Michael Moore????? Why the criticism??

[GregWhelan]

Evening all

Was on holiday last week and read 'Stupid White Men' and 'Dude Where's My Country' by Michael Moore.

To be honest, I found them both fascinating, in terms of the facts and issues he highlighted. I also found it humourous in places, although it did get tiresome after a while.

What I wanna know is how come he gets such a bad press off of people? I have seen a few comments about him being 'this' and 'that' - but how can people stand up against his arguments, especially when he backs them up with hard data/facts? For instance his argument about Gore getting more votes than Bush in 2000, and then Bush fiddling it so that he came out the winner?

Was just curious as to why he gets negative press when he is obviously striving for a 'better' America?

[thesightless]

Re: Michael Moore????? Why the criticism??

b/c his viewpoints are valid but he is a farse of a ""truthspeaker",. his movies are all cut and paste. he lies out his teeth in the movies,(go back to columbine movie and the bank scene which was made to look like 2 hours while it was 2 weeks) the heston speech is cut from 4 different speeches and he actually edited the colors to make it look like one. he preys on ppl at thier most vulnerable points after 9/11,. he showed up at a firehouse in NYC 2 months after 9/11 while the families were meeting to greive and console a woman whose husband was identified and started quizzing little children on why the pending war wrong. he is a scumbag, very well educated and intelligent though. he says he is a flint michigan man from a tough am,erican town, while he grew up nearly an hour from flint in a wealthy area. he tells us in faren9/11 that none of the senators or house have children in the war while actually some do and the ignores the fact that anyone within the age cracket of having a child between 18-28 yrs of age that is a senator is either single ro without child and those with children are, for the majority older and thier children are in their 40's with thier own familes. he just shows one side of the story, never revealing all the facts, he preys on gullible ppl who share a view similar to his.

google this term 59 deceits (maybe 58?) or look into the few ppl who counter his facts or supplement his facts with the rest and you'll see that he isnt forthcoming.

[GregWhelan]

Re: Michael Moore????? Why the criticism??

^ cheers for that - so basically some of his points are valid, but would be less so if 100% of the facts were given out?

Still seems like some of his thinking on the bush tax cut, and the gore/bush debacle are correct though. Just my two cents though, I'm not saying I'm on his side or anything

[thesightless]

Re: Michael Moore????? Why the criticism??

here its a summary of the article about his crap
go to davekopel.com
the article is there./

also, there are about 50 other sites that give the ""companion facts"" that this fat fuck leaves out.

[thesightless]

Re: Michael Moore????? Why the criticism??

one more thing.

michael moore harps about he doesnt own stocks, and never did, but in fact he does, he has owned over 200 shares of stock. more in particular, HALLIBURTON>

[Kobe]

Re: Michael Moore????? Why the criticism??

kudos to you for being the first person to criticize MM without resorting to personal attacks, "fat" and "asshat" being the most common

I love his work. He is perfect and honest? Probably not, but IMO the big picture of his points is true and compelling and the minutiae of these details does nothing to diminish that. I consider it more of a don't hate the player, hate the game sort of thing. The way our media is, you need to resort to some underhanded tactics to rise above the din of all the spin and character attacks, so MM plays this game and succeeds quite well. Those who don't like his message play the same game and pick him appart.

[toasty]

Re: Michael Moore????? Why the criticism??

Was just curious as to why he gets negative press when he is obviously striving for a 'better' America?

Seriously, part of it is that he is an open critic of the Bush administration. The way the Republican Noise Machine works, critics of the adminstration are villified and demonized, often on a personal level. Look at Joe Wilson, for example. Regardless of what your thought is on the whole Plame-Rove-Libby thing is, it is undisputed that the administration sought to counter the criticisims Joe Wilson had about the administration by attacking Joe Wilson personally. It is what they do.

Substantively, some of the criticims of Moore are warranted. His filmmaking is more entertainment than true documentary, and his films are unquestionably skewed to fit his agenda. On the other hand, they are pretty entertaining -- you just have to watch them with your eyes open about what you are actually seeing.

Moore's films get people talking, and for that, I think he serves a useful purpose. The problem, however, is that the message at times gets lost in the discussion over accuracy of his claims. Critics of F9/11, for example, were quick to criticize him for creative edits and things like that, and much of the debate centered around stupid shit that doesn't matter -- for example, right out of the gate in F9/11, footage is shown of a Gore rally on election day 2000 claiming victory. Critics of the film were quick to correctly point out that the movie implies that the rally was held in the evening, when in fact it was held that morning, or the day before, I can't remember.

The problem, though, is this: who cares when the rally was held? Ever see a politician express confidence or even promise victory about his chances before the election? Probably at every campaign stop. What does the timing of the rally have to do with the larger message in the film, that Bush is an incompetent boob who is both the beneficiary and promoter of the worst kind of cronyism, and that the Iraq war was a terrible idea? Answer: nothing -- but the debate shifted to the accuracy of the film on this sort of pointless minutiae and the greater message was lost.

