Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Michael Moore - Minister of Disinformation?

  1. Jul 28, 2004 #1
    ...Or maybe Moore is the High Priest of Disinformation, or the liberal classes’ Minister of Propaganda, or the poster child for entire bags of potato chips, cookies, and quarts of ice cream – or just an innocent owner of the Five Chin Award, but no matter his title, Michael Moore loves to edit. He loves to edit because he loves to manipulate facts. Moore edits for time – placing event B before event A in his movies to create the impression that B caused A --- he edits words to create statements never, ever uttered by that speaker --- (c.f. Charlton Heston) --- So – before you sell your soul to the devil and buy into Moore’s message, it’s good medicine for the unsold soul to check out this site ---

    http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/

    This is also a good site exposing Moore's love of deception –

    http://www.moorelies.com/

    Yet, Moore's misuse of time, context, and words aren’t restricted to his movie making --- he tells them in his books also -

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/127ujhuf.asp

    From the personal experience of Fred Barnes –

    Mr. Barnes then goes on to discuss the other Mooreish misdirections, false implications, and misinformation found in Moore’s films.

    So -- beware when viewing Unfair-In-Height 9/11. Moore's false implications take the small minded where he wants them to go. As for the rest of us - never look directly into Moore's eyes ---
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 28, 2004 #2

    FZ+

    User Avatar

    Er... The standard of this rebuttal seems rather low, since it is just a case of one man's word against another.

    Someone should set up www.fredbarneslies.com

    As our good friend Clinton said - I did not have sexual relationships with that woman.

    Maybe someone should set up www.drudgelies.com as well.
     
  4. Jul 28, 2004 #3
    I would tend to believe Fred Barnes, mainly because Moore's propaganda techniques have been well established.

    And while Fred Barnes may not know the all the details in The Iliad and The Odyssey, he would certainly know enough about the stories to respond by more than hemming and hawing.

    If Moore in fact made up the story, would it really surprise anyone? It sure sounds like Moore to me.
     
  5. Jul 28, 2004 #4
    They have?
     
  6. Jul 28, 2004 #5
    I think so ---

    Problem with the he said he said argument is that Fred Barnes isn’t the only person claiming this personal experience with Moore lies – and taking that personal experience public.

    Heston’s speech in Moore’s movie was NEVER made by Heston ---- it’s a Moore creation. How odd. Need Moore? Go to this site (linked) for a side by side comparison of the actual speech given by Heston against the a speech created by Moore and pieced together to look as if it’s Heston’s.

    http://www.hardylaw.net/Bowlingtranscript.html


    Then take a glance at what Christopher Hitchens’ wrote in an article for Slate - outlining his experiences with Moore.

    http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723

    And it gets better ---
     
  7. Jul 28, 2004 #6
    I think just about everyone on these forums knows that Moore is full of BS. Its the general public that needs to be informed. I had to de-brainwash my sister and her friend after we watched Bowling For Columbine. Although I agree hand guns cause a lot of problems in America and are unnecsissary I pointed out a lot of lies and deceptions Moore trys to pull off in his movie to my sister and her friend. Too me these lies and deceptions stick out like sore thumbs but it gets by most people.
     
  8. Jul 28, 2004 #7
    Adam, yes he has. Care to defend the following?

    http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/fahrenheit911/iraq911.htm

     
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2004
  9. Jul 29, 2004 #8

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Well, I had a lot of issues with some of my friends and Bowling for Columbine, but Moore goes further and further off the deep end with every new creation. I think the general public is wising up. Some friends of my parents saw F9/11 and said the manipulation was fairly obvious even without being able to check Moore's "facts."
    Ya know, I actually hadn't thought of it that way. Moore is a talented manipulator and propagandizer, to be sure, but his real talent is editing. And really, thats a rather basic film skill. But anyway, perhaps the fact that films are often shot out of sequence for convenience and then pieced together later has him confused about how timelines and cause and effect work in real life?

