News Michael Moore - Minister of Disinformation?

  • Thread starter Tigers2B1
  • Start date
29
0
...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/ [Broken]

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 –

A FEW YEARS AGO Michael Moore, who's now promoting an anti-President Bush movie entitled Fahrenheit 9/11, announced he'd gotten the goods on me, indeed hung me out to dry on my own words. It was in his first bestselling book, Stupid White Men. Moore wrote he'd once been "forced" to listen to my comments on a TV chat show, The McLaughlin Group. I had whined "on and on about the sorry state of American education," Moore said, and wound up by bellowing: "These kids don't even know what The Iliad and The Odyssey are!"

Moore's interest was piqued, so the next day he said he called me. "Fred," he quoted himself as saying, "tell me what The Iliad and The Odyssey are." I started "hemming and hawing," Moore wrote. And then I said, according to Moore: "Well, they're . . . uh . . . you know . . . uh . . . okay, fine, you got me--I don't know what they're about. Happy now?" He'd smoked me out as a fraud, or maybe worse.

The only problem is none of this is true. It never happened. Moore is a liar. He made it up. It's a fabrication on two levels. One, I've never met Moore or even talked to him on the phone. And, two, I read both The Iliad and The Odyssey in my first year at the University of Virginia. Just for the record, I'd learned what they were about even before college. Like everyone else my age, I got my classical education from the big screen. I saw the Iliad movie called Helen of Troy and while I forget the name of the Odyssey film, I think it starred Kirk Douglas as Odysseus….
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 ---
 
Last edited by a moderator:

FZ+

1,550
2
The only problem is none of this is true. It never happened. Moore is a liar. He made it up. It's a fabrication on two levels. One, I've never met Moore or even talked to him on the phone.
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[/URL]

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

Maybe someone should set up [PLAIN]www.drudgelies.com[/URL] as well.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
464
1
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.
 
15
0
I would tend to believe Fred Barnes, mainly because Moore's propaganda techniques have been well established.
They have?
 
29
0
Adam said:
They have?
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 [Broken]

With Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, however, an entirely new note has been struck. Here we glimpse a possible fusion between the turgid routines of MoveOn.org and the filmic standards, if not exactly the filmic skills, of Sergei Eisenstein or Leni Riefenstahl.

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.

In late 2002, almost a year after the al-Qaida assault on American society, I had an onstage debate with Michael Moore at the Telluride Film Festival. In the course of this exchange, he stated his view that Osama Bin Laden should be considered innocent until proven guilty. This was, he said, the American way. The intervention in Afghanistan, he maintained, had been at least to that extent unjustified. Something—I cannot guess what, since we knew as much then as we do now—has since apparently persuaded Moore that Osama Bin Laden is as guilty as hell. Indeed, Osama is suddenly so guilty and so all-powerful that any other discussion of any other topic is a dangerous "distraction" from the fight against him. I believe that I understand the convenience of this late conversion….

…It must be evident to anyone, despite the rapid-fire way in which Moore's direction eases the audience hastily past the contradictions, that these discrepant scatter shots do not cohere at any point. Either the Saudis run U.S. policy (through family ties or overwhelming economic interest), or they do not. As allies and patrons of the Taliban regime, they either opposed Bush's removal of it, or they did not. (They opposed the removal, all right: They wouldn't even let Tony Blair land his own plane on their soil at the time of the operation.) Either we sent too many troops, or were wrong to send any at all—the latter was Moore's view as late as 2002—or we sent too few. If we were going to make sure no Taliban or al-Qaida forces survived or escaped, we would have had to be more ruthless than I suspect that Mr. Moore is really recommending. And these are simply observations on what is "in" the film. If we turn to the facts that are deliberately left out, we discover that there is an emerging Afghan army, that the country is now a joint NATO responsibility and thus under the protection of the broadest military alliance in history, that it has a new constitution and is preparing against hellish odds to hold a general election, and that at least a million and a half of its former refugees have opted to return. I don't think a pipeline is being constructed yet, not that Afghanistan couldn't do with a pipeline. But a highway from Kabul to Kandahar—an insurance against warlordism and a condition of nation-building—is nearing completion with infinite labor and risk. We also discover that the parties of the Afghan secular left—like the parties of the Iraqi secular left—are strongly in favor of the regime change. But this is not the sort of irony in which Moore chooses to deal….
And it gets better ---
 
Last edited by a moderator:
462
0
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.
 
