I was questioning her point about it being more available the the public, more than whether she bought the DVD or not. It was just as available in a theatre as it is as a DVD release...I still don't think it will have any bearing on the election.By November 2nd, most will have forgotten about it anyway, unless Moore buys some big ad, promoting it, which would'nt suprise me a bit...
Fahrenheit 9/11
- Thread starter Annessa
- Start date
MuffinMuncher said:
No film, documentary, book, or any communication for that matter, is free from personal bias. We can try to be objective, but our own beliefs will be buried in there, even if we do not consciously express them.
I prefer reading or watching something where the biases are clearly stated. Michael Moore does not hide his political agenda. What I find much more pernicious, is something that is presented as if it is objective.
What I find most challenging is listening to someone whose positions I abhor, like William Buckley, who present reasoned arguments that I have to evaluate on their merits. I helps me examine my own beliefs and, every now and then, forces me to modify them.
Fortunately...that is illegal...It's called "electioneering"...There can be NO politcal ads or discussion within 100ft of a polling place..I have been in line to vote, when 2 people were discussing who they were thinking of voting for, when the 2 eletion officials kindly asked them to stop...When I was a kid, the polling place was at my school..a teacher had to move his car because he had a sticker for a candidate on his window, and you could see it from the room they were using....
G
Gord's Bro
Re: A few quick thoughts!
Maybe the problem with truth is much the same as beauty -- It's in the eye of the beholder. Hitler had his truths, Mother Therrasa her's.
The key is to know where the person presenting the "truth" is coming from. That's important in not only discussion and debate but in media. Try this example.
House of Ill Repute (for lack of a better name!!) burns down leaving naked ladies running down the street. Toronto Star has first-person story by their reporter who was not only on the scene but rescued one of the lasses. Toronto Sun has a colour front-page photo of the ladies rushing out into the street and starts a fund for the victims while the Globe and Mail Report in Business story on how stock in Babe and Me Ltd. has dropped 10%.
All true but from a different perspective. Bottom line, make your own decison based on your beliefs, not those of the presenter.
G's B.
Flower said:
Maybe the problem with truth is much the same as beauty -- It's in the eye of the beholder. Hitler had his truths, Mother Therrasa her's.
The key is to know where the person presenting the "truth" is coming from. That's important in not only discussion and debate but in media. Try this example.
House of Ill Repute (for lack of a better name!!) burns down leaving naked ladies running down the street. Toronto Star has first-person story by their reporter who was not only on the scene but rescued one of the lasses. Toronto Sun has a colour front-page photo of the ladies rushing out into the street and starts a fund for the victims while the Globe and Mail Report in Business story on how stock in Babe and Me Ltd. has dropped 10%.
All true but from a different perspective. Bottom line, make your own decison based on your beliefs, not those of the presenter.
G's B.
While any documentary is likely to contain personal opinions either expressly stated or underpinning the presentation, I found the article posted by Ocean976123 more compelling than the movie.
If the criticisms of the movie in that article are well founded on the facts, the Moore movie starts looking less like an opinion piece and more like an opportunistic lie. It's one thing to offer opinion in order to interpret facts. It's quite another to intentionally misrepresent the facts to support an agenda. The latter has no value within the political process. The political process is not exempt from the "garbage in, garbage out" rule.
Michael Moore is a relatively well financed film maker. I'm inclined to think that either he knew that what he was presenting was misleading in many instances, or he could have easily checked the facts which would have disclosed the more accurate picture.
I enjoyed the movie as a piece of storytelling. Moore is funny and has a talent for editing. That's where my reverence for the movie ends.
The movie should not be referenced as a source of facts for political argument. It seems that even the Democrats are aware of the dangers of relying on the movie for this purpose, and have avoided direct adoption of the contents of the movie. Of course some individual democrats wish that everything in the movie were true, as that would confirm their pre-existing condemnation of Bush.
Democrats and Republicans both support intervention in foreign military conflicts, including civil wars and the oppression of minorities by foreign governments. The difference in their positions as to when and where the U.S. would intervene in the sovereign affairs of other countries is marginal. The attempt to characterize the Bush Administration/Republicans as uniquely "warmongering" is absurd.
If Kerry is elected, I hope it's because he has a better plan for completing the work that is left to do in Afghanistan and Iraq, not because the Democrats have a more entertaining film maker than the Republicans can recruit.
