I am curious as to whether the people who don't like Michael Moore, don't like him because of the way his persona is defined in our media (and the premise of his films) or because they have actually seen his films? I know his tactics can be extreme at times, but the info he presents is not made up.
I wonder how pundits are defining 'uniformed' on this issue of who did/did not vote for Bush? What grounds do they have for saying this?
What do you folks think?
I have seen every movie of his save Pets or Meat. I watched the Awful Truth on Bravo. I've read his books. The information he presents is consistently skewed. I know this walking into the movie, show, book but not everyone does. He attempts to manipulate that population by presenting only one side and exalting it as Truth with a capital T. He began to lose credibility with me after Bowling for Columbine and then his speech at the Oscars. He's no longer trying to help people but instead he is so concentrated on bringing down one man - a man who will have no political power in four years.
I'd be curious to see if there have been any 'independent studies' done on how many Kerry supporters were 'misinformed'.
verdila
Posted:
Member since
Re: Moore's at it again
I have seen several of Moore's movies and it is known that he presents his stuff in a one sided way. He uses people in his movies without their consent and stretches the truth by only showing parts of speeches to prove his points. In film, you can easily make people perceive something that isn't true by only showing half of something using 'creative editing'
One glaring example in F 9-11 that I can remember - you see Bush making a speech about the haves and have nots, the rich, my base he calls it. Moore leads us to believe that Bush is talking to his constituents (and you are floored he is saying this) when in fact if you saw the REST of the speech you would know that he was at charity event for a hospital in which Al Gore was also in attendance. Bush was poking fun at himself as was Gore later on.
Even the principal of the school where Bush was on 9-11, disputes that it was not 7 mins that Bush was in the room with the children (Moore said it was 7mins) and that Bush was not reading to the children as Moore makes you think - the children were reading to him (and the reason he had a book in his hands is because his advisers handed him a piece of paper on which it said we have just been attacked again) - what was he going to do - obviously he didnt have much info but even the principal at the school said that he handled the situation very presidentially and didnt want to alarm the kids, so after all the info was gathered, he held a press conference. But, in Moore's movie - he makes you think otherwise by only presenting one side - HIS SIDE.
My point is Moore makes you perceive something the way he wants you to, and it is very easy to do that in film, but it isnt always the truth.
lanikai
Posted:
Member since
Re: Moore's at it again
Posted by myasmom
Posted by marymoon
Don't shoot the messenger. I didn't conduct the studies!
I dont listen to these statistics anymore..especially since there was a study that SHOWED that caucasians were smarter than African Americans..thats when I knew alot of them were full of B.S.
Not necessarily-it just means that some people know how to do good research and others don't. Statistics can always be manipulated, but people with good research ethics use their data wisely and interpret it wisely as well.
lanikai
Posted:
Member since
Re: Moore's at it again
Posted by myasmom
Posted by lilqtny
to answer laniki--
I've seen the films and I don't appreciate his methods
He may use 'facts' but he does with them with all media does but he goes too far. He stretches them so far that you can barely see the truth behind them.
his methods and ability to spin the truth definitely..I was in Blockbuster this weekend and the guy was recommending films and of course Farenhype 911 was suggested. I said..I am military..do you htink I really want to see that..and so many people agreed it was a one sided view..and thats why he gets no love. I hate people who are one sided and have the ability to get the one sided message across to people without consequence all due to free speech. OS in a sense if you think about it, for those who think people who voted for Bush were uninformed..I guess my counter speech would be, those who think Farenheight 911 was a detailed account of the truth were idiots..and no I am not calling anyone an idoit..unless you call a Bush voter unifomred.
I think it is unfair to think that you will always be able to get 'objective' opinions. Michael Moore has always made it clear that his opintion is not 'objective' when it comes to Bush, however but, I think his movies are his attempt to provide hard core, 'objective' evidence about why he finds Bush problematic. I understand your issue about the one-sided ness of things, but if everyone's is always trying to be 'objective' a lot of important truths get lost in the shuffle. I think that everyone is subjective about a lot of things. Even though you are military why would that prevent you from trying to understand why he says and does the things he does?