464
1
Adam, yes he has. Care to defend the following?

http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/fahrenheit911/iraq911.htm [Broken]

But for the moment, allow me to address the film’s final scene, a montage of clips “demonstrating” that “Bush lied” about Iraq’s supposed connection to 9-11; that the American people—a trusting, if simple, group—were bunched into connecting “secular Saddam” to the zealots of Al-Qaeda. Let’s be clear about this, for it bears repeating: the administration has repeatedly and forcefully connected Iraq and Al-Qaeda—and, as recent evidence has shown, for good reason. What the administration has not done—contrary to popular belief—is publicly link Iraq to the attacks of September 11.

But, you protest, I saw Condoleezza Rice in Fahrenheit 9-11 tell a reporter that, “indeed,” there was a relationship!

ROLL FILM:

“Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11.”

CUT.

Pretty damning stuff, isn’t it? But that was the truncated, Michael Moore version. Now for the full, unexpurgated quote:

“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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

russ_watters

Mentor
18,862
5,048
Entropy said:
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.
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."
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
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
 
Last edited by a moderator:
15
0
But for the moment, allow me to address the film’s final scene, a montage of clips “demonstrating” that “Bush lied” about Iraq’s supposed connection to 9-11; that the American people—a trusting, if simple, group—were bunched into connecting “secular Saddam” to the zealots of Al-Qaeda. Let’s be clear about this, for it bears repeating: the administration has repeatedly and forcefully connected Iraq and Al-Qaeda—and, as recent evidence has shown, for good reason. What the administration has not done—contrary to popular belief—is publicly link Iraq to the attacks of September 11.

But, you protest, I saw Condoleezza Rice in Fahrenheit 9-11 tell a reporter that, “indeed,” there was a relationship!

ROLL FILM:

“Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11.”

CUT.

Pretty damning stuff, isn’t it? But that was the truncated, Michael Moore version. Now for the full, unexpurgated quote:

“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.
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...
 
464
1
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.
 
15
0
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.
 
Did anybody see Moore on Bill O'Reilly the other night?

http://

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).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
464
1
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?

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.
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?
 
464
1
Give me a break, I feel like any liberal on this website could of responded better to O'Reilly.
I think most liberals on this board are smarter than Moore.
 
270
3
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:

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2004/07/14/moore_elxn040714.html%3E [Broken]

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/ [Broken]
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 by a moderator:
136
0
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.
 
15
0
JohnDubYa said:
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?
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.
 
15
0
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?
 
Someone mentioned that the general public is wising up. But are they? People still go to his films.
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:
15
0
See my question. Does Farenheit 9/11 contain fact or fiction?
 

Robert Zaleski

kcballer21 said:
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>
Apparently not. The word 'fantasy' doesn't appear in the definition.
 
15
0
Robert Zaleski asserts Moore's film is fiction. I ask for a reason for this assertion.
 

selfAdjoint

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
6,764
5
Since Moore uses innuendo, as when he shows you Bushes palling around with Saudis and lets you draw your own conclusions, it's impossible to get him on the fiction charge. I don't believe anybody has a serious contradiction of anything he DEFINITELY STATED in the movie.
 
15
0
He definitely stated a lot in the movie. Can anyone contradict him?
 
464
1
Adam, I think you misunderstand the meaning of the word "honesty."

If I say something that is factually true but is designed to leave my audience with the wrong impression of events, that is dishonest.

For example, I cannot make a factual claim about a product that leaves consumers with a false impression about my competitors. So if I am selling toothpaste, I cannot prominently proclaim that it does not contain lead, because it would give consumers the false impression that my competitors' products DO contain lead. Such behavior is dishonest and can get you sued.

So being factually correct is only a part of being honest.

Before we go on, do you agree with my statements?
 

Related Threads for: Michael Moore - Minister of Disinformation?

  • Posted
2
Replies
29
Views
4K
  • Posted
3 4 5
Replies
113
Views
11K
Replies
47
Views
5K
Replies
47
Views
7K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Posted
Replies
15
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
382
Replies
19
Views
3K

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top