What's your opinion on Michael Moore?

[El Diablo]

All,

"his job is to make a compelling film about a non-fiction topic"

pryor summed up what I feel about him and why I like him and think he is good at what he does.

[sirio11]

[ QUOTE ]
Let's guide you by the hand

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, you need to do a better job, since reading long paragraphs which tell you the conclusion they want you to have (Michael's Moore deception) again and again, don't do it for me.

It's pretty easy, you just need to show that any of these two statements it's a blatant lie (or feel free to find some other blatant lie in the movie):

1) Fox was the first network to call Florida for Bush
2) Before that, some other networks had called Florida for Gore, and they changed after Fox called it for Bush

I think already Pryor explained to you some things you need to know about documentaries, but maybe you think all of them are deceptive.

[MrMon]

Yes, I understand that you have to leave some things out in order to fit into a two hour block of time. But that doesn't mean you selectively leave out things that contradict your hypothesis. That's just dishonest.

Let's go to "Bowling For Columbine" for an example, and the scene I described earlier, where he goes and tries all the front doors in a Canadian town to see if people leave them unlocked because they feel safer. Obviously, you can't show all the doors you try, that would be boring. But shouldn't you show a representative sample? How is it "compelling" to show only the unlocked doors, when nearly as many were locked? He respresenting this town as something it's not, otherwise known as lying.

If Moore's job is to make a compelling film about a non-fiction topic, that's fine. But he's not doing that. He's making a fictional film about a non-fiction topic and pretending it's not fictional. That's not a point of view, that's fraud. Just because some of you like his message doesn't mean you should overlook that fact, it only discredits the entire argument for that particular point of view. The left should be far harder on Moore than the right, because he makes you look bad.

I hate to be cynical, but it sounds like you've adopted the old newspaper adage about not letting facts get in the way of a good story.

[sirio11]

[ QUOTE ]
I am sorry, but alot of this is a fact. Most reporters try to report the news in an unbiased way, but personal ideas are impossibly to keep completely out, and a majority of reporters are liberal. Read a book called Bias, by Bernard Goldberg and have your eyes opened up. He worked at CBS for 28 years and is stil a card carrying Democrat who grew tired of the slanted journalism he was seeing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias_%28book%29

I am sure those who think the media is perfect won't read though, b/c there is no reason to read something that might challenge your beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, it's pretty telling to find at the top of the wiki article:

"The neutrality of this article or section is disputed"

How many books (articles) you want me to cite about the myth of the "liberal" media?

But most of my observations on this topic come first hand. I used to watch news a lot, but after the cheer leading of the Iraq war by ALL the American media, and the 2004 election, I just couldn't take it any more. If I was a journalist I'd be ashamed of working in that industry. Most (All?) of them are just puppets who do as their bosses command and you better believe the bosses are not liberal at all.

[guids]

[ QUOTE ]
The contention that most major news outlets is liberal only makes sense if you're a raving neocon.

I can't imagine there's a self confessed liberal who is going to agree with that notion at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you cant honestly say that most of the major news media is obviously liberally biased, you are very ignorant on the subject or in denial, and do not read enough newspapers, or watch actual network news. There is really no debate on this topic.

[pryor15]

[ QUOTE ]

Let's go to "Bowling For Columbine" for an example, and the scene I described earlier, where he goes and tries all the front doors in a Canadian town to see if people leave them unlocked because they feel safer. Obviously, you can't show all the doors you try, that would be boring. But shouldn't you show a representative sample? How is it "compelling" to show only the unlocked doors, when nearly as many were locked? He respresenting this town as something it's not, otherwise known as lying.

[/ QUOTE ]

b/c he knows that his audience isn't so stupid to assume every door in Canada is unlocked. there's no point to show the locked doors, b/c we know they exist and that's just a waste of time. the fact that some of them are unlocked is more than enough to get the point across.

[ QUOTE ]
If Moore's job is to make a compelling film about a non-fiction topic, that's fine. But he's not doing that. He's making a fictional film about a non-fiction topic and pretending it's not fictional. That's not a point of view, that's fraud.

[/ QUOTE ]

um...not really. i wouldn't call his films fiction any more than i'd call Borat a documentary.

fraud's a pretty dangerous word to be throwing around so lightly.

[MrMon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Let's guide you by the hand

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, you need to do a better job, since reading long paragraphs which tell you the conclusion they want you to have (Michael's Moore deception) again and again, don't do it for me.

It's pretty easy, you just need to show that any of these two statements it's a blatant lie (or feel free to find some other blatant lie in the movie):

1) Fox was the first network to call Florida for Bush
2) Before that, some other networks had called Florida for Gore, and they changed after Fox called it for Bush

I think already Pryor explained to you some things you need to know about documentaries, but maybe you think all of them are deceptive.

[/ QUOTE ]

{Slaming head against wall at complete blindness of poster to the idea of lying by omission}

[guids]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Let's go to "Bowling For Columbine" for an example, and the scene I described earlier, where he goes and tries all the front doors in a Canadian town to see if people leave them unlocked because they feel safer. Obviously, you can't show all the doors you try, that would be boring. But shouldn't you show a representative sample? How is it "compelling" to show only the unlocked doors, when nearly as many were locked? He respresenting this town as something it's not, otherwise known as lying.

[/ QUOTE ]

b/c he knows that his audience isn't so stupid to assume every door in Canada is unlocked. there's no point to show the locked doors, b/c we know they exist and that's just a waste of time. the fact that some of them are unlocked is more than enough to get the point across.

[ QUOTE ]
If Moore's job is to make a compelling film about a non-fiction topic, that's fine. But he's not doing that. He's making a fictional film about a non-fiction topic and pretending it's not fictional. That's not a point of view, that's fraud.

[/ QUOTE ]

um...not really. i wouldn't call his films fiction any more than i'd call Borat a documentary.

fraud's a pretty dangerous word to be throwing around so lightly.

[/ QUOTE ]


So, if I make a documentary about black people, and show them doing nothing but committing crime...thats not misleading?... because by your logic, everyone knows that not all blacks commit crime...right?

[sirio11]

[ QUOTE ]
He's making a fictional film

[/ QUOTE ]

Could you point to a scene of one of his movies that you can prove was fictional?

[ QUOTE ]
Just because some of you like his message doesn't mean you should overlook that fact, it only discredits the entire argument for that particular point of view. The left should be far harder on Moore than the right, because he makes you look bad.


[/ QUOTE ]

Same to you, just because you don't like the message blablabla ....

The left is fine and well, and I feel the ones in the "left" (**irony**) that don't like Moore (at least most of them) are the ones who agree with Republicans A LOT, especially on gun control, health care, wellfare and of course the ones who loved the WAR with Iraq (and they were pretty wrong as the years have proven don't you think?).
Of course there should be some who doesn't like him just because he's fat and pretty vocal about some issues.

[El Diablo]

Guys,

Just a drop-in to remind everyone to keep things civil. Heated is fine, just let's not let this get all ranty and name-calling.