Michael Moore is back at it

[falafel]

What should he say "Gosh, this is just my opinion on this, I hope you like it"?

Actually, yeah.

[Colly Wolly]

Do you have similar issues with Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, Savage, etc.? If so, are there any commentators on either side of the political spectrum who get it just right, in your view?

Larry Kudlow and Neil Cavuto are two of my personal favorites.

[woot]

I have found Roger & Me to be entertaining even though I didn't agree with the message. Bowling for Columbine cured me of ever wanting to watch one of his documentaries again. The problem that I have isn't with the agenda, every single documentary has an agenda. The problem that I have is the outright fiction and intellectual dishonest that is a problem in his films. Having an agenda is fine, lying to make your point in a documentary is not.

I never saw either of those. I did see Fahrenheit and Sicko, and I found them both to have lots of good information, and were interesting and played to my biases. I think I found that there was a lot of fudging of facts when I did my diligence afterward, though.

[Colly Wolly]

Michael Moore is getting lazy. This subject is the lowest hanging fruit he has made a film about.

Standing outside AIG headquarters with a pillow case with a dollar sign on it???

[PaloAltoCougar]

I don't mean to detour the thread here, but it seems as if the lefties dominate the documentary film format (e.g., Moore, Gore, etc.), while the righties dominate talk radio. Am I wrong? If not, why doesn't one side make better inroads into the other's specialty?

[TripletDaddy]

Part of the problem is that few people watch many documentaries so they don't understand that there generally is a blatant agenda. Yes, MM is extremely biased. Those who watch MM movies thinking they're getting an unbiased look at the issue aren't any smarter thant Republicans who watch fox or Democrats who watch Olberman thinking they're getting anything like objectivity. The problem here isn't necessarily MM, it's the ignorant masses who think there's no agenda (or that there is one and that he's therefore a scumbag)

thanks, woot. you are exactly correct.

We hit on this topic on CG when Sicko was released. "Documentaries" are under no requirement to be "fair and balanced," at least not from a traditional film studies perspective.

Those that complain about Michael Moore's bias simply expose their lack of understanding of the documentary genre....and perhaps their personal politics, I guess.

Michael Moore has NEVER ever claimed to make balanced films. He is more like an investigative reporter. His films are exposes, at best.

[JohnnyLingo]

I think I found that there was a lot of fudging of facts when I did my diligence afterward, though.

This is my biggest problem with Moore.

And in further response to PAC... no I don't have a problem with any of those right-wing commentators just like I don't have a problem with Rhandi Rhodes and Olbermann and whoever else does left-wing commentary. They are clearly labeled, and while I disagree with them, and even despise them sometimes, I don't feel like they are intentionally misleading the public.

Moore is not as clearly defined, and uses that to his advantage in a scuzzy way.

I don't mean to detour the thread here, but it seems as if the lefties dominate the documentary film format (e.g., Moore, Gore, etc.), while the righties dominate talk radio. Am I wrong? If not, why doesn't one side make better inroads into the other's specialty?

Liberals need shiny lights and pretty pictures to become engaged in a cause. Conservatives just need the spoken word.

Draw your own conclusions.

[woot]

I don't mean to detour the thread here, but it seems as if the lefties dominate the documentary film format (e.g., Moore, Gore, etc.), while the righties dominate talk radio. Am I wrong? If not, why doesn't one side make better inroads into the other's specialty?

I've also wondered this. Righties can't be funny either. One might argue this is because humor requires a grain of truth and reality has a well-known liberal bias. Not me, of course, but one could.

[woot]

This is my biggest problem with Moore.

And in further response to PAC... no I don't have a problem with any of those right-wing commentators just like I don't have a problem with Rhandi Rhodes and Olbermann and whoever else does left-wing commentary. They are clearly labeled, and while I disagree with them, and even despise them sometimes, I don't feel like they are intentionally misleading the public.

Moore is not as clearly defined, and uses that to his advantage in a scuzzy way.

Well this I would have to take a little bit of issue with, as Fox does everything they can to avoid labeling their commentators as obviously biased. If one doesn't have the wherewithal to recognize that Fox is anything but "Fair and balanced," there's nothing on that channel to alert you to that fact. At least this was true last time I watched cable news, which isn't recently. This seems to hold true on other channels as well, as it wasn't obvious to me when I first saw Scarborough, Matthews, Dobbs, et al., which way they leaned and I had to figure it out by listening to their arguments, not from seeing them labeled by the network.

