Fahrenheit 9/11

I don't see the misrepresentation. Was I just not clear on that, or what?Does he ever come out and say "As reported in the Pantagraph..."? You saw the movie; you tell me. I don't see where he's portrayed the letter as the Pantagraph's original reporting. Moore's even come out and said that his production staff had to alter the font and size of the title of the letter so that it would show up on the screen.If this typefies the general level of Moore's supposed dishonesty, color me not impressed. You think the guy makes a $6 million dollar movie and he's the one sitting down with a copy of Photoshop? And you haven't disputed the accuracy of those statements.He actually has to say untrue things to be a liar, Arach. Could you show me the byline on Moore's fake paper? C'mon, Arach. You know I didn't make that claim.It's fairly ridiculous of you to misrepresent your opponent in a discussion about what things, if any, Moore has misrepresented. Or- much more reasonably - he retypsetted the page so that it could be visible on a movie screen. I can barely read the real version.Look, Arach, what did he say that was a lie? Not - what do you think he said that turned out not to be true. What did he explicitly say that he knew wasn't true?Be specific.

In Bowling for Columbine his production staff had developed the tricky technique of zooming in on sections of relevant text. Why alter it in a way that does make it look like a news story rather than a letter?This screenshot has small text...and the camera zooms in. It's entirely readable. Sounds like Moore is talking crap to me.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

I dunno. Are you guys really under the impression that Moore sits down at his iMac and makes this stuff himself? That he was the one that set the type? In a six million dollar movie, you don't think Moore hires someone to do the effects?Moore is constantly dismissed as a liar. I mean totally dismissed. Look at Arach - you're telling me that he sat there through F:9/11, agreed with the whole thing, roundly condemned Bush along with the rest of us - and then, got up afterwards, and was convinced that, even though the thesis of Moore's movie has been proven correct over and over again, decided that Moore was a lying douchebag and just as bad as Rush Limbaugh, because of a 2-second ambiguity in a 122-minute movie?I mean, come the fuck on! Rush Limbaugh has been lying for decades. I know, because I was there. I was a ditto-head. Now I know better. Sean Hannity gets on the air - three hours a day, as he constantly reminds us, and it feels like six - and it's like one lie every minute. When he's not lying he's lambasting people he thinks are "liberal." Ann Coulter can't even be bothered to provide any evidence against evolution in her new book, but that doesn't stop her from calling everyone who believes in it a godless idiot.And Moore's just as bad as all that? Really? Moore's the left's Ann Coulter? Just because of a 2-second ambiguity in one of his movies? I mean, I know that's all you guys have, because you would have presented something else by now, otherwise.I'm sorry but you guys have, once again, shown that there's basically no basis for dismissing Moore. Maybe you don't like his style. I get that. He pisses people off. That's what I like about him. I don't even agree with everything he says, sometimes he doesn't know when to keep his mouth shut. He clearly thinks most Americans are idiots. I do too, now, and this ridiculous bullshit is part of the cause of that.Show me one thing Michael Moore said as a fact that wasn't, that he knew wasn't. I've been asking for nothing else for the whole thread. For someone portrayed as being a big fat liar, you think that would be easy.

Not at all. But he was the writer and directer as well as a producer and narrator.I would imagine he either gave instructions on what he wanted the team he was employing to do, or he OKd it once it was done. Arach, as you said so yourself, is not totally dismissing him. However, this is not the only 'ambiguity'- just one that Arach is talking about. Other things have been brought up. My position has always been constant. One could argue that Moore isn't any more a liar than any other joe on the street. However, his documentary reporting style is dishonest. Quote mining is dishonest, as is removing important context. The newspaper thing is an example of changing the context.I consider that to be dishonest. Some say that a person who is dishonest is a liar, others don't go that far.

what, you think i'm suddenly a bush-loving neo-con?YES, crash, that's exactly what i did. if you want to know the thoughts that went through my head on the first viewing, back when i saw it in theatres, i can tell you. because i remember all of them: "heard that one, heard that one, heard that one."and like anything i watch, i take it with a bit of a grain of salt, and a healthy degree of skepticism. and it's pretty infantile of you to think that this somehow makes me a republican lap-dog. talk about a false dichotomy. you might as well be chanting "you're either for us, or you're against us." no, you come the fuck on. rush limbaugh or sean hannity or the coultergiest being lying bottom-feeders does not make dishonesty on the other side ok. NO. ann coulter is malicious, and nasty, and lies through her teeth. at his worst, michael moore screws up a few things there, and misrepresents some stuff with creativing editing and half-truths. there's little comparison in the two -- expect in that it really pisses off the right to hear the two associated.we're talking the difference between mcdonalds quarterpounder and a dog turd sandwich. i'll take the mcdonalds -- but neithers really the best in terms of burgers. because we can't get you to admit the glaringly obvious: that misrepresenting a source is dishonest. i don't care if it's ann coulter, or michael moore, the pope, or ol' honest abe himself. it's dishonest no matter who does it, and no matter what the reason may be. i'm not dismissing moore.i don't know how you keep missing it when i say things like "i think his points are valid" or "even though you (and i both) think he's right." i happen to love his film style. i've been watching michael moore since "the awful truth" aired on tv (fox, wasn't it? ) yes, crash. we're idiots for saying things like the very thing you just said. that's brilliant. seriously, i don't know what you expect for me. should i love him just because i'm a registered democrat -- and everyone i've ever voted for has been a democrat? should i openly verbally felate him on this board because i don't like bush either?i'll regard his work with the same skepticism as i will ANYONE'S work. "intellectually dishonest" and "liar" are not the same things. in this case it's just downright slopiness. there were many BETTER sources that he could have picked from without having to misrepresent them. why didn't he?maybe he should fire his research staff. you put your name on something, you're responsible for it. he writes, directs, produces, and iirc edits his pictures. his earlier films, btw, we're largely homemade. he's kind of a kevin-smith-esque character, gone from basement to big budget.as for who does the effects: there's one artist and two visual effects people. we're not talking something that screwed up by having too many hands in the pot.

