Michael Moore USA Today press pass

[Dana Sheets]

He presented his movie as a documentry--and contuniues to bang the drum over its tittular "facts."

**stepping onto my soap box**

This isn't the first time you've made this assertion. I'll continue to correct you by saying that Moore was very clear that he made a movie about GW Bush in order to cast him in a dark light and that Moore's clearly stated goal was to make a movie for regime change.

Moore tweaks the truth alot. But stop getting your knickers in a twist over a movie and expecting it to be a piece of journalism. Documentary is not journalism.

Usually when someone like Moore showes up as a writer in a piece of media that is journalism he is called a "humorist".

But please stop trying to make documentary film into something it is not.

**the documentary filmmaker will now step off her soap box**

[cxt]

Dana

Then may I respectfully suggest he keep his yap shut about:

A-The "factual" basis for his movie--lets be honest here (since Moore refuses to do so) despite all evidence to the contrary he keeps insistening his piece of propaganda is "fact."

Esp when its conclusions are simply not supported by ANY of the bi-partisan commssions.

(And has more holes in it than a pair of fishnet stockings)

B-Cease to speak of it and market it as a "factual" documentary--as I recall the his award at Cannes was NOT for the "humor" or "political satire" catagory.

And that is most certainly NOT how Moore launched his work--face it if he did--it would not be getting the play it does.

On the subject of "documentary"--working for a University I have had the pleasure and (and sometimes the utter boredem) of reading work done in number of fields--among them documetary work done by Anthopology and Poli Sci folks.

I can tell you for certain that the ramifications would not be pretty if the same set of spin, misrepresentaions, "mistakes" and outright lies showed up in their work.

So what if the ritual I labeled the "Ghost Dance" was actually the "Hunting rite"--yeah like that would fly.

So I took the film about the fall of the Berlin Wall and re-sequenced the events to show it "really" fell 3 days sooner.

So what if took a letter to the editior and reworked it --then labeled it wrong--then ran it as if it were the headline from a newspaper.

Yeah, like that would not get me fired--or make me a laughingstock in my discipline.

Give you a good example--when the Berlin wall fell a number of major networks showed footage of the same man, shirtless and standing up to the full force of a firehose--and everyone that was there made reference to his courge--turned out the guy involved was both homeless and roaring drunk--and was useing the spray to get clean-dude had no clue what was really going down.

So do you ignore the truth of the sitiuation--because the first story is ALOT more powerful--do you press on because your "movie" is not about a drunk homeless guy--but rather a powerful tale and symbol of the power of the little guy?

Or do you do the right thing and tell the truth?

And how much validity does your documatary have if you don't step up?

I'll gladly untwist my knickers about it--just as soon as Moore stands up and answers the hard questions about his loose realtionship with the truth AND stops telling folks its a work of fact.

[Salute]

What exactly did Moore misrepresent? Was it the challenges our Cowboy in Chief has in speaking the English language? Was it the maimed and bleeding Iraqi children? The bereaved Iraqi families? Was it the mother from Flint, Michigan who lost her son? Or the interviews with the disheartened returning soldiers? Could it have been those warm and cuddly photos of Bush Jr. and Sr. snuggling with Saudis? Or the Saudis beheading someone? Where exactly are the specific misrepresentations that have your panties in a knot?

[mikemurphy]

Cxt,

I agree with you all the way. I'm not a big propaganda fan, but Moore certainly steps over the line and should say so, but on the other hand, shouldn't Dick Cheney and the rest of the Aryan Youth at the convention last night (Wednesday), as well as George "Doubya" do the same with the spittle that they put forth as fact.

I'll give you an example, during Dick Cheney's stand up routing last night, he dared speak of Kerry's war record? Now again, I'm not a huge supporter of John Kerry, but isn't knocking Kerry's record a bit ironic when George the "dodger" spent it safe at home?

Isn't it great to espouse George's great education initiative "No Child Left Behind" and Kerry's initial support of it, but fail to mention that George left it as an unfunded mandate on the states.

What about the economy? Maybe I missed it, but I didn't hear Dick mention George's vast accomplishments in this area.

Anyway, I think spin works both ways and they should all just tell the truth. Wouldn't it be that much easier in the long run?

mike

[cxt]

Salute

You might want to check out any of several threads on this board where this was already discussed.

Or any number of websites.

Or any number of articles.

Or any number of folks on BOTH sides of the issue.

That are quite detailed as to the level of quackery in Moores work.

Oh, and the word was "knickers" not "panties."


But I do wish to extend you a sincere "thanks" for making my point (or clearly reinforcing my point-take your pick)

ie. Someone who DOES take the movie for fact--and seems unaware of its spin.

ie. A problem that would not exsist if the "film" was not launched, marketed, packaged and used as a factual work.