Also, I do think he's trying to bring Bush down, but not for his own self-aggrandizement but because of a genuine concern for the state this country and the world. People may not agree with his approach, or his views but I think he is doing this for what he believes are altruistic reasons.
lanikai
Posted:
Member since
Re: Moore's at it again
Posted by eogara
Posted by lanikai
I am curious as to whether the people who don't like Michael Moore, don't like him because of the way his persona is defined in our media (and the premise of his films) or because they have actually seen his films? I know his tactics can be extreme at times, but the info he presents is not made up.
I wonder how pundits are defining 'uniformed' on this issue of who did/did not vote for Bush? What grounds do they have for saying this?
What do you folks think?
I have seen every movie of his save Pets or Meat. I watched the Awful Truth on Bravo. I've read his books. The information he presents is consistently skewed. I know this walking into the movie, show, book but not everyone does. He attempts to manipulate that population by presenting only one side and exalting it as Truth with a capital T. He began to lose credibility with me after Bowling for Columbine and then his speech at the Oscars. He's no longer trying to help people but instead he is so concentrated on bringing down one man - a man who will have no political power in four years.
I'd be curious to see if there have been any 'independent studies' done on how many Kerry supporters were 'misinformed'.
I think the media should clarify what they mean when they say misinformed or uninformed. But I do think it is very scary when people are presented with simple facts, but can still make up their own reality, which is what some of these studies suggest about Bush supporters (i.e. people voting for Bush because they believed there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq) . Given that people did not vote on the same issues I think it would be a stretch to generalize that everyone who voted for Bush was 'uninformed' of that all Kerry supporter were fully informed. It depends on the criteria upon which you are basing such a judgment.
I am prone to think for example, that LI Bush supporters are quite different on a number of demographic factors than many of the folks voting in the so-called red states, which may make a difference in terms of how we want to define informed and uninformed voters.
ChristineC68
Posted:
Member since
Re: Moore's at it again
What I wonder, if Bush cannot be reelected anyway, why bother making a statement like this? Why say it's his job to educate the American public and go out of his way to insult 58 million people to prove a point he wasn't able to do with his first movie? That's the arrogance I cannot stand.
OSCARtheGROOM
Posted:
Member since
Re: Moore's at it again
Posted by lanikai
I think the media should clarify what they mean when they say misinformed or uninformed. But I do think it is very scary when people are presented with simple facts, but can still make up their own reality, which is what some of these studies suggest about Bush supporters (i.e. people voting for Bush because they believed there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq) . Given that people did not vote on the same issues I think it would be a stretch to generalize that everyone who voted for Bush was 'uninformed' of that all Kerry supporter were fully informed. It depends on the criteria upon which you are basing such a judgment.
I am prone to think for example, that LI Bush supporters are quite different on a number of demographic factors than many of the folks voting in the so-called red states, which may make a difference in terms of how we want to define informed and uninformed voters. Everytime you post its about Kerry or how Bush supporters are uninformed. We'll guess what I'm very informed about politics, and I'm a Bush supporter. I think the media was misinformed. Most of the media stations were supporting Kerry, and so were the newspapers except the new york post. So if i turned on the tv or read the papers that supported Kerry, I would believe everything I read and see. Get over it already he won. I spent months at Ground zero digging for bodies. I lost a lot of friends on 9/11, and I was there when the president came. You can believe what you want about Fahrenheight 9/11. Its your opinion as I have mine. Rent Fahrenhype 9/11 and see how Michael Moore twisted everything around. Read the 9/11 commision report it shows you that most of this goes back to the Clinton administration.