[JohnnyLingo]

Well this I would have to take a little bit of issue with, as Fox does everything they can to avoid labeling their commentators as obviously biased. If one doesn't have the wherewithal to recognize that Fox is anything but "Fair and balanced," there's nothing on that channel to alert you to that fact.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that slogan in reference to the fact that they have people from both sides of the aisle on to argue their points all the time? I'm not a Fox News watcher, but it seems every time I wander over there, there's someone arguing the liberal side of whatever issue is being discussed.

...which way they leaned and I had to figure it out by listening to their arguments, not from seeing them labeled by the network.

You'd be surprised. I've talked to a lot of people who have watched Fahrenheit 9/11 and most of them would not label Moore as a liberal.

I'm telling you, he works hard to portray himself as an unbiased observer to events. His "investigative reporting" schtick is merely another way he does this. Investigative reports do not have overt agendas. An investigative report into drug use in a city reports what is found, and then probably spins a suggestion on how to fix the problem. Moore paints everything he films with his bias, and it shows.

[PaloAltoCougar]

...I don't feel like they are intentionally misleading the public. Moore is not as clearly defined, and uses that to his advantage in a scuzzy way.

I don't like him, but I don't think Moore is any more devious than Limbaugh. You've certainly figured out that Moore has an agenda (again, as does nearly any commentator). This question sounds snide, but I really don't mean it that way: do you believe you are materially more insightful concerning Moore's motives than is the general public, i.e., that most are fooled, while you are not?

[JohnnyLingo]

I don't like him, but I don't think Moore is any more devious than Limbaugh. You've certainly figured out that Moore has an agenda (again, as does nearly any commentator). This question sounds snide, but I really don't mean it that way: do you believe you are materially more insightful concerning Moore's motives than is the general public, i.e., that most are fooled, while you are not?

Yes, I do. And here's why:

The media relentlessly portrays Rush as a right-wing commentator (nutjob).

The media does not portray Moore in the same way. He is a documentary filmmaker with Academy Award nominations and Cannes Film Festival top prizes.

The average American is not as smart as the average CUF'er. It may be easy for you and I to see it. Doesn't mean it is the same for everyone.

[il Padrino Ute]

I don't mean to detour the thread here, but it seems as if the lefties dominate the documentary film format (e.g., Moore, Gore, etc.), while the righties dominate talk radio. Am I wrong? If not, why doesn't one side make better inroads into the other's specialty?

You are correct.

I think that the lefties can't make inroads in the world of talk radio because they've tried and failed miserably. Air America was supposed to be able to counter Limbaugh, but nobody listened to it. Now they're trying to push the Fairness Doctrine, but that will only silence the right.

I think the righties can't make inroads in the world of documentary because most of the film industry leans very much to the left and finding proper funding to make a decent documentary is difficult for a conservative. (I never saw Farenhype 911, but my understanding is that it was fairly well made, but really ticked off the left, which is a good thing, IMO.)

[PaloAltoCougar]

Yes, I do. And here's why:

The media relentlessly portrays Rush as a right-wing commentator (nutjob).

The media does not portray Moore in the same way. He is a documentary filmmaker with Academy Award nominations and Cannes Film Festival top prizes.

The average American is not as smart as the average CUF'er. It may be easy for you and I to see it. Doesn't mean it is the same for everyone.

I appreciate your answer. What I'm about to write cannot be proven, or disproven or that matter, but I believe that the number of people who are unthinkingly persuaded by the rants of those on the right is no less than the number of those who are unthinkingly persuaded by the screeds of those on the left. I think I'll start counting so that I can prove this scientifically.

[JohnnyLingo]

I appreciate your answer. What I'm about to write cannot be proven, or disproven or that matter, but I believe that the number of people who are unthinkingly persuaded by the rants of those on the right is no less than the number of those who are unthinkingly persuaded by the screeds of those on the left. I think I'll start counting so that I can prove this scientifically.

I'll start counting, too. Let's get back together in a year and compare notes.