"SWISH"

Nothing but net!!!!!

[cxt]

MikeMurphy

Ab-so-freaking-lutly!!!

If it were just Moore, I could live with it.

But it seems a casual realtionship with the truth is endemic to BOTH sides.

The Right has its own little cadre of folks who seem to feel that if you say it enough and loud enough then it must be true.

Seriously think that there is too much glass in everyones respective houses to be throwing stones.

And I think that is a serious problem and real shame.

And we the people are the ones that ultimatly are being shortchanged by the vicious nature of the current bi-partisan actions.

[Panther]

Ummmm...

Just wanted to say that the only reason I give Ann Coulter a pass is because if I hadn't met my lovely wife, I'd have stalked Ann Coulter... I mean really... (now how was it put before... hmmmm...) A Conservative lapdog yipping at the ankles of liberals and good looking as well!

If I wasn't with a wonderful woman, I'd be writing seriously deranged "fan-mail" to Ann Coulter!

[RACastanet]

Too bad I could not get to Boston for the Dem's big party. I could have gotten in using my press pass and done a bit of heckling!

Unfortunately, since I shave, keep my hair short and neat, am fit and trim, and wear clean and pressed professional clothing I would not make much of an impression.

Here it is:

[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v86/R ... ssPass.jpg

I'll be using it for local events though.

Rich

[Doug Erickson]

Salute, if you're genuinely curious to read about Moore's misrepresentations, here are a couple of very well-documented pieces to get you started.

Fifty-nine Deceits in F911 is probably the most well-known debunking of the film.

This piece documents how Moore uses omission, contextualization, traps, manipulating cause and effect, pacing & distraction, and other techniques to deceive and mislead F911 viewers.


-Doug

[still salute]

Sorry to have to keep changing screen names but anything I post pro-Moore seems to get me banned. It would seem some mighty warriors ****** their testicles in faster then a sumo wrestler when their opinions are questioned.

So those pictures of the children with bones jutting out weren't fact? Oh and the mother that grieved for her child?

Web sites Web sites Web sites.

Well here is one for you: Facts, Notes and Archives.

http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/f91 ... .php?id=16

In addition I would like to add that lying by ommision is still lying. When you state how tasteless it was for MM to flash the loser sign at McCain - what you so gleefully failed to mention is that McCain had directed his gaze and derogatory remarks to the press box where Moore sat. If someone was trashing me in public, those are not the fingers I would wave.

[cxt]

Salute

Since your new to the forum, I will go back and repeat what I have said prior--I used to be a big fan of MM--loved Roger and Me--loved his short lived TV show.

(Bet you didn't even know he had a TV show)

Problem is my first job out of college was working for a production company--(did a couple of episodes of FBI-The Untold Stories)-some of the guys I worked with had worked on other projects and in the midst of my "fan boy" rant about MM and what he was doing I was strongly advised by a couple folks to check out his work more closely.

Which I did--and I was appalled at the level of misrepresentaion.

If you really feel, as you claim that "lying by ommission is still lying" then you should be addressing your anger directly to him.

Like the man could not spare a few minutes of film to cover the:

-Brutal invasion of Kuwait and slaughter of ITS people.

-The systmatic rape of Kuwaite women and girls

-The mass graves of hundrads of thousands of men, women and children

-The horriifc slaughter of thousands and thousands of Kurds.

-30+ years of the most horrific tortures you can think of

-The finacial and material support of international terrorism-including medicial treatment and "safe houses" for internationally wanted terrorists.

Or is Moore completely indifferent to ANY suffering that does NOT help him make his political points??

(And would not help him make millions of dollars--not to mention becoming the darling of the Left.)

However the tone you use in your post reminds me very much of the "true beliver" unwilling to look critically at what seems to be your "hero."

Not mocking you for it--just pointing it out--in a way I used to be you.

Then I took a hard look at some unpleasent truths.

Changed my mind about Moore and his work.

Oh, just by way of advice--attempting to refute the mans misrepresentions by refering back TO HIS OWN WEBSITE,is less than effective.

Plus having read thu the posting there--am more appalled then ever.

[Valkenar]

Panther:

]Just wanted to say that the only reason I give Ann Coulter a pass is because if I hadn't met my lovely wife, I'd have stalked Ann Coulter..

I have to hope your completely joking as opposed to mostly joking. Giving her a pass because you think she's attractive? tsk tsk.

Rich:

Unfortunately, since I shave, keep my hair short and neat, am fit and trim, and wear clean and pressed professional clothing I would not make much of an impression.