    One of his more important "facts" is the "fact" that the Saudis have given Bush and his "associates" $1.4 billion dollars over time. But oops, to get that sum you have to include $1.18 billion spent on a defense contractor that was spun off of the Carlyle group before Bush was ever associated with it. But hey - timing is irrelevant, right? All you need to do is connect the dots: Bush->Carlyle->BDM (the contractor)->$1.18 billion. Simple!

    Another interesting site: http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm
     
  10. Jul 29, 2004 #9
    Wow. Saddam Hussein is about as responsible for 11/9 as as McDonalds is, and every other company partaking in foreign trade from the USA...
     
  11. Jul 29, 2004 #10
    Nice way to skirt the issue. Basic questions:

    Did the editing of Condi's speech change the meaning of her original response?

    Do you think it was ethical for Moore to cut Condi's speech in the manner he did?

    Are you going to defend his methods?

    Just answer the questions.
     
  12. Jul 29, 2004 #11
    Providing further context adds more information, but does not change the meaning of her sentence. She claims a link between Saddam Hussein and terrorism, whixh is about as justified as the link between McDonalds and terrorism. Edited or not, she says the same thing.

    1) "Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11." Saying that there is a link.

    2) "Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11. It’s not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself and his regime involved in 9/11, but, if you think about what caused 9/11, it is the rise of ideologies of hatred that lead people to drive airplanes into buildings in New York." Saying that there is a link and explaining the manner of that link.
     
  13. Jul 29, 2004 #12
    Did anybody see Moore on Bill O'Reilly the other night?

    www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,127236,00.html

    As a liberal and a fan of the O'Reilly Factor (hey, its entertaining) I thought that this show could have been much better. What is with Moore's responses?

    O'Reilly: Evidence show Bush's sources confirmed WMD's.
    Moore: Bush lied.
    O'Reilly: Bush was misinformed.
    Moore: He didn't tell the truth.
    O'Reilly: He didn't lie.
    :confused:
    Give me a break, I feel like any liberal on this website could of responded better to O'Reilly. At any rate it is funny to watch (read).
     
  14. Jul 29, 2004 #13
    Adam, you never did answer my question:

    Do you think it was ethical for Moore to cut Condi's speech in the manner he did?

    Adam, it is very clear that cutting Condi's statement very much changed the context of her response. In fact, the "manner of that link" is very much the context of her response. How can you possibly suggest otherwise? Is there anyone else in here seriously willing to say that Moore's editing didn't change the context of her response?
     
  15. Jul 29, 2004 #14
    I think most liberals on this board are smarter than Moore.
     
  16. Jul 29, 2004 #15
    Moore has a decent amount of fans in Canada, not including myself. Some even wish that America should have more people like him.

    I can't stand him. I don't know why people still believe the crap in his films when evidence shows that he isn't truthful.

    Here's an interesting story about Moore not belonging in Canada and sticking his nose in our election:

    Moore breaks election law

    I'm going to use those sites against Moore fans, most I've talked to believe everything he says is true.

    Someone mentioned that the general public is wising up. But are they? People still go to his films.
     
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2004
  17. Jul 29, 2004 #16
    In regards to the law Michael Moore broke, I had no idea such a law existed in our great land. Indeed, he should be charged.
     
  18. Jul 30, 2004 #17
    I did answer. Case 1 shows the link. Case 2 shows the link also, and provides extra data which does not in any way negate the link she asserted. So there is no ethical problem whatsoever.
     
  19. Jul 30, 2004 #18
    I just watched Moore's movie Farenheit 9/11. Now, this thread is basically a smear effort, an attempt at discrediting Moore. So how about people focus on the information rather than the person? Can anyone tell me something Moore showed/said in Farenheit 9/11 which is not true?
     
  20. Jul 30, 2004 #19
    His films are entertaining in my opinion, I think the issue is whether or not they are documentaries.

    This is from merriam-webster.com:

    Documentary: 2 : of, relating to, or employing documentation in literature or art; broadly : FACTUAL, OBJECTIVE <a documentary film of the war>
     
    Last edited: Jul 30, 2004
  21. Jul 30, 2004 #20
    See my question. Does Farenheit 9/11 contain fact or fiction?
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Michael Moore - Minister of Disinformation?
  1. Moore, Oklahoma tornado (Replies: 25)

Loading...