Bunnymonkey
Posted:
Member since
Re: Moore's at it again
Posted by lilqtny
to answer laniki--
I've seen the films and I don't appreciate his methods
He may use 'facts' but he does with them with all media does but he goes too far. He stretches them so far that you can barely see the truth behind them.
and this is different from FOX news?
lanikai
Posted:
Member since
Re: Moore's at it again
YOUR QUOTE Everytime you post its about Kerry or how Bush supporters are uninformed. We'll guess what I'm very informed about politics, and I'm a Bush supporter. I think the media was misinformed. Most of the media stations were supporting Kerry, and so were the newspapers except the new york post. So if i turned on the tv or read the papers that supported Kerry, I would believe everything I read and see. Get over it already he won. I spent months at Ground zero digging for bodies. I lost a lot of friends on 9/11, and I was there when the president came. You can believe what you want about Fahrenheight 9/11. Its your opinion as I have mine. Rent Fahrenhype 9/11 and see how Michael Moore twisted everything around. Read the 9/11 commision report it shows you that most of this goes back to the Clinton administration. ______________________________________
OSCARtheGROOM
I am not saying you are uninformed. If you carefully read my post you would see that I was talking about diversity among Bush voters, informed one. Since you have been monitoring me so closely you would know that MOST of my posts are WEDDING CHAT, so, please don't SWEAT me. The funny thing is that you feel you are entitled to your opinion, but you don't care for it when I voice mine. As you would say, why don't you 'Get over it.'
I find it interesting you refer to the 9/11 commission that your president didn't want to exist. Don't worry, I did see Fahrenheit and although I did not always agree with the way Moore presented things, I saw truth in what he was saying. If you didn't that's your right and your choice.
As for your take on the 'liberal' media, I'll leave you to your informed opinion on that.
eogara
Posted:
Member since
Re: Moore's at it again
Posted by lanikai
OSCARtheGROOM
I am not saying you are uninformed. If you carefully read my post you would see that I was talking about diversity among Bush voters, informed one. Since you have been monitoring me so closely you would know that MOST of my posts are WEDDING CHAT, so, please don't SWEAT me. The funny thing is that you feel you are entitled to your opinion, but you don't care for it when I voice mine. As you would say, why don't you 'Get over it.'
I find it interesting you refer to the 9/11 commission that your president didn't want to exist. Don't worry, I did see Fahrenheit and although I did not always agree with the way Moore presented things, I saw truth in what he was saying. If you didn't that's your right and your choice.
As for your take on the 'liberal' media, I'll leave you to your informed opinion on that.
Wow, that was just downright nasty and absolutely uncalled for.
lanikai
Posted:
Member since
Re: Moore's at it again
Posted by eogara
Posted by lanikai
OSCARtheGROOM
I am not saying you are uninformed. If you carefully read my post you would see that I was talking about diversity among Bush voters, informed one. Since you have been monitoring me so closely you would know that MOST of my posts are WEDDING CHAT, so, please don't SWEAT me. The funny thing is that you feel you are entitled to your opinion, but you don't care for it when I voice mine. As you would say, why don't you 'Get over it.'
I find it interesting you refer to the 9/11 commission that your president didn't want to exist. Don't worry, I did see Fahrenheit and although I did not always agree with the way Moore presented things, I saw truth in what he was saying. If you didn't that's your right and your choice.
As for your take on the 'liberal' media, I'll leave you to your informed opinion on that.
Wow, that was just downright nasty and absolutely uncalled for.
Sorry you feel that way.
RedHead
Posted:
Member since
Re: Moore's at it again
Posted by lanikai
I find it interesting you refer to the 9/11 commission that your president didn't want to exist. Don't worry, I did see Fahrenheit and although I did not always agree with the way Moore presented things, I saw truth in what he was saying. If you didn't that's your right and your choice.
As for your take on the 'liberal' media, I'll leave you to your informed opinion on that.
I think this is the main point! The way he represents the truth is soooo skewed it is laughable. Why does he feel the need to edit sooo bad? Because he knows that this is the only way to make people believe what he says? To open minds? Sorry but if that is the case....it just didn't happen for me... Just made me think he is just like any tabliod reporter...
Sounds like he should be working for the Enquirer or the star
heidla
Posted:
Member since
Re: Moore's at it again
Posted by OSCARtheGROOM Read the 9/11 commision report it shows you that most of this goes back to the Clinton administration
While I know that Clinton did not help with his basically ignoring the potential threat of terrorism it goes back so much further then him. How about the fact that we armed Bin Laden when they were fighting the Russians or that we helped put Saddam in power. We are now suffering because of a problem we helped create. No one person can have the blame laid on their shoulders. This was a coarse that was set in motion long before Clinton or Bush.