Looked to me as if most of the people at either convention were stodgy guys in suits. Not that you're stodgy, but a great many of them just look like generic businessmen.

But I suppose it's more fun to picture all liberals as fat hippies.


Doug:

if you're genuinely curious to read about Moore's misrepresentations, here are a couple of very well-documented pieces to get you started.

Having read these myself, I have to say I would not have been terribly impressed with them if I weren't already convinced of Moore's deceit. A lot of the things in the 59 are just patently absurd complaints and only a few are serious points. If I was of a mindset to be Moore's fanboy, the fact that the 59 deceits are replete with absurd comebacks it would cause me to totally ignore the whole thing rather than take from it the insights it does contain.

For the same reason someone might ask how you can believe anything Moore says when he has X much misleading content one might also ask how much of the 59 deceits can be taken serious when there's Y much misleading content.

Salute:
Panther is a fair moderator from everything I've seen, and this is coming from someone who disagrees with him on most issues. If you find yourself repeatedly getting banned, you might want to consider changing your approach to debate rather than assume it's because of your contrary opinion.

[Panther]

As far as I am aware, NO ONE has been banned from this forum in quite a long time. I'm as opinionated as anyone (surprise! ), but I've always tried to be fair. People on BOTH sides have accused me of being more lenient to the opposition and I've been deluged with PMs and emails saying so over the years. If anyone has any questions about how to get banned or how to NOT get banned, simply read the rules on the first page of this forum at the top.

In short, debate/discuss/disagree... be neutral/opinionated/passionate about your position... But PLEASE try to back things up with some real reasons, meaning having sources/cites/statistics from hopefully more neutral places than one side or the other... People will put forth articles or statements as a way to open debate and when a thread is started that way, it does not always mean that the original poster believes or takes that position, but rather is just opening a topic for discussion. Usually folks fall all over the place as far as their beliefs on many of these issues... Fine.
(as long as you agree with my cat Buster! )

HOWEVER, personal attacks, blatant lies, character assassination will NEVER be tolerated between members posting here! EVER... In fact, even though I give quite a bit of lattitude for people's passion on an issue and let a lot of comments against national figures slide... I, personally, prefer those to be kept out of the discussion as well. In other words, if you can't make your point in disagreement with someone without resorting to name-calling and personal attacks, then you should rethink how you're debating the issue at that time. OR consider that the opposition has shown (and it had better be through valid sources/cites/statistics from hopefully as unbiased a place as possible) they have a better argument/position at that time.

So, I feel I let a lot of things slide and I will say that the last person who was told to leave for good was told that NOT because they disagreed with me, but because they posted a long post about how unfair I was as a moderator AND MADE IT A PERSONAL ATTACK that accused me of changing/deleting/altering their post/position and causing them to have difficulties logging on to the forums. See, as the moderator, I just don't have to put up with those types of provably false allegations... so I don't. And to tell the truth, it's almost certain that someone's problems logging on have absolutely NOTHING to do with any concerted effort at censorship. I don't LIKE censorship like that... not cool. So, in that regard, "salute" or "still salute" or whatever login you want to use, I haven't done one damn thing to stop you from posting your opinions supporting Michael Moore... not one. BUT, accuse me of censoring you falsely again and we'll revisit that. (see I'm the type that figures if I'm gonna get accused of kicking you off and causing you problems posting, I might as well do it...) Understood?

On another note... I don't reallygive Ann Coulter a pass... (but didn't the thought give you a chuckle? Just like the women who say they're going to vote Kerry/Edwards because they're better looking... ) Like most of the talking heads, she's good to give a listen and the eye-candy doesn't hurt, but positions should be derived for a reason. (And the position Ann Coulter would look best in is... just kidding! Get your mind out of the gutter!) Besides, I have a more soothing and beautiful vision of loveliness right here at home...

[mikemurphy]

CXT,

I think these facts do not help your argument as they too can be turned around very easily.


<<Which I did--and I was appalled at the level of misrepresentaion.

If you really feel, as you claim that "lying by ommission is still lying" then you should be addressing your anger directly to him.

Like the man could not spare a few minutes of film to cover the:

-Brutal invasion of Kuwait and slaughter of ITS people.>>

Not that this hasn't been covered before, but we have let hundreds of invasions and slaughters of innocents go on before and have done nothing. Why worry about Kuwait? OIL is the answer and what is the Bush and Cheney family business? It doesn't take a genious to figure this out regardless of spin. Or were we all taken in by the supposed Kuwaiti who testified to Congress of the atrocities only to find out she wasn't there and was a member of the ruling elite. Mmmm.