---

What?

Can I assume, then, that you have no further examples of Moore being a liar? Cuz you seem to have departed from that point into a passioned defense of your right to hang onto your Liberal Club card. Look, you can be on the left and think Moore is a liar, regardless of what I think. What I asked is what the legitimate reasons are to conclude that, and I haven't seen any yet. I expect you to defend the assertion that Moore is a liar. To do that you need instances where Moore is lying. 2-second ambiguities that he probably wasn't even responsible for and that rely highly on audience assumptions don't do that. Because I tell you what - I look at that graphic and I have absolutely no feeling that I'm looking at an article instead of any other kind of material that appears in a newspaper.

because you are now misrepresnting me.there are more points against moore. but this like trying to reason with a fundy who doesn't accept evidence or reasoning, in favor of special pleading and double standards. what would you agree is dishonest? creative use of editting to make it look people did things in a certain context, when really it was in another?or does it have to be just making stuff up wholesale, because you fail to see how half-truths are not totally honest? "liar" and "dishonest" are not the same words. moore is intellectually dishonest, not a liar. and misleading an audience (using their assumptions) into thinking a source is more valid than it is is dishonest. it's not an "ambiguity" anymore than more than any other quotemine is an ambiguity. it's a distortion. now i think you are the one being dishonest.

---

Like this. And several that have been brought up on this thread, or links thereto. I am not particularly rabid anti-Moore so I'm not going to go sleuthing over all the Moore related websites for examples, but I don't like tricky context removals and quote mines. I consider them dishonest.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

I've already told you the burden of proof. What's the problem here? Do I have to ask again?What statements did Moore openly make that were not true, and that he knew were not true?

I didn't particularly find your examples compelling then, and I don't now. Moreover you don't actually supply any examples of what was said.The fact that you got the impression Moore was lying isn't particularly relevant. Where does Moore make the specific claim that Bush Jr. gave the order banning coffin photography? Precisely what context does he omit from his interview with Heston? Also - I saw the same movie and I recall absolutely no impression that Heston was racist. I recall the impression that he was coked up on drugs or something, because he seemed totally out of it.You guys seem to think that I'm the creationist because I'm, apparently, willing to defend Moore "at any cost." But the obvious truth is the exact opposite - the two of you are willing to write Moore off as some kind of dishonest crank on the most tenuous of arguments. Like a creationist who dismissed evolution at the slightest wrinkle in the biological world...

Eldredge there, a famous evolutionist, telling the truth about evolution.Another evolutionist: And yet another scientist speaks out: Of course, I didn't openly make any statements that were not true, that I knew were not true. However, I do know the context of those quote mines, and chose to omit them. Was I being dishonest? If I was making a documentary about evolution and scientists, which was clearly anti-evolution...would you consider those quotes honestly used?

Mod.This thread is about what Michael Moore did, not what creationists have done.What did Moore say? Specifically say, that wasn't true? What context, specifically, did he omit? If you're not prepared to offer specific examples, then perhaps you should rethink your participation in a thread that is about specific examples of Moore being dishonest in the film Fahrenheit 9/11.I'm just saying that your impression that Moore omitted crucial context is not very convincing. How can I judge the claim until you present evidence?

I know, but the examples exist. I was merely pointing out why I think he is dishonest, not prove to you that he is. I believe Moore said 'the Government won't allow cameras...', and IIRC its followed by an ironic speech by Bush, in an anti-Bush section. As I said then, it skips out the important context. Its an area that many people were ignorant of the information and as a documentary film it really should have mentioned that it wasn't just the current administration that banned coffin imagery. There are tons of articles out there that go through this? Its pretty bad actually. Here's one.

quote:

---

Fact: Heston's "cold dead hands" speech, which leads off Moore's depiction of the Denver meeting, was not given at Denver after Columbine. It was given a year later, 1300 miles away in Charlotte, North Carolina, and was his gesture of gratitude upon his being given a handmade musket, at that annual meeting. Even the "I only have five words for you" is edited -- it was five words for Al Gore, who was running for election on a gun control platform.

---

quote:

---

Moore has actually taken audio of seven sentences, from five different parts of the speech, and a section given in a different speech entirely, and spliced them together. Each edit is cleverly covered by inserting a still or video footage for a few seconds.

---

So yeah, I consider his works to be misleading at times, and at other times dishonest.

The subthread I am replying in is about what constitutes dishonesty. I'm fairly sure you agree that quote mining is dishonest. If you do, then we have a common ground to spring board off.