If the criticisms of the movie in that article are well founded on the facts, the Moore movie starts looking less like an opinion piece and more like an opportunistic lie. It's one thing to offer opinion in order to interpret facts. It's quite another to intentionally misrepresent the facts to support an agenda. The latter has no value within the political process. The political process is not exempt from the "garbage in, garbage out" rule.
Michael Moore is a relatively well financed film maker. I'm inclined to think that either he knew that what he was presenting was misleading in many instances, or he could have easily checked the facts which would have disclosed the more accurate picture.
I enjoyed the movie as a piece of storytelling. Moore is funny and has a talent for editing. That's where my reverence for the movie ends.
The movie should not be referenced as a source of facts for political argument. It seems that even the Democrats are aware of the dangers of relying on the movie for this purpose, and have avoided direct adoption of the contents of the movie. Of course some individual democrats wish that everything in the movie were true, as that would confirm their pre-existing condemnation of Bush.
Democrats and Republicans both support intervention in foreign military conflicts, including civil wars and the oppression of minorities by foreign governments. The difference in their positions as to when and where the U.S. would intervene in the sovereign affairs of other countries is marginal. The attempt to characterize the Bush Administration/Republicans as uniquely "warmongering" is absurd.
If Kerry is elected, I hope it's because he has a better plan for completing the work that is left to do in Afghanistan and Iraq, not because the Democrats have a more entertaining film maker than the Republicans can recruit.
An excellent response, Kathleen (and I think that we share similiar opinions about Moore's motives and character), but I can't let this one pass:
Then GWB must be the biggest Anti-American around!!!!
Kathleen said:
Then GWB must be the biggest Anti-American around!!!!
If you ask me joebear's answer hit the nail on the head. Or at the very least it's good representation of what a nail looks like.
Alot's been written but here's my two cents. Say this was not a michael moore film.....say a non-american independent film producer had put this together.Would the uproar be the same?.....I've seen it...and although it's biased in many places the facts do speak for themselves...and the dots between these power players within the US business and political communities, along with the saudi players are pretty clearly marked.
i think the thing i'm most disappointed about in all this is the complete neutering of the US media.Some of this is simple fact that should have been reported about long ago.Simple fact:.the bin laden family was flown lock stock and barrel out of the US...i mean this is the guy's family....if any democratic president had done that he;d have been drawn and quartered.Bias or no bias..some facts just stand on their own
i think the thing i'm most disappointed about in all this is the complete neutering of the US media.Some of this is simple fact that should have been reported about long ago.Simple fact:.the bin laden family was flown lock stock and barrel out of the US...i mean this is the guy's family....if any democratic president had done that he;d have been drawn and quartered.Bias or no bias..some facts just stand on their own
Don's right here Kathleen. I think most impartial viewers of Fahrenheit 9/11 would classify the intent of the movie as exactly that.DonQuixote said:
Pure character assassination propaganda.
MM is a genius.
The free publicity he got with this movie is only rivaled by the Blair Witch project.
The free publicity he got with this movie is only rivaled by the Blair Witch project.
I don't share the view of a ripped up and torn America.
Poltical bullshit aside it is still the greatest place to live.
There is a saying in germany that goes
"Was uns nicht umbringt, macht uns nur noch haerter"
Meaning
Anything that doesn't kill us only makes us tougher...
Poltical bullshit aside it is still the greatest place to live.
There is a saying in germany that goes
"Was uns nicht umbringt, macht uns nur noch haerter"
Meaning
Anything that doesn't kill us only makes us tougher...
I would never use a Nazi to compare to Rush Limbaugh...the same as i would'nt use a Nazi to compare to Mr Moore...Seems to remove all credibility from the post, and the person posting...
http://www.vote-smart.org/index.htm
If you want to know who voted when and how, this should go along way
If you want to know who voted when and how, this should go along way
F 9/11
I quite enjoyed this movie and must say that Moore is a very talented story teller.
All his personal agenda aside, I hope this movie peaked more interests in the general public, especially American voters, to be more active in getting informed about the current administration.
Moore can be labled as intrusive and without class, but how else could he have gotten his points across as efficiently and effectively
as the way he already did ? A good movie it is ,nonetheless.
I quite enjoyed this movie and must say that Moore is a very talented story teller.
All his personal agenda aside, I hope this movie peaked more interests in the general public, especially American voters, to be more active in getting informed about the current administration.
Moore can be labled as intrusive and without class, but how else could he have gotten his points across as efficiently and effectively
as the way he already did ? A good movie it is ,nonetheless.