<<-The systmatic rape of Kuwaite women and girls>>

Every warring nation in Africa is suffereing the same as this for a longer period of time. Why haven't we stopped this suffering? Cop out!

<<-The mass graves of hundrads of thousands of men, women and children>>

Did we care that Iraq and Iran were killing themselves out in the 1980s with all the evidence of the mass graves? Nope, didn't matter on iota to Ronny Reagan nor the American public.

<<-The horriifc slaughter of thousands and thousands of Kurds. >>

I'm being sarcastic here, but how many Americans or politicians for that matter care about Kurds and their search for a homeland? If the US really cared then we would have done something when it happened. Do you think we didn't know?

<<-30+ years of the most horrific tortures you can think of >> Not even close to the torture that is doled out daily in many countries of the world today and we do nothing. Why? Because many of them are our allies. In fact, Iraq was torturing people when they were our ally and yet we did nothing.

<<-The finacial and material support of international terrorism-including medicial treatment and "safe houses" for internationally wanted terrorists. >> This is the big irony here. If we really wanted to stop international terrorism, then why did we pick Iraq? Shouldn't we stop the financiers like Saudi Arabia? Oops an ally. How about the people who supply the weapons and material (not including us)? Like France? Oops, an ally. How about the people who carry out the missions? Like Egyptians? Oops, an ally.

Face it, the spin is tragic and Michael Moore only carries one side of it and he is definatley guilty of ommission on many accounts, but the spin of those people who support this type of policy is confusing, it's bankrupting America, its anti-United States, and it proves once and for all that we should look back at our role as the only super power left in the world.

mike

[cxt]

MikeMurphy

But Mike, now your splitting hairs.

The topic is Michael Morres movie--for which he recived an award for documantry film making.

And in it he took great pains to simply ignore the reality of Saddams reigme.

Little kids flying kites, happy people in the streets--right up until the evil Americans started dropping bombs.

(and yes that is how he shot it)

See, the whole Iran/Iraq war goes my way--as Moore failed to show THAT in his Maybarryesque vision of pre-war Iraq as well.

As does pretty much everything else in your post--BECAUSE ITS IGNORED BY MOORE AND HIS MOVIE.

Its not a "cop out"--just does not pertain to the topic.

Don't have to justify 100 years of American policy--not germaine to MM movie.

And in his move Iraq is shown as a happy place that did no harm to anyone.

Which is just not the truth.

Were taking specifically about Moore and his film here--we COULD just flip it around and ask him the same questions your asking me.

Examples--

Moore--do you not care about he the 100s of 1000s folks being butched in Africa?
Why does he only show problems in Iraq?
Iraq children dead=Problem
African children dead=No problem

See, not a pretty picture is it?

As I have said before--everytime someone plays the whole "we did it for the oil" thing.

1-We also intervened in Bosina and Kosavo--Stopped a genocide--and not a drop of oil to be found.

2-We also intervened in shipping 1000's of tons of food to a number of African nations that also have no oil.

3-We sent the mitary into Somalia--tragedy-but then again we don't import much Somalian oil either--as far as I know.

4-Like it or not--and I don't--our entire economy is based upon cheap transportaion--I can't drive to work,I can't GET to work--I can't work-I can't make any money--I can't make money I can't feed my kids.

So that oil that everyone is so caviler about bad-mouthing is pretty much the only thing that keeps food on the table for most folks--its not fighting for oil--its fighting to feed our families.

We can argue all day about what we SHOULD have been doing over the last 50 years to end our dependence on fogien oil--and you would be right--just not the reality we have to work with right now.

Here's another way look at it--you were very detailed in listing a number of "bad actors" in the world--and pointing out that we don't stop THEM!!!

I don't agree, I think we have acted more often than not--but here is my question to you.

Should we act? Should we go after each and every nation that torturing and killing its people?

(Personlly I think we should be nailing the French to the wall for taking bribes from Saddam.

And the Saudi's for not stomping the Islomafasitcs flat.)

Are you ready to step and pay the price for doing so?

Are you ready to vote for the folks that think we should?

Or are you one of the many folks that would see that as America trying to run the world.

Your asking really good questions--just don't think you would enjoy the answers.

I tend to think its a "damned if we do" and "damned if we don't"

Act we are trying to run the world--force the world to do things "our way."

Don't act and folk throw that in our face.

Oh, and as long as your doing "OOPS" statments--here one for you.

Moore has stated that Walmart is (I think he actually used the word "evil" here) that no person should be doing business with.

Guess who is one of the major sellers of his video--OOPS!! Walmart.

Guess "evil" is not so bad as long as they are paying you enough.

Little ironic? or a lot ironic?