Michael Moore is back at it

[JohnnyLingo]

Are you a fan of Christopher Hitchens?

Christopher Hitchens: Fahrenheit 9/11 “Sinister Exercise In Moral Frivolity.” “To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of ‘dissenting’ bravery.” (Christopher Hitchens, “Unfairenheit 9/11; The Lies Of Michael Moore,” Slate, 6/21/04)

[BlueHair]

Are you a fan of Christopher Hitchens?

Hitchens' so called lies pale in comparison to the big lie Bush told to justify the on a sovereign nation. How many years have we been in Iraq and how many WMDs have been found? As far as I know, Hitchens lies didn't kill anyone.

[JohnnyLingo]

Hitchens' so called lies pale in comparison to the big lie Bush told to justify the on a sovereign nation. How many years have we been in Iraq and how many WMDs have been found? As far as I know, Hitchens lies didn't kill anyone.

What?

Reading comprehension check.

[PaloAltoCougar]

Are you not reading the other posts in this thread? Moore intentionally misleads and lies to promote his agenda.

Your obvious frustration impels you to use an exUteian bit of condescension, and that's a shame. Yes, I actually have been reading the entire thread, but I've hardly seen a consensus on the point you apparently take as gospel. One could spend a long afternoon pointing out the factual and logical fallacies of any commentator or filmmaker on either side of the spectrum (I'm open to the possibility one can make a presentation without bias or error, but the last guy that tried that got crucified).

[RobinFinderson]

Hey, stop infringing on SU's patented "Everyone agrees with me" debate tactic!



Sigh. The first one isn't enough?

Your first point was not an example of a lie or untruth. It was an example of Moore presenting an actual anecdotal event (his encounter with the secret service) that seemed to bolster his larger contention that President Bush and other presidents before him were overly cozy with the rulers of Saudi Arabia.

Your new point, the question of whether Saddam represented a real threat to US interests is debatable. Moore presented a side of that debate. Moore's primary point (so as not to lose sight of the forest for the trees) was that the war was unnecessary, that the extent of Saddam's threat was inaccurately portrayed by the administration in order to hurry to war, and that peaceful means of dealing with the situation had not yet been exhausted. BTW, in all likelihood, Saddam ordered the murder of Abu Nidal. That is hardly 'safe harbor.'

[pellegrino]

A documentary filmmaker. From dictionary.com:

doc⋅u⋅men⋅ta⋅ry: based on or re-creating an actual event, era, life story, etc., that purports to be factually accurate and contains no fictional elements: a documentary life of Gandhi.

a quaint definition that shows their lack of knowledge on the subject.

[JohnnyLingo]

Your obvious frustration impels you to use an exUteian bit of condescension, and that's a shame. Yes, I actually have been reading the entire thread, but I've hardly seen a consensus on the point you apparently take as gospel. One could spend a long afternoon pointing out the factual and logical fallacies of any commentator or filmmaker on either side of the spectrum (I'm open to the possibility one can make a presentation without bias or error, but the last guy that tried that got crucified).

I'm not trying to talk down to you, PAC, but I've made this point at least twice in this thread:

I'm not arguing that Moore's films have the normal amount of bias and error you find from people trying to tell a story.

I'm arguing that he intentionally misleads and tells half-truths and lies. He allows his bias to lead him into error.

Your first point was not an example of a lie or untruth. It was an example of Moore presenting an actual anecdotal event

And he did zero research to see what the truth was. Or if he did, and found the truth, he omitted it from the film.

Your new point, the question of whether Saddam represented a real threat to US interests is debatable.

No. That's not the point. The point Moore made was that Saddam never threatened the United States. That is a far less debatable and more concrete point than the one you interpreted.

I'll ask again, are you a fan of Christopher Hitchens? He has some strong words about Moore.

a quaint definition that shows their lack of knowledge on the subject.

Can you educate me on the subject? When did "documentary film" stop meaning "based on or re-creating an actual event, era, life story, etc., that purports to be factually accurate and contains no fictional elements"?

[RobinFinderson]

He said that the KKK turned into the NRA

Now YOU are the liar. He didn't say that. The point of the cartoon (shown below) is to draw parallels between American's fears and our culture of violence. It starts with the pilgrims and the slaughter of American Indians as the first parallel. The coincidental organization of of the NRA the same year as the formation of the KKK is just another historic parallel between a culture of violence and a culture of fear. This connection, that Americans' fears make us prone to do stupid things, is one of the primary points of the film.

As you will see in the cartoon, yes, NRA members are shown pouring gasoline on a cross which KKK members then light. You might disagree with that as a rhetorical device, but that is all it is. The film does NOT say that the KKK turned into the NRA.

