an obligation to keep people employeed. It's government's job to sustain them once a company, in holding to the obligation it has towards it's owners/shareholds has to lay them off to save/make more money.



Thats pretty commie.

[/ QUOTE ]
The definition of lefty is pretty different in the US than here in Europe, but believing in a basic welfare system, in this instance the government paying a minimal unemployment benefit (?) is commie?