Most hard-core conservatives would never watch F9/11. Most hard-core liberals don't need to see it to agree with the message. What the debate over its accuracy did, however, was to insure that many of the people in the middle that might have benefitted from hearing the message would discount it wholesale and never bother to see it. The Republican Noise Machine succeeds again.

[edited to correct typo]

[thesightless]

Re: Michael Moore????? Why the criticism??

prettu much what he said

but moore is a scumbag.. i WOULD punch him if given the oppurtunity.

jsut one thing, dont bring the noise machine into it, we know you hate the neo con right, yeah more people hate him aftyer 9/11 movie, but he was hated after columbine too. not to mentioned he was sued and settled out of court by a few ppl in the first movie. (the kids parents, the bank lady and someone else).

[BSully828]

Re: Michael Moore????? Why the criticism??

The problem I have with Moore (and its the same problem I have with guys like O'Reiley, Coulter, Hannity, Franken, Stewart, Matthews ect.. ect..) is that he absolutely refuses to acknowledge the other side of the argument. Every piece of work he's done contains misleading and inaccurate information, yet he tries to play it like he has no agenda, no bias. That's what gets under my skin about this guy. It's one thing if you want to entertain and at the same time inject your own political views, I've got no problem with that - but for him to act like he is some objective observer just "giving the facts" - please....

He's been working on a new film about the american healthcare system called "Sicko", which is slated to open around mid '06 - right before the mid-term elections (gotta give the guy credit - he knows how to time his release dates). Sure it will be entertaining and even a little eye opening - but I'd bet the Pats three Superbowl rings that he takes a few creative liberties with some data and more than the occasional random jab at the administration. Then there will be a huge uproar by those who are either a.) completely unaware of the other side of the argument or b.) to lazy/ignorant to question the accuracy of his claims. They'll start waving their torches and demanding heads to roll all based on a two hour film that addresses just one side of the coin.

Just a guess though.

[thesightless]

Re: Michael Moore????? Why the criticism??

in regards to the medicare system, speaking solely from professional experience here, the medicare system is so filled with loopholes due to the tax and estate laws that supercede it. so many senior citizens are on the system when they shouldnt be. thanks to people like me, we are able to sheild elderly people's estates and cash inflows from the medicare thresholds simply by placing everything of value into a trust of sorts. they sell their houses to thier children, then use the proceeds to open a trust or fund for the people who gave it. this drop the seniors into the bottom brackets and enables them to hop into medicare and drain the funding away from those who actually need it.

[thesightless]

Re: Michael Moore????? Why the criticism??

and this entire thread is exactly what i spoke of in my thread regarding imus and leiberman. we finally had an open look at things without someone harping about party lines and political views, and we ened mroe of it.

[GregWhelan]

Re: Michael Moore????? Why the criticism??

Some excellent, valid views here guys. I will agree with the chap above about Moore almost preaching that he is unbiased - just from reading Stupid White Men and Dude, Where's My Country I can see that the other side of the coin is not given any exposure at all.

But then I will also agre that people do concentrate on the pointless little things that detarct from the real issue. And going so far as to personally demonise him - then again I suppose Moore blatantly demonises Bush at every opportunity right?

As someone said he serves a purpose in that he gets people thinking and talking, and kudos to him for that. I wish more people would wake up and realise that some (not all) politicians are screwing us over

[thesightless]

Re: Michael Moore????? Why the criticism??

and thats why the list of politiicans i listen to is limited to about 5-8, with mccain, kuch and few others. and why i love Imus for political observation.

[jorre]

Re: Michael Moore????? Why the criticism??

MM may not be correct a 100%, but he sure has some valid critics on Bush and his regime... e.g. check out the scene in Fahrenheit 9/11 where he asks politicians to sign up their children to go to Irak...

and I don't like Bush, I don't understand why he gets so much support from the people in the States...

[Yao]

Re: Michael Moore????? Why the criticism??

Most Europeans don't Jorre...Even more annoying is that the Dutch govt is acting so cowardly: giving political support but not military, then after the real shit has passed they suddenly want to send in troops to help 'rebuild' the country. Faggots. Same deal with Afghanistan now...they threatened not to send any troops for operation Enduring Freedom if their safety wasn't guaranteed.

WTF??

Those are the guys that are supposed to ensure safety! They are soldiers! And if some of them die, that's too bad but that is a risk you'll have to take if you really want to make a difference. And then of course you have your parent groups whining again, well....your son/daughter has made a rational choice and thinks it's worth the risk. Stop whining, and go back to your safe house with your nice teevee and stereo and steam shower cabin and whatnot...Those people I hate most: trying to be political and all, but doing diddly quat to make this world a better place.

My parents weren't happy to hear that I am still considering taking up photography and going into warzones/unsafe countries to document the shit that is going on there...