[YOUTUBE]FgwRWzk5WeU[/YOUTUBE]

[Mormon Red Death]

Now YOU are the liar. He didn't say that. The point of the cartoon (shown below) is to draw parallels between American's fears and our culture of violence. It starts with the pilgrims and the slaughter of American Indians as the first parallel. The coincidental organization of of the NRA the same year as the formation of the KKK is just another historic parallel between a culture of violence and a culture of fear. This connection, that Americans' fears make us prone to do stupid things, is one of the primary points of the film.

As you will see in the cartoon, yes, NRA members are shown pouring gasoline on a cross which KKK members then light. You might disagree with that as a rhetorical device, but that is all it is. The film does NOT say that the KKK turned into the NRA.
[YOUTUBE]
FgwRWzk5WeU[/YOUTUBE]

Whatever... his intention is clear

[JohnnyLingo]

As you will see in the cartoon, yes, NRA members are shown pouring gasoline on a cross which KKK members then light. You might disagree with that as a rhetorical device, but that is all it is. The film does NOT say that the KKK turned into the NRA.

Strong, strong implication. It's a method Moore uses to give himself plausible deniability. He's not explicit in the accusation because he can't prove it. As such, he uses strong imagery to imply something and then hides behind the "it was only a rhetorical device" cover.

Another cover, "it's only a joke!", is a common tactic by Moore and his supporters as well.

[RobinFinderson]

And he did zero research to see what the truth was. Or if he did, and found the truth, he omitted it from the film.

Moore's larger point here is that the US is overly cozy with Saudi dictators. He presents evidence supporting this claim. The Saudi embassy event was an anecdote only.

No. That's not the point. The point Moore made was that Saddam never threatened the United States. That is a far less debatable and more concrete point than the one you interpreted.

Maybe Moore did simply mean that Iraq didn't ever threaten US soil. I don't even remember that point, because it wasn't his big point. The larger point of the film is what is at issue. Moore's big picture is this: The Bush administration misrepresented the threat from Saddam in order to rush to war. The war was unnecessary, because all peaceful means had not yet been exhausted.

[JohnnyLingo]

So your assertion is that Moore uses half-truths and misleading information in support of larger, true, points.

Is that right?

[RobinFinderson]

Strong, strong implication. It's a method Moore uses to give himself plausible deniability. He's not explicit in the accusation because he can't prove it. As such, he uses strong imagery to imply something and then hides behind the "it was only a rhetorical device" cover.

Another cover, "it's only a joke!", is a common tactic by Moore and his supporters as well.

If you only faulted him for style, we would agree.

[JohnnyLingo]

The movie claims that the Bush administration “supported closing veterans hospitals.” “The Department of Veterans Affairs did propose closing seven hospitals in areas with declining populations where the hospitals were underutilized, and whose veterans could be served by other hospitals” (Dave Kopel, Independence Institute, “Fifty-nine Deceits In Fahrenheit 9/11,” http://i2i.org/ Accessed, 07/11/04)

But Moore’s film fails to mention that the Department also proposed building new hospitals in areas where needs were growing, and also proposed building blind rehabilitation centers and spinal cord injury centers (News Release, Department of Veterans Affairs, www.va.gov, 10/24/03)

Conspiracy theories abound about the reasons for the War on Terror, but none is more outlandish than the one propagandized in Moore’s film: that the Afghan war was fought solely to enable the Unocal company to build an oil pipeline (the plan for which was abandoned by the company in 1998).

Moore “suggests that one of the first official acts of Afghan President Hamid Karzai … was to help seal a deal for … Unocal to build an oil pipeline from the Caspian Sea through Afghanistan to the Indian Ocean. It alleges that Karzai had been a Unocal consultant.” (emphasis added) (Sumana Chatterjee and David Golstein, “Analyzing ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’: It’s Accurate To A Degree,” Seattle Times, 07/05/04)

Unocal spokesman, Barry Lane, says unequivocally, “Karzai was never, in any capacity, an employee, consultant or a consultant of a consultant,” and Unocal never had a plan to build a Caspian Sea pipeline. (Sumana Chatterjee and David Golstein, “Analyzing ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’: It’s Accurate To A Degree,” Seattle Times, 07/05/04)

Moore mentions that the Taliban visited Texas while President Bush was governor to discuss a potential project with Unocal.

While Moore implies that then-Governor Bush met with the Taliban, no such meeting occurred. The Taliban delegation did, however, meet with the Clinton Administration on this visit. (Matt Labash, “Un-Moored From Reality; Fahrenheit 9/11 Connects Dots That Aren’t There,” Weekly Standard, July 5-July 12 Issue)

This is kinda fun.

[RobinFinderson]

So your assertion is that Moore uses half-truths and misleading information in support of larger, true, points.

Is that right?

My point is that Moore presents an argument for seeing history in a particular way. He presents a type of reality through highly stylized arguments which are designed to persuade. The question at hand is whether or not Moore is persuasive in his opinions.