Bunnymonkey
Posted:
Member since
Re: Moore's at it again
Posted by heidla
Posted by OSCARtheGROOM Read the 9/11 commision report it shows you that most of this goes back to the Clinton administration
While I know that Clinton did not help with his basically ignoring the potential threat of terrorism it goes back so much further then him. How about the fact that we armed Bin Laden when they were fighting the Russians or that we helped put Saddam in power. We are now suffering because of a problem we helped create. No one person can have the blame laid on their shoulders. This was a coarse that was set in motion long before Clinton or Bush.
Amen Heidi - I love how the blame doesn't go as far back as Bushs Daddy...
Ronkonkomonga
Posted:
Member since
Re: Moore's at it again
Posted by eogara
He began to lose credibility with me after Bowling for Columbine
yeah - it was pretty lousy that he got Kmart to stop selling bullets....dang that Moore!
Ronkonkomonga
Posted:
Member since
Re: Moore's at it again
Posted by ChristineC68
Why say it's his job to educate the American public and go out of his way to insult 58 million people to prove a point he wasn't able to do with his first movie? That's the arrogance I cannot stand.
So does Bush and Cheney's arrogance bother you all that much - I find their arrogance actually more sinister - as they have far more power at their disposal than Moore ever did... unless you consider a Microphone and a coherent argument a WMD
OSCARtheGROOM
Posted:
Member since
Re: Moore's at it again
Posted by eogara
Posted by lanikai
OSCARtheGROOM
I am not saying you are uninformed. If you carefully read my post you would see that I was talking about diversity among Bush voters, informed one. Since you have been monitoring me so closely you would know that MOST of my posts are WEDDING CHAT, so, please don't SWEAT me. The funny thing is that you feel you are entitled to your opinion, but you don't care for it when I voice mine. As you would say, why don't you 'Get over it.'
I find it interesting you refer to the 9/11 commission that your president didn't want to exist. Don't worry, I did see Fahrenheit and although I did not always agree with the way Moore presented things, I saw truth in what he was saying. If you didn't that's your right and your choice.
As for your take on the 'liberal' media, I'll leave you to your informed opinion on that.
Wow, that was just downright nasty and absolutely uncalled for.
First of all I'm not sweating you. Second all he may be my president but he's yours for another 4 years. I don't have to get over it. I kept my opinions to myself until the election was over because people like you were jumping down peoples throats because who they voted for. And ny the way I got over it as soon as I wrote the first post.
OSCARtheGROOM
Posted:
Member since
Re: Moore's at it again
Posted by heidla
Posted by OSCARtheGROOM Read the 9/11 commision report it shows you that most of this goes back to the Clinton administration
While I know that Clinton did not help with his basically ignoring the potential threat of terrorism it goes back so much further then him. How about the fact that we armed Bin Laden when they were fighting the Russians or that we helped put Saddam in power. We are now suffering because of a problem we helped create. No one person can have the blame laid on their shoulders. This was a coarse that was set in motion long before Clinton or Bush.
I understand that but Clinton had a chance to take Bin Laden out and he didn't. Who knows what would have happened if he did. Maybe 9/11 wouldn't have happened , but it did.
lanikai
Posted:
Member since
Re: Moore's at it again
And ny the way I got over it as soon as I wrote the first post.
Hmm... Apparently not.
lanikai
Posted:
Member since
Re: Moore's at it again
Posted by Ronkonkomonga
Posted by ChristineC68
Why say it's his job to educate the American public and go out of his way to insult 58 million people to prove a point he wasn't able to do with his first movie? That's the arrogance I cannot stand.
So does Bush and Cheney's arrogance bother you all that much - I find their arrogance actually more sinister - as they have far more power at their disposal than Moore ever did... unless you consider a Microphone and a coherent argument a WMD
