I don't know who disappoints me more:
Michael Moore and fans, or those who assume that if you don't like F 911, you must be pro-Bush, Pro-Iraq invasion, or right-wing.
I hated the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I don't like most of what Bush is doing at home and abroad. I did not and will not vote for Bush.
But...isn't there a better way to oppose a candidate than this? I am quite sure that with enough resourcefulness, one could find lots of unflattering footage on just about any president or public figure. Does that prove that they are evil, incompetent, or idiotic?
I'd be willing to bet that if someone followed Michael Moore around with a videocamera, he or she could build a whole archive of footage in which he would appear foolish, stunned, dazed, incoherent or much worse. Among the hundreds of thousands of public appearances that any president makes, one could certainly find footage that makes that president look stupid, insensitive, or worse.
Is there any person on earth who hasn't slipped, fumbled, hesitated, or made mistakes?
If someone had footage of everything you had ever said or done in public and wanted to disgrace or humiliate you, don't you think that would be very easy to do?
Shame on Michael Moore for a movie full of cheap shots.

Add to that his openly and oft-repeated goal of the movie of getting Bush out of office, and you have the makings of a fine, objective documentary.

Moore himself stated the contents of the film depict only his opinion. He never even PRETENDED it was unbiased. Why are so many people treating it as "news" when it is cultural commentary?

That's a very good question, dandelion. I have no idea; I always thought of it as more of an editorial piece, myself.

It's treated as news as he claims its a documentary.

quote:

doc�u�men�ta�ry
adj.
1. Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.
2. Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.

prop�a�gan�da
n.
1. The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.
2. Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause: wartime propaganda.

I've never heard Moore claims it is a documentary (that doesn't mean he didn't, I just haven't seen him make the claim himself). If he does claim it is a documentary, this could only be true in a very, very loose interpretation of the definition of documentary (see above), as he has been very open in declaring that the piece is not objective -- it has a political bias and intentionality.

quote:

Originally posted by Johnnie:
But...isn't there a better way to oppose a candidate than this? I am quite sure that with enough resourcefulness, one could find lots of unflattering footage on just about any president or public figure. Does that prove that they are evil, incompetent, or idiotic?

Look, if the mainstream media actually did their job and asked the hard questions, Michael Moore wouldn't need to make this movie. But the fact is, CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, etc. all became cheerleaders for this false war with Iraq 'cuz it was good for the ratings, but not the truth. So soldiers died for lies. And hardly anyone questioned this--so Moore took it upon himself to be on the side of the truth despite the unpopularity, despite the ridicule, because he wanted to do what was right and not what was popular.

CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC have been cheerleaders for the war? Have I inadvertently stumbled into an alternate reality? Maybe you're thinking of ABC talk radio? And the Fox New Network (as opposed to CNN)? You could make a case for that, but CNN is hardly pro-Bush and pro-War. Quite the opposite actually. Sure, all news stations probably like war because it gives something for them to report on, but most love showing how horrible things are going far more often than any positives. Like the end of genocide in Iraq. Like people holding open protests in Irag with being arrested, raped, beaten, and de-limbed. I don't mind the Michael Moore has his say, what I mind is that everybody mindlessly believes what he says. You don't need Michael Moore to get the perspective he portrays either, just read the NY Times or watch Crossfire.

Begging your pardon, but CNN is aboslutley the worst station I've seen to date, content wise, and the NYT and other newspapers are or were strongly biased towards one side. Some of them admitted it, though, (NYT, which is a plus.

Cheers, Translator

quote:

Originally posted by vipm:
[BBut the fact is, CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, etc. all became cheerleaders for this false war with Iraq 'cuz it was good for the ratings, but not the truth. So soldiers died for lies. And hardly anyone questioned this[/B]

Hold on a second. Hardly anyone questioned this?... Were the protests and rallies before the war a figment of my imagination then?


[/B][/QUOTE]--so Moore took it upon himself to be on the side of the truth despite the unpopularity, despite the ridicule, because he wanted to do what was right and not what was popular.[/B][/QUOTE]

Took the side of truth? Funny you should mention that. Fahrenheit 911 doesn't have many lies simply because Moore just did not present any facts w/ real support behind them, but can you honestly watch Bowling For Columbineand say that Michael Moore took the side of truth. I suggest taking a look at this site to read some fact checks on Fahrenheit 911 and BFC. www.bowlingfortruth.com

Also check this site to see a little bit about a new documentary that is coming to theaters soon. www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com

BTW... I have the utmost respect for American soldiers throughout history who have fought for the freedom of this and other countries. These men have made great sacrifices for the sake of the typical American man. Day after day they put their lives on the line only to turn on CNN and see that their effort is being protested by none other than the people they are fighting for. To say that these men and women are fighting for lies is a slap in the face to the fighters. Personally one of the happiest days I can remember in my life was the day I saw Iraqi citizens pulling statues of Saddam Hussein down. This scene represented a victory to me and I thought that if this act of, dare I say, revolution committed by the iraqi people might possibly have a chance of showing the ungrateful people of this country that their are indeed some people who are glad to see freedom... Apparently it did not though and i hope for your sake you someday see the true meaning of freedom, but for now I can only hope your loud mouth is not heard by our soldiers who are putting their lives on the line for you.

I am insulted by your ignorance. Please do not post on this board intended for intellectuals who appreciate Mr. Bradbury again unless you have something intelligent and thoughtful to say.


[This message has been edited by John Galt (edited 07-25-2004).]

I should also like to add that the men who are sent to Iraq and such do so by choice. They were not drafted and were in no way forced into the military. They entered knowing the risks and knowing that in case of a war, they could be called to serve.

John, your very last short post is just about the only thing I agree with you so far.
Cheers, Translator

What specifically do you not agree with. I am interested in knowing and would enjoy a civilized debate.